Andrea L. Steege

Background: Work is a key social determinant of health. Without the collection of work‐related information in public health data systems, the role of social determinants in creating and reinforcing health disparities cannot be fully assessed.Methods: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) maintains or supports a number of public health surveillance and health monitoring systems, including surveys, case‐based disease and exposure systems, vital status records, and administrative data systems. We evaluated a convenience sample of these systems for inclusion of information in three work‐related domains: employment status, industry and occupation, and working conditions.Results: While 12 of 39 data systems were identified as collecting work‐related data, this information was often minimal (e.g., only employment status), restricted to a subset of respondents, or only gathered periodically. Information on working conditions was particularly sparse.Conclusion: Historically, the limited and inconsistent collection of work‐related information in public health data systems has hindered understanding of the role work plays in health disparities. Current CDC data modernization efforts present opportunities to enhance the identification and mitigation of health disparities by prioritizing inclusion of an expanded set of work‐related data elements.

Objectives. To explore previous COVID-19 diagnosis and COVID-19 vaccination status among US essential worker groups. Methods. We analyzed the US Census Household Pulse Survey (May 26-July 5, 2021), a nationally representative sample of adults aged 18 years and older. We compared currently employed essential workers working outside the home with those working at home using adjusted prevalence ratios. We calculated proportion vaccinated and intention to be vaccinated, stratifying by essential worker and demographic groups for those who worked or volunteered outside the home since January 1, 2021. Results. The proportion of workers with previous COVID-19 diagnosis was highest among first responders (24.9%) working outside the home compared with workers who did not (13.3%). Workers in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting had the lowest vaccination rates (67.5%) compared with all workers (77.8%). Those without health insurance were much less likely to be vaccinated across all worker groups. Conclusions. This study underscores the importance of improving surveillance to monitor COVID-19 and other infectious diseases among workers and identify and implement tailored risk mitigation strategies, including vaccination campaigns, for workplaces.

Background: The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) produced an advisory list identifying essential critical infrastructure workers (ECIW) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) response. The CISA advisory list is the most common national definition of ECIW but has not been mapped to United States (U.S.) Census industry codes (CICs) to readily identify these worker populations in public health data sources.Methods: We identified essential critical infrastructure industry designations corresponding to v4.0 of the CISA advisory list for all six‐digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes and cross‐walked NAICS codes to CICs. CICs were grouped as essential, non‐essential, or mixed essential/non‐essential according to component NAICS industries. We also obtained national estimated population sizes for NAICS and Census industries and cross‐tabulated Census industry and occupation codes to identify industry‐occupation pairs.Results: We produced and made publicly available spreadsheets containing essential industry designations corresponding to v4.0 of the CISA advisory list for NAICS and Census industry titles and codes and population estimates by six‐digit NAICS industry, Census industry, and Census industry‐occupation pair. The CISA advisory list is highly inclusive and contains most industries and U.S. workers; 71.0% of Census industries comprising 80.6% of workers and 80.7% of NAICS industries comprising 87.1% of workers were designated as essential.Conclusions: We identified workers in essential critical infrastructure industries as defined by CISA using standardized industry codes. These classifications may support public health interventions and analyses related to the COVID‐19 pandemic and future public health crises.

Like their counterparts in healthcare, workers in medical examiner and coroners’ offices are considered essential workers. The frequency and urgency of their work during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have only become of greater importance. Because of the increased mortality in the general population due to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, it is reasonable to assume that the workload and risk of occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 has increased for these workers who are required by state law to investigate deaths known or suspected to be due to a contagious disease that constitutes a public hazard. Studies investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on these workers and their operations have been limited. The objective of this study was to conduct an assessment of routine medical examiner and coroners’ office duties (e.g., infectious disease testing and decedent transport) by surveying the 67 county medical examiner and coroners’ offices in Pennsylvania to characterize how the rise in infectious disease cases from COVID-19 influenced workload and resource needs. Quantitative results demonstrated an increase in workload and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) while engineering control usage remained the same. Qualitative results revealed various challenges experienced by the offices during the pandemic including limitations in access to PPE, insufficient storage space for increased numbers of decedents, personnel shortage/burnout, and limited or no engagement at the state level for emergency response planning and implementation. These data are valuable to inform the need for additional guidance or supplies and may be used to optimize resource planning and implementation (e.g., personnel, facilities, and supplies) for both routine and surge demand scenarios.

Despite significant improvements in occupational safety and health (OSH) over the past 50 years, there remain persistent inequities in the burden of injuries and illnesses. In this commentary, the authors assert that addressing these inequities, along with challenges associated with the fundamental reorganization of work, will require a more holistic approach that accounts for the social contexts within which occupational injuries and illnesses occur. A biopsychosocial approach explores the dynamic, multidirectional interactions between biological phenomena, psychological factors, and social contexts, and can be a tool for both deeper understanding of the social determinants of health and advancing health equity. This commentary suggests that reducing inequities will require OSH to adopt the biopsychosocial paradigm. Practices in at least three key areas will need to adopt this shift. Research that explicitly examines occupational health inequities should do more to elucidate the effects of social arrangements and the interaction of work with other social determinants on work-related risks, exposures, and outcomes. OSH studies regardless of focus should incorporate inclusive methods for recruitment, data collection, and analysis to reflect societal diversity and account for differing experiences of social conditions. OSH researchers should work across disciplines to integrate work into the broader health equity research agenda.

Background: Public health research uses decedents’ usual industry and occupation (I&O) from US death certificates to assess mortality incidence and risk factors. Of necessity, such research may exclude decedents with insufficient I&O information, and assume death certificates reflect current (at time of death) I&O. This study explored the demographic implications of such research conditions by describing usual occupation and current employment status among decedents by demographic characteristics in a large multistate data set.Methods: Death certificate occupations classified by Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) (ie, compensated occupation) and other categories (eg, student) for 36 507 decedents (suicide, homicide, other, undetermined intent) age 22+ years from the 2016 National Violent Death Reporting System's (NVDRS) 32 US states were analyzed. Decedents not employed at the time of death (eg, laid off) were identified through nondeath certificate NVDRS data sources (eg, law enforcement reports).Results: Female decedents, younger (age < 30 years) male decedents, some non‐White racial group decedents, less educated decedents, and undetermined intent death decedents were statistically less likely to be classified by SOC based on death certificates—primarily due to insufficient information. Decedents classified by SOC from death certificates but whose non‐death certificate data indicated no employment at the time of death were more often 30+ years old, White, less educated, died by suicide, or had nonmanagement occupations.Conclusions: Whether decedents have classifiable occupations from death certificates may vary by demographic characteristics. Research studies that assess decedents by usual I&O can identify and describe how any such demographic trends may affect research results on particular public health topics.

Engineering, administrative, and work practice controls have been recommended for many years to minimize exposure to nitrous oxide during dental procedures. To better understand the extent to which these exposure controls are used, the NIOSH Health and Safety Practices Survey of Healthcare Workers was conducted among members of professional practice organizations representing dentists, dental hygienists and dental assistants. The anonymous, modular, web-based survey was completed by 284 dental professionals in private practice who administered nitrous oxide to adult and/or pediatric patients in the seven days prior to the survey. Use of primary engineering controls (i.e., nasal scavenging mask and/or local exhaust ventilation (LEV) near the patient's mouth) was nearly universal, reported by 93% and 96% of respondents who administered to adult (A) and pediatric (P) patients, respectively. However, adherence to other recommended precautionary practices were lacking to varying degrees, and were essentially no different among those administering nitrous oxide to adult or pediatric patients. Examples of work practices which increase exposure risk, expressed as percent of respondents, included: not checking nitrous oxide equipment for leaks (41% A; 48% P); starting nitrous oxide gas flow before delivery mask or airway mask was applied to patient (13% A; 12% P); and not turning off nitrous oxide gas flow before turning off oxygen flow to the patient (8% A; 7% P). Absence of standard procedures to minimize worker exposure to nitrous oxide (13% of all respondents) and not being trained on safe handling and administration of nitrous oxide (3%) were examples of breaches of administrative controls which may also increase exposure risk. Successful management of nitrous oxide emissions should include properly fitted nasal scavenging masks, supplemental LEV (when nitrous oxide levels cannot be adequately controlled using nasal masks alone), adequate general ventilation, regular inspection of nitrous oxide delivery and scavenging equipment for leaks, availability of standard procedures to minimize exposure, periodic training, ambient air and exposure monitoring, and medical surveillance.

Antineoplastic drugs pose risks to the healthcare workers who handle them. This fact notwithstanding, adherence to safe handling guidelines remains inconsistent and often poor. This study examined the effects of pertinent organizational safety practices and perceived safety climate on the use of personal protective equipment, engineering controls, and adverse events (spill/leak or skin contact) involving liquid antineoplastic drugs. Data for this study came from the 2011 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Health and Safety Practices Survey of Healthcare Workers which included a sample of approximately 1,800 nurses who had administered liquid antineoplastic drugs during the past seven days. Regression modeling was used to examine predictors of personal protective equipment use, engineering controls, and adverse events involving antineoplastic drugs. Approximately 14% of nurses reported experiencing an adverse event while administering antineoplastic drugs during the previous week. Usage of recommended engineering controls and personal protective equipment was quite variable. Usage of both was better in non-profit and government settings, when workers were more familiar with safe handling guidelines, and when perceived management commitment to safety was higher. Usage was poorer in the absence of specific safety handling procedures. The odds of adverse events increased with number of antineoplastic drugs treatments and when antineoplastic drugs were administered more days of the week. The odds of such events were significantly lower when the use of engineering controls and personal protective equipment was greater and when more precautionary measures were in place. Greater levels of management commitment to safety and perceived risk were also related to lower odds of adverse events. These results point to the value of implementing a comprehensive health and safety program that utilizes available hazard controls and effectively communicates and demonstrates the importance of safe handling practices. Such actions also contribute to creating a positive safety climate.

Scavenging systems and administrative and work practice controls for minimizing occupational exposure to waste anesthetic gases have been recommended for many years. Anesthetic gases and vapors that are released or leak out during medical procedures are considered waste anesthetic gases. To better understand the extent recommended practices are used, the NIOSH Health and Safety Practices Survey of Healthcare Workers was conducted in 2011 among members of professional practice organizations representing anesthesia care providers including physician anesthesiologists, nurse anesthetists, and anesthesiologist assistants. This national survey is the first to examine self-reported use of controls to minimize exposure to waste anesthetic gases among anesthesia care providers. The survey was completed by 1,783 nurse anesthetists, 1,104 physician anesthesiologists, and 100 anesthesiologist assistants who administered inhaled anesthetics in the seven days prior to the survey. Working in hospitals and outpatient surgical centers, respondents most often administered sevoflurane and, to a lesser extent desflurane and isoflurane, in combination with nitrous oxide. Use of scavenging systems was nearly universal, reported by 97% of respondents. However, adherence to other recommended practices was lacking to varying degrees and differed among those administering anesthetics to pediatric (P) or adult (A) patients. Examples of practices which increase exposure risk, expressed as percent of respondents, included: using high (fresh gas) flow anesthesia only (17% P, 6% A), starting anesthetic gas flow before delivery mask or airway mask was applied to patient (35% P; 14% A); not routinely checking anesthesia equipment for leaks (4% P, 5% A), and using a funnel-fill system to fill vaporizers (16%). Respondents also reported that facilities lacked safe handling procedures (19%) and hazard awareness training (18%). Adherence to precautionary work practices was generally highest among nurse anesthetists compared to the other anesthesia care providers. Successful management of waste anesthetic gases should include scavenging systems, hazard awareness training, availability of standard procedures to minimize exposure, regular inspection of anesthesia delivery equipment for leaks, prompt attention to spills and leaks, and medical surveillance.