Objectives: This study aimed to assess country-specific evidence of physical and non-physical acts of workplace violence towards nurses working in the health sector in 5 European countries, and then to identify reasons for not reporting violence experienced at work. Material and Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted in 5 participating countries (Poland, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Turkey, and Spain). All registered nurses working in selected healthcare settings for at least 1 year were invited to participate in the study. A questionnaire adapted from the Workplace Violence in the Health Sector Country Case Study -Questionnaire, developed jointly by the International Labour Office, the International Council of Nurses, the World Health Organization and Public Services International, was used. The selection of healthcare settings and the distribution of the questionnaire were conducted according to the recommendations of the questionnaire authors. Results: In total, 1089 nurses submitted completed questionnaires which could be included in the study. Of these, 54% stated that they had been exposed to non-physical violence and 20% had been exposed to physical violent acts. A total of 15% of the surveyed nurses experienced both forms of workplace violence. In addition, 18% of the respondents confirmed having witnessed physical violence in their workplace. The most common perpetrators were patients and patients' relatives. In about 70% of these cases, no actions were taken after the act of violence to investigate its causes. About half of the study group did not report workplace violence as they believed it was useless or not important. The most common consequences of workplace violence included being "superalert" or watchful and on guard. Conclusions: Nurses internationally are both victims of and witnesses to workplace violence. Workplace violence is often seen by nurses as an occupational hazard and, as such, it remains not reported. The first step in preventing workplace violence is not only to acknowledge its existence but also to ensure the appropriate reporting of violent acts. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2020;33(3):325-38

Aim To provide initial data regarding country‐specific evidence of workplace violence towards nurses working within the health sector in five European countries. Methods This is a descriptive and cross‐sectional pilot study, conducted in June 2016. The sample consisted of 260 nurses working in selected health care settings in five participating countries (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Turkey, and Spain). The questionnaire used was adapted from the International Labour Office/International Council of Nurses/World Health Organisation/Public Services International Workplace Violence in the Health Sector Country Case Study—Questionnaire. Results A large number of participants confirmed that they had been physically attacked or verbally abused in the workplace in the last 12 months. In most cases, the physical and verbal abuse was inflicted by patients and to a lesser degree by relatives of patients, staff members, or managers/supervisors. In the majority of cases, no action was taken to investigate the causes of the incidents. In most cases, participants believed there was no point in reporting the incidents. However, the reasons for not reporting or discussing incidents of workplace violence varied depending on the country. Conclusion Workplace violence towards nurses is a serious problem internationally, and violence prevention strategies need to be implemented.

No abstract

The research was conducted to evaluate the noise levels and the effect of noise on the workload and stress levels of the operating room (OR) staff of a public hospital. Design: Descriptive and cross-sectional study. Methods: The data were obtained by measuring ambient noise during 403 orthopaedic, urological, and general surgeries on weekdays between July and October 2019. We measured the noise by dividing the surgery into three phases. These phases are as follows: from the entry of the patient, induction of anesthesia, and preparation of the surgical area until the start of the procedure (Phase I), from the incision until the completion of closure and dressing application (Phase II), from the completion of closure and dressing application until the exit of the patient (Phase III). Furthermore, the workload and stress levels of 45 OR staff who work in the general surgery, orthopaedics, and urology ORs were measured. Data were collected using a CA 834 noise measurement device, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI Form TX-I), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Task Load Index Workload Scale, and Information form related to surgery and ORs. Findings: The noise in the OR was higher than 35 dB, A-weighted [dB(A)], the limit proposed by the World Health Organization for hospitals. Phase I average noise level was 63.00 ± 3.50, Phase II average noise level was 62.94 ± 3.75, and Phase III average noise level was 63.67 ± 2.81. The mean anxiety score was 34.50 ± 6.09. The total workload level was found to be 56.91 ± 15.67. Anxiety scores and workload scores had positive weak and moderate correlations with noise levels (P < .01). Conclusions: The noise in the OR was high, and anxiety scores and workload scores correlated positively with noise levels.

No abstract