Jennan A. Phillips

Personal health-risk predictors of occupational injury among 3415 municipal employees.

Little information exists about the effectiveness of health-promotion programs in reducing occupational injury rates. A historical cohort study was conducted to examine the relationship between personal health-risk factors and risk of occupational injury. Workers were grouped on the basis of nonoccupational risk-taking behaviors, psychosocial risks, cardiovascular risk factors, and a total risk-factor variable. All analyses were controlled for sex, smoking status, age, and job classification. An increased risk of occupational injury (P < .0001) was found to be significantly associated with nonoccupational risk-taking behavior. This association may be the result of continued risk-taking behavior in the occupational environment, or assignment of risk-taking individuals to more hazardous job tasks. Psychosocial, cardiovascular, and total risk-factor variables were not associated with an increased risk of occupational injury.

Low Back Pain: Prevention and Management

E ach year, 15% to 20% of the United States population suffers from low back pain (Andersson, 1991). Back problems rank high among the reasons for physician office visits and are costly in terms of medical treatment, time lost from work, and nonmonetary costs such as diminished ability to perform or enjoy usual activities. Low back problems are the most frequent cause of disability for persons under age 45 years (Cunningham, 1984). Problems associated with low back pain cost an estimated

Marijuana in the workplace: guidance for occupational health professionals and employers: Joint Guidance Statement of the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses and the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

20 to

Health risk influence on medical care costs and utilization among 2,898 municipal employees

50 billion per year (Nachemson, 1992), and companies are seeking efficient methods to prevent these injuries and control costs when injuries do occur. Occupational health nurses are in a unique position to prevent on the job back injuries and to provide quality management for those who do sustain injury. Until recently, standards for managing low back pain have varied by provider and by region. In late 1994, the

The effects of arthritis, mobility, and farm task on injury among older farmers

Marijuana (cannabis) is the most frequently used illicit drug of abuse in the United States and worldwide. Moreover, it is second only to alcohol as the most prevalent psychoactive substance seen in cases of driving under the influence of drugs. It is also by a wide margin, the drug most often detected in workplace drug-testing programs. The primary psychoactive substance in marijuana is delta-9tetrahydrocannabinol, known simply as THC. Present in steadily increasing concentrations in street-purchased, smokeable plant material, the THC content in marijuana averaged 3% in the 1980s, but by 2012 it had increased to 12%. The US government classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug (defined as those drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse, and the use/possession of which is subject to prosecution). Workers covered by federal drug-testing programs are uniformly prohibited from using marijuana at any time. In addition, federal law allows employers in every state to prohibit employees from working while under the influence of marijuana and are permitted to discipline employees who violate this prohibition. Nevertheless, with public attitudes toward marijuana use changing, prohibitions for its consumption outside of federal law now vary from state to state. Although the possession and use of marijuana continue to be prohibited by federal law, numerous states and the District of Columbia currently have enacted laws regarding marijuana use that conflict with federal law and policy, with legislation pending in other states. This changing legal environment and the evolving scientific evidence of its effectiveness for treatment of select health conditions require an assessment of the safety of marijuana use by the American workforce. Although studies have suggested that marijuana may be used with reasonable safety in some controlled environments, there are potential workplace consequences involved in its use that warrant scrutiny and concern. The potential consequences of marijuana use in the workplace include the risk and associated cost of adverse events and the loss of productivity. These safety concerns and the changing legal scene have led the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) and the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses (AAOHN) to develop this guidance document to assist occupational health professionals and employers in identifying and addressing impairment issues related to the use of marijuana and prevention of injuries related to impairment. This guidance summarizes current evidence regarding marijuana consumption, discusses possible side effects including temporary impairment as it relates to the workplace, reviews existing federal and state laws and legal implications for health care professionals and employers, and suggests various strategies available to employers for monitoring workers for marijuana use. It is outside the scope of this article to address any potential medical benefit of marijuana. Studies conducted to evaluate the effects of marijuana drug use by workers have demonstrated variable risk. This variability relates to study design, demographics, work type, and potential confounders (eg, general risk-taking behavior among illicit drug users). This discussion on the effects of marijuana is based on a literature search of the currently available evidence (see the Appendix). Articles were graded using the following criteria: inadequate for evidence due to low-quality research; adequate for evidence (+); or high quality (++). High-quality studies, meta-analyses, or multiple adequate studies with the same conclusion qualified as good evidence for the guidance purposes of this document. Statements referring to evidence without a qualifier reflect the results of an adequate study. 581983WHSXXX10.1177/2165079915581983Phillips et alJoint Guidance Statement research-article2015

Marijuana in the Workplace: Guidance for Occupational Health Professionals and Employers Joint Guidance Statement of the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses and the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

INTRODUCTION Although worksite health promotion programs are credited with stabilizing medical benefits costs, research is needed to characterize the medical costs of cohorts with selected health risk factors. The purpose of this study was to compare medical cost outcomes in City of Birmingham, Alabama, employees who differ on selected health risk factors. METHODS Health risk appraisal and medical claims cost data were examined in 2,898 employees participating in health screening during 1992 and 1993. Probit analysis was employed to test the null hypotheses that there are no differences in (1) probability of medical service utilization and (2) probability of medical service cost quartile (high, moderate, and low) between groups characterized by risks. Age, gender, race, education, marital status, and diabetes were included as covariates in each model examined. In addition, smoking habits was included as a covariate in models involving risk taking behavior and psychosocial risk. RESULTS Significant differences in medical care utilization and costs were found between risk groups based on psychosocial risk, cardiovascular disease risk, and total risk. No association was found between risk-taking behavior and utilization and costs. CONCLUSION Subjects reporting psychosocial, cardiovascular disease, and total risk factors were more likely to use medical services and to be in the high or high/moderate cost categories.

Obesity, prediabetes, and perceived stress in municipal workers

The current study was conducted by performing secondary analysis of data drawn from a study of sustained work indicators of older farmers. The primary outcome variable was the reported occurrence or non-occurrence of injuries because of farm work in the past year. There were three explanatory variables of interest: (1) whether respondents reported ever having been diagnosed with arthritis/rheumatism by a medical doctor; (2) whether participants reported having mobility problems; and (3) a farm task injury risk index. Additional explanatory variables included the estimated number of days spent on farming activities in the past year, as well as demographic characteristics such as age, sex, and race. Institutional review board approvals were obtained for the original study prior to data collection, and for the current study prior to secondary analysis of data. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the outcome and explanatory variables. Initial multivariable longitudinal models for the occurrence of injuries were fitted with the explanatory variables. Odds ratios for the effects of interest were calculated using the final models. A longitudinal model was fitted using data in waves 1, 3, and 5, with a farm task injury risk index as outcome variable and wave, sex, age, race, and estimated number of days spent on farming activities in the past year as explanatory variables for exploration of the relationship between the farm task injury risk index and these variables. In this group of older farmers, aging was protective for injury, and was associated with decreased farm task injury risk index. Arthritis/rheumatism was associated in our study with occurrence of injury because of farm work across all four waves. Our results indicated that farmers with mobility problems were twice as likely to experience injuries because of farm work compared to farmers with no mobility problems. Increased farm task injury risk index was associated with a 40% increase in odds for the occurrence of injury due to farm work. In this study of older farmers, the type of work, and not the amount of work was significantly associated with injury risk. Implications for future studies of farm injury include the need for nurse researchers and others to incorporate objective validated measures of mobility and health care provider diagnoses of arthritis, and arthritis type. Nurse researchers should proceed with ongoing evaluation of the farm task injury risk index to determine its validity, reliability, and usefulness as a predictor of farm injuries. In the practice setting, nurses may apply findings from this study to provide injury prevention teaching to older farmers and their families. For example, discussions of the more risky farm tasks, injury prevention strategies, and treatment modalities including those that promote improved mobility should be targeted to older farmers with arthritis and actual or potential mobility issues. Ultimately, these nursing research and practice efforts may lead to preservation of function, and decreased injury risk and severity among older farmers.

Ebola virus disease epidemic.

Employers are often put in a difficult position trying to accommodate state laws that allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes while enforcing federal rules or company drug-use policies based on federal law. To ensure workplace safety as well as compliance with state and federal legislation, employers should review state laws on discrimination against marijuana users and ensure that policies enacted are consistent with the state’s antidiscrimination statutes. Although it appears that in most states that allow medical marijuana use, employers can continue enforcing policies banning or restricting the use of marijuana, this approach may change on the basis of future court decisions. The Joint Task Force recommends that marijuana use be closely monitored for all employees in safety-sensitive positions, whether or not covered by federal drug-testing regulations. Best practice would support employers prohibiting marijuana use at work. Employers, in compliance with applicable state laws, may choose to simply prohibit their employees from working while using or impaired by marijuana. In some states, employers may choose to prohibit marijuana use by all members of their workforce whether on or off duty. Nevertheless, in all cases, a clear policy to guide decisions on when marijuana use is allowed and how to evaluate for impairment must be widely distributed and carefully explained to all workers. Legal consultation during policy development and continual review is imperative to ensure compliance with federal, state, and case law. Drug-use and drug-testing policies should clearly delineate expectations regarding on-the-job impairment and marijuana use outside of work hours. Specific criteria for use by supervisors and HR personnel when referring employees suspected of impairment for an evaluation by a qualified occupational health professional are critical. Detailed actions based on the medical evaluation results must also be clearly delineated for HRs, supervisors, and workers. The Joint Task Force recommends that employers review the following points when developing workplace policies that address marijuana use in the workplace: 1. For employees covered by federal drug testing regulations (eg, DOT and other workers under federal contract), marijuana use, both on or off the job, is prohibited. Thus, employers may use urine drug screening in this population. 2. Employees in safety-sensitive positions must not be impaired at work by any substance, whether it be illicit, legally prescribed, or available over-the-counter. Employers may consider prohibiting on the job marijuana use for all employees in safety-sensitive positions, even when not covered by federal drug testing regulations. Nevertheless, legal review of the employer’s policy in the context of state statutes is strongly encouraged. When employers allow medical marijuana use by employees, consultation with a qualified occupational health professional is recommended. 3. Employers residing in or near states that allow the use of recreational marijuana must establish a policy regarding off-work use of marijuana. In many states, the employer may choose to prohibit employees from simply working while using or under the influence of marijuana or may choose to prohibit marijuana use both on and off the job. Urine drug testing above traditional cutoff levels, or serum testing at any level, would be reasonable criteria for the employer wishing to ban both on- and off-the-job use. To detect impairment, a limit of 5 ng/mL of THC measured in serum or plasma as THC (or possibly the sum of THC plus THC-OH for employers who choose to evaluate both psychoactive components) would meet the goal of identifying individuals most likely to be impaired. Nevertheless, employers using the 5 ng/ml level need to understand the limitations of using a single number to fit all cases; therefore, a medical examination focused on identifying impairment is always recommended. Legal consultation is strongly recommended. 4. Although it appears that in most states that allow the use of medical marijuana, employers may be able to continue policies banning or restricting the use of marijuana as previously discussed, this practice may change on the basis of future case law. Currently the ADA does not apply in these situations because marijuana is illegal under federal law. Legal consultation is again strongly recommended. 5. Most workers’ compensation statutes allow reduced benefits when a worker is under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs. Two samples should usually be obtained as a second confirmatory test may be needed. Proof of use and/or impairment is usually required for these cases, and a positive urine drug test (for the inactive metabolite) does not prove acute impairment. The serum level of less than 5 ng/mL could be used for presumptive evidence of impairment in these situations. An MRO is most helpful in helping determine these types of cases because legal testimony may be required. 6. All employers should have clear policies and procedures for supervisors to follow regarding the criteria for identifying potential impairment and the process for referring an employee suspected of impairment for an occupational medical evaluation. Policies should include action required by HR personnel based on the results of the examination. 7. Employee education is vital to ensure compliance with company expectations. Education is needed at hire and again at regular intervals. Workers must know the company’s chemical substance policy and management’s expectations for adherence. The employer’s commitment to a drug-free workplace and existing company policy will influence the education program’s content. At a minimum, employees should learn how chemical substances affect their health, safety, personal behavior, and job performance. Supervisors and employees should also be educated about how to recognize behaviors indicative of impairment, whether the source is medical marijuana, prescription medications, illegal drugs, alcohol, over-the-counter medications, fatigue, or any combination thereof. 8. In states where marijuana use is permitted, employers should provide educational resources regarding the detrimental effects of marijuana use, including caution regarding dose and delayed effects of edible products. This information may be obtained from SAMHSA and state governmental agencies. The safety of workers and the public must be central to all workplace policies and employers must clearly articulate that legalization of marijuana for recreational or medical use does not negate workplace policies for safe job performance. The evolving legal situation on medical and recreational marijuana requires employers to consult with legal experts to craft company policy and clarify implications of impaired on-duty workers. This changing environment surrounding marijuana use requires close collaboration between employers, occupational health professionals, and legal experts to ensure that workplace safety is not compromised.

Electronic Cigarettes: Health Risks and Workplace Policy

The primary cause of death for men and women in the United States is heart disease. Obesity and diabetes are major contributors to heart disease, and the risk is worsened in the presence of stress. It is clinically useful to identify predictors of obesity and prediabetes in a working population. The purpose of this current cross-sectional, correlational study was to examine relationships among obesity, prediabetes, and perceived stress in municipal workers using a subset of worksite wellness program data from employees screened in 2010 and 2011. Multiple regression models indicated that age, gender, race, HA1c, shift schedule, physical activity, and occupation were significant predictors of obesity in municipal workers (p < .01). Prediabetes in municipal workers was predicted by age, Black race, and body mass index (BMI; p < .01). Perceived stress was not a significant predictor of obesity or prediabetes in municipal workers. Overall, the findings of this study provide guidance to occupational health nurses when evaluating individuals in an occupational health setting. Further research is needed to examine relationships among the variables and validate the models.

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS).

The Ebola virus disease epidemic now constitutes an international public health emergency. Occupational and environmental health nurses can collaborate with international colleagues to halt Ebola virus transmission within Africa, protect workers from exposures, and prevent another pandemic.