Testing the effects of safety climate and disruptive children behavior on school bus drivers performance: A multilevel model

Behind the Wheel: Systematic Review of Factors Associated with Safe School Bus Transportation for Children with Neurodevelopmental Disorders

School buses facilitate access to education for many children. This research aimed to systematically review factors associated with safe school bus transportation for children with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs). Searches of 5 databases, combining terms denoting NDDs and school buses, for English publications since 2000, yielded only 12 relevant articles among 1524 records. Literature was limited to parent-based studies, guidelines, reviews or commentaries. There was scant attention to the immediate roles of bus drivers and aides. Literature recommendations included increased attention to the needs of children with NDDs and improved communication, collaboration, support and training across all key stakeholders, particularly to improve implementation of individual child safety plans. Further research is needed on this critical support service for many families.

Exploring the Determinants of School Bus Crash Severity

Although the school bus is considered a safe form of transportation, school bus crashes are a major safety concern. School bus crashes are a result of driver error of either the at-fault school bus or another at-fault vehicle (where the school bus is not at fault). To examine the risk factors associated with school bus related crashes and crash outcomes, this study segments and develops two binary logit models for each school bus crash type. A total of 1702 school bus related crashes recorded between 2009 and 2016 were used to estimate the model. According to the model results, sideswipe collisions were less likely to result in injury outcomes for at-fault school buses than rear-end and side-impact collisions. Speeding, driving impaired or under the influence, and negotiating a curve all have significant positive associations with injury outcomes in not-at-fault school bus crashes. This study’s practical implications include enforcing the school bus safe driving guidelines, training programs for school bus drivers that include elements of nonroutine trips, training for crossing guards, and awareness programs for drivers of other vehicles to instill safe driving practices around school buses.

Risk factors for occupational injuries in schools among educators and support staff

INTRODUCTION

School districts employ a large number of employees who work in educational (e.g., teachers) or other support roles, including educational assistants, custodians, food service, bus drivers, and community and recreation workers. District employees perform a wide array of job tasks and experience a wide spectrum of work-related risks and injuries.

METHODS

Workers' compensation data were coupled with Minnesota Department of Education district employee denominator data to evaluate risk factors for injury and severity. Variables included district location and type, employee job classification, age, and gender. Rates of injury and rate ratios were calculated to measure comparative injury risk using negative binomial regression and 95% confidence internals. Incidence and frequency of injury cause, nature, and body part we calculated.

RESULTS

Saint Paul and Minneapolis metropolitan area (versus non-metro) districts had higher risk (RR = 1.35, 95%CI = 1.18-1.54) of employee injuries. All job classifications in support roles had increased risk of injury claims versus educators, however food service (RR = 5.14, 95%CI = 4.61-5.74), custodial (RR = 3.85, 95%CI = 3.41-4.34), and transportation (RR = 4.15, 95%CI = 3.38-5.10) exhibited the highest comparative risk to educators; significant risk of lost-time injury was also present in these workers. Males and females had similar risk of injury for all claims, however males had elevated risk of lost-time injury (RR = 1.46, 95%CI = 1.26-1.69) versus females. All age groups >41-years-old exhibited increased risk of injury as compared to 31-40-year-olds. The magnitude of lost-time injury risk also increased with age. Falls and slips (29.1%), strains/sprains/ruptures (45.2%), and upper extremities (31.3%) most frequent cause, nature, and body part injured, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Characteristics of districts, schools, workers, and their jobs tasks and hazards vary. Many categories of support staff in schools have elevated risk of injury, including lost-time injury, as compared to educators. Practical Applications: Injury prevention in schools should be approached by targeting job classifications; high risk jobs can be prioritized for prevention.