The Cleaning and Disinfecting in Healthcare Working Group of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, National Occupational Research Agenda, is a collaboration of infection prevention and occupational health researchers and practitioners with the objective of providing a more integrated approach to effective environmental surface cleaning and disinfection (C&D) while protecting the respiratory health of health care personnel. The Working Group, comprised of >40 members from 4 countries, reviewed current knowledge and identified knowledge gaps and future needs for research and practice. An integrated framework was developed to guide more comprehensive efforts to minimize harmful C&D exposures without reducing the effectiveness of infection prevention. Gaps in basic knowledge and practice that are barriers to an integrated approach were grouped in 2 broad areas related to the need for improved understanding of the (1) effectiveness of environmental surface C&D to reduce the incidence of infectious diseases and colonization in health care workers and patients and (2) adverse health impacts of C&D on health care workers and patients. Specific needs identified within each area relate to basic knowledge, improved selection and use of products and practices, effective hazard communication and training, and safer alternatives. A more integrated approach can support multidisciplinary teams with the capacity to maximize effective and safe C&D in health care.

In recent years, cleaning has been identified as an occupational risk because of an increased incidence of reported respiratory effects, such as asthma and asthma-like symptoms among cleaning workers. Due to the lack of systematic occupational hygiene analyses and workplace exposure data, it is not clear which cleaning-related exposures induce or aggravate asthma and other respiratory effects. Currently, there is a need for systematic evaluation of cleaning products ingredients and their exposures in the workplace. The objectives of this work were to: a) identify cleaning products' ingredients of concern with respect to respiratory and skin irritation and sensitization; and b) assess the potential for inhalation and dermal exposures to these ingredients during common cleaning tasks.

Objectives In countries with ageing populations, home care (HC) aides are among the fastest growing jobs. There are few quantitative studies of HC occupational safety and health (OSH) conditions. The objectives of this study were to: (1) assess quantitatively the OSH hazards and benefits for a wide range of HC working conditions, and (2) compare OSH experiences of HC aides who are employed via different medical and social services systems in Massachusetts, USA. Methods HC aides were recruited for a survey via agencies that employ aides and schedule their visits with clients, and through a labour union of aides employed directly by clients or their families. The questionnaire included detailed questions about the most recent HC visits, as well as about individual aides’ OSH experiences. Results The study population included 1249 HC aides (634 agency-employed, 615 client-employed) contributing information on 3484 HC visits. Hazards occurring most frequently related to musculoskeletal strain, exposure to potentially infectious agents and cleaning chemicals for infection prevention and experience of violence. Client-hired and agency-hired aides had similar OSH experiences with a few exceptions, including use of sharps and experience of verbal violence. Conclusions The OSH experience of HC aides is similar to that of aides in institutional healthcare settings. Despite OSH challenges, HC aides enjoy caring for others and the benefits of HC work should be enhanced. Quantification of HC hazards and benefits is useful to prioritise resources for the development of preventive interventions and to provide an evidence base for policy-setting.

A growing body of epidemiologic evidence suggests an association between exposure to cleaning products with asthma and other respiratory disorders. Thus far, these studies have conducted only limited quantitative exposure assessments. Exposures from cleaning products are difficult to measure because they are complex mixtures of chemicals with a range of physicochemical properties, thus requiring multiple measurement techniques. We conducted a pilot exposure assessment study to identify methods for assessing short term, task-based airborne exposures and to quantitatively evaluate airborne exposures associated with cleaning tasks simulated under controlled work environment conditions.

Saudi Arabia (SA) is one of the hottest countries in the world. This study was conducted to assess the impact of summer heat stress in Southeastern SA on short-term kidney injury (KI) among building construction workers and to identify relevant risk factors. Measurements of urinary albumin-creatinine ratio (ACR), height, weight, hydration, symptoms, daily work and behavioral factors were collected in June and September of 2016 from a cohort of construction workers (n = 65) in Al-Ahsa Province, SA. KI was defined as ACR ≥ 30 mg/g. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to assess factors related to cross-summer changes in ACR. A significant increase in ACR occurred among most workers over the study period; incidence of KI was 18%. Risk factors associated with an increased ACR included dehydration, short sleep, and obesity. The findings suggest that exposure to summer heat may lead to the development of KI among construction workers in this region. Adequate hydration and promotion of healthy habits among workers may help reduce the risk of KI. A reduction in work hours may be the most effective intervention because this action can reduce heat exposure and improve sleep quality.

Women and men occupy different positions in the labor market and, in turn, have different work-related exposures and subsequent health effects. There is growing recognition that occupational studies need new methods to account for these differences in order to improve the workplace (Kilbom et al., 1998; Messing, 1998; Doyal, 2003; Messing et al., 2003; Johnson et al., 2009; Eng et al., 2011; Springer et al., 2012; Lewis and Mathiassen, 2013; Locke et al., 2014). Women and men can have different experiences of work exposures and health due to their sex, referring to biological differences, or to their gender, referring to socially constructed differences. Many occupational studies continue to ignore sex and gender considerations or use single sex samples and assume that findings can be generalized to both men and women (Hohenadel et al., 2015). While some researchers present results separately for men and women, which is a starting point, newer more comprehensive methods for modeling and data analyses are needed to advance the field.