An analysis of healthy workplace accreditation and health promotion efforts based on employees' perspectives.

This study was conducted to analyze the effects of health promotion efforts in relation to a workplace accreditation program and differing workplace sizes. The research population for the study consisted of 966 employees working at a total of 84 different worksites located in Taipei, Taiwan. The survey instructions used were developed by the European Network for Workplace Health Promotion (WHP). The results indicate that accredited workplaces have better WHP quality than nonaccredited workplaces (p < .001) and commonly implement health promotion measures related to specific health issues. It is recommended that the government provide more health-related resources in workplaces, especially those of small and medium companies.

Employer and Promoter Perspectives on the Quality of Health Promotion Within the Healthy Workplace Accreditation.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the employers' and promoters' perspective of health promotion quality according to the healthy workplace accreditation. METHODS: We assessed the perspectives of 85 employers and 81 health promoters regarding the quality of health promotion at their workplaces. The method of measurement referenced the European Network for Workplace Health Promotion (ENWHP) quality criteria. RESULTS: In the large workplaces, the accredited corporation employers had a higher impression (P < 0.001) of all criteria. The small-medium accredited workplace employers had a slightly higher perspective than non-accredited ones. Nevertheless, there were no differences between the perspectives of health promoters from different sized workplaces with or without accreditation (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: It seems that employers' perspectives of healthy workplace accreditation surpassed employers from non-accredited workplaces. Specifically, large accredited corporations could share their successful experiences to encourage a more involved workplace in small-medium workplaces.

Weight of the CURB-65 criteria for community-acquired pneumonia in a very low-mortality-rate setting.

OBJECTIVE: The CURB-65 score is a simple well validated tool for the assessment of severity in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). The weight of each criterion in very low-mortality-rate settings is unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine the weight in such setting. METHODS: This study retrospectively reviewed 1,230 adult patients admitted for CAP from 2005 to 2009. RESULTS: The 30-day mortality rose sharply from 0%, 1.0%, 8.2% and 16.7%, respectively, for patients with CURB-65 scores of 0, 1, 2 and 3 to 100.0% for patients with the scores of 4 (x(2) = 219.494, p<0.001). Confusion had the strongest association with mortality (odds ratio, 22.148). The presence of low blood pressure was not associated with mortality. Confusion, urea >7 mmol.L(-1) and age ≥ 65 yrs showed independent relationships with mortality (Odds ratio, 11.537, 5.988 and 10.462; respectively). Urea >7 mmol.L(-1) was most strongly associated with the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores [rank correlation coefficient (r(s)), 0.352]. Confusion had the closest relationship with hospital length of stay (r(s), 0.114). Age ≥ 65 yrs had the strongest association with costs (r(s), 0.223). Conclusion The individual CURB-65 criteria were of unequal weight for predicting the 30-day mortality, SOFA scores, hospital length of stay and costs in a very low-mortality-rate setting, and a low blood pressure was not associated with mortality.