CE Module: Work-Related Asthma Among Certified Nurse Aides in Texas

2020 ◽  
Vol 68 (10) ◽  
pp. 501-501
2020 ◽  
Vol 68 (10) ◽  
pp. 491-500
Author(s):  
Jenil Patel ◽  
David Gimeno Ruiz de Porras ◽  
Laura E. Mitchell ◽  
Riddhi R. Patel ◽  
Joy De Los Reyes ◽  
...  

Background: Although nurses are well described as being at risk of work-related asthma, certified nurse aides (CNAs) are understudied. Using a statewide registry in Texas, we measured prevalence and risk factors for work-related asthma and bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) symptoms among CNAs. Methods: For this cross-sectional study, a questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of CNAs ( n = 2,114) identified through the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services registry, working in health care during 2016–2017, to collect data on job history, asthma symptoms, and sociodemographics. Two outcomes were defined: (a) new-onset asthma (NOA) after entry into the health care field and (b) BHR-related symptoms. Job exposures to cleaning compounds and tasks were assigned using an externally coded CNA-specific job-exposure matrix. Logistic regression modeling was used to measure associations between cleaning exposures and the two asthma outcomes. Findings: The final sample consisted of 413 CNAs (response rate 21.6%). The prevalence of NOA and BHR symptoms were 3.6% and 26.9%, respectively. In adjusted models, elevated odds for BHR symptoms were observed for patient care cleaning (odds ratio [OR] = 1.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.45, 6.51]), instrument cleaning (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = [0.66, 2.68]), building-surface cleaning (OR = 1.39, 95% CI = [0.35, 5.60]), exposure to glutaraldehyde/orthophthalaldehyde (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = [0.66, 2.68]), and latex glove use during 1992–2000 (OR = 1.62, 95% CI = [0.84, 3.12]). There were too few NOA cases to warrant meaningful regression analysis. Conclusion/Application to Practice: Although not statistically significant, we observed elevated odds of BHR symptoms among nurse aides, associated with cleaning exposures, suggesting this is an at-risk group of health care professionals for work-related respiratory disease, meriting further study.


2007 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 37-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Cherry ◽  
Paula Marshall-Gray ◽  
Ann Laurence ◽  
Alexia Green ◽  
Ana Valadez ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 41 (12) ◽  
pp. 32-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tara L. McMullen ◽  
Barbara Resnick ◽  
Jennie Chin Hansen ◽  
Nancy Miller ◽  
Robert Rubinstein

2005 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camille B. Little ◽  
Dianne L. Clemens

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-16
Author(s):  
Joel Weddington ◽  
Charles N. Brooks ◽  
Mark Melhorn ◽  
Christopher R. Brigham

Abstract In most cases of shoulder injury at work, causation analysis is not clear-cut and requires detailed, thoughtful, and time-consuming causation analysis; traditionally, physicians have approached this in a cursory manner, often presenting their findings as an opinion. An established method of causation analysis using six steps is outlined in the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine Guidelines and in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Disease and Injury Causation, Second Edition, as follows: 1) collect evidence of disease; 2) collect epidemiological data; 3) collect evidence of exposure; 4) collect other relevant factors; 5) evaluate the validity of the evidence; and 6) write a report with evaluation and conclusions. Evaluators also should recognize that thresholds for causation vary by state and are based on specific statutes or case law. Three cases illustrate evidence-based causation analysis using the six steps and illustrate how examiners can form well-founded opinions about whether a given condition is work related, nonoccupational, or some combination of these. An evaluator's causal conclusions should be rational, should be consistent with the facts of the individual case and medical literature, and should cite pertinent references. The opinion should be stated “to a reasonable degree of medical probability,” on a “more-probable-than-not” basis, or using a suitable phrase that meets the legal threshold in the applicable jurisdiction.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document