Evaluating Nursing and other Medical Staff Members' Knowledge of Occupational Safety and Health Risks in A Teaching Hospital
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Healthcare workers, particularly nurses, are exposed to various occupational health and safety risks due to the nature of their work. These risks include physical, chemical, biological, and psychological hazards, which can affect both their well-being and the quality of patient care. Despite the importance of occupational health and safety (OHS) in healthcare settings, there remains a significant gap in the level of awareness among healthcare professionals, especially nurses, regarding these risks. This study aims to assess the level of awareness of OHS hazards among nursing professionals in a teaching hospital and identify areas requiring further education and intervention. Methods: This study was conducted over a three-month period and involved 200 nursing staff from various departments of a teaching hospital. A structured questionnaire consisting of demographic questions and 27 items assessing awareness of different occupational health and safety hazards was distributed. The questionnaire covered general awareness and specific knowledge of physical, chemical, electrical, mechanical, biological hazards, and safety practices. The awareness level was measured on a scale from 1 (Not Aware) to 5 (Fully Aware), with a maximum score of 135. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and the relationship between demographic factors and awareness scores was evaluated. Results: The majority of participants (93.3%) were female, with a mean age of 30.2 years and an average work experience of 7.6 years. The study revealed that 44% of participants had full awareness of general OHS risks, while specific awareness varied across different hazards. Full awareness of physical hazards was demonstrated by 24%–27% of respondents, with 59.4% fully aware of workplace infections and 52.7% recognizing respiratory risks from chemical exposures. A moderate level of awareness was observed in 28%–36% of participants for various hazards, while a small percentage (1%–5%) showed no awareness in these areas. Awareness of occupational safety practices such as PPE use, hand hygiene, and incident reporting was also evaluated, with 55.4% fully aware of PPE's role in injury prevention and 77.4% knowledgeable about proper hand hygiene practices. Conclusion: The study highlights significant variations in the level of awareness of occupational health and safety risks among nursing professionals in a teaching hospital. While general awareness is relatively high, there are notable gaps in knowledge regarding specific hazards, particularly in relation to chemical, electrical, and mechanical risks. The findings underscore the need for targeted educational programs and interventions to improve awareness and adherence to OHS practices, ultimately enhancing workplace safety and the quality of care delivered to patients
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it