Work Ability Assessment in Nursing Workers

Abstract


 
 
 Objective: To identify the nursing staff of a university hospital's work ability index and point out which factors interfere in the quality of the work of these workers. Method: This is a cross-sectional, descriptive and analytical survey, quantitative, composed of 54 nursing professionals from the medical clinic ward sector of a large hospital in Uberlândia (Minas Gerais, Brazil). Data collection is performed using two tools: sociodemographic questionnaire and Work Ability Index (WAI). The G-Test by Williams was applied to assess the significant association between sociodemographic and occupational variables and those related to the work ability index. It was used the BioEstat® version 5.3 program to perform all analyzes with a significance level of 0.05 (5%). Results: The research showed that nursing professionals had a predominance of good workability (40,7%), the prevalence of young adults, the highest percentage between 31-40 years, 81,5% are women, 50% are in a marital relationship, 63% are open to public tender, and they had no back injuries. It was also found that the only professionals who had a low work capacity were nursing technicians, corresponding to 5,6% of the total percentage. Conclusion: It is known that a hospital environment is a place that favors the illness process of nursing workers. The worker who owns and maintains adequate physical and mental health can perform his duties better and have a better capacity for work, therefore taking better care of the patient.
 
 

Worldwide prevalence of inadequate work ability among hospital nursing personnel: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…A total of 47 articles were excluded for the nominated reasons specified in Diagram 1: 44 from databases and 3 retrieved using alternative methods. Finally, 42 studies (Akodu & Ashalejo, 2019; Capelo et al, 2012; Carel et al, 2013; Das et al, 2019; Duran & Cocco, 2004; Ehegartner et al, 2020; Fischer & Martinez, 2013; Fonseca, 2012; Garosi et al, 2018; Golubic et al, 2009; Habibi et al, 2012; Hilleshein et al, 2011; Hoe et al, 2011; Izu et al, 2016; Knežević et al, 2010; Magnago et al, 2015; Maia et al, 2014; Fischer et al, 2006; Martinez et al, 2017; Martins, 2002; Melikidou & Sourtzi, 2014; Murassaki et al, 2013; Nery et al, 2013; Nowrouzi et al, 2015; Nunes et al, 2013; Oliveira, 2016; Pereira et al, 2021; Quispe Carbajal, 2021; Raffone & Hennington, 2005; Rodrigues et al, 2019; Rongen et al, 2014; Rostamabadi et al, 2017; Rotenberg et al, 2008, 2009; Rypicz et al, 2021; Silva et al, 2016, 2018, 2019; Sopajareeya, 2020; Sorić et al, 2013; Vasconcelos et al, 2011; Vilela et al, 2013) were included in the systematic review and 35 of them in the meta‐analyses performed.…”