Ensuring data quality and maximizing efficiency in coding agricultural and forestry injuries: Lessons to improve occupational injury surveillance.

Introduction: Specialized occupational injury surveillance systems are filling the gap in the undercount of work-related injuries in industries such as agriculture and forestry. To ensure data quality and maximize efficiency in the operation of a regional occupational injury surveillance system, the need for continued dual coding of occupational injury records was assessed.

Methods: Kappa scores and percent agreement were used to compare interrater reliability for assigned variables in 1,259 agricultural and forestry injuries identified in pre-hospital care reports. The variables used for the comparison included type of event, source of injury, nature of injury, part of body, injury location, intentionality, and farm and agriculture injury classification (FAIC).

Results: Kappa (κ) ranged from 0.2605 for secondary source to 0.8494 for event and exposure. Individual coder accuracy ranged from medium to high levels of agreement. Agreement beyond the first digit of OIICS coding was measured in percent agreement, and type of event or exposure, body part, and primary source of injury continued to meet levels of accord reaching 70% or greater agreement between all coders and the final choice, even to the most detailed 4th digit of OIICS.

Conclusions: This research supports evidence-based decision making in customizing an occupational injury surveillance system, ultimately making it less costly while maintaining data quality. We foresee these methods being applicable to any surveillance system where visual inspection and human decisions are levied.

Practical Applications: Assessing the rigor of occupational injury record coding provides critical information to tailor surveillance protocols, especially those targeted to make the system less costly. System administrators should consider evaluating the quality of coding, especially when dealing with free-text narratives before deciding on single coder protocols. Further, quality checks should remain a part of the system going forward.