Return to Work for Nurses with Hand Dermatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Occupational skin disease is common in healthcare workers. If the healthcare worker develops moderate to severe dermatitis, return to work (RTW) may be challenging. OBJECTIVES: The study objectives were to review the impact of an RTW program on the work status of nurses with occupational hand dermatitis and to identify successful intervention methods and strategies. METHODS: Nurses who received RTW services at a tertiary occupational medicine clinic were identified, and information related to their diagnosis and RTW was abstracted from their charts. RESULTS: Eighteen nurses with irritant hand dermatitis who received RTW services were identified. Twelve nurses (67%) were performing administrative duties because of their skin condition when admitted to the RTW program, and others were performing patient care with modifications. A graduated RTW trial was commonly implemented with optimized skin care management and monitoring by physicians and the RTW coordinator. Upon discharge, 14 nurses (78%) had returned to their nursing roles with direct patient care, 3 (17%) were working as nurses in non-patient care roles, and 1 (6%) was on permanent disability. CONCLUSIONS: A graduated RTW trial to reduce cumulative irritant exposure is a crucial strategy to facilitate nurses' transition back to work and to maintain direct patient care nursing roles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".