Background Nurses and midwives play a critical role in the provision of care and the optimization of health services resources worldwide, which is particularly relevant during the current COVID-19 pandemic. However, they can only provide quality services if their work environment provides adequate conditions to support them. Today the employment and working conditions of many nurses worldwide are precarious, and the current pandemic has prompted more visibility to the vulnerability to health-damaging factors of nurses’ globally. This desk review explores how employment relations, and employment and working conditions may be negatively affecting the health of nurses in countries such as Brazil, Croatia, India, Ireland, Italy, México, Nepal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Main body Nurses’ health is influenced by the broader social, economic, and political system and the redistribution of power relations that creates new policies regarding the labour market and the welfare state. The vulnerability faced by nurses is heightened by gender inequalities, in addition to social class, ethnicity/race (and caste), age and migrant status, that are inequality axes that explain why nurses’ workers, and often their families, are exposed to multiple risks and/or poorer health. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, informalization of nurses’ employment and working conditions were unfair and harmed their health. During COVID-19 pandemic, there is evidence that the employment and working conditions of nurses are associated to poor physical and mental health. Conclusion The protection of nurses’ health is paramount. International and national enforceable standards are needed, along with economic and health policies designed to substantially improve employment and working conditions for nurses and work–life balance. More knowledge is needed to understand the pathways and mechanisms on how precariousness might affect nurses’ health and monitor the progress towards nurses’ health equity.

Background: Horizontal Canal Cupulolithiasis (hc-BPPV-cu) can mimic a pathology of central origin, so a careful examination is essential to prevent misdiagnosis. Methods: Retrospective cross-sectional cohort study of 45 patients suffering from suspected hc-BPPV-cu. We recorded whether patients first presented through an ENT Emergency Department (ED) or through an Outpatient Otolaryngology Clinic (OC). Results: We found statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between the OC versus the ED in relation to the time between symptom onset and first assessment (79.7 vs. 3.6 days, respectively), the number of therapeutic maneuvers (one maneuver in 62.5% vs. 75.9%, and more than one in 25.1% vs. 13.7%), and multi-canal BPPV rate (43.8% vs. 3.4%). hc-BPPV-cu did not resolve in 2 patients (12.5%) from the OC and in 3 (10.3%) from de ED, all of which showed central pathology. Discussion: There are no prior studies that analyze the approach to hc-BPPV-cu in the ED. The benefits of early specialist input are early identification of central positional nystagmus, a decrease in symptom duration, reduced number of therapeutic maneuvers required for symptom resolution, and lower rates of iatrogenic multi-canal BPPV. Conclusion: A comprehensive approach to hc-BPPV-cu in the ED allows both more effective treatment and early identification of central disorder mimics.

Posturographic study in older patients with instability associated with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo: a prospective analysis.

Purpose: The most common reason for consultation in patients suffering from Vestibular Schwannoma (VS) is progressive hearing loss. The main objective of this study is analyzing the hearing loss in patients with VS and determining the extent to which the tumor grade and the hearing loss are related.  Methods: An observational retrospective study was conducted with a sample of 291 patients diagnosed with VS between 1995 and 2017 in the Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery of the Tertiary Care Primary Center of Salamanca. We analyzed preoperative and postoperative data from patients with VS as well as radiological and surgical findings. Results: The most common reason for consultation at diagnosis was progressive unilateral hearing loss (31.6%). The relationship between the size of the VS and hearing loss in the patients who reported progressive unilateral hearing loss as a reason for consultation was not statistically significant (p=0.099).              Conclusion: The most common reason for consultation in VS is progressive unilateral hearing loss. The hearing loss caused by VS does not have a statistically significant association with any particular tumor grade, although severe and profound hearing loss is more commonly associated with grade III-IV neurinomas, whereas mild hearing loss or normal hearing are more likely in grade I-II tumors.