Danger score versus ER volume
Danger score versus ER volume
According to CPSC NEISS 2005-2024, Ice Hockey (activity, Apparel Or Equipment) ranks #256 of 838 by danger score (38/100) at ER-volume #124 of 838 (18,936/yr). They are not the same ranking.
- #256
- danger rank of 838
- #124
- ER-volume rank of 838
- 38/100
- danger score
- 18,936/yr
- estimated ER visits (avg)
Danger score combines injury volume, hospitalization, fatality, and five-year trend. ER volume is the average annual NEISS estimate alone. Rank 1 is highest on each list.
Where this category's danger score sits nationally
Danger score (38/100) across 838 scored CPSC product categories
38 Around the middle lower than 30% of 838 product categories
scored CPSC product categories, bucketed by value
Each bar is a band; taller bars hold more product categories. The dashed line + filled bar mark this entry. Hover or tap any bar for its full count and share, and where it sits relative to this entry.
Source CPSC NEISS, PlainSafety danger-score model · 2024
Composite verdict
Composite Safety Score: 51/100
One verdict blending 4 independently-sourced dimensions from two separate CPSC systems, each benchmarked against all 838 scored product categories by percentile rather than raw value, so no single huge-volume category can dominate the scale.
| Dimension | Value | National percentile | Weight applied | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Injury severity (hospitalization + fatality blend) | 3 | 22nd | 35% | CPSC NEISS 20-year severity index |
| Annual ER injury volume | 18,936 | 81st | 30% | CPSC NEISS estimated annual ER-treated injuries |
| 5-year injury trend | -6% | 56th | 15% | CPSC NEISS 5-year % change in ER-treated injuries |
| Consumer incident reports | 13 | 52nd | 20% | CPSC SaferProducts.gov public incident report count |
Methodology: each dimension is ranked against the full population's p10/p25/p50/p75/p90 breakpoints and interpolated to a 0-100 percentile; the composite is the weighted average of available percentiles. See methodology for the full benchmark table.
Where 378,730 estimated ER injuries land on the body
Body-part shares from the same CPSC NEISS injury_types extract for product code 1279. Segments sum to 378,730 - a body-map mix, not a danger score or ER-volume rank.
Two danger lenses
Same-group peer scores and this product's dial
The bars compare PlainSafety danger scores inside the Sports & Recreation Equipment group (same CPSC NEISS extract). The dial is this product's score alone on the Low/Moderate/High bands. Do not read a peer bar as an ER-visit count.
Sports & Recreation Equipment danger scores
How this 38/100 score is built
The score is computed from four CPSC-derived factors for ice hockey (activity, apparel or equipment) - no opinion, no editorializing:
- Injury volume 18,936 ER visits/yr High volume
- Severity (hospitalization rate) 2.5% Low admission rate
- Fatality rate 0.03% Above-typical fatality rate
- 5-year trend-6%
Band labels compare this category against the corpus of 838 scored CPSC product categories, see the full methodology for the exact weighting of each factor.
What the CPSC Data Shows
Across the 20-year NEISS window from 2005 to 2024, injury counts for ice hockey (activity, apparel or equipment) are roughly flat over the last five years, with the busiest year on record being 2006 (21,825 estimated ER visits) and the quietest 2020 (9,850 estimated visits). The single most common ER diagnosis is internal injury to the head, accounting for approximately 38,434 visits across the 20-year NEISS window, followed by concussion to the head (34,777 cases). The 15-24 age group absorbs the largest share of injuries, about 170,964 cases over the NEISS window, and males appear slightly more often than the opposite sex in that cohort. Severity outcomes from the NEISS disposition field show that 2.5% of ER visits involving this product end in hospital admission or transfer, and a small fraction (0.03%) result in fatality.
Beyond the hospital-sampled NEISS projections, this page also aggregates 13 consumer incident reports filed directly on SaferProducts.gov, plus 20 anonymized ER narratives - together forming a layered picture of how ice hockey (activity, apparel or equipment) fail in real households. Every figure on this page comes from CPSC-published data: NEISS projects national estimates from a probability sample of about 100 U.S. hospital emergency departments, while SaferProducts.gov collects voluntary reports from consumers, manufacturers, and clinicians. The danger score, trend indicators, and demographic breakdowns update automatically when CPSC releases a new yearly NEISS file, which is why this page is dated 2024-12-31. For regulatory context, consult CPSC recall notices and the SaferProducts.gov public database linked below.
Annual Injury Estimates (2005–2024)
Source: CPSC NEISS national estimates Injuries represent ER-treated cases only
Who Gets Injured?
| Age Group | Male | Female | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0-4 | 833 | 175 | |
| 5-14 | 105,451 | 14,766 | |
| 15-24 | 155,387 | 15,577 | |
| 25-34 | 34,205 | 2,636 | |
| 35-44 | 23,517 | 2,057 | |
| 45-54 | 12,957 | 1,224 | |
| 55-64 | 6,136 | 601 | |
| 65-74 | 1,904 | 174 | |
| 75+ | 664 | 323 |
Most Common Injuries
| Body Part | Diagnosis | Est. Injuries |
|---|---|---|
| Head | Internal Injury | |
| Head | Concussion | |
| Face | Laceration | |
| Shoulder | Strain, Sprain | |
| Shoulder | Fracture | |
| Wrist | Fracture | |
| Knee | Strain, Sprain | |
| Upper Trunk | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Shoulder | Dislocation | |
| Mouth | Laceration | |
| Shoulder | Other | |
| Ankle | Strain, Sprain | |
| Shoulder | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Ankle | Fracture | |
| Lower Arm | Fracture |
Severity Breakdown
ER Visit Narratives
Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.
25YOM PATEINT REPORTS HE WAS PLAYING ICE HOCKEY AND FELL, SHOULDER PAIN DX: ACROMIOCLAVICULAR JOINT SEPARATION
20YOF WAS PLAYING ICE HOCKEY AS THE GOLLIE WAS HIT IN HEAD WITH PUCK DX:CLOSED HEAD INJURY
30YOM TO ER FOR LEFT ANKLE PAIN WHILE PLAYING ICE HOCKEY 3 HRS AGO DX ACUTE LEFT ANKLE PAIN
18YOM WAS PLAYING ICE HOCKEY WHEN HE STRUCK ON THE RIGHT FOREARM BY ANOTHER PLAYER DX: FRACTURED FOREARM
47YOM WAS PLAYING ICE HOCKEY AND WAS STRUCK W/ HOCKEY PUCK ABOVE LEFT EYEBROW CAUSING LACERATION, NO THINNER USE DX LACERATION LEFT EYEBROW, IMMUNIZATION TETNUS
29YOM C/O FACIAL LACERATION S/P PT WAS HIT IN THE FACE WITH A HOCKEY STICK PLAYING ICE HOCKEY TONIGHT CAUSING A LACERATION TO THE LEFT SIDE OF HIS CHIN. DX: FACIAL LACERATION
38YOM C/O HEAD INJURY S/P PT STATES HE WAS PLAYING ICE HOCKEY WHEN HE TRIPPED AND FELL ONTO HIS BUTTOCK AND SUBSEQUENTLY BACKWARD STRIKING THE BACK OF HIS HEAD ON THE ICE. DX: CONCUSSION
9YOM PRESENTS WITH CONTUSION TO NECK S/P PT WAS PLAYING ICE HOCKEY AND TRIED TO BLOCK A SHOT AND WAS STRUCK IN THE NECK WITH A HOCKEY PUCK. DX: CONTUSION TO NECK
28YOM C/O RIGHT ANKLE PAIN S/P PT WAS PLAYING ICE HOCKEY WHEN A PUCK HIT THE FRONT PART OF HIS RIGHT ANKLE. DX: ANKLE PAIN
10YOM C/O ANKLE PAIN S/P PT WAS SKATING BACKWARDS DURING ICE HOCKEY PRACTICE AND HIS SKATE ROLLED UNDER HIS LEFT NAKLE AND HE LANDED ON THE BUT OF HIS ANKLE. DX: ANKLE PAIN
56 YOM WAS AT THE HOCKEY ARENA. HE WAS HELPING TO OPEN THE ICE RINK GATE FOR THE *** WHEN HE ACCIDENTALLY CLOSED THE GATE ON HIS LEFT 5TH FINGER. +OPEN WOUND TO LEFT 5TH FINGER +SUPERFICIAL LACERATIONS TO 4TH FINGER DX OPEN FX LEFT 5TH FINGER
17YOM, COLLIDED WITH ANOTHER ICE HOCKEY PLAYER AND DEVELOPED SHOULDER PAIN, DX: ACUTE PAIN OF RIGHT SHOULDER
Consumer Incident Reports
Reports filed by consumers on SaferProducts.gov.
My son had a bauer goalie titanium mask that bent with a shot to the head.
Hockey goalie chest protector. The stitching is falling apart so that padding is moving out of the appropriate places
My son, [REDACTED] , is a high school hockey goalie and suffered a concussion in a game on February 6, 2015. He was wearing a Bauer Concept C-1 certified goalie mask/helmet during a high school game and was hit by a puck in the mask. The mask was unofficially recalled that month. It appears that due of the deficiency in the wire on the mask, the mask was pushed in, dented beyond repair and failed to distribute the force of the puck hitting his mask. The wire was advertised as "shock absorbing wire". It did not absorb the shock, which I believe was a contributing factor to the concussion.
Playing defense my son [REDACTED] went to block a shot on goal. The puck hit the Bauer suspend-tech Hockey helmet, model REAKT, U.S. patent number 6 202 223, production date /lot 17 12 2012 -001 . It appears there Is a flaw in the ear piece. My son [REDACTED]'s ear was split In half. He was taken to the hospital and given 30 stitches by a Plastic Surgeon. Please see pictures enclosed.
My sons goalie mask cage separated from his mask during play. The goalie mask is a Bauer NME10 mask that was manufactured in 2014 and purchased in December 2015
My son was playing in a hockey game when he noticed his skate blade break. Fortunately, he did not get injured. The skate blade was less than 4 months old and had been professionally installed and sharpened. I want to report because others who have reviewed the blades where I purchased them are citing similar quality problems. It is extremely dangerous to have relatively new skate blades break.
During a Hockey Game My son was wearing hie Bauer NME10 goalie helmet and he took a hard shot to the protective face cage. To our surprise the cage had a crack through it and my son was in danger of and injury due to the metal cutting his face. Although he did not get hurt i am very disappointed with this manufactures product . After research i come to find others were injured due to this defect. I would hope the manufacture would do a better job of notifying the public about this. I would hope they would test their product better in the future.
Product is the Bauer Hybrid Shield. The product snapped in the visor portion along the left side vent holes closest to my son's left eye. The product breaking wasn't the result of a fall, hit, puck, etc. He was just unbuckling the mask when it snapped. Fortunately none of the polycarbonate fragments or broken edge injured his eye or face. The product's weakest point is located by the user's most sensitive/fragile area. Therefore, it seems the product was not designed to fail safely.
Showing 8 of 13 reports.
Product Recalls
Search for active and past recalls related to ice hockey (activity, apparel or equipment) on the CPSC website.
Compare beyond Sports & Recreation Equipment
Nationwide peers by danger score, ER volume & hospitalization
Three PlainSafety-derived comparison paths for Ice Hockey (activity, Apparel Or Equipment): cross-group products nearest on danger score (38/100), estimated annual ER visits (18,936/yr), and hospitalization share (2.5%). Same-group neighbours stay in Related Products above.
Similar danger score
Nearest cross-group products by PlainSafety danger score (100-point scale).
Similar ER visit volume
Nearest cross-group products by NEISS estimated annual ER visits.
Similar hospitalization rate
Nearest cross-group products by % of NEISS ER visits resulting in hospital admission.
- Plastic Panels For Doors Or Windows Building Materials & Home Structures 2.5%admitted
- Shoe Polishes Home Workshop Tools & Equipment 2.5%admitted
- Book Bags Or Back Carriers (exc. Baby Carr. Luggage, Cam Swimming, Water & Beach Equipment 2.5%admitted
- Flying Discs And Boomerangs Swimming, Water & Beach Equipment 2.5%admitted
Related Products in Sports & Recreation Equipment
Read with this product
About this data
CPSC National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) 2005–2024 and SaferProducts.gov consumer incident reports form the basis of this page. Injury estimates are based on a nationally representative probability sample of U.S. hospital emergency departments.
According to PlainSafety's CPSC NEISS corpus ranking, Ice Hockey (activity, Apparel Or Equipment) ranks #256 of 838 scored CPSC product categories by PlainSafety danger score and #124 of 838 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume.
Frequently Asked Questions
Where does ice hockey (activity, apparel or equipment) rank on danger score versus ER volume?
Among 838 scored CPSC product categories, ice hockey (activity, apparel or equipment) ranks #256 by PlainSafety danger score (38/100) and #124 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume (18,936/yr). The two rankings come from the same NEISS extract and are not the same order.
What are the most common injuries from ice hockey (activity, apparel or equipment)?
The most common injury is internal injury to the head, accounting for approximately 38,434 injuries over 20 years.
Are injuries from ice hockey (activity, apparel or equipment) increasing or decreasing?
Stable over 5 years.
Who is most at risk for ice hockey (activity, apparel or equipment) injuries?
The 15-24 age group accounts for the most injuries, with approximately 170,964 cases recorded over 20 years. Males are more frequently injured in this age group.
What happens when someone is injured by ice hockey (activity, apparel or equipment)?
Of all ER visits involving ice hockey (activity, apparel or equipment), approximately 2.5% result in hospital admission. The majority of patients (97.5%) are treated and released from the emergency department.
How can I report a safety problem with ice hockey (activity, apparel or equipment)?
You can file a consumer incident report at SaferProducts.gov, the official CPSC reporting portal. Reports help the CPSC identify emerging hazards and trigger investigations or recalls. You can also call the CPSC hotline at 1-800-638-2772.
PlainSafety is rendered directly from U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recall and incident records, no number is typed in by an editor. Product recall timelines and hazard labels are drawn from CPSC recall records for this product. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these numbers, or report a data error. Data current as of August 2026.