BACKGROUND: Workers exposed to hazards without adequate protections are at greater risk of injury and illness. Supervisor activities have also been associated with injury risk. We examined the interplay between supervisor safety support and occupational health and safety (OHS) vulnerability on workplace injury and illness. METHODS: A survey was administered to 2,390 workers employed for more than 15 hrs/week in workplaces with at least five employees who had a direct supervisor. We examined the combined effects of hazard exposure with inadequate protection (OHS vulnerability) and supervisor support on workplace injury and illness, using additive interactions in log-binomial regression models. RESULTS: OHS vulnerability and lack of supervisor support independently increased the likelihood of physical injuries at work. Crude and adjusted models showed that the risk of physical injury was at least 3.5 times higher among those experiencing both OHS vulnerability and a lack of supervisor support than individuals without OHS vulnerability and with a supportive direct supervisor.Workers who experienced vulnerability were at less risk if they had a supervisor who was supportive. CONCLUSION: In workplaces where workers experience one or more types of OHS vulnerability, having a supportive supervisor may play an important role in reducing the risk of injury and protecting workers.
Occupational Health

Background: Employment standards (ES) include having a regular payday, regular breaks, the right to paid sick or vacation time, and paid wages. Inadequate ES contribute to the labour market vulnerability of workers; however, they are not typically considered to be risk factors for workplace injury. In a sample of Canadian workers, we examine the risk of injury associated with inadequate ES, independent of, and combined with inadequate workplace protections from workplace hazards. Methods: Data from 2,803 adults working 15 hours or more/week in workplaces with at least five employees were analysed. We explored associations between exposure to workplace hazards with inadequate protections [termed occupational health and safety (OHS) vulnerability] and inadequate ES on workplace injury (physical or mental injury; injury requiring time off). Additive interaction models were used to examine the independent and combined effects of these exposures. Results: Occupational health and safety vulnerability and inadequate ES were independently associated with increased injury outcomes. Adjusted models showed an additive relationship for all injury outcomes between OHS vulnerability and inadequate ES. Statistically significant superadditive relationships were observed for physical injury risk with policy and procedure vulnerability plus inadequate ES [synergy index (S) 1.50, 95% CI: 1.13–2.00] and for overall OHS vulnerability plus inadequate ES (S 1.53, 95% CI: 1.16–2.02), suggesting a combined effect greater than independent effects. Conclusion Occupational health and safety vulnerability and inadequate ES are independently associated with workplace injury. For certain injury outcomes, the combined effect of OHS vulnerability and inadequate ES is greater than the independent effects of each individual exposure.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to provide the perceptions of nurses, nursing supervisors, and nursing administrators about factors contributing to increased workplace violence (WPV) against nurses within the healthcare settings in Pakistan during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This study used a Descriptive Qualitative design, with a purposive sampling technique. From September to December 2021, In-depth interviews of 45 to 60 minutes, using a semistructured interview guide, we collected data from a private and a public healthcare setting in Pakistan. Given the travel restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, these interviews were conducted online, using Zoom audio features. Bedside nurses, nursing supervisors, and nursing administrators with at least six months of work experience participated in this study. Results: The qualitative data analysis steps suggested by Braun and Clarke (2013) were used for thematic analysis. The overarching theme emerging from the data was “Factors perceived by nurses that contributed to increased WPV in their work settings during the first wave of COVID-19, in a lower middle-income country” The subthemes from the participants' narrations were (a) highly stressed patients, attendants, and healthcare workers; (b) the financial burden on patients and their families; (c) lack of resources and shortage of staff; (d) restricted visiting policy and a weak security system; (e) lack of awareness about the seriousness of COVID-19; (f) misconceptions about COVID-19 vaccines and nurses' role in disseminating awareness. Conclusions The current pandemic increased the intensity of WPV against nurses in healthcare settings in Pakistan. Despite any supposed reasons for WPV, exposure to violence should never be an acceptable part of nursing. The healthcare system in Pakistan needs to pay equal attention to funding, resource provision, and ensuring a safe working environment for healthcare workers.

Background: s/Aims: After pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), an early oral diet is recommended; however, the postoperative nutritional management of PD patients is known to be highly variable, with some centers still routinely providing parenteral nutrition (PN). Some patients who receive PN experience clinically significant complications, underscoring its judicious use. Using a large cohort, this study aimed to determine the proportion of PD patients who received postoperative nutritional support (NS), describe the nature of this support, and investigate whether receiving PN correlated with adverse perioperative outcomes. Methods: Data were extracted from the Recurrence After Whipple’s study, a retrospective multicenter study of PD outcomes. Results: In total, 1,323 patients (89%) had data on their postoperative NS status available. Of these, 45% received postoperative NS, which was “enteral only,” “parenteral only,” and “enteral and parenteral” in 44%, 35%, and 21% of cases, respectively. Body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 (p = 0.03), absence of preoperative biliary stenting (p = 0.009), and serum albumin < 36 g/L (p = 0.009) all correlated with receiving postoperative NS. Among those who did not develop a serious postoperative complication, i.e., those who had a relatively uneventful recovery, 20% received PN. Conclusions A considerable number of patients who had an uneventful recovery received PN. PN is not without risk, and should be reserved for those who are unable to take an oral diet. PD patients should undergo pre- and postoperative assessment by nutrition professionals to ensure they are managed appropriately, and to optimize perioperative outcomes.

Background: s/Aims: After pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), an early oral diet is recommended; however, the postoperative nutritional management of PD patients is known to be highly variable, with some centers still routinely providing parenteral nutrition (PN). Some patients who receive PN experience clinically significant complications, underscoring its judicious use. Using a large cohort, this study aimed to determine the proportion of PD patients who received postoperative nutritional support (NS), describe the nature of this support, and investigate whether receiving PN correlated with adverse perioperative outcomes. Methods: Data were extracted from the Recurrence After Whipple’s study, a retrospective multicenter study of PD outcomes. Results: In total, 1,323 patients (89%) had data on their postoperative NS status available. Of these, 45% received postoperative NS, which was “enteral only,” “parenteral only,” and “enteral and parenteral” in 44%, 35%, and 21% of cases, respectively. Body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 (p = 0.03), absence of preoperative biliary stenting (p = 0.009), and serum albumin < 36 g/L (p = 0.009) all correlated with receiving postoperative NS. Among those who did not develop a serious postoperative complication, i.e., those who had a relatively uneventful recovery, 20% received PN. Conclusions A considerable number of patients who had an uneventful recovery received PN. PN is not without risk, and should be reserved for those who are unable to take an oral diet. PD patients should undergo pre- and postoperative assessment by nutrition professionals to ensure they are managed appropriately, and to optimize perioperative outcomes.

Background: s/Aims: After pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), an early oral diet is recommended; however, the postoperative nutritional management of PD patients is known to be highly variable, with some centers still routinely providing parenteral nutrition (PN). Some patients who receive PN experience clinically significant complications, underscoring its judicious use. Using a large cohort, this study aimed to determine the proportion of PD patients who received postoperative nutritional support (NS), describe the nature of this support, and investigate whether receiving PN correlated with adverse perioperative outcomes. Methods: Data were extracted from the Recurrence After Whipple’s study, a retrospective multicenter study of PD outcomes. Results: In total, 1,323 patients (89%) had data on their postoperative NS status available. Of these, 45% received postoperative NS, which was “enteral only,” “parenteral only,” and “enteral and parenteral” in 44%, 35%, and 21% of cases, respectively. Body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 (p = 0.03), absence of preoperative biliary stenting (p = 0.009), and serum albumin < 36 g/L (p = 0.009) all correlated with receiving postoperative NS. Among those who did not develop a serious postoperative complication, i.e., those who had a relatively uneventful recovery, 20% received PN. Conclusions A considerable number of patients who had an uneventful recovery received PN. PN is not without risk, and should be reserved for those who are unable to take an oral diet. PD patients should undergo pre- and postoperative assessment by nutrition professionals to ensure they are managed appropriately, and to optimize perioperative outcomes.

Background: s/Aims: After pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), an early oral diet is recommended; however, the postoperative nutritional management of PD patients is known to be highly variable, with some centers still routinely providing parenteral nutrition (PN). Some patients who receive PN experience clinically significant complications, underscoring its judicious use. Using a large cohort, this study aimed to determine the proportion of PD patients who received postoperative nutritional support (NS), describe the nature of this support, and investigate whether receiving PN correlated with adverse perioperative outcomes. Methods: Data were extracted from the Recurrence After Whipple’s study, a retrospective multicenter study of PD outcomes. Results: In total, 1,323 patients (89%) had data on their postoperative NS status available. Of these, 45% received postoperative NS, which was “enteral only,” “parenteral only,” and “enteral and parenteral” in 44%, 35%, and 21% of cases, respectively. Body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 (p = 0.03), absence of preoperative biliary stenting (p = 0.009), and serum albumin < 36 g/L (p = 0.009) all correlated with receiving postoperative NS. Among those who did not develop a serious postoperative complication, i.e., those who had a relatively uneventful recovery, 20% received PN. Conclusions A considerable number of patients who had an uneventful recovery received PN. PN is not without risk, and should be reserved for those who are unable to take an oral diet. PD patients should undergo pre- and postoperative assessment by nutrition professionals to ensure they are managed appropriately, and to optimize perioperative outcomes.