Premium
Noise exposure and hearing conservation practices in an industry with high incidence of workers' compensation claims for hearing loss
Author(s) -
Daniell William E.,
Swan Susan S.,
McDaniel Mary M.,
Stebbins John G.,
Seixas Noah S.,
Morgan Michael S.
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
american journal of industrial medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.7
H-Index - 104
eISSN - 1097-0274
pISSN - 0271-3586
DOI - 10.1002/ajim.10124
Subject(s) - audiogram , hearing loss , medicine , audiology , audiometry , workers' compensation , noise induced hearing loss , occupational medicine , personal protective equipment , occupational safety and health , noise exposure , industrial noise , compensation (psychology) , environmental health , occupational exposure , psychology , social psychology , disease , covid-19 , pathology , infectious disease (medical specialty)
Background Washington State has experienced a striking increase in workers' compensation claims for hearing loss. Methods This cross‐sectional study examined noise exposures and hearing conservation practices in one industry with a high rate of hearing loss claims. We evaluated 10 representative foundries with personal noise dosimetry, management interviews, employee interviews, and existing audiometry. Results Noise levels routinely exceeded 85 dBA. All companies were out of compliance with hearing conservation regulations. Most employees with important findings on audiograms were not aware of their findings. There was a significant positive correlation between management‐interview scores and worksite‐average employee‐interview scores (r = 0.70, P = 0.02). Conclusions Companies where more effort is put into hearing conservation program activities can achieve a greater positive impact on employee awareness. However, there were broad deficiencies even in the better programs in this sample, suggesting that workers in this industry probably face a continuing substantial risk of occupational hearing loss. Am. J. Ind. Med. 42:309–317, 2002. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.