1 / 15

Kirsten McKenzie 1 , Jesani Limbong 1 , Dave Strachan 2

Comparing child product safety concerns with injury incidents: Does the evidence support the response?. Kirsten McKenzie 1 , Jesani Limbong 1 , Dave Strachan 2 1 CARRS-Q, 2 Office of Fair Trading, Queensland Government 2 nd October 2012. CRICOS No. 00213J. Presentation Aims.

wren
Download Presentation

Kirsten McKenzie 1 , Jesani Limbong 1 , Dave Strachan 2

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparing child product safety concerns with injury incidents: Does the evidence support the response? Kirsten McKenzie1, Jesani Limbong1, Dave Strachan2 1CARRS-Q, 2Office of Fair Trading, Queensland Government 2nd October 2012 CRICOS No. 00213J

  2. Presentation Aims • Describe methods to utilise existing injury data for product safety surveillance purposes • Discuss approaches to proactively prioritise areas for further investigation using injury data • Outline findings from comparison of product safety regulatory data and injury data for Qld children

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Ch 19 Injury and Ch 20 Ext Cause Ch 19 Injury and Poisoning Chap

  6. Utility of injury data for product safety regulators

  7. 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

  8. Product-focused surveillance

  9. Product-focused surveillance Risk-focused surveillance

  10. Other important considerations • Weighing up frequency and severity rankings (see JesaniLimbong’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

  11. 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

  12. Acknowledgements • Research Team: JesaniLimbong, 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

  13. Questions? k.mckenzie@qut.edu.au Full report available at: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/46518/ Mark your Diaries! International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety Conference (2013) 25-28 August 2013, Brisbane http://t2013.com CRICOS No. 00213J

More Related