Occupational hazards and gender differences: a narrative review

Personalized medicine, and particularly gender medicine, is becoming essential in daily medical practice. This narrative review aims to assess sex and gender differences in occupational risks among workers. We point out that female workers are more exposed to biological risks (i.e., 70% of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic were women), but also seem to be more protected against microorganisms (i.e., for HBV vaccination: OR 1.21, p = 0.0023);with regard to physical risks, women are more susceptible to radiations (the estimated incidence of solid tu-mors for 0.1 Gy of exposure is 0.013% in females and 0.008% in males), while men are more susceptible to heat (infertility prevalence was 22.7% in exposed workers vs 3.0% in con-trols);female video terminal workers are more susceptible to both computer vision syndrome (aOR 2.57 and aOR 2.35) and musculoskeletal symptoms (OR 3.6). From a psychological point of view, women are more at risk for work-relat-ed stress and burnout, as well as workplace mobbing (65% of affected workers are women) and verbal violence, while physical violence was more common among men. In conclu-sion, important sex and gender differences are present with regard to occupational risks and hazards, thus showing the necessity to improve medical surveillance and to allow occupational physicians to personalize health surveillance. © 2022, Il Pensiero Scientifico Editore s.r.l.. All rights reserved.

Italian health care workers and Adverse skin reactions to personal protective equipment during Covid-19 pandemic

Introduction: During the pandemic, the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) has become essential for Healthcare Workers (HCWs) to fight safely against the virus. However, the extensive and prolonged use of PPE may cause various adverse skin reactions due to the use of alcohol hand cleanser and protracted use of masks and goggles. The aim of this study is to evaluate the skin problems caused by PPE in HCWs and the possible consequences on their work. Materials and methods: An online ad hoc questionnaire, composed by 35 questions about sociodemographic characteristics, work related issues and exposure/habits about PPE, was administered to a sample of Italian HCWs. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed in order to explore possible associations between variables. Results: We tested 3 types of PPE: Gloves, Hair Bonnets and Masks for different time of utilization (<1, 1-3, 3-6, >6 hours). The sample included 1184 participants: 292 workers reported a dermatological pathology nested in four different pathological groups: 45 (15%) had Psoriasis, 54 (19%) Eczema, 38 (13%) Acne, 48 (16%), seborrheic dermatitis and 107 (36%) other. 25 workers had a loss of occupational days due to dermatological illness;56 occupational physician surveillance visits were asked for;in 30 cases were recognized limitations in working duties. Conclusions: Protecting HCWs requires the use of PPE, but occupational dermatitis is an emerging problem in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. National data for affected healthcare professionals could contribute to a better understanding of the problem and prevention initiatives in the workplace

Legal resposability of vaccinating doctor

The legal responsibility of the vaccinating doctor is one of the central issues in the current setting of the Covid-19 pandemic. The aim of this statement is to outline the profiles of the medical legal liability, with a focus on the figure of the vaccinating physician, in criminal, civil, and disciplinary terms, based on the Italian legislation in force. The vaccinating doctor responds for his work in the field of vaccination in the same way as any other health service should perform (diagnostic, therapeutic, etc.). Helpful in this context is the adoption of the L. 76/2021;it was developed to find a balance between safeguarding the person privacy and greater guarantees for the doctor. This law introduces a criminal shield that can put a limit to litigation, curbing the phenomenon of so-called defensive medicine. The climate of uncertainty and fear of legal repercussions for the doctors, and the constant updating and redefinition of the indications of operability in the vaccination campaigns, underline the need to focus on the knowledge of the responsibilities and the safeguard of the vaccinating doctors. In addition to the regulatory cornerstones, the statement also addresses the issue of informed consent and the role of the occupational doctor as a central figure in the vaccination campaign in the workplace.