Development and Validation of a Nurse Station Ergonomics Assessment Tool

Background: Nurse stations are one of the primary units for supporting effective functioning of any hospital. They are important working environments that demand adherence to known ergonomic principles for the well-being of both staff and patients. The aim of this study was to develop a psychometrically tested tool for the assessment of the ergonomic conditions of nurse workstations in hospitals. Methods: Ten hospitals, with a total of 133 nurse stations participated in this mixed-methods research. The domains and items of the tool were developed based on a literature review, an experts’ panel, and interviews with nurses. Results: The final nurse station ergonomic assessment (NSEA) tool has good psychometric properties. Validity was assessed by face validity and content validity. Reliability was evaluated using inter-rater agreement and test-retest reliability analyses with a four-week interval between assessments. The NSEA is comprised of 64 items across eight domains: layout and location (7 items), workspace (11 items), security-safety (5 items), environmental conditions (8 items), counter (8 items), chair (13 items), desk (9 items), and monitor (3 items). Conclusions: The NSEA adds to the literature a tool for managers to ensure they comply with legal requirements and support best practice for those working on hospital wards. The NSEA can be used to identify challenges for healthcare professionals who use nurse stations and support the execution of targeted interventions to improve human-environment interaction

Heterogeneous treatment effects of therapeutic-dose heparin in patients hospitalized for COVID-19

Importance Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of therapeutic-dose heparin in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 produced conflicting results, possibly due to heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) across individuals. Better understanding of HTE could facilitate individualized clinical decision-making. Objective To evaluate HTE of therapeutic-dose heparin for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and to compare approaches to assessing HTE. Design, Setting, and Participants Exploratory analysis of a multiplatform adaptive RCT of therapeutic-dose heparin vs usual care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in 3320 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 enrolled in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia between April 2020 and January 2021. Heterogeneity of treatment effect was assessed 3 ways: using (1) conventional subgroup analyses of baseline characteristics, (2) a multivariable outcome prediction model (risk-based approach), and (3) a multivariable causal forest model (effect-based approach). Analyses primarily used bayesian statistics, consistent with the original trial. Exposures Participants were randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures Organ support–free days, assigning a value of −1 to those who died in the hospital and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 for those who survived to hospital discharge; and hospital survival. Results Baseline demographic characteristics were similar between patients randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care (median age, 60 years; 38% female; 32% known non-White race; 45% Hispanic). In the overall multiplatform RCT population, therapeutic-dose heparin was not associated with an increase in organ support–free days (median value for the posterior distribution of the OR, 1.05; 95% credible interval, 0.91-1.22). In conventional subgroup analyses, the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin on organ support–free days differed between patients requiring organ support at baseline or not (median OR, 0.85 vs 1.30; posterior probability of difference in OR, 99.8%), between females and males (median OR, 0.87 vs 1.16; posterior probability of difference in OR, 96.4%), and between patients with lower body mass index (BMI 90% for all comparisons). In risk-based analysis, patients at lowest risk of poor outcome had the highest propensity for benefit from heparin (lowest risk decile: posterior probability of OR >1, 92%) while those at highest risk were most likely to be harmed (highest risk decile: posterior probability of OR <1, 87%). In effect-based analysis, a subset of patients identified at high risk of harm (P = .05 for difference in treatment effect) tended to have high BMI and were more likely to require organ support at baseline. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin was heterogeneous. In all 3 approaches to assessing HTE, heparin was more likely to be beneficial in those who were less severely ill at presentation or had lower BMI and more likely to be harmful in sicker patients and those with higher BMI. The findings illustrate the importance of considering HTE in the design and analysis of RCTs. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, NCT0437258

HFE in Biophilic Design: Human Connections with Nature

Human Factors and Ergonomics (HFE) pays insufficient attention to nature based solutions for workplace issues, despite evidence for its effectiveness, while also being relatively inexpensive to implement. Lumber, Richardson and Albertsen discuss research evidence for the well-being, health, attention and sustainability benefits of belonging to a wider natural community through nature connection and biophilic design within work-based environments. From there, the importance of practitioner’s utilising natural elements in workplace environments is highlighted before Lumber, Richardson and Albertsen provide a critical outline for how these often-overlooked elements of human connections with nature can be incorporated into HFE for happier, healthier, more sustainable, and productive workplaces