Back of house
60.5%23 of 38 respondents
Burns in Birmingham Kitchens
What local restaurant workers told us about burns on the job, and what your team can discuss before the next rush.
University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Public Health
Read the findings ↓01 · Survey findings
Nearly half reported a burn
45.7%37 of 81 respondents
reported at least one work-related burn in the 12 months before they took the survey. The survey ran from June through October 2024.
Workers in both parts of the restaurant reported burns
Share reporting a burn within each role, among survey respondents.
Front of house
33.3%14 of 42 respondents
One respondent did not report a role and is excluded from this comparison.
Burn reports by restaurant type
Casual dining accounted for 57 of the 81 respondents. The fast-food and fine-dining groups were much smaller, so a few responses can shift their percentages substantially.
| Restaurant type | Respondents |
|---|---|
| Casual dining | 31 of 57 (54.4%) |
| Fast food | 5 of 15 (33.3%) |
| Fine dining | 1 of 9 (11.1%) |
What workers reported about their burns
Among the 37 respondents who reported a burn, 14 (37.8%) said their skin blistered or was raw and open.
| Degree | Respondents |
|---|---|
| First degree | 28 (75.7%) |
| Second degree | 5 (13.5%) |
| Third degree | 1 (2.7%) |
| Unknown | 3 (8.1%) |
| Appearance | Respondents |
|---|---|
| Skin turned red | 22 (59.5%) |
| Skin blistered or was raw and open | 14 (37.8%) |
| Needed skin grafts | 0 (0%) |
| Unknown | 1 (2.7%) |
How to interpret the overlap. The totals imply that at least 5 respondents reported both a first-degree burn and skin that blistered or was raw and open. If both answers describe the same burn, some respondents may have underestimated its depth. Clinical assessment would be needed to confirm burn depth. Burn depth reference
Both tables use 37 respondents as the denominator. None reported smoke inhalation or fire, or fire department involvement.
Safety training was widely reported
Overall, 77 of 81 respondents (95.1%) said their workplace provided safety training. That included 36 of 37 respondents who reported a burn and 41 of 44 who did not. The survey asked whether training was provided. These responses cannot establish how well training prevented burns.
Compare the two recruitment groups
In the convenience-sample group, 29 of 61 respondents (47.5%) reported a burn. In the random-sampling group, 8 of 20 (40.0%) did. The groups had different mixes of restaurant types, and the random-sampling group was small.
How to read these numbers. This was a small pilot survey with self-reported injuries. The percentages describe the workers who responded. They cannot establish a countywide burn rate or show that a particular job role caused the difference.
02 · Before the next rush
A five-minute shift huddle
Ask the team where a burn could happen on today’s shift. Walk through one spot together.
- At the fryer. Review who is trained to operate and clean it. Keep water and ice out of hot oil.
- At the steamer or stove. Demonstrate opening a lid away from your face. Check that appropriate heat-resistant hand protection is within reach.
- Between the kitchen and dining room. Walk the route used to carry hot food and drinks. Clear obstructions and ask who can help move heavy containers of hot liquid.
- Before everyone goes back to work. Pick one change, name who will handle it, and check in at the next shift.
Discussion prompts draw on OSHA’s restaurant safety guidance. Cooking guidance · Serving guidance
03 · Study background
About the survey
This pilot survey is part of Nicole Pelletier’s PhD dissertation in Epidemiology at the UAB School of Public Health. The project brings Jefferson County restaurant workers’ experiences back to local teams to help them discuss burn hazards and prevention.
A snapshot of the 81 respondents
- Age. The median age was 26. The middle half of respondents were 22 to 36 years old.
- Restaurant experience. The median time working in restaurants was six years. The middle half had two to ten years of experience.
- Restaurant roles. 42 worked front of house (51.9%), 38 worked back of house (46.9%), and one had an unknown role.
- Restaurant types. 57 worked in casual dining (70.4%), 15 in fast food (18.5%), and nine in fine dining (11.1%).
Who took part?
Adult restaurant workers in Jefferson County completed a web survey. The study combined 61 convenience-sample responses and 20 responses from the random-sampling arm.
The two recruitment approaches helped the pilot reach workers through community outreach and compare those responses with responses recruited through a structured restaurant selection process.
- Convenience sampling (61 responses). Study outreach and flyers gave eligible workers who heard about the survey a way to volunteer. This was a practical way to reach workers, and people who chose to respond may have had different experiences from those who did not.
- Simple random sampling, or SRS (20 responses). The study randomly selected restaurants from those with food service scores listed by the Jefferson County Department of Health. This reduced reliance on which restaurants were easiest to reach and provided a second group for comparison. Random selection happened at the restaurant level, and worker participation was voluntary.
Using both groups helped show how recruitment can affect who responds. The combined findings describe the workers who took part in the pilot.
What should readers keep in mind?
People who chose to respond may have had different experiences from people who did not. Some workers may have forgotten or chosen not to report a burn. The survey captured experiences at one point in time, so the findings are best used to guide local conversations and further research.
Study citation. Pelletier N, Lungu C, Griffin R, MacLennan P, Hwang J, Waterbor J, McGwin G. Occupational Burns among Restaurant Workers in Jefferson County, AL: Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Prevention. Unpublished doctoral dissertation chapter. University of Alabama at Birmingham.