Healthcare systems are responsible for 4%–5% of the emissions of greenhouse gases worldwide. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol divides carbon emissions into three scopes: scope 1 or direct emissions secondary to energy use; scope 2 or indirect emissions secondary to purchased electricity; and scope 3 for the rest of indirect emissions. Aim: To describe the environmental impact of health services. Design: A systematic review was conducted in the Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases. Studies that focused their analysis on a functional healthcare unit and which included. This review was conducted from August to October 2022. Results: The initial electronic search yielded a total of 4368 records. After the screening process according to the inclusion criteria, 13 studies were included in this review. The reviewed studies found that between 15% and 50% of the total emissions corresponded to scopes 1 and 2 emissions, whereas scope 3 emissions ranged between 50% and 75% of the total emissions. Disposables, equipment (medical and non‐medical) and pharmaceuticals represented the higher percentage of emissions in scope 3. Conclusion: Most of the emissions corresponded to scope 3, which includes the indirect emission occurring as a consequence of the healthcare activity, as this scope includes a wider range of emission sources than the other scopes. Implications for the profession and/or patient care: Interventions should be carried out by the healthcare organizations responsible of Greenhouse Gas emissions, and also every single individual that integrates them should make changes. The use of evidence‐based approaches to identify carbon hotspots and implement the most effective interventions in the healthcare setting could lead to a significant reduction of carbon emissions. Impact: This literature review highlights the impact that healthcare systems have on climate change and the importance of adopting and carrying out interventions to prevent its fast development. Reporting Method: This review adhered to PRISMA guideline. PRISMA 2020 is a guideline designed for systematic reviews of studies that analyse the effects of heath interventions, and aim is to help authors improve the reporting of systematic review and meta‐analyses. Patient or Public Contribution: No Patient or Public Contribution.

Emotional intelligence is an essential trait and skill for healthcare professionals. Mindfulness meditation has proved to be effective in increasing the wellbeing of those who practice it, leading to better mental health, self-care and job satisfaction. This paper aims to identify the recent evidence on the relationship between mindfulness and emotional intelligence among healthcare professionals and students. A systematic review was conducted including the databases PubMed, Cinhal, PsycINFO and Web of Science. The main variables were emotional intelligence skills and mindfulness practice. Data were extracted according to the following outcomes: authors, year of publication, country, study design, participants, mindfulness training intervention, tools used in data collection and main results. The following inclusion criteria were applied: peer-reviewed articles; published in English or Spanish; published between 2010 and 2020; quantitative methodology; a study population of healthcare professionals or students; the relationship with the aim of the study. The Joanna Briggs Institute criteria were followed for assessing the methodological quality of the selected studies. Three researchers were involved in the review. After the selection process, 10 studies were selected out of the 197 references initially identified. These studies revealed a positive relationship between mindfulness and emotional intelligence, particularly the capacity to regulate emotions. Furthermore, mindfulness is negatively related to emotional exhaustion. Training interventions based on mindfulness have proved to be useful in promoting emotional balance, emotional awareness, emotional acceptance, emotion recognition, expressive suppression and a reduction in emotional exhaustion. This study could serve as a basis for further research on the benefits of emotional intelligence and practicing mindfulness for the bio-psycho-social welfare of healthcare professionals.

The increase in the demand for care has not led to a proportional growth in the number of primary care nurses. This imbalance is related to the decrease in the quality of care and patient safety, and also to the impact on the health of the professional group. The objective of this study is to identify relationships between overload, illness of the nurse, professional exhaustion, quality and safety in the services; and differentiate study methods and instruments for measuring the phenomena. For this, a comprehensive and structured review of the literature following the scoping review model is performed. The studies on which this review is based allow us to recognize that the scope of this phenomenon is global. The review includes 45 studies that show that there is a high pressure of care for Primary Care nursing, who suffer many alterations of their health due to burnout syndrome and that this situation contributes to the impairment of the quality of care and patient safety. However, for future lines, new evidence is needed to determine the degree of relationship between the high pressure suffered by Primary Care nursing and the attainment of health goals for professionals and patients.

Aims To describe the level of work engagement of active health care professionals during the COVID‐19 pandemic, and its relationship with psychological distress according to the professional category. Background Health care professionals working on the front line of the COVID‐19 pandemic are at risk of psychological distress, and work engagement could be a positive attitude that could serve as a protective factor. Methods Cross‐sectional observational study of 1,459 health care professionals. Psychological distress was measured with the General Health Questionnaire and work engagement with the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Data were analysed with bivariate analyses and correlations. Results Psychological distress was reported by 80.6% of health care professionals. Work engagement as high with a total mean score of 5.04 (SD = 1.14). The results showed that distressed professionals showed significantly lower levels of work engagement. Conclusions The present study identified psychological distress and work engagement experienced by health care professionals during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Most of the variables included in the study revealed a significant relationship with psychological distress and work engagement. Implications for Nursing Management The relationship between the working conditions with psychological distress and work engagement suggests that improvements in the workplace are needed to promote protective measure for the mental health of health care professionals.

The health crisis triggered by COVID-19 and the preventive measures taken to control it have caused a strong psychological impact on the population, especially on healthcare professionals. Risk exposure, uncertainty about how to approach the disease, care and emotional overburden, lack of resources, or unclear ever-changing protocols are, among others, psychological distress risk factors for the healthcare professionals who have faced this dramatic scenario on the front line. On the other hand, the Sense of Coherence (SOC) is a competence that could help these professionals perceive the situation as understandable, manageable, and meaningful, facilitating the activation of their resilience. This work aims to describe the levels of psychological distress and SOC of healthcare professionals during the crisis caused by COVID-19, the relationship between both variables, and their health status. A cross-sectional descriptive study with a sample of 1459 currently active healthcare workers was developed. GHQ-12 and SOC-13 were used for data collection. Bivariate analyses were performed, including Chi-Squared Test, Student’s T-Test, Analysis of Variance—ANOVA (with Bonferroni test for multiple comparisons), and correlations. Cohen’s d or Cramer’s V effect size measurements were also provided. The results showed that 80.6% of healthcare professionals had psychological distress, and the mean score on the SOC-13 scale was 62.8 points (SD = 12.02). Both psychological distress and SOC were related to the presence of COVID-19 symptoms, as well as with contact history. Professionals with psychological distress showed a lower SOC. Taking care of the mental health of healthcare professionals is essential to effectively cope with the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the psychological impact of working in the current menacing scenario, people on the front line against the disease should be protected, minimizing risks, providing them with resources and support, and fostering their coping skills.

Nurses are continuously exposed to stressors and psychological and physical risks that can negatively influence their daily work. These adverse psychosocial circumstances, accompanied by the poor self-perception of health, well-being, and quality of life, may trigger burnout. The positive psychology approach pursues a growth of passion at work, increased job satisfaction, and occupational health, both mental and physical, for the optimal performance of the nursing role. In this way, a theoretical analysis was conducted to describe the basic constructs of positive psychology, elements such as engagement, passion at work, centrality, and meaning of work, which could act as protective factors in the nursing profession. The results show that if health professionals are not physically involved, cognitively alert, and emotionally connected, they may not offer the quality care patients require. Positive psychology helps nurses in facing their complex reality and relevant daily activities in order to provide quality care. These efforts towards a humanist nursing care in which professionals are able to care for the others as well as themselves should be made.