Respiratory symptoms and ventilatory function among health-care workers exposed to cleaning and disinfectant chemicals, a 2-year follow-up study

Prevalence of Hoarseness in Primary Health Care and Hospitals-Associations With Different Work Tasks and Environmental Factors Among Nurses

OBJECTIVES

The voice is one of the most essential tools necessary for nurses achieve high care satisfaction and safety. Research on hoarseness has mainly focused on professional speakers, like teachers. The aim of this study was to determine the current prevalence of hoarseness among six subgroups of nurses (registered nurses, primary care nurses, pediatric nurses, laboratory nurses, dental nurses, and midwives) and also to identify potential environmental risk factors in their working environment.

METHODS

The health data was collected in collaboration with two health care professional trade unions. The findings are based on 15,553 returned health questionnaires which were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

The 1-year prevalence of hoarseness among all participating nurses was 30.2 % in this data, but the variation between different occupational subgroups was significant; ranging from 25 % for laboratory nurses to 38 % for midwives. These findings were in line with perceived environmental problems and the differences between the sub-groups were not explained by the participants suffering from asthma, sinusitis, rhinitis, or common respiratory infections; there were no explanatory differences in the prevalence's of the above-mentioned diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

The variation in prevalence of hoarseness between the different occupational subgroups was significant and the prevalence was found to be in line with perceived environmental problems. The most common problems were stuffiness, dry air, and inadequate ventilation. In addition, both a perceived "sewer odor" and "smell of mold or cellar" in one's own working environment were also found to be significant risk factors for hoarseness. Based on this study, the current indoor air problems in Finnish health care facilities can be verified and are a source of risk to nurses' voices.

The prevalence of hoarseness among health care professionals: time trends and effect of remediation in working conditions in 2007-2018

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate time trends in the prevalence of hoarseness among health care professionals in primary health care units (PHC) and in hospitals from 2007 to 2018. Moreover, purpose was to discover potential indoor environmental quality (IEQ) risk factors as well as to determine the effect of the remediation of the indoor air problems on the prevalence of hoarseness.

METHODS

The health status was collected from all employees in these units/hospitals (N = 1564/1199) with questionnaires and the follow-ups were carried out as an open cohort. Based on building condition inspections, buildings were classified to be an "exposed" or "reference" buildings by third-party experts. The before and after remediation results were compared to reference buildings.

RESULTS

During follow-up, hoarseness has not increased in those PHC units with good IEQ. In the pilot study, the prevalence of hoarseness in non-exposed reference building was 5.9%, and it stayed approximately at the same level throughout the follow-up. Whereas in buildings with an IEQ problem the prevalence of hoarseness varied between 16.2 and 36.1% and it decreased to 11.4% after the remediations. In a large hospital with severe IEQ problems, the prevalence of hoarseness was 39.1%, and in hospital buildings with a milder exposure 23.3%. The most important risk factors for hoarseness were asthma, allergic rhinitis and IEQ problems.

CONCLUSION

A good indoor environment and the remediation of damaged buildings seem to promote a better condition of the voice in health care workers.

Characterization of Exposure to Cleaning Agents Among Health Workers in Two Southern African Tertiary Hospitals

BACKGROUND

Whilst cleaning agents are commonly used in workplaces and homes, health workers (HWs) are at increased risk of exposure to significantly higher concentrations used to prevent healthcare-associated infections. Exposure assessment has been challenging partly because many are used simultaneously resulting in complex airborne exposures with various chemicals requiring different sampling techniques. The main objective of this study was to characterize exposures of HWs to various cleaning agents in two tertiary academic hospitals in Southern Africa.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of HWs was conducted in two tertiary hospitals in South Africa (SAH) and Tanzania (TAH). Exposure assessment involved systematic workplace observations, interviews with key personnel, passive personal environmental sampling for aldehydes (ortho-phthalaldehyde-OPA, glutaraldehyde and formaldehyde), and biomonitoring for chlorhexidine.

RESULTS

Overall, 269 samples were collected from SAH, with 62 (23%) collected from HWs that used OPA on the day of monitoring. OPA was detectable in 6 (2%) of all samples analysed, all of which were collected in the gastrointestinal unit of the SAH. Overall, department, job title, individual HW use of OPA and duration of OPA use were the important predictors of OPA exposure. Formaldehyde was detectable in 103 (38%) samples (GM = 0.0025 ppm; range: <0.0030 to 0.0270). Formaldehyde levels were below the ACGIH TLV-TWA (0.1 ppm). While individual HW use and duration of formaldehyde use were not associated with formaldehyde exposure, working in an ear, nose, and throat ward was positively associated with detectable exposures (P-value = 0.002). Glutaraldehyde was not detected in samples from the SAH. In the preliminary sampling conducted in the TAH, glutaraldehyde was detectable in 8 (73%) of the 11 samples collected (GM = 0.003 ppm; range: <0.002 to 0.028). Glutaraldehyde levels were lower than the ACGIH's TLV-Ceiling Limit of 0.05 ppm. p-chloroaniline was detectable in 13 (4%) of the 336 urine samples (GM = 0.02 ng/ml range: <1.00 to 25.80).

CONCLUSION

The study concluded that detectable exposures to OPA were isolated to certain departments and were dependent on the dedicated use of OPA by the HW being monitored. In contrast, low-level formaldehyde exposures were present throughout the hospital. There is a need for more sensitive exposure assessment techniques for chlorhexidine given its widespread use in the health sector.

The relationship between cleaning product exposure and respiratory and skin symptoms among healthcare workers in a hospital setting: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Background and Aims

Several studies from multiple work settings have reported an increase in asthma and asthma‐like respiratory symptoms in workers exposed to cleaning or disinfecting agents. Hospital workers perform many cleaning and disinfecting activities and may be vulnerable to respiratory and skin symptoms caused by these agents. This systematic review and meta‐analysis aim to quantify the risk of asthma and asthma‐like symptoms in hospital workers exposed to cleaning/disinfecting agents. A secondary aim is to assess associated risks of skin symptoms in those studies.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDSR, CENTRAL, CINAHL databases, and references of relevant review articles were searched. NHLBI quality assessment tools were used to assess the quality of the included studies. A total of 2550 articles were retrieved and 34 studies met criteria to be included. The software R version 4.0.5 was used to perform the meta‐analysis. The random‐effects model was used to pool the results due to within‐studies heterogeneity.

Results

Meta‐analysis of 10 studies evaluating the association between occupational cleaning exposures and asthma demonstrated a 35% increased risk in exposed hospital workers (meta‐RR = 1.35, 95% CI: 1.09–1.68). The risk of asthma increased when workers were exposed to bleach compared with nonexposed workers (meta‐RR = 1.51, 95% CI: 0.54–4.18), but was not statistically significant. Two studies investigated the relationship between respiratory and skin symptoms and produced mixed results.

Conclusions

The results suggest a need for preventive practices to reduce the risk of asthma and asthma‐like symptoms in hospital workers exposed to occupational cleaning/disinfecting agents. Trial registration number: CRD42020137804.

Update on effects of cleaning agents on allergy and asthma

Background: Cleaning and disinfecting agents are widely used in modern life, in homes, schools, public places, and workplaces as well as in recreational facilities such as swimming pools. Use has been for sanitizing purposes and to assist in reduction of infection as well as for deodorizing purposes. However, adverse respiratory effects have been associated with use of cleaning products ranging from effects in infancy and early childhood up to adults at home and work.

Methods: This review summarizes recent published literature on the effects of cleaning agents used pre-natally, in childhood and adult life, at home, work, and in swimming pools.

Results: Several studies have indicated that there is an increased risk of developing asthma among adults with frequent exposure to cleaning products at work and in the home. Potential mechanisms include sensitization and respiratory irritant effects. Exposure to irritant chlorine by-products from swimming pools have also been associated with respiratory effects and increased risk of asthma. Potential effects from maternal exposures to cleaning products on infants, and effects on early childhood atopy are less clear.

Conclusions: Exposure to cleaning agents increases relative risks of asthma among workers, and adults using these agents in the home. Risks are also increased with exposure to chlorinated by-products from swimming pools, both in adults and children. Further studies are needed to understand the mechanisms of these associations.