↓ Skip to main content

Risk management of emergency service vehicle crashes in the United States fire service: process, outputs, and recommendations

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
Title
Risk management of emergency service vehicle crashes in the United States fire service: process, outputs, and recommendations
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4894-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

David P. Bui, Keshia Pollack Porter, Stephanie Griffin, Dustin D. French, Alesia M. Jung, Stephen Crothers, Jefferey L. Burgess

Abstract

Emergency service vehicle crashes (ESVCs) are a leading cause of death in the United States fire service. Risk management (RM) is a proactive process for identifying occupational risks and reducing hazards and unwanted events through an iterative process of scoping hazards, risk assessment, and implementing controls. We describe the process, outputs, and lessons learned from the application of a proactive RM process to reduce ESVCs in US fire departments. Three fire departments representative of urban, suburban, and rural geographies, participated in a facilitated RM process delivered through focus groups and stakeholder discussion. Crash reports from department databases were reviewed to characterize the context, circumstances, hazards and risks of ESVCs. Identified risks were ranked using a risk matrix that considered risk likelihood and severity. Department-specific control measures were selected based on group consensus. Interviews, and focus groups were used to assess acceptability and utility of the RM process and perceived facilitators and barriers of implementation. Three to six RM meetings were conducted at each fire department. There were 7.4 crashes per 100 personnel in the urban department and 10.5 per 100 personnel in the suburban department; the rural department experienced zero crashes. All departments identified emergency response, backing, on scene struck by, driver distraction, vehicle/road visibility, and driver training as high or medium concerns. Additional high priority risks varied by department; the urban department prioritized turning and rear ending crashes; the suburban firefighters prioritized inclement weather/road environment and low visibility related crashes; and the rural volunteer fire department prioritized exiting station, vehicle failure, and inclement weather/road environment related incidents. Selected controls included new policies and standard operating procedures to reduce emergency response, cameras to enhance driver visibility while backing, and increased training frequency and enhanced training. The RM process was generally acceptable to department participants and considered useful. All departments reported that the focused and systematic analysis of crashes was particularly helpful. Implementation of controls was a commonly cited challenge. Proactive RM of ESVCs in three US fire departments was positively received and supported the establishment of interventions tailored to each department's needs and priorities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 110 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 48 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 10%
Engineering 11 10%
Computer Science 5 5%
Environmental Science 5 5%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 50 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 November 2017.
All research outputs
#4,104,583
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,563
of 14,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,456
of 431,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#70
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 431,641 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.