The Singapore Green Plan 2030 was released by the Singapore government to set targets for sustainability by 2030. The adoption of novel technologies, processes and substances creates new jobs, and such developments bring about new challenges and risks for both employers and workers. Beyond emerging hazards, traditional hazards still remain, but they may take on new forms through new work processes. This review aims to provide an overview of the potential occupational health issues we may encounter or anticipate in these key sectors: solar energy, waste management and recycling, green buildings, electric vehicles and battery recycling, and sustainable fuels. While existing Occupational Safety and Health regulations in Singapore serve as a foundation, there may be gaps in addressing the specific hazards and risks associated with green jobs. In this review, we propose and outline possible approaches to the protection of worker safety and health.
Singapore ; Humans ; Occupational Health ; Recycling ; Waste Management ; Solar Energy ; Occupational Exposure

Acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) is a devastating disease and one of the leading causes of disabilities worldwide. From 2010 to 2014, the incidence of stroke in Malaysia had increased from 65 to 187 per 100,000 population.1 Thrombolytic therapy with intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) within 4.5 hours of symptom onset has been shown to be an effective treatment for AIS. Patients who receive thrombolysis are 30 percent more likely to achieve excellent functional outcome (modified Rankin scale of 0 to 1) at 3 months compared to placebo.2 Unfortunately, the delivery of stroke thrombolysis service in Malaysia is often limited by the availability of neurologists. To date, the ratio of neurologists capable of performing thrombolysis serving in public hospitals to the Malaysian population is 1:1.4 million.3 To counteract this disparity and to cope with the increasing stroke burden in Malaysia, there has been an advocacy for greater involvement of non-neurologists, i.e., general and emergency physicians in performing of stroke thrombolysis.4 Emerging data based on short term outcomes appear to support this notion. Based on a 2015 single center study on 49 AIS patients in Australia, A. Lee et al., reported that there was no significant difference in door to needle time, rates of symptomatic intracranial bleeding (SICH), and mortality between patients thrombolysed by neurologists versus stroke physicians.5 In 2016, a larger multicentre study in Thailand reported that patients thrombolysed in hospitals without neurologists had lower National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores at discharge and lower inpatient mortality rate compared to patients treated in neurologist hospitals.6 Based on these short term outcomes, both studies suggest that nonneurologists are able to thrombolyse AIS patients safely and effectively. Data comparing long term functional outcomes in thrombolysis prescribed by neurologists and nonneurologists are still very limited. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the 3-month functional outcomes of thrombolytic therapy between hospitals with and without on-site neurologists. The secondary objective was to assess the doorto-needle time and complication rates of thrombolysis service in both hospitals

BACKGROUND: Studies worldwide indicate that people with intellectual disability have high risks of physical and mental morbidities, and poor quality of health care. This study was aimed at determining general practitioners' perceptions on barriers in clinical assessment and training needs with regard to the healthcare of community-dwelling people with intellectual disability. METHODS: A survey questionnaire was developed specifically for the study through focus group discussions and a literature review. The study was conducted as a cross-sectional anonymous survey of private general practitioners practicing in Singapore. The survey contained questions on their experience and training needs in assessing and treating patients with intellectual disability. RESULTS: Forty-nine of the 272 questionnaires sent out were returned. The respondents were predominantly male general practitioners working in “solo” practices. For most general practitioners, the proportion of patients with intellectual disability ranged from 1% to 5%. Nearly 90% of general practitioners identified problems in communicating with such patients as an important barrier that affected the quality of assessment of their health conditions. Other barriers identified were behavioral issues and sensory impairments. Only one-third of the general practitioners were confident that they had sufficient knowledge of physical and mental health conditions related to patients with intellectual disability. Three-fourths of the general practitioners believed that further training in this area would be beneficial. CONCLUSION: Appropriate interventions to address barriers in assessment and management of patients with intellectual disability with further training for general practitioners may improve the standard of healthcare provided to this population group.
Anonyms and Pseudonyms ; Delivery of Health Care* ; Focus Groups ; General Practitioners ; Humans ; Intellectual Disability* ; Male ; Mental Health ; Population Groups ; Primary Health Care ; Quality of Health Care ; Singapore* ; Surveys and Questionnaires

This paper gives an overview of what the GP Partnership Programme (GPPP), an integrated care programme, has achieved over a span of ten years, since its implementation in 2003 by the Institute of Mental Health, a tertiary mental health institution in Singapore. The GPPP is a collaboration between the GPs and IMH, for the care and management of stable patients with mental illness in the community and primary care setting. Since 2003, more than 1300 patients have been referred through the GPPP to a team of 51 GP-Partners for continued care within the community.