Occupational injury and illness estimates are derived from the BLS annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII). The SOII remains the largest occupational injury and illness surveillance system in the country, providing injury and illness counts and rates for a variety of employer, employee, and case characteristics based on a sample of approximately 230,000 establishments. Figures are calculated nationally and for 44 participating states and territories (including the District of Columbia), allowing for detailed analyses of the magnitude, patterns, and trends in occupational injuries and illnesses.
The survey captures data from Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) logs of workplace injuries and illnesses maintained by employers. The estimates cover nearly all private-sector industries, as well as State and local government (as of 2008 data). Small farms with fewer than 11 employees, Federal government agencies, self-employed and household workers are outside of the scope of the SOII because they are not covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. More on the scope and coverage of the SOII can be found at www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/homch9.pdf.
BLS data on nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses come from the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII), an annual survey of approximately 230,000 private employers, State governments, and local governments. Establishments selected for the survey are required to maintain a log of worker injuries for a year; the log is developed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and includes specific guidelines on what workplace injuries are to be recorded. The BLS data come from these OSHA logs and are based on employer understanding of OSHA recordkeeping guidelines.
While the BLS occupational injury and illness data have been the subject of scrutiny from time to time, several studies released in the mid-2000s are the first specific research documenting missing cases in individual firms, as determined by comparisons between the SOII and state workers compensation data. Follow-up research on this topic by Nicole Nestoriak and Brooks Pierce, Research Economists at the BLS, demonstrates that there are certain factors that may be associated with differences in the data captured in various sources, including the establishment type, the time of the case filing, and the injury type. The evidence suggests that data are easier to match across data sources, methodologically, for single-establishment firms than for multi-establishment firms. Injuries or illnesses with lengthy onsets or long latency periods, such as hearing loss and carpal tunnel syndrome, are less likely to be captured on OSHA logs and reported in the SOII than easily identifiable traumatic work injuries, such as lacerations or fractures. This is, in part, due to the timely nature of SOII data, which are collected shortly after the calendar year, whereas workers compensation claims may be established, updated, or adjudicated years later, depending on specific State laws. Injuries and illnesses that occur at the end of the year also tend to appear less frequently in the SOII data than in workers compensation for similar timeliness reasons. Nestoriak and Pierce's research article, Comparing Workers' Compensation claims with establishments' responses to the SOII, appeared in the May 2009 edition of the Monthly Labor Review.
In addition, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) analyzed audits of the OSHA logs of workplace injuries and illnesses and what factors may affect the accuracy of employers injury and illness records. According to the October 2009 GAO report Enhancing OSHA's Records Audit Process Could Improve the Accuracy of Worker Injury and Illness Data, there were many factors affecting the accuracy of these data, including a number of disincentives for both employers and employees to record an injury or illness. Since the BLS captures information from these OSHA logs for the SOII, issues affecting the accuracy of the logs would likewise adversely affect SOII data.
For more background on the various dimensions of a possible SOII undercount, see Examining evidence on whether BLS undercounts workplace injuries and illnesses by John Ruser, which appeared in the August 2008 edition of Monthly Labor Review.
At the request of Congress, the BLS has established an ongoing research program to identify any concerns about the completeness of workplace injury and illness data; to quantify the magnitude of any undercount and determine whether the amount has changed over time or is more pronounced for certain industries, occupations, or types of injuries; and to implement improvements and provide data users with information on data quality.
BLS conducted a first round of research between 2009 and 2012, coordinating with several State Agency grantees and a contractor. The first project was an attempt to enumerate the total number of work-related amputations and instances of carpal tunnel syndrome in the States of Washington, California, and Massachusetts using multiple data sources, such as the SOII, workers compensation claims, and hospital discharge records. Second, research was undertaken for the States of California, Kentucky and Washington to supplement previous research that matched SOII with workers compensation data to determine both the proportion of cases captured by these surveillance systems and what types of case characteristics are related to differences in cases captured. Finally, follow-back interviews were conducted with a selection of establishments to help determine how differences in injury and illness recordkeeping practices may affect reporting discrepancies between the SOII and workers compensation systems.
From this first round of research, BLS identified the following:
For additional discussion of the first round projects and their results, see Examining the completeness of the occupational injury and illness data: an update on current research by William J. Wiatrowski, which appeared in the June 2014 edition of Monthly Labor Review. In addition, journal articles by BLS funded researchers on the three projects from round 1 were published in the October 2014 issue of the American Journal of Industrial Medicine. Working paper versions of these articles can be found on the SOII Undercount Research Page.
The results and recommendations of this first phase of SOII research were used to guide the selection of further research that began in 2012 to improve the completeness and accuracy of estimates from the SOII. Research topics included:
Initial work on these research projects concluded in fall 2014. Reports from BLS State Partners on the employer interviews as well as the two Washington State projects can be found on the SOII Undercount Research Page. BLS is currently developing plans for additional analysis of the injury and illness recordkeeping data collected during the employer interviews and anticipates using the results from this analysis to evaluate potential future improvements to the SOII.
In late 2014 BLS began a third round of research, initiating two new projects. BLS is funding a national follow-back survey of 2013 SOII respondents in order to collect nationwide information on employer injury and illness recordkeeping practices, including new information on the extent that injury and illness records are updated by employers in the year following an injury or illness. BLS is also funding exploratory research on various approaches to collecting injury and illness data from workers that would complement the data BLS currently collects from employers via the SOII. Initial results from both projects will be available later in 2015.
BLS is also committed to expanding the use of automated coding techniques in SOII production processes to improve coding consistency and quality and is continuing research in this area that began in 2012. For an overview of manual and automated approaches to coding SOII data as well as a review of previous efforts to automate various coding tasks, see Automated Coding of Worker Injury Narratives by BLS economist Alexander Measure.
In 2014, 789 Hispanic or Latino workers were fatally injured while at work according to preliminary data. This figure represents a 3 percent
decrease from the 817 fatal injuries reported in the final 2013 data. Fatal injuries incurred by Hispanic or Latino workers accounted
for 17 percent of the 4,679 total fatal work injuries that occurred in the U.S. in 2014. Hispanic or Latino workers had a preliminary fatal work injury rate of 3.6 fatal work
injuries per 100,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers in 2014 compared with the preliminary all worker fatal work injury rate of 3.3 fatal work injuries per 100,000 full-time
equivalent (FTE) workers. More information on fatal occupational injuries incurred by Hispanic or Latino workers can be found here.
In 2014, foreign-born Hispanic or Latino workers accounted for 503 fatal work injuries, or 64 percent, of the fatal work injuries to Hispanic or Latino workers according to preliminary data.
More information on fatal occupational injuries incurred by foreign-born Hispanic or Latino workers can be found here.
The latest data on fatal work injury rates can be found here: Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) - Current and Revised Data.
Note that occupations with the highest number of fatal work injuries do not necessarily have high fatal work injury rates.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics provides incidence rates by industry, by establishment size, and for many different case types. You can use incidence rates to evaluate your injury and illness experience by comparing it to the national averages for similar types of organizations. The guide How to compute your firm's incidence rate shows you how to effectively use BLS data. You can access all of the BLS workplace injury and illness data by going to the Injury, Illness, and Fatalities home page.
Workplace violence —including assaults and suicides— accounted for 16 percent of all work-related fatal occupational injuries in 2014 (see Slide 3 of the 2014 CFOI Chart Package) according to preliminary data. In their article Work-related Homicides: The Facts, Eric Sygnatur and Guy Toscano note that, "Contrary to popular belief, the majority of these incidents are not crimes of passion committed by disgruntled coworkers and spouses, but rather result from robberies." See this table for the latest data on workplace homicides.
In 2013, there were 14,150 non-fatal cases of intentional injury by person(s) which required days away from work in private industry; however, this accounted for just 2 percent of all non-fatal injuries and illnesses in private industry (see Table R31.)
This type of information is not available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Because BLS ensures a pledge of confidentiality with all survey participants, we cannot share any confidential information, including any identification or injury rate. For information on establishments that may have been cited for workplace violations or for other regulatory guidelines, you should contact the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) or call (202) 693-1999 (OSHA Office of Public Affairs). Almost all establishments must maintain an annual log of workplace injuries and illnesses, as mandated by OSHA. It is a requirement that employers post a summary of injuries and illnesses at the beginning of the year for incidents that occurred during the previous year for employee access. Also, upon request, employers may be required to share certain information with employees, but this is something that you should address with your company or with OSHA.
"Ergonomics" is a general term that has different meanings to different audiences. Most often, this term is applied to work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The U. S. Department of Labor defines an MSD as an injury or disorder of the muscles, nerves, tendons, joints, cartilage, and spinal discs. MSDs do not include disorders caused by slips, trips, falls, motor vehicle accidents, or similar accidents. The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes detailed characteristics for MSD cases that resulted in at least one lost day from work.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics produces annual rates, only, based on annual data, so any comparison may be inexact. As indicated in the guide, How to compute your firm's incidence rate, the basic formula is:
(Number of injuries and illnesses X 200,000) / Employee hours worked = Incidence rate
where the 200,000 hours in the formula represent the equivalent of 100 employees working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year.
One could compute a partial year incidence rate by dividing the number of cases by the hours worked for a certain period, and then multiplying the result by the part of 200,000 (the 12-month constant) represented by that certain period. For a single month, you would use 16,667. This approach, however, assumes that your injury and illness experience grows at a constant rate for the year. The alternative is to not adjust the constant (leave it at 200,000), and this assumes that you will not experience any additional injuries or illnesses. Both assumptions may not be too realistic.
Incidence rates by industry, by establishment size, and for many different case types are available from BLS. Using incidence rates allows a firm to evaluate its injury and illness experience and compare its experience to other firms doing the same type of work and of the same employment size group. A guide that describes how to compute your firm's incidence rate is available.
Yes. Both the case and demographic data from the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses and the fatal injury data available from the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries provide this information. Access to these data is provided from the Data section of our Safety and Health Statistics home page.
The age, sex, occupation, race, and length of service with employer are the attributes of the worker collected for days away from work cases. For the Nation and for participating States, distributions of days away from work cases by the various categories comprising each worker characteristic can be developed. From those distributions, important worker groups can be identified and separate injury and illness profiles developed. For example, separate profiles for women, older workers, and nursing occupations can be developed.
One analytical approach to identifying relatively hazardous jobs will be to compare a job's share of total employment to its share of total days away from work cases. This employment-injury comparison also can be useful at the State level, although usually at a higher level of occupational aggregation. The Bureau's annual bulletin Geographic Profiles provides figures on women employed in farming, forestry, and fishery occupations which can be compared to OSH State data for the same workers. Access to these data is provided from the Data section of our Safety and Health Statistics home page.
Physical condition (nature), part of the body affected, source, and event/exposure will be the principal case characteristics gleaned from employers' descriptions about the circumstances surrounding the incidents. The principal case characteristics and their categories can be presented in separate tabulations for the Nation and for participating States.
Frequency distributions and incidence rates for most case characteristic categories can be generated. These incidence rates tell us, for example, how frequently disabling falls occur in the construction industry of various States. With this information, a State with a relatively high rate of such falls might devote more resources to the study of how employers and employees are dealing with this particular hazard and offer advice on working under adverse weather conditions or the use of safety gear. Access to these data is provided from the Data section of our Safety and Health Statistics home page.
Employers and employees, policymakers, safety standards writers, safety inspectors, health and safety consultants, and researchers are some of the most frequent users of survey data.
Employers and employees need definitive statistics on what kinds of serious injuries and illnesses occur to others whose work and workforce size are similar to theirs. BLS Safety and Health data permit employers to learn about the circumstances surrounding those incidents so that they can disarm potential hazards where they work.
Policymakers need to know how the safety and health of workers in their State compares to workers in other States doing comparable work. The survey helps these managers determine the additional need for State safety and health programs.
Safety standards writers need to know the factors surrounding injuries and illnesses that their standards were meant to prevent. Do those standards need revision, or just better enforcement? Are new standards needed for uncovered incidents? The survey supplemented by special studies can help answer important questions of this type.
Safety inspectors need to know how best to allocate their time among and within establishments. By targeting where injuries and illnesses most frequently occur and their characteristics, survey data help in selecting which firms to visit and what hazards to look for. These visits are also opportunities for inspector and employer to consult on ways to eliminate work hazards.
Safety and health consultants need to understand job hazards fully to develop effective training packages and educational materials for employers and their employees. The survey collects information on work activity that will help consultants piece together what precipitated an accident or exposure. Special studies of work hazards can provide additional assistance.
Researchers need to direct their limited resources at widespread problems, such as the proper manual lifting techniques and the best designs for tools and safety gear. They find survey data useful in focusing on those work hazards.
In 2013, there were 66,910 occupational musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) cases in the healthcare and social assistance private sector. The source of injury or illness in nearly half of those cases (32,950) was a health care patient or resident of a health care facility. This accounted for 11 percent of the 307,640 total cases of MSDs that resulted in a least one lost day from work in 2013. Nursing assistants accounted for the greatest proportion of MSD cases involving a patient, while registered nurses accounted for 20 percent and personal care aides for another 6 percent. Other occupations with MSD cases involving patients (with 400 or more cases) included home health aides (5 percent), emergency medical technicians and paramedics (4 percent), licensed practical and licensed vocational nurses (4 percent), and radiologic technologists and technicians (1 percent).
The Bureau of Labor Statistics Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities (IIF) program has two components that collect and publish data on injuries, illnesses, and fatalities in the workplace: the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII) and the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI).
SOII is an establishment-based survey of approximately 230,000 private industry and State and local government establishments annually to produce estimates of employer-reported nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses. SOII publishes two sets of estimates. One set of SOII estimates provides the numbers and incidence rates of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses by detailed industry and types of casefor example, total recordable cases, days-away-from-work cases, etc. A second set of SOII estimates provides the numbers and incidence rates of nonfatal occupational injuries and illnesses by case circumstances and worker characteristics for cases that involved days away from work.
CFOI is a census that collects data on all fatal occupational injuries in the United States. CFOI publishes numbers and rates of fatal occupational injuries.
SOII and CFOI collect data and publish incidence rates in different ways, and thus should not be compared to each other. Nonfatal incidence rates by industry are calculated using hours-worked data collected as part of the SOII and are expressed per 100 full-time workers for injury and illness, or injury only cases, and per 10,000 full-time workers for illness cases. Incidence rates for case circumstances and worker characteristics are calculated using hours-worked data collected as part of the SOII for industry and case characteristic rates, as well occupational employment data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) and Occupational Employment Survey (OES) for demographic and occupational rates. Incidence rates for case circumstances and worker characteristics are expressed per 10,000 full-time workers. Fatal injury rates are calculated using hours-worked data provided by the Current Population Survey (CPS) and are expressed per 100,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers.
Users should consider a few important factors when comparing different types of nonfatal incidence rates and fatal injury rates.
Nonfatal incidence rates: While incidence rate estimates are constructed for comparability, care should be exercised when comparing estimates among different states, or between a state and the U.S. as a whole, due to potential differences in industry composition across states. Similar caution should be used when comparing estimates between private sector and public sector industries in any particular state due to potential differences in industry makeup and the nature of work done between ownership groups.
Fatal injury rates: Fatal injury rates are not comparable between a state and the nation as a whole. Comparing state rate data to national rate data is not possible in CFOI since national fatal injury rates break out government industries separately while state fatal injury rates do not. See Page 18 of Chapter 9 of the BLS Handbook of Methods for more information.
Care should be taken when comparing fatal injury rates across states. Different industry mixes at the industry sector level (the only level at which CFOI publishes state fatal injury rates) make state-to-state comparisons ill-advised.
These different industry mixes are a factor when examining both SOII and CFOI rates. Take for instance a comparison of rates in the agriculture industry in Wisconsin and Florida. Wisconsins agriculture industry is primarily animal production; for Florida, it is primarily crop production. Comparing rates in the agriculture industry between these two states would not be advisable since one would be comparing two very different types of agriculture - each with its own workers, equipment, work environments, specific job tasks, hazards, etc.
For more information on rates, see Chapter 9 of the BLS Handbook of Methods.
Last Modified Date: October 06, 2015