Culture, conditions and care support mental health of healthcare workers during crises.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has presented immense challenges to health systems worldwide and significantly impacted the mental health of frontline healthcare workers. AIMS: This study drew on the experiences of frontline healthcare workers to examine organizational strategies needed to support the mental health and well-being of healthcare workers during times of crisis. METHODS: Semi-structured focus groups or individual interviews were conducted with healthcare workers to examine their perspectives on organizational strategies for enhancing staff mental health and well-being during crises. Data were analysed thematically. Following this, evidence for the identified strategies was reviewed to assess alignment with participant views and recommendations. RESULTS: Thirty-two healthcare workers from diverse disciplines (10 allied health, 11 nursing, 11 medical) participated in the study. Data analysis identified three broad themes contributing to supporting mental health and well-being. These themes can be encapsulated as the 'Three Cs'-culture (building an organizational culture that prioritizes mental health); conditions (implementing proactive organizational strategies during crises) and care (ensuring fit-for-purpose strategies to support mental health and well-being). CONCLUSIONS: Study findings underscore the necessity of an integrated and systemic organizational approach to address mental health and well-being in the healthcare workplace. This approach must be long term with the components of the 'Three Cs', particularly cultural change and conditions, viewed as a part of a suite of strategies to ensure crisis preparedness. It is imperative that organizations collaborate with their staff, providing support and fostering a safe and inclusive work environment that ultimately benefits patients, their care and staff well-being.

A survey of wind speeds in indoor workplaces.

The applicability of the inhalable convention for sampling aerosols relies on its being a valid model for typical sampling environments. The current convention is based on measurements carried out in external wind speeds between 1 and 4 m.s-1. However these measurements show a degree of wind speed dependence, and it is uncertain at present how valid the convention is for describing human aspiration efficiency outside these wind speed limits. Following concerns that wind speeds in many indoor workplaces may be significantly below this range, measurements have been made in 55 work areas covering a wide range of workplaces. Measurements have concentrated on 'background' wind speeds where the influence of specific air movement sources is minimised. The pooled wind speed measurements show a highly skewed distribution with an arithmetic mean of approximately 0.3 m.s-1. Approximately 85% of all individual measurements were below this mean value. No obvious correlation was found between wind speed distribution parameters and industry type, room size or ventilation type. A limited number of comparisons were made between static anemometers and devices mounted on workers. It was found that modal wind speeds experience by workers were typically 0.05 m.s-1 higher than those measured using a static anemometer. These measurements agreed well with previously published data for similar workplaces as well as houses.