RESUMEN
Background: Nursing is an emotionally demanding and physically draining occupation. Well-being of health care workers is essential to achieve success in care and have good cooperation relationships with other health professionals. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a light-based intervention on perceived nursing-related stress in health care personnel working in an operating room environment. Methods: A total of 84 nurses participated in this randomized, cross-over controlled study. Intervention consisted of 4 weeks of bright blue-enriched light exposure using a LED head-mounted portable device (n = 42) or no light exposure (n = 42) separated by a 2-week washout period in a crossover fashion. Participants completes questionnaires for the Nursing Stress Scale (NSS). Results: Intervention and control groups were comparable in terms of demographics, with a median age of 34 (IQR: 27-49) and 69 (82%) female. The mean baseline NSS score was similar in both groups before intervention. The NSS score of the intervention group was significantly lower after intervention than the baseline score: the NSS score difference before and after intervention was 15.1 (SD 7.6) (p < 0.001) and 19.7 (SD 7.5) (p < 0.001) during the two successive periods of intervention, respectively. The cross-group comparison after intervention showed a significantly higher NSS score difference after intervention in the intervention group than the control group: 15.1 (SD 7.6) vs. 1.4 (SD 8.4) (p < 0.001) and 19.7 (SD 7.5) vs. 1.7 (SD 8.9) (p < 0.001) during the two successive periods of intervention, respectively. Conclusion: Alternative person-directed initiatives should be considered to improve the well-being of the health workforce in operating rooms, especially during the coronavirus pandemic.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The optimal size of the I-Gel® remains unclear since the manufacturer's weight-based formula (size 3 for weight < 50 kg, size 4 for weight 50-90 kg, and size 5 for weight > 90 kg) for the laryngeal mask airway I-Gel® is not evidence-based. We hypothesised that sex may also guide the choice of I-Gel® size. METHODS: Insertion success rates of the I-Gel® chosen according to the weight-based formula were prospectively recorded and compared with those of a patients' cohort ventilated with an I-Gel® chosen according to the sex-based formula recorded. Two periods of 18 months were randomised in three independent hospitals in France to study each choice strategy. Patients requiring I-Gel® size change were compared with those who where successfully ventilated with the initially chosen device. Complications linked to the I-Gel® and factors for changing the size of the I-Gel® were also recorded and analysed. RESULTS: Data from 900 patients were prospectively collected in the three participating centres. The overall initial ventilation was inadequate in 80 cases, including 7% (n = 31) in the weight-based group and 3% (n = 13) in the sex-based group (P = 0.01). In the weight-based group, changing size of I-Gel® was successful in 28 (90%) cases. In the sex-based group, changing size of I-Gel® was useful in 1 case only. Endotracheal tube insertion was necessary in 15 cases despite changing I-Gel® size, including 3 cases in the weight-based group and 12 cases in the sex-based group. Ease of insertion and postoperative pharyngo-laryngeal problems were similar between groups with or without changing size of I-Gel®. CONCLUSION: Adequate ventilation is achieved most of the time using size selection for the I-Gel® laryngeal mask airway according to the manufacturer's weight-based formula. However, our results suggest that the sex-based formula in healthy, anaesthetised, adult patients may also be appropriate for I-Gel® size choice.