Non-fatal conductive energy device-related injuries treated in US emergency departments, 2005–2008
- 1Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
- 2Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
- Correspondence to Dr Joseph L Annest, Director, Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy, Mail Stop F-64, Atlanta, GA 30341-3717, USA;
- Accepted 19 October 2010
- Published Online First 21 January 2011
This paper provides the first US estimates and rates of non-fatal conductive energy device (CED)-related (eg, Taser) injuries relative to other types of legal intervention injuries treated in hospital emergency departments (EDs). The data used for this study were from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), including the Firearm Injury Surveillance Study (NEISS–FISS) and the All Injury Program (NEISS–AIP). Of an average annual 75 000 suspects treated for non-fatal legal intervention injuries, 11% had injuries that were associated with the use of a CED or Taser. Of the suspects with non-fatal CED-related injuries, 90.1% were males, 72.6% were 20–44 years of age, and 55.2% were injured to the trunk. Most suspects with CED-related injuries (93.6%) were treated and released from the hospital ED. The authors conclude that NEISS is a useful data source for CED-related injuries in the US; estimates from NEISS emphasise the importance of implementing CED safety guidelines by law enforcement officers and training of medical personnel to help reduce the risk of severe injury and potential adverse health consequences.
Funding This study was funded by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The findings and conclusion in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.