The purpose of this consensus document was to develop feasible, evidence‐based occupational heat safety recommendations to protect the US workers that experience heat stress. Heat safety recommendations were created to protect worker health and to avoid productivity losses associated with occupational heat stress. Recommendations were tailored to be utilized by safety managers, industrial hygienists, and the employers who bear responsibility for implementing heat safety plans. An interdisciplinary roundtable comprised of 51 experts was assembled to create a narrative review summarizing current data and gaps in knowledge within eight heat safety topics: (a) heat hygiene, (b) hydration, (c) heat acclimatization, (d) environmental monitoring, (e) physiological monitoring, (f) body cooling, (g) textiles and personal protective gear, and (h) emergency action plan implementation. The consensus‐based recommendations for each topic were created using the Delphi method and evaluated based on scientific evidence, feasibility, and clarity. The current document presents 40 occupational heat safety recommendations across all eight topics. Establishing these recommendations will help organizations and employers create effective heat safety plans for their workplaces, address factors that limit the implementation of heat safety best‐practices and protect worker health and productivity.

Laborers are particularly vulnerable to exertional injuries and illnesses, as they often engage in heavy physical work for prolonged hours, yet no studies have examined the top causes of catastrophic exertional injuries and fatalities among this population. The purpose of the investigation was to characterize the top causes of exertional injury and fatality within open access, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) reportable data. A secondary analysis of OSHA reported injury and fatality data was performed through open access records from OSHA Severe Injury Reports (2015–2022) and OSHA fatality inspection data (2017–2020), respectively. The research team characterized each reported injury and fatality as “exertion-related” or “non-exertion-related. Injury and fatality rates were reported per 100,000 equivalent full-time worker years and included 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Of 58,648 cases in the OSHA Severe Injury Report database from 2015–2020, 1682 cases (2.9%) were characterized as exertional (0.20 injuries per 100,000 full-time worker years, 95% CI: 0.19, 0.22). Heat-related injuries encompassed 91.9% of the exertional injuries (n = 1546). From the 2017–2022 OSHA fatality inspection database, 89 (1.9%) of 4598 fatalities were characterized as exertion-related (fatality rate: 0.0160 per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers, 95% CI: 0.009, 0.0134). The exertion-related fatalities primarily consisted of heat-related cases (87.6%). Exertion-related injuries and fatalities were most reported in Southeast states, in the construction and excavation industry, and among nonunionized workers. As heat stress continues to be recognized as an occupational health and safety hazard, this analysis further highlights the need for targeted interventions or further evaluation of the impact of heat stress on construction and excavation workers, nonunionized workers, and workers in Southeastern states.

Context: The use of aural thermometry as a method for accurately measuring internal temperature has been questioned. No researchers have examined whether aural thermometry can accurately measure internal body temperature in patients with exertional heat stroke (EHS). Objective: To examine the effectiveness of aural thermometry as an alternative to the criterion standard of rectal thermometry in patients with and those without EHS. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: An 11.3-km road race. Patients or Other Participants: A total of 49 patients with EHS (15 men [age = 38 ± 17 years], 11 women [age = 28 ± 10 years]) and 23 individuals without EHS (10 men [age = 62 ± 17 years], 13 women [age = 45 ± 14 years]) who were triaged to the finish-line medical tent for suspected EHS. Main Outcome Measure(s): Rectal and aural temperatures were obtained on arrival at the medical tent for patients with and those without EHS and at 8.3 ± 5.2 minutes into EHS treatment (cold-water immersion) for patients with EHS. Results: The mean difference between temperatures measured using rectal and aural thermometers in patients with EHS at medical tent admission was 2.4°C ± 0.96°C (4.3°F ± 1.7°F; mean rectal temperature = 41.1°C ± 0.8°C [106.1°F ± 1.4°F]; mean aural temperature = 38.8°C ± 1.1°C [101.8°F ± 2.0°F]). Rectal and aural temperatures during cold-water immersion in patients with EHS were 40.4°C ± 1.0°C (104.6°F ± 1.8°F) and 38.0°C ± 1.2°C (100.3°F ± 2.2°F), respectively. Rectal and aural temperatures for patients without EHS at medical tent admission were 38.8°C ± 0.87°C (101.9°F ± 1.6°F) and 37.2°C ± 1.0°C (99.1°F ± 1.8°F), respectively. Conclusions: Aural thermometry is not an accurate method of diagnosing EHS and should not be used as an alternative to rectal thermometry. Using aural thermometry to diagnosis EHS can result in catastrophic outcomes, such as long-term sequelae or fatality.