Behaviour of occupational health services during the COVID-19 pandemic

Medical occupational check-ups during the COVID-19 pandemic in the European Union

Given the enormous scale of the COVID-19 pandemic affecting the healthcare sector, limited human resource capacity, and efforts to prevent the spread of COVID-19, occupational health protection could not escape changes. The aim was to identify and compare the regulations regarding the provision of medical occupational check-ups (MOCs) during the pandemic in all European Union member states (EU MS). The study employed the Delphi method, involving experts from EU MS to assess MOC regulations between January 2020 and May 2021. Experts were queried regarding the existence and specifics of MOC regulations, particularly for entrance and periodic MOCs at hazardous and non-hazardous workplaces. Out of the 27 EU MS surveyed, 13 EU MS did not regulate MOCs, while 14 EU MS (51.6%) regulated the provision of MOCs. The regulations were changes in the way MOCs were provided, modifications (postponement in time, alternative provision, e.g. using telemedicine or online connection, or replacing the medical certificate of fitness to work based on the MOC with a declaration by the worker), or interruption without compensation, even for hazardous works. The regulations were in effect for different lengths of time and varied in some countries during the study period. The cumulative duration of MOC interruptions in all EU MS during the study period was 137 months (7.5% of the cumulative study period of 1836 months). Given the different approaches to the provision of MOCs in EU MS, it has proved appropriate to develop an optimal unified framework plan for future similar situations.

What is the role of occupational physicians in the workplace during the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan? A qualitative interview study

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had various impacts on businesses and workers worldwide. The spread of infection has been reported through cluster outbreaks in the workplace, and World Health Organization has emphasized workplace infection control measures. Occupational physicians (OPs) are expected to actively support employers’ efforts to minimize the damage of the pandemic. However, there is little research on the role of these specialists during a pandemic. Clarification of the contributions of OPs to health and safety at the workplace in the COVID-19 pandemic would be beneficial to ensure that OPs can be effectively deployed in the next pandemic.

Methods

We employed semi-structured interviews and qualitative content analysis of the interview transcripts. Twenty OPs were selected as priority candidates from among 600 OPs certificated of the JSOH, and thirteen who met the eligibility criteria agreed to participate. The online interviews were conducted in November and December 2020 with thirteen OPs. We extracted meaning units (MUs) from interview transcripts according to the research question: “What was the role of OP in the COVID-19 pandemic?“ and condensed and abstracted them into codes and categorized them. Validity was confirmed by additional 5 OPs interviews.

Results

A total of 503 MUs were extracted from the transcripts. These were abstracted into 10 sub-categories and two categories. Categories 1 and 2 dealt with “Role in confronting the direct effects of the pandemic” and “Role in confronting the indirect effects of the pandemic” and accounted for 434 (86.3%) and 69 (13.7%) MUs, respectively. These results were validated by another 5 interviews.

Conclusion

This study identified the role of OPs in Japan in the COVID-19 pandemic. The results showed that they made a wide range of contributions to the direct and indirect effects of the pandemic. We hope our findings will help OPs during future pandemics or other long-term emergency situations.

Working with alcohol prevention in occupational health services: "knowing how" is more important than "knowing that" - the WIRUS OHS study

BACKGROUND

Alcohol consumption is a major public health challenge; the majority of employees consume alcohol regularly and a considerable proportion of employees can be characterized as risky drinkers in need of interventions. Occupational health services (OHS) are uniquely positioned for implementing alcohol prevention interventions targeting employees, but rarely do so. Studies have shown that lack of knowledge among OHS personnel is a barrier to alcohol prevention activity. This study aimed to explore OHS personnels' levels of theoretical and practical alcohol knowledge, and whether these two ways of knowing were differentially associated with alcohol prevention activity.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, survey data were collected from 322 OHS personnel in Norway in 2018 (response rate = 53.6%). The survey included variables of two ways of knowing (theoretical and practical) and three types of doing (intervention frequency, conducting individual interventions, and conducting group interventions). Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, paired sample t-tests, bivariate correlations, and adjusted linear and logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

OHS personnel rated their theoretical alcohol knowledge higher than their practical knowledge (η² = 0.33, p < 0.001). Higher reported levels of practical knowledge were associated with higher intervention frequency (b = 0.39, β = 0.60, p < 0.001) and greater likelihood of conducting individual interventions (OR = 1.60, p < .001) as well as group interventions (OR = 1.84, p < 0.001). Theoretical knowledge was not associated with conducting interventions, and there was no evidence of an interaction between the two ways of knowing in their association with doing. Sensitivity analyses did not indicate clustering effects of OHS personnel being employed within different units.

CONCLUSIONS

Different ways of knowing about alcohol among OHS personnel were dissimilarly associated with conducting alcohol prevention interventions in occupational health settings. For doing, knowing how seems to be more important than knowing that. Training programs for OHS personnel should emphasize knowledge about how to deal with alcohol-related issues and how to conduct prevention interventions, rather than focus on detrimental effects of alcohol.

Occupational health surveillance of healthcare workers during COVID 19 pandemic: a narrative review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Current literature has increasingly highlighted the risk of spreading the SARS-COV-2 infection in healthcare settings and showed the need for occupational health surveillance of HCWs during the current epidemiological emergency from COVID-19, as a preventive measure to minimize the spread of the infection. The purpose of this narrative review was to evaluate the literature and discover what the latest developments are about the management of the occupational health surveillance of healthcare workers (HCWs) during COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We searched for publications in MEDLINE, Pubmed and Google Scholar using selected keywords. Each article was reviewed and categorized into one or more of the following three categories based on its subject matter: early diagnosis of COVID-19 in HCWs, detection of worker susceptibility to severe COVID-19, medical examination of HCWs returning to work after COVID-19.

RESULTS

Selected articles showed the RT-PCR test for Sars-CoV-2 as the gold standard to enable rapid identification of infected HCWs; an effective schedule of occupational health surveillance allows the identification of the susceptibility of the workers to severe Covid-19 and protect HCWs returning to work from the disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of the present narrative review show the need to strenghten the occupational health surveillance of HCWs during the current COVID-19 pandemic, with the aim not only to contain the spread of the infection in healthcare settings, but also to protect HCWs coming back to work after the disease.

A COVID-19 Risk Reduction Assessment for a Health-Care Employee from an Ethnic Background: A Case Study in the United Kingdom

Concerns in the United Kingdom (UK) that Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) populations have disproportionately higher rates of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) than white populations have led to ethnicity being identified as a risk factor within the latest guidance from Public Health England. The purpose of this case report was to determine whether the risk reduction assessment would aid the line manager support a BAME health-care employee who was concerned that his ethnicity put him at greater risk of contracting COVID-19. This report described the case, protocol, and outcome of undertaking a risk reduction assessment. It is concluded that the risk reduction assessment may assist line managers implement appropriate adjustments for BAME employees in order to alleviate their concerns and mitigate the risks of COVID-19.

Vulnerable Workers and COVID-19: Insights from a Survey of Members of the International Commission for Occupational Health

The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted on the health and wellbeing of populations directly through infection, as well as through serious societal and economic consequences such as unemployment and underemployment. The consequences could be even more severe for those more vulnerable to the disease, such as the elderly and those with underlying health conditions. Indeed, there is evidence that such vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected in terms of both, their health and the socioeconomic impact. The aim of our study was to determine whether occupational health (OH) professionals thought that the COVID-19 pandemic might further disadvantage any particular group(s) of vulnerable workers globally, and if so, which group(s). A cross-sectional study was carried out with a sample of OH professionals by means of an online questionnaire which was shared via email within the ICOH (International Commission for Occupational Health) community. Data was collected over a period of two weeks in May 2020 and 165 responses from 52 countries were received. In this paper, the responses relating to questions about vulnerable workers are reported and discussed. Globally, our responders felt that those in less secure jobs (precarious employment (79%) and informal work (69%)), or unemployed (63%), were the most at risk of further disadvantage from this pandemic. The majority felt that their governments could act to mitigate these effects. There were suggestions of short-term alleviation such as financial and social support, as well as calls for fundamental reviews of the underlying inequalities that leave populations so vulnerable to a crisis such as COVID-19.

Health-related factors of psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic among non-health workers in Spain

BACKGROUND

Non-health workers engaged in essential activities during the pandemic are less researched on the effects of COVID-19 than health workers.

OBJECTIVE

to study the differences between those who work away from home and those who do so from home, when the effects of fear of contagion cross with those of confinement, about the psychological distress during the COVID-19 in Spain.

DESIGN

Observational descriptive cross-sectional study.

DATA SOURCES

The study was carried out receiving 1089 questionnaires from non-health workers that were working away from home and doing so from their homes. The questionnaire included sociodemographic and occupational data, physical symptoms, self-perceived health, use of preventive measures and possible contacts, and the Goldberg GHQ-12.

RESULTS

71.6% of non-health female workers and 52.4% of non-health male workers had psychological distress, with differences among those working away from home and those working from home. The level of psychological distress among non-health workers is predicted by 66.5% through the variables: being a woman, 43 years old or younger, having a home with no outdoor spaces, poor perception of health, number of symptoms, and having been in contact with contaminated people or material. Among workers who work away from home, being self-employed is another predictive variable of distress.

CONCLUSION

More than the half of the sample showed inadequate management of the psychological distress. There are modifiable factors which provide necessary elements to support a positive attitude of the workers, such as: knowledge of hygiene, transmission of the virus, protective measures, and social distancing measures.