A Comparative Study Measuring the Difference of Healthcare Workers Reactions Among Those Involved in a Patent Safety Incident and Healthcare Professionals While Working During COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe the differences and similarities in the reaction of the healthcare worker involved in a patient safety incident or during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also compared the differences in support they need. METHODS: A secondary data analysis was performed based on 2 cross-sectional survey studies. One study evaluated the impact of patient safety incidents on healthcare professionals, and the other evaluated the impact of COVID-19. Measurements on mental health reactions and an evaluation of the experienced support system were compared between 883 doctors and 1970 nurses working in different hospitals. RESULTS: Anxiety, difficulties concentrating, doubting knowledge and skills, feeling on their own, feeling unhappy and dejected, feeling uncertain in team, flashbacks, hypervigilance, sleep deprivation, stress and wanting to quit profession were statistically higher in the COVID-19-related groups. Second victims tend to speak about it with their own/close colleagues, whereas healthcare workers working during the COVID-19 pandemic talk more often to their partner and friends. Only a small number talked to a psychologist, but the number who needed to talk to a psychologist but did not is higher than the number who did talk to a psychologist or used professional support in all 5 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of healthcare workers is larger than after being involved in a patient safety incident. There is the need for an adequate support system, and the mental health of all healthcare workers needs to be considered. Partners and friend play a more important role in the support experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, and there is an important need for professional help.

High prevalence of occupational exposure to solvents or silica in male systemic sclerosis patients: a Belgian cohort analysis.

Increasing evidence supports a relation of some occupational exposures to systemic sclerosis pathogenesis. We aimed to evaluate occupational exposure and clinical characteristics in male patients with systemic sclerosis followed in two Belgian academic hospitals. One hundred and three male patients, included in the Belgian Systemic Sclerosis Cohort, were identified. An expert in occupational medicine reviewed the occupational history and allocated the patients to one of the following groups: probable exposure to crystalline silica, probable exposure to solvents, probable exposure to other toxins, or no suspected occupational exposure. Clinical characteristics were extracted from the Belgian Systemic Sclerosis Cohort database. Sufficient data were available for 96/103 patients. Most of these male patients (70/96, 72.9%) had a history of occupational exposure, 55 patients were likely exposed to crystalline silica, 11 patients to solvents, 2 patients to both silica and solvents, and 2 patients to asbestos. Only 26 patients had no suspected occupational exposure (27.1%). We noticed a significant difference in smoking status between exposed and non-exposed patients, with the highest percentage of ever smokers in the group with solvent exposure (p = 0.011). We found no significant differences in disease phenotype between exposed and non-exposed patients. However, we noted a trend to a higher prevalence of anti-Scl70 antibodies, cardiac dysfunction, and higher disease activity score in patients with occupational exposure. We observed a strikingly high prevalence of occupational exposure to both silica and solvents in male systemic sclerosis patients. Occupational exposure to silica or solvents is highly prevalent in male systemic sclerosis patients.