ATSIP Homepage
Discussion Board Home Discussion Board HomeProject DiscussionANSI D16 Public Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 2.3 Injuries and Damage
  Help Help  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Welcome to the ATSIP Discussion Board!  If you are an ATSIP member, you have already been registered!  Your username is your first initial and last name (IE: John Doe = jdoe), your password is the same that you use to log in to the membership site.
If you don't know your password you can reset it by clicking here.
After you log in for the first time, please take a minute and go to the member control panel to update your profile and set your preferences.
If you are not an ATSIP member, please register to join the discussion!
If you need help, go to the discussion board help forum.  You can download a detailed users manual or ask a question in the questions and comments topic.  You can also get help by clicking the help link in the menu at the top of the screen, sending a private message to an administrator, or by sending an email to manager@atsip.org.


2.3 Injuries and Damage

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
jhall1213 View Drop Down
ATSIP Member
ATSIP Member


Joined: Apr/14/2016
Status: Offline
Points: 34
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jhall1213 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: 2.3 Injuries and Damage
    Posted: May/10/2016 at 1:02pm
2.3 Injuries and Damage
Back to Top
jvecchi View Drop Down
ATSIP Fellow
ATSIP Fellow
Avatar
ANSI D16 Panel Moderator

Joined: Mar/29/2016
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Points: 41
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jvecchi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May/12/2016 at 7:34pm
In order to provide uniformity in reporting and to comply with the 3/15/2016 final rule regarding National Performance Management Measures: Highway Safety Improvement Program, 23 CFR, Part 490 ANSI will change its injury severity descriptions to comport with MMUCC 4th edition definitions as follows:
Fatal injury (K): Any injury that results in death within 30 days after the motor vehicle crash in which the injury occurred. If the person did not die at the scene but died within 30 days of the motor vehicle crash in which the injury occurred, the injury classification should be changed from the attribute previously assigned to the attribute "Fatal Injury."
Suspected serious injury (A): an injury other than fatal which results in one or more of the following: Severe laceration resulting in exposure of underlying tissues/muscle/organs or resulting in significant loss of blood, broken or distorted extremity (arm or leg), crush injuries, suspected skull, chest or abdominal injury other than bruises or minor lacerations, significant burns (second and third degree burns over 10% or more of the body), unconsciousness when taken from the crash scene, or paralysis.
Suspected minor injury (B): any injury that is evident at the scene of the crash, other than fatal or serious injuries. Examples include lump on the head, abrasions, bruises, minor lacerations (cuts on the skin surface with minimal bleeding and no exposure of deeper tissue/muscle.)
Possible injury ( C): any injury reported or claimed which is not a fatal, suspected serious or suspected minor injury. Examples include momentary loss of consciousness, claim of injury, limping, or complaint of pain or nausea. Possible injuries are those which are reported by the person or are indicated by his/her behavior, but no wounds or injuries are readily evident.
No apparent injury (O): No apparent injury is a situation where there is no reason to believe that the person received any bodily harm from the motor vehicle crash. There is no physical evidence of injury and the person does not report any change in normal function.
Joan vecchi,
Project Manager
Back to Top
Miles Brookes View Drop Down
New User
New User


Joined: Jun/08/2016
Location: Juneau, Alaska
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Miles Brookes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jun/10/2016 at 4:50pm

I agree with the proposed changes to align with 23 CFR, Part 490 and MMUCC 4th Ed.  However, in the quest by many of us to make data uniform and accurate across many systems and jurisdictions, the unit of measurement for a qualifying fatality; 30 days from the motor vehicle crash (MVC) leaves room for inconsistencies and misinterpretation, thus reducing uniformity and accuracy of the data. 

While the following examples may be few and far between, and my experience is that a large majority of MVC fatalities occur at the scene or within a few days of the crash, I feel it best to adopt a more accurate level of measurement when qualifying MVC fatalities.  I’d propose a 720 hour unit of measure (which is 30 days but removes possible inconsistencies in how a data professionals count the passage of a day), or clearly define what constitutes the passing of a day for this classification.

Extreme Situation 1:

Crash occurs 00:01, 7/1 and death occurs 23:59, 7/31.  In a 30 day rule, some may interpret this as qualifying fatality as it occurred on the 30th day from the crash.  While this is within the 30 days of the crash, death occurred 743.97 hours after the crash, only 2 minutes short of the completion of the 31st day, almost an extra whole day compared to the next example.

Extreme Situation 2:

Crash occurs 23:59, 7/1 and death occurs 00:01, 7/31.  In a 30 day rule this would also be included as a qualifying fatality.  This death occurred at 696.03 hours, which in of itself is not a problem. 

The problem with uniformity arises when you compare victim 1 and victim 2 and the start of their “clock” for fatal qualification.  Victim 1 had 743.97 hours before becoming a countable fatality based on possible various 30 day interpretations, while Victim 2 had exactly 720 hours, or 30 days based solely on the fact that their crash occurred so late in the calendar day. 

Additionally, FARS/CRSS uses a consistency check of “DEATH DATE and DEATH TIME for this person must be within 720 hours of the CRASH DATE and CRASH TIME” Which I feel provides a greater level of uniformity across all data systems.  The desired result of 30 days for fatality inclusion is still there, but provides for a more narrowly defined way to measure the passage of time between crash and death. 


Back to Top
jvecchi View Drop Down
ATSIP Fellow
ATSIP Fellow
Avatar
ANSI D16 Panel Moderator

Joined: Mar/29/2016
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Points: 41
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jvecchi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jun/11/2016 at 12:27pm
Mr. Brookes:  I agree that this will impact a very small number of crashes, so it shouldn't be an imposition to count hours versus days to ensure uniformity.  I would not be opposed to adding 720 hours to the standard.
Joan vecchi,
Project Manager
Back to Top
cosbourn View Drop Down
ATSIP Member
ATSIP Member

ANSI D16 Panel Member

Joined: Mar/29/2016
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline
Points: 10
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cosbourn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jul/13/2016 at 10:03pm
I believe that FARS specifically classifies a traffic fatality as a person who dies from injuries sustained in a crash within 30 24-hour periods following the exact time of crash. So, I concur with making us consistent with the FARS definition and 720 hours for a fatal injury.
 
But I also think we should be cautious about getting too far deep into FARS classification criteria. You are still going to have suicides and death by natural causes that will be included in a crash report, that might not be determined as such until the FARS analysts receive a death certificate months later.
Back to Top
jvecchi View Drop Down
ATSIP Fellow
ATSIP Fellow
Avatar
ANSI D16 Panel Moderator

Joined: Mar/29/2016
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Points: 41
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jvecchi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jul/13/2016 at 10:29pm
Agreed, Chris.  This standard is about classifying crashes, and it differs from FARS and MMUCC in that they outline individual data elements.  We should make things as uniform as possible 
while continuing to respect the fact that the purposes for the D.16, MMUCC, and FARS data dictionary have different purposes.
Joan vecchi,
Project Manager
Back to Top
tgorman View Drop Down
ATSIP Member
ATSIP Member


Joined: Jun/06/2016
Location: CT
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tgorman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jul/19/2016 at 12:22am
I agree with making it 720 hours- just keep it to one standard. In regards to the idea of medical or suicide related, I would say it should not apply.  If the crash was a suicide attempt- if there are no other vehicles- its not a crash, being that it was intentional, if it did involve other parties then it would be a crash regardless of what the death cert would read since someone, in someway, would be a victim to the crash.  If it was a medical issue for the most part it would play out the same way.
Back to Top
mmcdonald View Drop Down
ATSIP Member
ATSIP Member

ANSI D16 Panel Member

Joined: Apr/22/2016
Location: Wilmington DE
Status: Offline
Points: 21
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mmcdonald Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Aug/08/2016 at 9:32pm
Makes sense.  I don't have an issue with this and also believe it will impact few crashes that go to into this timeframe.
Michael McDonald
ANSI D16 Panel Member
Delaware State Police
Director, Information Technology
302-672-5444
Back to Top
jdolan View Drop Down
ATSIP Member
ATSIP Member

ANSI D16 Panel Member

Joined: Mar/29/2016
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jdolan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Aug/19/2016 at 3:10pm
Originally posted by Miles Brookes Miles Brookes wrote:

I agree with the proposed changes to align with 23 CFR, Part 490 and MMUCC 4th Ed.  However, in the quest by many of us to make data uniform and accurate across many systems and jurisdictions, the unit of measurement for a qualifying fatality; 30 days from the motor vehicle crash (MVC) leaves room for inconsistencies and misinterpretation, thus reducing uniformity and accuracy of the data. 

While the following examples may be few and far between, and my experience is that a large majority of MVC fatalities occur at the scene or within a few days of the crash, I feel it best to adopt a more accurate level of measurement when qualifying MVC fatalities.  I’d propose a 720 hour unit of measure (which is 30 days but removes possible inconsistencies in how a data professionals count the passage of a day), or clearly define what constitutes the passing of a day for this classification.

Extreme Situation 1:

Crash occurs 00:01, 7/1 and death occurs 23:59, 7/31.  In a 30 day rule, some may interpret this as qualifying fatality as it occurred on the 30th day from the crash.  While this is within the 30 days of the crash, death occurred 743.97 hours after the crash, only 2 minutes short of the completion of the 31st day, almost an extra whole day compared to the next example.

Extreme Situation 2:

Crash occurs 23:59, 7/1 and death occurs 00:01, 7/31.  In a 30 day rule this would also be included as a qualifying fatality.  This death occurred at 696.03 hours, which in of itself is not a problem. 

The problem with uniformity arises when you compare victim 1 and victim 2 and the start of their “clock” for fatal qualification.  Victim 1 had 743.97 hours before becoming a countable fatality based on possible various 30 day interpretations, while Victim 2 had exactly 720 hours, or 30 days based solely on the fact that their crash occurred so late in the calendar day. 

Additionally, FARS/CRSS uses a consistency check of “DEATH DATE and DEATH TIME for this person must be within 720 hours of the CRASH DATE and CRASH TIME” Which I feel provides a greater level of uniformity across all data systems.  The desired result of 30 days for fatality inclusion is still there, but provides for a more narrowly defined way to measure the passage of time between crash and death. 



Agreed. This doesn't seem to be a burdensome change, provides for cross-platform standardization, and eliminates ambiguity in the definition.
Back to Top
cgrasso View Drop Down
ATSIP Member
ATSIP Member

ANSI D16 Panel Member

Joined: Mar/29/2016
Location: Connecticut
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote cgrasso Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Oct/21/2016 at 9:53am
I agree with the 720 hours.  The 30 day rule leaves room for error.  The 720 Hours is a consistent way to ensure the data is accurate.
Charles Grasso, Sgt.(Ret.)
Crash Data Liaison
UCONN Transportation Safety Research Center                 
270 Middle Turnpike
Storrs, CT 06269
C
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.04
Copyright ©2001-2015 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.