Prioritizing Industries for Occupational Injury and Illness Prevention in Washington State: Prevention Index and Severity

BACKGROUND: Surveillance data that systematically evaluates occupational injury and illness by industry are relatively scarce, as are resources for prevention. Washington State periodically produces a report prioritizing industries for prevention efforts based on high rate and high count of workers’ compensation claims to identify where these injuries are occurring, and where the most benefit from research and prevention could be gained. We examine which industry groups are at high risk for six common injury types in Washington State to establish a basis for efficient targeting of prevention resources. In addition to count and rate, an aspect which can be considered in prioritizing these industries is the magnitude or severity of the injuries.

METHODS: Washington State Fund (SF) compensable workers’ compensation (WC) claims were analyzed. Payroll hours were used to determine claims’ incidence rates by industry group per 10,000 FTE.  Claims were analyzed by six aggregated injury types that accounted for 81.6% of all compensable SF claims. A prevention index (average of count + rate rank) was used to rank NAICS (4-digit) industry groups and WA SF WC Risk Classes for each of the aggregated injury types. Magnitude of the injuries was approximated by two rates: cost per 10,000 FTE and number of time loss days (TL) per 10,000 FTE. An expanded PI was utilized when ranking by Risk Class, which takes into account rate rank, count rank, TL days rank, and cost ($) rank.

RESULTS: Between 2002-2010, there were 267,581 compensable Washington SF claims, accounting for over 11 billion dollars in direct workers’ compensation costs. The top ranked industries for select injury type by prevention index are presented. Construction industry groups (particularly risk classes for Roofing, Wallboard, Wood-Frame, and Painting) continue to be at high risk for occupational injuries, however, non-construction industry groups such as Logging also appear highly ranked in each of the top six injury types. The costs and time loss associated with Logging claims generally far outstrip those of the other groups ranked. 

CONCLUSIONS: Efficient targeting of resources for prevention is necessary to make the most impact on the burden of occupational injury and illness. Identifying common, high-cost, and severe injuries and the industries in which they occur could substantially reduce costs to both workers and society. High compensable claims rate coupled with significant severity rates across several injury types indicate that in addition to Construction industry groups, workers in the Logging industry should be prioritized for prevention activities in WA.