Kirsten McKenzie 1 , Jesani Limbong 1 , Dave Strachan 2

CRICOS No. 00213J

Kirsten McKenzie1, Jesani Limbong1, Dave Strachan2

1CARRS-Q, 2Office of Fair Trading, Queensland Government2nd October 2012

Comparing child product safety concerns with injury incidents: Does the evidence support the

response?

Presentation Aims

1. Describe methods to utilise existing injury data for product safety surveillance purposes

2. Discuss approaches to proactively prioritise areas for further investigation using injury data

3. Outline findings from comparison of product safety regulatory data and injury data for Qld children

Background

• Recent reviews of product safety regulation in Australia and legislative changes ->– Increasing requirement for safety of consumer goods– Reporting of injuries/deaths associated with products– Need for evidence-base to support system

• Reactive vs proactive surveillance• Criticisms of utility of injury data for product safety

surveillance but costs of establishing new system too high, thus need to use existing data sources

Product-focus vs Risk-focus• Product-focused surveillance considers each

product individually to assess level of risk and determine responses to a specific product

• Risk-focused surveillance prioritises hazards of concern– Specific hazards -> distinct injuries– Greater utility of injury data under hazard-based model– May be universal design/regulatory/information standards

across range of products as preventative measures

Hazard Risk InjuryMoving and rotating objects Cutting/piercing Open wounds, amputation

Drowning Drowning Drowning

Hazardous heights Falls Contusions, open wounds, fractures

Inadequate stability Falls Contusions, wounds, fractures, crush

Inadequate structural integrity Falls Contusions, wounds, fractures, crush

Flammability Fire/hot object Burn

Open flames Fire/hot object Burn

Small objects Foreign bodies Choking, internal injuries

Toxicity Poisoning Poisoning

Projectiles Struck by object Open wounds

Non-permeable enclosures Suffocation Suffocation

Gaps and openings Suffocation; Cutting/piercing Asphyxiation, strangulation, amputation

Ch 19

Injur

y and

Ch 20

Ext

Cause

Ch 19

Injur

y and

Poison

ing C

hap

Utility of injury data for product safety regulators

Data sought Data availableFrequency National ED data, hospital data, and mortality data; two

state-based injury surveillance systemProduct-specific data Broad objects, ED text descriptions

Risk-specific data Mechanism and type of injury

Severity Admission rates, diagnosis-based injury severity, length of stay, discharge outcomes

Vulnerable groups Demographics (age, region, gender, country of birth etc)

Injury scenario Presenting problem and injury description text

Accessible, recent data Systematic compilation of data which is approx 6-12 months old is possible with ethics/health dept sign off

Exposure data Not available

Examples from Qld Child Product-Related Injury Study

• Data sources:– Product safety documents outlining investigations,

recalls, compliance checks, bans/standards etc– Emergency department injury presentation data– Hospital admission injury data

• Scope:– Children under 18 years of age– Incident/investigation occurring in 2008 or 2009– Queensland-based

• Document analysis, secondary data analysis and text mining

Product-focused surveillanceAge group Product safety Injury data (ED and hospital)

<1 year Pacifiers, prams, cots Beds, tables, couches, prams, change tables

1-3 years Squeeze toys, toy vehicles, projectile toys

Tables, beds, chairs, couches, toys

4-12 years Magnets, bunk beds Trampolines, scooters, bicycles, skateboards, balls

Product-focused surveillanceAge group Product safety Injury data (ED and hospital)

<1 year Pacifiers, prams, cots Beds, tables, couches, prams, change tables

1-3 years Squeeze toys, toy vehicles, projectile toys

Tables, beds, chairs, couches, toys

4-12 years Magnets, bunk beds Trampolines, scooters, bicycles, skateboards, balls

Age group Product safety Injury data (ED and hospital)<1 year Falls, strangulation,

chokingFalls, burns, struck by objects

1-3 years Choking, falls Falls, poisonings, struck by objects

4-12 years Ingestions, falls Falls, struck by objects,transport

Risk-focused surveillance

Other important considerations

• Weighing up frequency and severity rankings (see Jesani Limbong’s poster)

• Consideration of proportion of consumer product involvement per mechanism

• Product causality (product fault vs user behaviour)• Potential for product safety intervention• Evaluation of efficacy of interventions• Exposure and inherent risk ratios

Conclusions• CAN the evidence support the response? YES, by:

– Using a risk-focused proactive surveillance approach– Compiling injury data regularly to build an information

resource – Using coded and text data to identify cases and explore

circumstances– Using severity indicators as well as frequency data to

prioritise rank order of hazards by age groups• DOES the evidence support the response for

product-related injury in children? PARTIALLY:– Age groups and some products/hazards concordant– Identification of hazards which require further

investigation

Acknowledgements

• Research Team: Jesani Limbong, Debbie Scott, Dave Strachan, Emily Li, Jude Michel

• Members of Consumer Product Injury Research Advisory Group (CPIRAG)

• Office of Fair Trading, Product Safety unit• Queensland Injury Prevention Council

[email protected]

Full report available at: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/46518/

http://t2013.com

Mark your Diaries!International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and

Traffic Safety Conference (2013)25-28 August 2013, Brisbane

CRICOS No. 00213J