Page 109 - JSOM Winter 2017

of hazards. Hazard elimination involves reducing exposure to References
hazards or the elimination of the hazard altogether. The Had- 1. Christoffel T, Gallagher SS. Injury Prevention and Public Health.
don Matrix and/or the 10 Countermeasure Strategies could Practical Knowledge, Skills, and Strategies. Gaithersburg, MD:
2
be useful in developing controls. In our example involving air- Aspen Publications Inc.; 1999.
borne jumps in high winds, a decision was made early in the 2. Knapik JJ. Tools to assess and reduce injury risk (part 1). J Spec
Oper Med. 2017;17(3):116–119.
history of airborne operations to eliminate part of the risk by 3. Jones BH, Knapik JJ. Physical training and exercise-related in-
not conducting training jumps in winds of 13 knots or greater. juries. Surveillance, research and injury prevention in military
Some residual risk remained, because the literature indicates populations. Sports Med. 1999;27:111–125.
that winds in the range of 8–11 knots likely increase injury 4. Knapik, JJ, BS Graham, J Rieger, et al. Activities associated with
risk. However, it is useful for Soldiers to train under some injuries in initial entry training. Mil Med. 2013;178:500–506.
wind conditions so they will know how to conduct operations 5. Knapik JJ, Darakjy S, Jones SB, et al. Injuries and physical fit-
ness before and after a deployment by the 10th Mountain Di-
under these conditions. vision to Afghanistan for Operation Enduring Freedom. Report
No. 12-MA-05SD-07. Aberdeen Proving Ground MD: US Army
In Step 4, leaders establish how the controls will be imple- Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine; 2007.
mented and who will manage them. Controls can be intro- 6. Ruscio, BA, BH Jones, SH Bullock, et al. A process to identify
duced in briefings and integrated into training or direct military injury prevention priorities based on injury type and lim-
operations. In the case of wind, the drop-zone safety officer ited duty days. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38(suppl 1):S19–S33.
(DZSO) is trained on the hazards of high winds. In opera- 7. Jones, BH, PJ Amoroso, ML Canham, et al. Atlas of injuries in
U.S. Armed Forces. Mil Med. 1999;164(suppl):1-1–9-25.
tions, the DZSO monitors wind speeds and makes the decision 8. Tobin, WJ, Cohen LJ, Vandover JT. Parachute injuries. JAMA.
whether to go forward with the jump, delay the jump for more 1941;125:318–321.
favorable conditions, or cancel the jump all together. 9. Essex-Lopresti P. The hazards of parachuting. Br J Surg. 1946;
133:1–13.
Step 5 involves ensuring that controls are implemented and 10. Knapik JJ, Steelman R, Hodedbecke K, et al. Injury incidence
performed to standard. Selected controls are supervised at the with T-10 and T-11 parachutes in military airborne operations.
Aviat Space Environ Med. 2014;85(12):1159–1169.
appropriate level to ensure they are understood and performed 11. Bricknell MCM, Craig SC. Military parachute injuries: a litera-
to standards to support injury-reduction goals. Leaders must ture review. Occup Med. 1999;49:17–26.
also evaluate the effectiveness of the control measures. Evalua- 12. Craig SC, Lee T. Attention to detail: injuries at altitude among
tion involves determining if the risk level has actually changed U.S. Army military static line parachutists. Mil Med. 2000;165:
during operations, adapting to changes in the situation, and 268–271.
making corrections to better implement controls. In the case of 13. Knapik JJ, Steelman R. Risk factors for injuries during military
static-line airborne operations: a systematic review and meta-
wind in airborne operations, commanders, noncommissioned analysis. J Athl Training. 2016;51(11):962–980.
officers, and safety officers monitor both serious injuries and 14. Lord CD, Coots JW. Typical parachute injuries. A study of those
wind speeds during operations to ensure guidelines are followed occurring in 250,000 jumps at the parachute school. JAMA.
and jumps are not conducted in winds of 13 knots or greater. 29 1944;125:1182–1187.
15. Lord CD, Coutts JW. A study of typical parachute injuries occur-
To assist with application of the US Army Risk Management ring in two hundred and fifty thousand jumps at the parachute
school. J Bone Joint Surg. 1944;26:547–557.
Process, DD Form 2977, Deliberate Risk Assessment Work- 16. Rovere, GD, TJ Clarke, CS Yates, et al. Retrospective comparison
sheet, has been developed and an example is available at http:// of taping and ankle stabilizers in preventing ankle injuries. Am J
www.belvoir.army.mil/safety/Docs/forms/DD%202977.pdf. Sports Med. 1988;16:228–233.
17. Sitler M, Ryan J, Wheeler B, et al. The efficacy of a semirigid
ankle stabilizer to reduce acute ankle injury in basketball. Am J
Conclusion Sports Med. 1994;22:454–461.
18. Sharpe S, Knapik J, Jones B. Ankle braces effectively reduce re-
Four ways of assessing and reducing injury risk were discussed currence of ankle sprains in female soccer players. J Athl Train-
in parts 1 and 2 of this series: the Haddon Matrix, the 10 ing. 1997;32:21–24.
Countermeasure Strategies, the Injury Prevention Process, 19. Kirby N. Parachuting injuries. Proc R Soc Med. 1974;67:17–21.
and the US Army Risk Management Process. It is apparent 20. Hallel T, Naggan L. Parachute injuries: a retrospective study of
that there is overlap among these approaches, but each has 83,718 jumps. J Trauma. 1975;15:14–19.
unique aspects that can be very useful for injury prevention 21. Craig SC, Morgan J. Parachuting injury surveillance, Fort Bragg,
North Carolina, May 1993 to December 1994. Mil Med. 1997;
and control. Understanding and applying each method will 162:162–164.
likely result in the highest probability of reducing injury risk 22. Knapik JJ, Darakjy S, Swedler D, et al. Parachute ankle brace
for Soldiers. and extrinsic injury risk factors during parachuting. Aviat Space
Environ Med. 2008;79:408–415.
Disclaimer 23. Bar-Dayan Y, Bar-Dayan Y, Shemer J. Parachute injuries: a retro-
spective study of 43,542 military jumps. Mil Med. 1998;163:1–2.
The views expressed in this presentation are those of the au- 24. Pirson J, Verbiest E. A study of some factors influencing parachute
thors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the landing injuries. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1985;56:564–567.
Department of Defense, Department of the Army, US Army 25. Knapik JJ, Steelman R, Hoedebecke K, et al. Comparison of
Medical Department, or the US Government. The use of injury incidence between the T-11 Advance Tactical Parachute
trademark names do not imply endorsement by the US Army System and the T-10D parachute, Fort Bragg, North Carolina,
but is intended only to assist in the identification of a specific June 2010-November 2013. Report No. 12-HF-27G0ED-14. Ab-
product. erdeen Proving Ground MD: US Army Institute of Public Health;
2014.
26. Amoroso, PJ, Ryan JB, Bickley B, et al. Braced for impact: reduc-
Disclosure ing paratrooper’s ankle sprains using outside-the-boot braces. J
The author has nothing to disclose. Trauma. 1998;45:575–580.

Assessing and Reducing Injury Risk | 107