RESUMEN
CONTEXT: The gradual impact of the Covid-19 pandemic had important effects on routines in surgical environments. In order to cope with the impact and re-establish anaesthesiology and surgery procedures, it was imperative to pursue in-depth studies with a view to ensuring safe surgical care, reducing hazards, as well as protecting the health, safety and wellbeing of the health personnel involved. The purpose of this study was to evaluate quantitative and qualitative approaches to domains of safety climate among multi-professional staffs of surgical centres during the Covid-19 pandemic and to identify intersections. METHODS: This mixed-method project employed a concomitant triangulation strategy on a quantitative approach in an exploratory, descriptive, cross-sectional study, as well as a qualitative approach by way of a descriptive study. Data were collected using the validated, self-applicable Safety Attitudes Questionnaire/Operating Room (SAQ/OR) questionnaire and a semi-structured interview script. The 144 participants were the surgical, anaesthesiology, nursing and support teams working in the surgical centre during the Covid-19 pandemic. RESULTS: The study found an overall safety climate score of 61.94, the highest-scoring domain being 'Communication in the surgical environment' (77.91) and the lowest, 'Perception of professional performance' (23.60). On integrating the results, a difference was found between the domains 'Communication in the surgical environment' and 'Working conditions'. However, there was intersection by the 'Perception of professional performance' domain, which permeated important categories of the qualitative analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For care practice, it is hoped to encourage improved patient safety, educational interventions to strengthen the patient safety climate and promote in-job wellbeing on the job for health personnel working in surgical centres. It is suggested that further studies explore the subject in greater depth among several surgical centres with mixed methods, so as to permit future comparisons and to monitor the evolving maturity of safety climate.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To describe the prevalence of testing among health workers providing care for suspected and confirmed cases of COVID-19. METHODS: This quantitative, cross-sectional study was conducted from April to June 2020, using a convenience sample. An online questionnaire was used for collecting sociodemographic, occupational, and clinical data, which were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: In total, 437 health workers participated in the study, with a predominance of nursing workers (58.68%), women (70.3%), age between 30 and 49 years (54.2%), individuals living in the Southeast region of Brazil (60.54%), working in the public care system (69.11%), and focused on primary care (30.89%). Among the participants, 36% reported comorbidities, 21.1% had symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, and only 27% had undergone some type of COVID-19 testing. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the existence of risk comorbidities and symptoms suggestive of contamination, the frequency of testing was below one third among respondents. The lack of action compromises health surveillance and protection strategies for workers providing care for the population and may favor the contamination of new patients and the community.
RESUMEN
The objective of this observational and descriptive study was to identify the behavior of relative parameters related to pulmonary mechanics of critical patients undergoing mechanic ventilation, after the nursing staff performed the technical procedure of decubitus position change. The accessible population, by non-probabilistic sampling, consisted of nine critical patients undergoing mechanical ventilation and their respective parameters related to pulmonary mechanics. Positive and negative alterations in pulmonary mechanics in all patients were identified, correlating with different positions, possibly associated with the change in decubitus position. In conclusion, clinical assessment is essential in nursing care regarding decubitus position change, because pulmonary mechanics may change according to the patient's position in bed, and may result in negative consequences.