Workplace Health & Safety最新文献

Background: Collaboration between occupational safety (OS) and occupational health care (OHC) is essential for workplace health and safety, yet the experiences of OS actors have been less studied.

Objective: To examine OS managers' and representatives' experiences of collaboration with OHC and identify related factors.

Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in Finland via an online survey in March-April 2025. A total of 222 OS managers and 364 OS representatives responded to a questionnaire. Data were analyzed using non-parametric methods. Group differences were examined with the Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Spearman's rank correlation was used to explore associations between background variables and attitude statements related to perceived seamless collaboration.

Results: OS managers rated the collaboration as more seamless than OS representatives (mean 7.76 vs. 7.17; p < .001), and more often gave it an excellent rating (39% vs. 22%). Seamless collaboration was particularly associated with the OHC agreement's comprehensiveness, OS experience, and digital tools. The strongest associations were found for OHC participation in OS activities (r = .78) and availability of workload data (r = .77).

Conclusions: The availability of information related to workload factors and the participation of OHC in workplace OS activities are particularly important for a positive experience of collaboration. Seamless collaboration with OHC also requires clear, jointly agreed procedures.

Application to practice: OHC should strengthen its collaboration with OS by clearly identifying and communicating workload and resource factors in the work environment, in order to effectively and impactfully target development measures.

Background: Stable staff and trainers are essential to racing yards and horse welfare, yet limited research focuses on this vital workforce that the thoroughbred industry heavily relies on. This systematic narrative review synthesizes existing literature on the occupational health and well-being of stable staff and trainers in the thoroughbred horse racing industry.

Methods: A systematic narrative review was conducted across PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus using relevant keywords. Manuscripts reporting occupational or mental health data on stable staff and/or trainers and had the full-text available were synthesized narratively in line with PRISMA guidelines.

Findings: Of 2,456 studies screened, 21 met eligibility criteria. In the past year, 43% of staff experienced an injury, with 18% requiring medical attention. Mental health concerns were prevalent, with 65% of injured staff experiencing anxiety, 60% depression, and up to 80% of UK stable staff and trainers reporting stress linked to financial pressures and limited support. Poor sleep contributed to self-reported daytime dysfunction and psychological distress. Substance misuse was notable, with 34% needing treatment for alcohol and 14% for drug misuse. The staffing crisis was influenced by occupational illnesses, poor working conditions, inexperienced staff, and limited career progression.

Conclusions/application to practice: Occupational health challenges highlight the need for interventions to improve mental health support, workplace safety, and working conditions. Industry governing bodies and racing authorities should implement frameworks and standards that ensure safe, supportive, and sustainable work environments. Racing yards should prioritize career progression and educational programs to safeguard the well-being and longevity of this workforce.

Background: Hand sanitizer use increased dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet knowledge about its safe use and potential health impacts remains limited, particularly across different occupational groups. There is a need to better understand the frequency and health effects of hand sanitizer use, especially when comparing healthcare professionals and non-healthcare professionals.

Methods: This cross-sectional study included 305 adults from a central district of Türkiye, with 48.5% being healthcare professionals. Data were collected on participants' knowledge of sanitizer contents, frequency of use, and any health problems experienced. Regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with sanitizer-related health problems.

Results: Only 28.4% of healthcare professionals and 12.1% of non-healthcare professionals reported full knowledge of the contents of the sanitizers they used. Daily use of hand sanitizer 10 or more times was reported by 53.4% of healthcare professionals and 33.8% of non-healthcare professionals. Regression analysis indicated that female gender and being a healthcare professional were significantly associated with sanitizer-related health problems (p < .01). Despite frequent use, both groups demonstrated insufficient knowledge regarding safe sanitizer use, which may contribute to increased health risks such as skin irritation or allergic reactions.

Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of implementing targeted, evidence-based educational interventions and developing clear guidelines on the safe use of hand sanitizers for both healthcare and non-healthcare professionals. Future studies should focus on the effectiveness of these interventions in reducing healthcare-associated infections and improving hygiene practices.

Application to practice: Occupational health and public health professionals can use these results to design workplace and community-based training programs, promote safer hygiene practices, and minimize sanitizer-related health risks across diverse populations.

Background: Effective communication and collaboration among clinical and nonclinical staff are critical to the health and safety of the staff, for optimal team performance and for safe patient care. While respiratory protective equipment are routine key strategies to protect healthcare workers from exposure to select respiratory pathogens, they have been demonstrated to disrupt speech intelligibility. The COVID-19 pandemic escalated the need for and utilization of respiratory protection in all healthcare settings. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of various respiratory personal protection equipment (PPE) on speech intelligibility.

Methods: Healthcare workers were invited to participate in audiology-based testing in which the audiologist read words from the Modified Rhyme Test (MRT) using two levels of background noise and rotating through six different types of respiratory PPE. Descriptive statistics and ANOVA were used for analysis.

Findings: Modified Rhyme Test (MRT) scores were significantly lower when wearing the CleanSpace Halo (-10.22 points, 95% CI [-11.28, -9.20]) and the elastomeric half mask respirator (EHMR) with or without the exhalation valve filter (-2.28 points, 95% CI [-3.33, -1.20] and -3.22 points, 95% CI [-4.40, -2.18] respectively) after adjusting for noise level, listener respiratory PPE, and correlation within each participant.Conclusions/Applications to practice:Elastomeric half mask respirator (EHMR) decreased speech intelligibility compromising clear communications. Further research on respiratory PPE design is needed to optimize speech intelligibility and communication maximally.

Background: Burnout among nursing faculty is a pressing issue, with recent findings by Zangaro et al.reporting moderate to high levels of burnout in 82% of nursing faculty across the United States. Despite this growing concern, there is limited qualitative research exploring the perceptions of contributing factors to burnout among nursing faculty in the U.S.

Method: A qualitative descriptive design was utilized to gain insights into nursing faculty experiences. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of academic nursing faculty (n = 15) from various institutions across the U.S. Data were analyzed using content analysis and coding to identify key themes.

Results: Key factors contributing to burnout included faculty incivility, student incivility, unrealistic workloads, and insufficient institutional support. Participants identified reduced workloads, increased mental health resources, and enhanced financial stability as critical strategies to mitigate burnout.

Conclusion: Addressing incivility among faculty and students is crucial to fostering a positive and supportive academic environment. Interventions focused on promoting mental well-being and improving work conditions for nursing faculty are essential for preventing burnout, enhancing retention, and sustaining the nursing workforce. Tackling burnout among nursing faculty is vital for strengthening the nursing profession, improving patient care outcomes, and addressing future healthcare challenges.

Background: The Recovery Friendly Leader (RFL) Training Program (TP) developed an instructor-led, 2-day training: Addressing Substance Use & Demonstrating Inclusion (ASDI), which was piloted virtually under the Zoom platform.

Methods: The pilot evaluation employed pre- and post-training surveys administered online via Qualtrics to registered participants. Quantitative responses were examined using a right-tailed Welch's t-test to determine statistically significant improvements in participants' knowledge and confidence from pre- to post-training. Eleven participants completed the pre-training survey and of those, eight also completed the post-training survey.

Findings: The training program significantly improved participants' knowledge and confidence in addressing workplace substance use (p < .05), with high engagement and strong intent to implement recovery-supportive strategies.

Conclusions/application to practice: Analysis revealed the training was effective in increasing participant knowledge and confidence for identifying and addressing employee substance use and supporting recovery. Workplace policies ought to include structured, stigma-reducing leadership training programs to proactively support employee recovery and foster a recovery-supportive organizational environment.