Environmental Health Needs Among Latinas in Cleaning Occupations: A Mixed Methods Approach.

In the U.S., approximately half of maids and housekeeping cleaners are Latino or Hispanic, while the vast majority are women (88.3%). This largely immigrant, underserved workforce faces complex factors, which may contribute to adverse health outcomes. To understand relevant barriers and challenges, this mixed-methods study explored the environmental health needs of a heterogeneous group of Latinas in New Jersey (NJ) who clean occupationally, and consisted of 3 focus groups (N = 15) with a cross-sectional survey (N = 9), both conducted in Spanish. Participants were recruited from community-based English as a Second Language classes in Hackensack, NJ. Analysis of focus group audio recordings included descriptive and in vivo coding followed by inductive coding to explore thematic analysis. The survey responses were evaluated using descriptive statistics. As per the survey results, the environmental health needs of this population include sore muscles, back problems, asthma, other respiratory issues, migraine or headache, and skin issues (rash, etc.). In the group discussions, the roles of genetics, food, and chemical exposures in cancer etiology were of great interest and a variety of opinions on the topic were explored. Both the focus group discussions and survey responses suggested that this population also faces barriers including lack of training, chemical exposures and inadequate personal protective equipment (PPE). These barriers are compounded by daily environmental exposures from personal home cleaning practices. The development of culturally- and linguistically-appropriate interventions are warranted to better protect the health of essential occupational cleaners who keep homes, businesses and schools clean.

Hemodynamic Profiles of Shock in Patients With COVID-19.

Patients with serious COVID infections develop shock frequently. To characterize the hemodynamic profile of this cohort, 156 patients with COVID pneumonia and shock requiring vasopressors had interpretable echocardiography with measurement of ejection fraction (EF) by Simpson's rule and stroke volume (SV) by Doppler. RV systolic pressure (RVSP) was estimated from the tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity. Patients were divided into groups with low or preserved EF (EFL or EFP, cutoff ≤45%), and low or normal cardiac index (CIL or CIN, cutoff ≤2.2 L/min/m2). Mean age was 67 ± 12.0, EF 59.5 ± 12.9, and CI 2.40 ± 0.86. A minority of patients had depressed EF (EFLCIL, n = 15, EFLCIN, n = 8); of those with preserved EF, less than half had low CI (EFPCIL, n = 55, EFPCIN, n = 73). Overall hospital mortality was 73%. Mortality was highest in the EFLCIL group (87%), but the difference between groups was not significant (p = 0.68 by ANOVA). High PEEP correlated with low CI in the EFPCIL group (r = 0.44, p = 0.04). In conclusion, this study reports the prevalence of shock characterized by EF and CI in patients with COVID-19. COVID-induced shock had a cardiogenic profile (EFLCIL) in 9.6% of patients, reflecting the impact of COVID-19 on myocardial function. Low CI despite preservation of EF and the correlation with PEEP suggests underfilling of the LV in this subset; these patients might benefit from additional volume. Hemodynamic assessment of COVID patients with shock with definition of subgroups may allow therapy to be tailored to the underlying causes of the hemodynamic abnormalities.