Background The interrelationship between the sense of coherence, work environment, work engagement, and psychological distress have particular interest in non-health workers who carried out essential activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective To assess the effects of the COVID-19 on the physical and mental health of non-health workers. Design Observational descriptive cross-sectional study. Data sources 1089 questionnaires have been analysed. Engagement (UWES-9), sense of coherence (SOC-13), mental health (Goldberg GHQ-12), demographic data, perception of health and stress and work environment were assessed. Results At low levels of engagement, the percentage of distress is higher (77.9%). Low levels of sense of coherence correspond to the highest percentages of distress (86.3%). The 94.1% believe it necessary for professionals and volunteers involved in COVID-19 to receive psychological support. Low comprehensibility is mediated by the perception of stress; if the perception is low, comprehensibility is modulated by the level of significance; if it is low, it generates 95.9% of distress. Conclusion The interrelationship between the sense of coherence, work environment, work engagement, and psychological distress have particular interest in non-health workers who carried out essential activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Almost all respondents believed that professionals and volunteers involved in COVID-19 should receive psychological support. This may be an indicator of the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on workers’ mental health.

Potentially inappropriate medications are associated with polypharmacy and polypathology. Some interventions such as pharmacotherapy reviews have been designed to reduce the prescribing of inappropriate medications. The objective of this study is to evaluate how effective a decision-making support tool is for determining medication appropriateness in patients with one or more chronic diseases (hypertension, dyslipidaemia, and/or diabetes) and polypharmacy in the primary care setting. For this, a quasi-experimental study (randomised, controlled and multicentre) has been developed. The study compares an intervention group, which assesses medication appropriateness by applying a decision support tool, with a control group that follows the usual clinical practice. The intervention included a decision support tool in paper format, where participants were informed about polypharmacy, inappropriate medications, associated problems and available alternatives, as well as shared decision-making. This is an informative guide aimed at helping patients with decision-making by providing them with information about the secondary risks associated with inappropriate medications in their treatment, according to the Beers and START/STOPP criteria. The outcome measure was the proportion of medication appropriateness. The proportion of patients who confirmed medication appropriateness after six months of follow-up is greater in the intervention group (32.5%) than in the control group (27.9%) p = 0.008. The probability of medication appropriateness, which was calculated by the proportion of drugs withdrawn or replaced according to the STOPP/Beers criteria and those initiated according to the START criteria, was 2.8 times higher in the intervention group than in the control group (OR = 2.8; 95% CI 1.3–6.1) p = 0.008. In patients with good adherence to the treatment, the percentage of appropriateness was 62.1% in the shared decision-making group versus 37.9% in the control group (p = 0.005). The use of a decision-making support tool in patients with potentially inappropriate medications increases the percentage of medication appropriateness when compared to the usual clinical practice.

Introduction: The approach and use of the term “humanization” is very much present in healthcare. However, instruments for measuring the concept of the humanization of care are yet to be designed and developed. Objective: The main objective of this study was to evaluate and validate the Healthcare Professional Humanization Scale (HUMAS) for nursing professionals. Method: The sample was made up of 338 adults, who were nurses working at health centers and hospitals, and aged between 22 and 56. Results: The results of the analyses confirm that the Healthcare Professional Humanization Scale (HUMAS) has an adequate construct validity and reliability, and defines the humanization of care as a multidimensional construct, made up of five factors: Affection, Self-efficacy, Emotional understanding, Optimistic disposition and Sociability. Conclusions: The new HUMAS scale may be an easily administered and coded instrument for approaching the humanization of care, not only in research, but also in practice.

No abstract

Aim: To survey nurses' opinions about their work conditions at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain. Background: For the Spanish General Council of Nursing (the Consejo General de Enfermer ıa de España), it was essential to have information on nursing workforce conditions and nurses' preparedness to wear protective measures at the pandemic's onset. The coronavirus outbreak was believed to have started in China and rapidly spread as a global pandemic requiring policies and actions for planning emergency healthcare delivery. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted online. Data were collected during April 2020 and covered social demography, working conditions, training, availability of personal protective equipment, and nurses' health conditions, including the impact of COVID-19. Findings: From all national territories in Spain, 11 560 registered nurses from different services completed the questionnaire. Findings indicated that the lack of personal protective equipment was a crucial issue, as well as service planning and organization, and 80.2% reported high or very high psychological impact of COVID-19. Alarmingly, 29.5% of the nurses reported COVID-19 symptoms. Of these 23.3% had been tested, and 30.2% were confirmed as being positive to the virus. The nurses deemed proper preparedness for emergencies and disasters as a significant concern. Conclusion: Nurses' responses showed evidence of health services deficiencies as a source of damage to their capacity to provide safe patient care and protect themselves and their families' health. The working conditions of the nurses are at critical levels and are unacceptable. The study results provide evidence regarding the necessity of suitable planning and actions being taken to enable safe patient care and safety for nurses. Implications for Nursing and Health Policy: Our survey gathered nurses' views at the pandemic's onset. The evidence gathered is being used to advise policymakers and nursing organizations to take actions to control public health risks to populations. It is necessary that more investment in growing nursing workforce expertise and health infrastructure for pandemic and epidemic emergencies is provided.