Search

Background: Many workers shifted to working from home due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This review aims to investigate if this sudden change caused an increase in TElewoRk-RelAted stress (TERRA) which is defined as physical and mental stress caused by telework. Methods: A systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was performed of three scientific databases (PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Scopus), which also included a quality assessment. Articles measuring stress, psychological or physical, in remote workers, published from December 2019 through August 2021 were included in the review. Results were extracted by reporting: authors, country, study design, type of workers, sample, questionnaires and measurements, and outcomes. Data were synthesized quantitatively for country, type of workers, and outcomes. Results: Out of the 518 articles found in the three databases, 19 articles were included in the systematic review (10,012 participants overall), and 78.9% of these highlighted an increase in TERRA levels in remote workers. Among 85.7% of the studies considering gender as a variable, TERRA levels were higher in female workers. Twelve (63.2%) of the studies investigated psychological well-being, two (10.5%) focused on the physical well-being of remote workers, three (15.8%) investigated both, and two studies had other outcomes (10.5%). Conclusions: Considering the redefinition of workplaces dictated by the COVID-19 pandemic, this review highlights the emerging issue of remote work and the use of technology in working from home, emphasizing a rapidly growing occupational health problem. Remote workers need to be provided with emotional and technical support to prevent TERRA in remote workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To reduce vaccine-preventable diseases in workers, workplace vaccination campaigns can be implemented on-site. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate adherence to workplace vaccination campaigns. Three databases, PubMed, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus, were screened systematically for articles in English or Italian addressing participation in an on-site vaccination program by employees. The following data was extracted: authors, year, country, type of vaccine, type of workplace, sample size, vaccination rate. Data on the prevalence of flu vaccination were calculated and pooled using a random-effects model. Thirteen articles were included in the review, ten in the meta-analysis. Most studies were conducted in the USA (30.7%) and most vaccination campaigns were against influenza (69.2%), with a pooled estimate of 42% (95% CI: 0.25–0.60%); participation rate was highly variable, ranging from 88.9% for an influenza vaccination campaign to 5.7% for a Lyme disease vaccination campaign. Offering free on-site vaccination can be a successful tool to ensure adherence to vaccination campaigns and administration of all required doses according to the vaccine administration scheme. The occupational physician can play a key role in implementing workplace campaigns for employee mandatory vaccinations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 vaccination has proven to be the most effective prevention measure, reducing deaths and hospitalizations and allowing, in combination with non-pharmacological interventions, the pandemic to be tackled. Although most of the adverse reactions to vaccination present mild symptoms and serious effects are very rare, they can be the cause of legal action against the healthcare workers (HCWs) who administered it. To highlight differences in the medical liability systems, we performed a search for the three most populous countries in each continent on vaccine injury compensation programs, new laws or policies to protect HCWs administering vaccinations introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, and policies on mandatory vaccinations, on literature databases and institutional sites. We found that in seven countries the medical liability system is based on Common Law, while in eleven it is mainly based on Civil Law. Considering the application of specific laws to protect HCWs who vaccinate during the pandemic, only the USA and Canada provided immunity from liability. Among the countries we analyzed, fourteen have adopted compensation funds. From an international perspective, our results highlight that in eleven (61.1%) countries medical liability is mainly based on Civil Law, whilst in seven (38.9%) it is based on Common Law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is still ongoing, with rapidly increasing cases all over the world, and the emerging issue of post COVID-19 (or Long COVID-19) condition is impacting the occupational world. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the impact of lasting COVID-19 symptoms or disability on the working population upon their return to employment. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statements we performed a systematic review in December 2021, screening three databases (PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus), for articles investigating return to work in patients that were previously hospitalized due to COVID-19. A hand-searched was then performed through the references of the included systematic review. A quality assessment was performed on the included studies. RESULTS: Out of the 263 articles found through the initial search, 11 studies were included in this systematic review. The selected studies were divided based on follow-up time, in two months follow-up, follow-up between two and six months, and six months follow-up. All the studies highlighted an important impact of post COVID-19 condition in returning to work after being hospitalized, with differences based on follow-up time, home Country and mean/median age of the sample considered. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlighted post COVID-19 condition as a rising problem in occupational medicine, with consequences on workers' quality of life and productivity. The role of occupational physicians could be essential in applying limitations to work duties or hours and facilitating the return to employment in workers with a post COVID-19 condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lead is a material used since ancient times to make pipes useful for water distribution, as it is ductile and resistant. Over time many European countries, including Italy, have widely adopted it to build aqueducts and domestic distribution systems. Due to associated health risk, lead concentration in water intended for human consumption has been limited since the '60s, making use of new regulations, new techniques, and materials. The Italian Ministry of Health issued Legislative Decree 31/2001 - applying both WHO and European Communities (EC) indications - which set the maximum levels for lead in water to 25 µg/liter for 15 years and 10 µg/liter starting from 25 December 2013. The new Directive (EU) 2020/2184, which entered into force on 12 January 2021, introduces a risk-based approach to water safety, which covers the entire supply chain, from the catchment area to the tap; the maximum levels for lead were further reduced to 5 μg/liter, establishing the new limit, at the latest, by 12 January 2036. The Italian Ministry of Health, together with a small group of experts from the National Institute of Health and other technical-scientific institutions, is finalizing the operational guidelines to apply the provisions of Directive (EU) 2020/2184. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Giornale Italiano di Medicina del Lavoro ed Ergonomia is the property of Giornale Italiano di Medicina del Lavoro ed Ergonomia Editorial Board and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Tattooing is more and more popular in developed countries in recent years and many side effects are associated with this practice, including psoriatic lesions and Koebner phenomenon. We report the case of a lichenoid reaction to red pigment in a patient affected by psoriasis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Working during the Sars-CoV-2 pandemic healthcare workers (HCWs) had to wear Personal Protective Equipment (PPEs) for extended periods of time, leading to an increase in dermatological reactions. The study evaluates the prevalence of adverse skin reactions to PPEs among Italian healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, and aims to determine whether prolonged PPEs usage poses a significant occupational health risk, by measuring the loss of work days and the eligibility of workers that requested health surveillance due to dermatological PPEs reactions., Materials and Methods: An online ad hoc questionnaire was administered to a sample of Italian HCWs. Questions verted on sociodemographic characteristics, PPEs usage, and occupational well-being. Descriptive analyses and logistic regressions were performed to explore possible associations between variables., Results: Two types of PPEs, Gloves and Masks, were tested. The sample included 1,223 interviewed HCWs, 1,184 gave their consent for participation. A total of 90 medical surveillance visits were requested due to PPEs related dermatological issues: in 30 cases were recognized limitations in working duties and in one case the worker was deemed not fit to keep working. Furthermore, 25 workers had a loss of occupational days due to dermatological issues. A statistically significant correlation was observed with being a nurse or midwife (OR = 1.91, IC = 1.38-2.63, p < 0.001), and being female (OR = 2.04, IC = 1.49-2.78, p < 0.001), which acted as risk factors., Discussion: The enhanced protection measures put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlight the importance of occupational dermatology. This study could contribute to assess the issue, aiming to develop better prevention strategies in the workplace in order to improve well-being of HCWs and reduce the impact of dermatological adverse reactions to PPEs., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Santoro, Borrelli, Gualano, Proietti, Skroza, Rossi, Amantea, Daniele, Ricciardi, Potenza and Moscato.)

Summary: The legal responsibility of the vaccinating doctor is one of the central issues in the current setting of the Covid-19 pandemic. The aim of this statement is to outline the profiles of the medical legal liability, with a focus on the figure of the vaccinating physician, in criminal, civil, and disciplinary terms, based on the Italian legislation in force. The vaccinating doctor responds for his work in the field of vaccination in the same way as any other health service should perform (diagnostic, therapeutic, etc.). Helpful in this context is the adoption of the L. 76/2021; it was developed to find a balance between safeguarding the person privacy and greater guarantees for the doctor. This law introduces a criminal shield that can put a limit to litigation, curbing the phenomenon of so-called defensive medicine. The climate of uncertainty and fear of legal repercussions for the doctors, and the constant updating and redefinition of the indications of operability in the vaccination campaigns, underline the need to focus on the knowledge of the responsibilities and the safeguard of the vaccinating doctors. In addition to the regulatory cornerstones, the statement also addresses the issue of informed consent and the role of the occupational doctor as a central figure in the vaccination campaign in the workplace., Competing Interests: The authors of this article have no conflict of interests to disclose., (Copyright© by GIMLE.)