Danger score versus ER volume
Danger score versus ER volume
According to CPSC NEISS 2010-2024, Pretend Electronics, Tools, Housewares & Appliances ranks #622 of 838 by danger score (31/100) at ER-volume #407 of 838 (2,898/yr). They are not the same ranking.
- #622
- danger rank of 838
- #407
- ER-volume rank of 838
- 31/100
- danger score
- 2,898/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 (31/100) across 838 scored CPSC product categories
31 Lower than most lower than 74% 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: 42/100
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) | 2 | 13th | 35% | CPSC NEISS 20-year severity index |
| Annual ER injury volume | 2,898 | 52nd | 30% | CPSC NEISS estimated annual ER-treated injuries |
| 5-year injury trend | -27% | 25th | 15% | CPSC NEISS 5-year % change in ER-treated injuries |
| Consumer incident reports | 172 | 91st | 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 43,524 estimated ER injuries land on the body
Body-part shares from the same CPSC NEISS injury_types extract for product code 5020. Segments sum to 43,524 - 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 Swimming, Water & Beach 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.
Swimming, Water & Beach Equipment danger scores
How this 31/100 score is built
The score is computed from four CPSC-derived factors for pretend electronics, tools, housewares & appliances - no opinion, no editorializing:
- Injury volume 2,898 ER visits/yr Above median volume
- Severity (hospitalization rate) 1.8% Low admission rate
- Fatality rate 0.00% No recorded fatalities
- 5-year trend-27%
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 15-year NEISS window from 2010 to 2024, injury counts for pretend electronics, tools, housewares & appliances are declining by about 27% over the last five years, with the busiest year on record being 2012 (4,562 estimated ER visits) and the quietest 2020 (1,576 estimated visits). The single most common ER diagnosis is laceration to the face, accounting for approximately 7,430 visits across the 20-year NEISS window, followed by ingestion to the internal (4,018 cases). The 0-4 age group absorbs the largest share of injuries, about 28,593 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 1.8% of ER visits involving this product end in hospital admission or transfer.
Beyond the hospital-sampled NEISS projections, this page also aggregates 172 consumer incident reports filed directly on SaferProducts.gov, plus 20 anonymized ER narratives - together forming a layered picture of how pretend electronics, tools, housewares & appliances 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 (2010–2024)
Source: CPSC NEISS national estimates Injuries represent ER-treated cases only
Who Gets Injured?
| Age Group | Male | Female | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0-4 | 15,928 | 12,665 | |
| 5-14 | 5,859 | 4,668 | |
| 15-24 | 420 | 810 | |
| 25-34 | 463 | 1,034 | |
| 35-44 | 343 | 415 | |
| 45-54 | 230 | 75 | |
| 55-64 | 84 | 289 | |
| 65-74 | 63 | 112 | |
| 75+ | 16 | 0 |
Most Common Injuries
| Body Part | Diagnosis | Est. Injuries |
|---|---|---|
| Face | Laceration | |
| Internal | Ingestion | |
| Mouth | Laceration | |
| Head | Internal Injury | |
| Head | Laceration | |
| Face | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Eyeball | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Finger | Laceration | |
| Face | Foreign Body | |
| Head | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Internal | Aspiration | |
| Eyeball | Foreign Body | |
| Mouth | Dental Injury | |
| Foot | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Hand | Laceration |
Severity Breakdown
ER Visit Narratives
Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.
3YOF PRESENTS TOE D W/ IRRITAITON TO LEFT EYE. EARLIER TODAY WHLE PT WAS PLAYING W/ HER TEA SET AND MAKING VANILLA LATTE. PT USED REAL ZINNAMON AND UNFORTUNATELY GOT INTO LEFT EYE. DX: IRRIATION OF LEFT EYE
4YOF HIT IN FACE WITH TOY BROOM. DX: FACIAL LACERATION.
21 MOM FELL ONTO A TOY TEA SET INJURED RIB DX: CONTUSION
42YOM WAS HIT TO EYE WITH CHILDS TOY BROOM STICK, DX TRAUMA TO EYE
2 YOM C/O CHIN LACERATION AFTER FALLING INTO CHILDRENS TOY KITCHEN, FELL ONTO TOY WAGON DX CHIN LACERATION
2YOF STUCK A SMALL MINIATURE TOY PAINT BRUSH UP RIGHT NOSTRIL DX: FOREIGN BODY NOSE
3YOM,NECK INJURY AFTER PLAYING AN SLIPPED FALLING ONTO PLAYSET THAT HAD A SINK,DX:NECK INJURY
6YOF FELL ONTO A PLASTIC TOY PHONE WHILE PLAYING WITH COUSIN ONTO OUTSTRETCHED RIGHT ARM, NOW HAS SEVERE PAIN DX: RIGHT FOREARM PAIN
11YOF STRUCK HER FOOT ON A TOY KITCHEN. DX: FX FOOT
18MOF WAS PLAYING WITH HER BROTHER WITH A WOODEN KITCHEN SET WHEN SHE FELL STRIKING FACE ON THE CORNER OF THE PLAY SET DX: LACERATION FACE
2YOF HIT HER HEAD ON A WOODEN TOY KITCHEN AT HOME DX: LACERATION OF FOREHEAD
4YOF STATES THEY PUT A TOY FOOD IN NOSE DX CONCERN FOR FOREIGN BODY OF NOSE
Consumer Incident Reports
Reports filed by consumers on SaferProducts.gov.
This is a dress up display, which has hooks for dress up outfits and space to place hats or other items. It is equipped with castors indicating that the unit is meant to move and not required to be mounted to a wall. This is an item that is present in a toddler classroom at my childcare facility. On 8/30/19, a child under the age of 2 years old stepped onto the bottom ledge of this unit to reach a hat on the top of the unit. The unit promptly tipped and fell on top of her. A caregiver was in very close proximity to her, but was not able to intervene quick enough to prevent the incident from occurring. This incident occurred as a result of improper advising of the manufacturer. This unit is meant to mobile because it is on wheels. It does not come with any instructions to mount it or warnings that tipping could occur if used as designed. The child had some soreness and bruising from this incident which lasted for 2 days. Luckily no major injuries were sustained. I have contacted the manufacturer and they have stated that this product has gone through many tipping tests and that children should be supervised while using this furniture. I do not feel that this is an acceptable response as the child in care that day was adequately supervised at the time of the incident and the unit was not unbalanced or improperly used.
Callers 2 year-old daughter was placed in her crib to nap. Caller left her in the room, closed the door and went into the next bedroom. After 10 min, caller heard her daughter starting to cry. Five min later, the cry changed to a distressed tone. Caller went into the childs room and found her daughter on her back in the crib, crying, and saying Stuck! Stuck! Caller immediately realized that the straps of the cell phone toy were wrapped around the childs wrists like a handcuff. Caller went to get a pair of nail scissors (nail scissors for sharpness) and cut the straps off her daughters wrists. Caller held the child until she stopped screaming (10 min). The childs wrists were sore and red. Caller believes the toys straps, as designed, pose a risk to small children as they can cut-off blood flow to their hands. The toy was recommended for children 1 2 years of age. Upon receipt of this report, the consumer may be able to provide the approximate length of the cell phones strap.
My 1yr old daughter was playing with this musical vacuum as usual when she started screaming out of nowhere. Her finger ended up getting smashed between the wheel and wheel cover enough for me to have to pull it out. May have been an isolated incident, but I don't belive this toy is suitable for the age listed.
We received the below Amazon toy as a present for our child. When opening the toy, we were surprised at the harshness of the LED light from the blowtorch. It seemed like UV light to us. It also changes the color of the sushi, which seems like regular light wouldnt do but UV light would do https://a.co/d/ckJk1jl
Exiting the local Target, I went to open a telephone package and the entire back housing of the telephone came off. Inside of the housing was all electronic components for the toy. There was no evidence of the screws holding the back part of the housing to the front part of the housing ever being in place, nor do I believe that I had the strength or ability to pull the housing apart if the screws intended to hold both sides of the housing or in place. I was using the product and removing it from its original packaging in the passenger seat of my vehicle. There was no injuries but I believed that my toddler would have been seriously injured if she was given access to the product outside of the original packaging.
Child's finger got stuck in wooden piece with hole in center of Melissa & Doug Take-Along Tool Kit Wooden Construction Toy. The finger began to lose circulation and after unsuccessfully trying oils and [petroleum] jelly/[REDACTED], the product had to be cut off the finger.
I participated in this recall: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml11/11334.html For this product from Little Tikes: Home Center Workshop UPC 0 50743 04174 7 Model: 4174 When I called Little Tikes customer service, they told me the nails were recalled due to the diameter of the nail head being 1-1/4" inches. The new replacement nails would be 1-3/4" inch diameter. I let the customer rep know that the Home Center Workshop also came with screws that were the same size or smaller than the nails. She told me only the nails were recalled. I am throwing all the nails and the screws away. If the nails are dangerous, so are the screws that are the same size or smaller. I am writing this report in an effort to warn other parents about these pieces as well.
I was putting together the Lovevery tissue box toy for my child. The toy has a bottom cover with four rubber pieces that make it snap into place. While putting the bottom cover on the box, the skin of my pinky finger got caught between the cover and the box as it snapped into place. It was very painful and I have a deep red mark where the skin was caught, likely evidencing some internal bleeding in the pinky tissue. The full extent of my injuries are unknown at this time as I am writing this report right after the incident, but I am still in pain and have the mark. If this toy can cause so much damage to an adults finger, I am concerned about what it could do to a childs finger, such as breaking the finger or severely damaging the skin. A child could play with putting the lid on the tissue box, perhaps after removing the lid themselves, and get their finger caught. There are no warnings in the manufacturers instructions about this tissue box that the cover could be dangerous. This toy is meant for 5-6 months olds, and they have very tiny fingers.
Showing 8 of 172 reports.
Product Recalls
Search for active and past recalls related to pretend electronics, tools, housewares & appliances on the CPSC website.
Compare beyond Swimming, Water & Beach Equipment
Nationwide peers by danger score, ER volume & hospitalization
Three PlainSafety-derived comparison paths for Pretend Electronics, Tools, Housewares & Appliances: cross-group products nearest on danger score (31/100), estimated annual ER visits (2,898/yr), and hospitalization share (1.8%). 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.
Related Products in Swimming, Water & Beach 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, Pretend Electronics, Tools, Housewares & Appliances ranks #622 of 838 scored CPSC product categories by PlainSafety danger score and #407 of 838 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume.
Frequently Asked Questions
Where does pretend electronics, tools, housewares & appliances rank on danger score versus ER volume?
Among 838 scored CPSC product categories, pretend electronics, tools, housewares & appliances ranks #622 by PlainSafety danger score (31/100) and #407 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume (2,898/yr). The two rankings come from the same NEISS extract and are not the same order.
What are the most common injuries from pretend electronics, tools, housewares & appliances?
The most common injury is laceration to the face, accounting for approximately 7,430 injuries over 20 years.
Are injuries from pretend electronics, tools, housewares & appliances increasing or decreasing?
Down 27% over 5 years.
Who is most at risk for pretend electronics, tools, housewares & appliances injuries?
The 0-4 age group accounts for the most injuries, with approximately 28,593 cases recorded over 20 years. Males are more frequently injured in this age group.
What happens when someone is injured by pretend electronics, tools, housewares & appliances?
Of all ER visits involving pretend electronics, tools, housewares & appliances, approximately 1.8% result in hospital admission. The majority of patients (98.2%) are treated and released from the emergency department.
How can I report a safety problem with pretend electronics, tools, housewares & appliances?
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.