Flyer

Health Science Journal

  • ISSN: 1108-7366
  • Journal h-index: 51
  • Journal CiteScore: 10.69
  • Journal Impact Factor: 9.13
  • Average acceptance to publication time (5-7 days)
  • Average article processing time (30-45 days) Less than 5 volumes 30 days
    8 - 9 volumes 40 days
    10 and more volumes 45 days
Awards Nomination 20+ Million Readerbase
Indexed In
  • Genamics JournalSeek
  • China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI)
  • CiteFactor
  • CINAHL Complete
  • Scimago
  • Electronic Journals Library
  • Directory of Research Journal Indexing (DRJI)
  • EMCare
  • OCLC- WorldCat
  • University Grants Commission
  • Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research
  • Euro Pub
  • Google Scholar
  • SHERPA ROMEO
  • Secret Search Engine Labs
Share This Page

Abstract

Occupational allergic reactions in the hospital nursing staff

Marvaki Christina

Background: Exposure of nursing staff to variable allergens constitutes an important occupational risk. The aim was to evaluate the frequency and type of allergic reactions.Subjects-Method: A questionnaire was distributed to the nursing staff of three general hospitals of Athens. SPSS was used for the statistical analysis.Results: 283 workers completed the questionnaire: 28(9,9%) males, 255 (90,1%) females, mean age: 38±16years. 149 (53%) individuals reported allergic reaction. 62(41,6%) presented the most recent episode in £1year. 75% reported ³2episodes. Manifestations: Rash (74,5%), dyspnea (29,5%), facial angioedema (16,1%), laryngeal edema (6,7%). Allergens implicated: antiseptics-disinfectants (58,4%), gloves (57%), medications (23,5%). 77 (51,7%) workers needed medical treatment, 12 (8,1%) hospitalization, 17 (11,4%) sick-leave, 9 (6%) changed clinic/department. In 42% of the cases the head nurse was not informed. 41,6% reported that taking preventive measures is practically difficult. 45% had a history of allergic reactions outside the workplace.Conclusions: (1)The percentage of allergic reactions was significant. (2) Antiseptics-disinfectants and gloves have been mainly implicated. (3) A significant percentage needed medical treatment. (4) Only few workers took preventive measures.