Suchergebnisse

Abstract
In May 2023 the World Health Organization (WHO) Director General announced the "end" of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Although the scale of the pandemic was unprecedented in living memory, it had not been unforeseen. Previous outbreaks of viral respiratory disease have shown important lessons regarding the need to protect healthcare workers (HCW), and research has also been undertaken into the relative effectiveness of control measures and their resource implications. Relevant guidance for worker protection, including HCW protection, which existed at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic was disregarded both at international and national governmental levels. In many countries there were significant systemic flaws in strategy, culture, and resource availability, and hence in overall preparedness. When the pandemic struck, many experts and organizations advocated a precautionary approach with regard to worker protection, consistent with good occupational hygiene science, practice, and standards. In many Asian countries, protective measures were relatively stringent. However, many workers were left unprotected especially as the WHO, the United States, the United Kingdom, and other governments did not pursue adequate COVID-19 protective measures at work. As the pandemic progressed, improvements in protection were patchy. A notable lack of protection arose from the underestimation of the contribution of aerosol exposure to infection risks, particularly among HCWs providing routine care of potentially infectious patients. A disciplined strategy of source control, pathway control (such as ventilation), and receptor control notably Respiratory Protective Equipment is needed, as well as worldwide vaccination, to contend with this pandemic. Control measures appropriate to the risk of infections transmitted through the air will remain necessary in the longer term, as well as adaptations in the workplace to take account of long-term COVID-19 morbidity and new work practices.

A randomly selected group of consultant psychiatrists (n = 39) working within the NHS in Scotland was compared with a combined group of physicians and surgeons (n = 149) on several variables related to the stress process, including personality traits, coping strategies, psychological distress, burnout, job stress and work demands. Psychiatrists reported fewer clinical work demands (p < .001), and their mean personality scores were significantly different from physicians and surgeons by being high in neuroticism (p = .009), openness (p = .003) and agreeableness (p = .002), and low in conscientiousness (p = .04). Psychiatrists reported higher work-related emotional exhaustion (p = .03) and severe depression (p = .02). However, psychiatrists did not report more work-related stress than physicians and surgeons. Many stress-related variables were highly correlated within the group of psychiatrists, suggesting that there is a very general disposition to experience negative emotion (including job-related stress) in some individuals. Organisational and personal contributions to stress in the practice of psychiatry are considered. There are personality characteristics that might dispose some people toward psychiatry as a career and toward stress. However, there is no evidence to suggest that screening for admission to psychiatry in terms of per sonality or other psychological factors would be useful or advisable.

Abstract
The British Occupational Hygiene Society (BOHS) COVID-19 Working Group developed a control banding matrix to provide guidance for employers and others to help assess the risks of COVID-19 infection during the pandemic. The matrix was based on occupational hygiene principles and the judgement of the occupational health practitioners involved; since objective data on workers' exposure were unavailable. Users of the matrix identify one of five exposure categories based on generic job descriptions and example occupations, and these categories are linked to generic guidance on interventions at source, on the exposure pathway and for individual workers. The risk matrix was published on the BOHS website and the guidance has been downloaded more than 2000 times. The matrix has had limited evaluation for reliability, but the data suggest that the highest exposure ranked jobs were associated with higher age-standardized mortality in Britain during the pandemic. However, there was considerable variability in exposure assignments between assessors, which underlines the need for the control guidance to be precautionary. The BOHS calls on academic researchers to undertake further work to validate the reliability of the tool.

Vital to the prevention of work-related ill-health (WRIH) is the availability of good quality data regarding WRIH burden and risks. Physician-based surveillance systems such as The Health and Occupation Research (THOR) network in the UK are often established in response to limitations of statutory, compensation-based systems for addressing certain epidemiological aspects of disease surveillance. However, to fulfil their purpose, THOR and others need to have methodologic rigor in capturing and ascertaining cases. This article describes how data collected by THOR and analogous systems can inform WRIH incidence, trends, and other determinants. An overview of the different strands of THOR research is provided, including methodologic advancements facilitated by increased data quantity/quality over time and the value of the research outputs for informing Government and other policy makers. In doing so, the utility of data collected by systems such as THOR to address a wide range of research questions, both in relation to WRIH and to wider issues of public and social health, is demonstrated.