Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2015 Dec 17;81(4):522–529. doi: 10.1016/j.aogh.2015.08.019

Occupational Risks of Health Professionals in Turkey as an Emerging Economy

Nilgun Ulutasdemir ∗,∗, Metin Cirpan †, Ebru Ozturk Copur ‡, Ferdi Tanir §
PMCID: PMC7103950  PMID: 26709284

Abstract

Background

Health services are one of the work areas that contain important risks in terms of the occupational health and safety of the laborer. Professionals in various areas of health services encounter biological, chemical, physical, ergonomic, and psychosocial risks, particularly in hospitals.

Objectives

This study has been performed to evaluate the impacts of the occupational risks on health of health professionals in Turkey.

Findings

In Turkey, as an emerging economy, the history of studies on health professionals is not longstanding. There have been various regulations intended for the occupational health and safety of health professionals in line with the Regulation of the Provision on Patient and Staff Safety prepared in 2012. However, applications can differ from region to region, institution to institution, and person to person.

Conclusions

We believe that this review will lead health professionals to be aware of occupational risks and contribute to planning health services for health professionals.

Key Words: health professional, occupational risk, occupational health and safety, Turkey

Health services is a work area that can lead to important risks with regard to health and safety of employees.1 The possibility of encountering occupational risks as health professionals can change according to the profession, the work itself, and the unit of the hospital.

This study has been conducted to assess the effects of occupational risks on the health of employees working in hospitals in Turkey. In our country, the working conditions of health professionals are quite strenuous in some regions. Precautions regarding employee safety are insufficient in hospitals and health institutions in Turkey. Professional development and education opportunities for health professionals are limited, and the professional organization is also not sufficient.2 It has been reported that as the working hours per week increase, the possibility of being injured also increases. It has also been specified that professionals who did not receive the occupational health and safety training before have a higher incidence of accidents.3 Nonfatal accidents at work and occupational disease cases of health professionals rank at the top compared with other industries.4 However, in Turkey, the inclusion of hospitals in the “Very Dangerous Jobs” class was barely approved in 2009 via “Hazard Classes List Notification Relating Work Health and Safety.”5, 6

Occupational Risks of Health Professionals

The risks that affect the health status of health professionals can be classified as biological, physical, ergonomic, chemical, and psychosocial. The American National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has reported 29 kinds of physical, 25 kinds of chemical, 24 varieties of biological, 10 kinds of ergonomic, and 6 kinds of psychosocial hazards and risks.7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Biological Risk Factors

Biological agents transmitted by blood and bloody body fluids

These biological agents can be transmitted through the skin because of its impaired integrity and through mucous membranes (mouth, eye, and urogenital mucosa) as a result of the exposure to blood or bloody body fluids and some sterile body fluids. Although there are almost 30 microorganisms that can be transmitted in this way, the most important are hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, hepatitis D virus, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) because they can lead to systemic infections and because of their current prevalence. The diversity of the clinical outcomes of these agents varies from asymptomatic infections to severe and even fatal infections.2, 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 The transmission of infections to health professionals via blood occurs mostly through penetration with needles used in patients, injury with contaminated sharp instruments, or mucosal splashes with infected blood or body fluids.19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Two thirds of health professionals have stated that they have been exposed to blood or body fluids at least once; HIV infection was related to the profession in 57% of HIV-positive health professionals, and the risk of developing hepatitis B infection in health professionals is 10 times greater than in the general population.17, 18, 28

Agents transmitted by respiration and droplets

Some agents, such as droplets and droplet cores, can be transmitted via the respiratory secretions of patients. Tuberculosis, measles, rubella, chickenpox, severe acute respiratory syndrome, influenza, meningococcal, and pneumococcal infections transmit in this way.9, 18 According to the various studies performed in Turkey, health professionals, particularly nurses, are at risk, especially those working in pulmonary diseases services.16, 28, 29, 30 Demir et al performed a study to determine the tuberculosis infection risk among health professionals working in a pulmonary disease hospital and another hospital that does not have a pulmonary disease clinic. They reported that the tuberculosis infection risk was 7.4 times higher in the pulmonary disease hospital than in the hospital without a pulmonary disease clinic because of the higher tuberculosis exposure.31

Infections transmitted via direct contact

These infectious agents transmit via directly contact with the patient. There is no need to be in contact with the skin or mucosa or for loss of skin integrity for transmission. Resistant bacteria and skin parasites such as scabies are examples of microorganisms that can lead to severe infections in inpatients.16

Chemical Risk Factors

Various chemicals are key agents that are used to diagnose and treat diseases, perform preventive applications, and take hygienic precautions, although they are hazardous for health status of health professionals. Health professionals are exposed to chemicals (disinfectants, anesthetic agents, cytotoxic agents, drugs, some heavy metals such as mercury and latex, etc.) repeatedly and sometimes in substantial amounts. These agents can have a wide variety of effects that vary according to concentrations, contact time and method, presence of other risky agents, personal features of the health professional, and so on.32 Exposures to acids and alkalis, salts, dyes, volatile organic solvents, and various drugs, including primarily anticancer drugs in pathology, biochemistry, hematology, and other laboratories, are important risk factors for a series of diseases from allergy to cancer.7, 33

Drugs that cause severe organ toxicity and other toxic effects; show mutagenic, carcinogenic, or teratogenic effects; or are implicated in reproductive system disorders are defined as “hazardous drugs.” Long-term exposure to antineoplastic/cytotoxic drugs used in chemotherapy leads to potential risks in health professionals. At the stages of preparation, administration, and waste disposal of these drugs, severe health outcomes can be observed as a result of inhalation of powder and droplets, absorption through the skin, and ingestion of contaminated food, as well as particularly teratogenic, carcinogenic, and genotoxic effects that threaten reproduction during pregnancy.9, 17, 18, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39

Physical Risk Factors

The main physical risk factors that affect health professionals are ionizing and nonionizing radiation, noise, lighting, electrical assembly, slippery floors, temperature extremes, ventilation, vibration, and indoor pollution.7, 15, 17, 40, 41 Ionizing radiation is one of the most important physical hazards in hospitals, and it influences various different health professionals in different units and with different specializations (mainly radiotherapy, nuclear medicine, and radiology staff). Ionizing radiation has carcinogenic, teratogenic, and mutagenic impacts, and it is fatal in high concentrations. It leads to burns, cataracts, infertility, and genetic and congenital anomalies in moderate concentrations, and it causes cancer (particularly leukemia) with long-term exposure.6, 17, 18, 40

Nonionizing radiation is another physical risk factor for health professionals. It has been stated that the increase in the use of devices with electromagnetic fields and exposure to these electromagnetic fields deteriorate the body's balance and lead to diseases. It has been reported that exposure to nonionizing radiation, particularly during a work time of about 8-10 hours, leads to a feeling of dryness in the throat, eye problems, headaches, allergies, facial flushing, insomnia, sensitivity to sounds, hearing difficulties, and fatigue.7, 42, 43

Loudness is another important factor that disquiets people, complicates communication, restricts relaxation, adversely affects and harms the nervous system, reduces work efficiency, and creates hearing problems. Studies have found that loudness has increased to a level of discomfort for patients and health professionals in hospitals in the last 50 years.17, 40, 44, 45, 46

The ventilation system of the hospitals affects the health protection of both patients and health professionals in terms of nosocomial infections. Therefore, ventilation systems should be designed to prevent nosocomial infections by paying attention to biological and physical features of related microorganisms.

Another physical factor that can affect health professionals is workplace lighting. A sufficient and satisfactory level of lighting should be arranged to provide a comfortable workplace for health professionals.47

Ergonomic Factors

The more harmonization is ensured between employer and work environment, the better the safety and efficiency that can be provided to employees.48, 49, 50 When there is inconsistency between the physical capacity of the laborer and the physical requirements of a job, occupational diseases may occur.51 In particular, nurses are the third most likely—after heavy industry workers and heavy vehicle drivers—to experience musculoskeletal system problems.7, 52 According to a study performed in Turkey examining the prevalence of low back pain in the last 12 months and related factors, it was found that the prevalence of low back pain in the last 12 months was at a high level that affected working life (73.3%).53 Another study indicated that frequency of low back pain in the last year was 58.3% in nurses and health officers and 33.0% in sick nurses.54

Psychosocial Factors

Job satisfaction describes the harmony between the employee's expectations of the institution and the profession and the opportunities offered to the employee. Job satisfaction is one of the factors that affects burnout, which has severe outcomes, particularly in professions that provide services directly to people. An intense burnout state can lead to problems such as resignations, incompatibility in marriage and family, decreased self-esteem, difficulty concentrating, social isolation, and so on.55, 56 A factor that adversely influences job satisfaction and leads to burnout in the workplace is violence. Violence, which has affected the health of health professionals recently, can be observed as a problem in every health institution and health professional.7, 40 Violence in a health institution is defined as a verbal or behavioral threat or physical or sexual assault.57, 58 It has been increasingly acknowledged that health professionals, who must be in direct contact with individuals in difficult situations because of their deteriorated health status, are the most frequent targets and victims of occupational violence among all professions.59, 60, 61, 62 In Turkey, 5 doctors have been killed in the last 10 years as a result of violence in hospitals: Göksel Kalayci (November 11, 2005), Ali Menekse (January 15, 2008), Ersin Arslan (April 17, 2012), Melike Erdem (November 30, 2012), and Kamil Furtun (May 29, 2015). Some studies have estimated that health professionals' risk of exposure to violence from patients, families of patients, or others is 4-16 times greater than other employees in various sectors (such as guards, police officers, bank employees, retail workers, and those working in the transport sector).60, 63, 64, 65

According to the 2002 report of the World Health Organization titled “Workplace Violence in the Health Sector,” the International Labor Organization and the International Union of Nurses, it has been reported that more than 50% of health professionals have been exposed to violence.66 According to this report, approximately 3%-17% of health professionals were exposed to physical violence, 27%-67% were exposed to verbal violence, 10%-23% were exposed to psychological violence, 0.78% were exposed to sexual violence, and 0.8%-2.7% were exposed to ethnic violence.67 This violence has long-term effects on health professionals, such as despondency, job loss, discontentedness, decreased job satisfaction, anxiety, life-threatening injury, restlessness, anger, stress disorder, nightmares, sleep problems, and so on. Violence in the workplace not only affects the employee but also influences the colleagues, family, and friends of the individual.68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76

Studies performed on workplace violence have found that psychological violence has reached more dangerous levels compared with physical violence. Psychological violence in the workplace (mobbing) is defined as systematic and hostile attitudes of one or several people toward one individual with unethical communication. Mobbing is generally performed by management teams, but it can also be performed by colleagues, subordinates, or a group of employees. It has been specified that health professionals, particularly nurses, are at serious risk of being exposed to mobbing in the workplace.77, 78, 79, 80 Mobbing leads to excessive stress, exclusion, anxiety, digestive system problems, sleep disorders, depression, anxiety, job dissatisfaction, and burnout.77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88

Occupational Health and Safety Services for Health Professionals in Turkey

The Central Council of the Turkish Medical Association initiated the first studies on the health status of health professionals in Turkey in 1989 with the slogan, “This is our health.” Then a database on the subject was set to be established.89 Creating a requirement for a committee that should carry out studies regarding the health and safety of employees working in the hospital was discussed in 1999-2000; pilot studies were initiated, but these studies were not completed. Precautions intended to protect the safety of health professionals were compiled in the 15th item of the “Notification on Principles and Procedures Related to Ensuring the Patient and Staff Safety and Protection in Health Institutions,” which was approved on April 29, 2009. In a sense, this document created a basis for the establishment of the related OHS unit.90, 91

The concept of OHS services are defined by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration and National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and Hospital Safety Committee. Accordingly, they are explained as first-step health care that improves and protects the health of health professionals and fulfills therapeutic care services for outpatients. An effective hospital occupational health program must include at least the following components: recruitment examinations, including a full medical history; periodic inspections; health and safety training; immunizations; health counseling; environmental control and surveillance; record systems of health and safety; and coordinated planning between hospital departments and services. Furthermore, an environmental control and surveillance program should be part of the occupational health program and required precautions should be taken by performing risk analyses.91, 92, 93, 94, 95

The Association of Public Health Professionals (originally HASUDER in Turkey) Occupational Health Working Group (OHWG) held their first meeting at Gazi University, Medical Faculty, Ankara, hosted by the Chief of Medicine on September 18, 2010. This Health Organization Workshop of Health Professionals in Hospitals meeting, organized by HASUDER and OHWG in 2010, addressed the problems of hospital OHS units. It was stated that the basic problem was financing. Because it was not written in the Health Communication Notification, it was decided that employers should pay the costs in case the payment was a burden to employees. It has been emphasized that committees in hospitals still need to reach a consensus about organization, function, and finance.96

Public health professionals had an opportunity to take advantage of occupational health and safety services with the help of the “Regulation on the Provision of Patient and Staff Safety” published by the Ministry of Health on April 6, 2011, in the Official Gazette and the “Occupational Health and Safety Law” published by the Ministry of Labour and Social Security on June 30, 2012, in the Official Gazette.93 Later, hospitals were informed about the implementation of regulations and the establishment of the employee safety unit via instructions issued May 14, 2012.94 In the HASUDER-OHWG workshop hosted by the Antalya Akdeniz University Medical Faculty on September 13-15, 2012, organization of employee health units, the functions of these units, and financing topics were discussed and a model was established by receiving the contributions and recommendations of the participants. In this workshop, the aim was to recommend a model for the organization of newly established OHS units or those to be established in the future, the functions of these units, and financing. It was also intended to notify institutions and to create a common language in terms of naming concepts to avoid complicating the issues.97

Economic Aspects of Occupational Health and Safety

Industrialization and technological developments have led to occupational injuries and environmental risks, which cause socioeconomic losses not only in Turkey but also in many other countries, including European countries.98, 99, 100 Although there are precautions taken against occupational risks in developed European countries, occupational accidents and diseases due to profession have not been prevented for long years. This indicates that it is hard to overcome the risk of occupational disease and accidents. On the other hand, the gradual decrease in occupational accidents and job-related diseases in European countries in the last 10 years demonstrates the importance of applying precautions. In this regard, when we consider the outcomes of Turkey, we should support regulations in the workplace, create incentive systems, ensure the effectiveness of the Occupational Health and Safety Workers' Representation and Occupational Health and Security Committees, and increase training to foster social consciousness instead of waiting for employees and employers to apply these rules themselves.98 According to the International Labor Organization, it has been reported that there is $1.25 trillion loss each year as a result of OHS problems.101 In Turkey, the loss of only social security systems has been reported as approximately 4 million Turkish Liras per year.102 According to a report of Turkey Statistical Institute on 2007 gross domestic product values, the total costs of occupational accidents in Turkey are almost 35 billion Turkish Liras per year.103

Conclusions

In Turkey, although there are occupational health and safety units in state and private hospitals, hardware, personnel, and services are still lacking. Therefore, the applications can vary from region to region and institution to institution as well as person to person.92 In this regard, it may be efficient in Turkey for the government to control services for health professionals and to see that these services are provided independent of the requests of individuals, as in various European countries.94 The health of health professionals also affects the health of the community. When we consider the regional differences of hospitals in terms of technical equipment, staff, and quality of services in Turkey, which is an emerging economy, it is very important to apply the regulations specified by national laws and procedures across the country, including the public and private health sectors. Additionally, it is crucial to decrease health workers' exposure to occupational risks.104

OHS is crucial in terms of resource allocation. If a portion of economic resources can be allocated to OHS training and organization, the efficiency and incremental change in production as a result of the application of OHS regulations can accelerate economic growth and development.105 The importance of OHS precautions has increased because of the understanding that the costs to mitigate the harm of occupational accidents are higher than the costs of preventing occupational accidents.106

Footnotes

No outside funding was received for this study. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  • 1.Mollaoğlu M., Kars Fertelli T., Özkan Tuncay F. Hastanede çalışan hemşirelerin çalışma ortamlarına ilişkin algılarının değerlendirilmesi. Fırat Sağlık Hizmetleri Dergisi. 2010;5:17–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.İzgia M.C., Öztürk Türkmen H. Akdeniz Üniversitesi’nde Taşeron Sağlık İşçilerinin Işçi Sağlığı ve İş Güvenliği Durum Tespiti. Türkiye Halk Sağlığı Dergisi. 2012;10:160–173. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Azap A., Ergönül Ö., Memikoğlu K.O. Occupational exposure to blood and body fluids among health care workers in Ankara, Turkey. Am J Infect Control. 2005;33:48–52. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2004.08.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Workplace Safety & Health Topics: Healthcare Workers. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Atlanta, GA: 2014. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/healthcare Available at: Accessed June 24, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Türkay M., Aydoğdu E. 2011. Bir Üniversite Hastanesinde Çalışan Sağlık Çalışanlarının İş Kazası Geçirme Prevalansı ve Kaza GeçIrmeyi Etkileyen Faktörler; pp. 143–144. Sağlık Çalışanlarının Sağlığı 3. Ulusal Kongresi Kitabı. http://www.tdb.org.tr/tdb/v2/yayinlar/Saglik_Calisanlarinin_Sagiligi_3.Ulusal_Kongre_Kongre%20Kitabi-17.11.2011.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sabuncu HH. Hastanelerde İş Güvenliği, İş Sağlığı ve Çevre Sağlığı Hizmetlerinin Organizasyonu. Available at: http://www.saglikcalisanisagligi.org/tezler2 /Yeni.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2015.
  • 7.Meydanlıoğlu A. Sağlık Çalışanlarının Sağlığı ve Güvenliği. Balıkesir Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2013;2:192–199. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Özkan Ö., Emiroğlu O.N. Hastane Sağlık Çalışanlarına Yönelik İşçi Sağlığı ve İş Güvenliği Hizmetleri. C.Ü. Hemşirelik Yüksekokulu Dergisi. 2006;10:43–51. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Beşer A. Sağlık Çalışanlarının Sağlık Riskleri ve Yönetimi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Yüksekokulu Elektronik Dergisi. 2012;5:39–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Toraman A.R., Battal F., Ozturk K., Akcin B. Sharps injury prevention for hospital workers. Int J Occupat Safety Ergon. 2011;17:455–461. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2011.11076908. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Aksan A.D. Ege Üniversitesi, Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü; İzmir: 2005. Ege Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Hastanesinde Çalışan Hemşirelere Yönelik İş Kazası Kayıt Sisteminin Geliştirilmesi ve İzlenmesi. Doktora Tezi. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bloodborne infectious diseases: HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B, hepatitis C; overview. CDC 24,7. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/bbp/. Accessed June 24, 2015.
  • 13.Abbasoğlu S., Emiroğlu C., İlhan N.M., Koşar L., Kesedar S., Müezzinoğlu A. Sağlık çalışanlarının sağlığı kime emanet. Toplum ve Hekim. 2006;21:173–179. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Dokuzoğuz B. Bilimsel Tıp Yayınevi; 2004. Sağlık Çalışanlarının Meslek Riskleri. Hastane Enfeksiyonları Kontrolü El Kitabı; pp. 403–417. Hastane Enfeksiyonları Derneği Yayını No: 2. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Saygun M. Sağlık çalışanlarında iş sağlığı ve güvenliği sorunları. TAF Prevent Med Bull. 2012;11:373–382. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ergönül Ö. Sağlık Çalışanlarının Sağlığı 4. Ulusal Kongresi Kongre Kitabı; Ankara: 2013. Kan ve Vücut Sıvılarıyla Bulaşan Etkenler Açısından Türkiye’deki Durum ve Korunma Yolları; pp. 68–74. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sağlık Çalışanlarının Meslek Riskleri (Birinci Baskı) Türk Tabipleri Birliği Yayınları; Ankara: 2008. http://www.ttb.org.tr/kütüphane.sc_meslek_risklri.pdf Available at: Accessed June 24, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Emiroğlu C. Sağlık sektöründe mesleki riskler ve hukuksal düzenlemeler. Türk Tabipler Birliği Mesleki Sağlık ve Güvenlik Dergisi. 2012;43:16–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Erol S., Özkurt Z., Ertek M., Kadanalı A., Taşyaran M.A. Sağlık çalışanlarında kan ve vücut sıvılarıyla olan mesleki temaslar. Hastane İnfeksiyonları Dergisi. 2005;9:101–106. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Himmelreich H., Rabenau H.F., Rindermann M. The management of needlestick injuries. Deutsches Arzteblatt Int. 2013;110:61–67. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2013.0061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Yıldırım G. Bilimsel Tıp Yayınevi; 2004. Kan Yoluyla Bulaşan Hastalıklardan Korunma. Hastane İnfeksiyonları Kontrolü El Kitabı; pp. 419–423. Hastane Enfeksiyonları Derneği Yayını No: 2. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Köktürk M., Kurşun S.¸, Yavuz M., Dramalı A. 4. Ulusal Cerrahi ve Ameliyathane Hemşireliği Kongresi; İzmir: 2003. Hastanede Çalışan Sağlık Personelinde Kesici Delici Alet Yaralanmalarının İncelenmesi; pp. 305–315. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Richard V.S., Kenneth J., Ramaprabha P., Kirupakaran H., Chandy G.M. Impact of introduction of sharps containers and of education programmes on the pattern of needle stick injuries in a tertiary care centre in india. J Hospital Infect. 2001;47:163–165. doi: 10.1053/jhin.2000.0865. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Korkmaz M. Sağlık Çalışanlarında Delici Kesici Alet Yaralanmaları. Fırat Sağlık Hizmetleri Dergisi. 2008;3:17–37. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.İlhan M.N., Durukan E., Aras E., Türkçüoğlu S., Aygün R. Long working hours increase the risk of sharp and needlestick injury in nurses: the need for new policy implication. J Advanced Nurs. 2006;56:563–568. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04041.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kuruüzüm Z., Elmalı Z., Günay S., Gündüz S.¸, Yapan Z. Sağlık Çalışanlarında Kan ve Beden Sıvılarıyla Oluşan Mesleksel Yaralanmalar: Bir Anket Çalışması. Mikrobiyoloji Bülteni. 2008;42:61–69. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ortabağ T., Güleşen A., Yava A., Bakır B. Exploring the frequency of sharps injurıes and affectıng factors among health care workers in a university hospital. Anatol J Clin Investig. 2009;3:208–212. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ergönül Ö. Sağlık çalışanlarının enfeksiyon riskler ve korunma yolları. Klinik Gelişim. 2007;20:86–98. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kemal Tahaoğlu K., Kongar N., Elbek O., Tümer Ö., Kılıçaslan Z. Birinci Baskı. Türk Tabipleri Birliği Yayınları; Ankara: 2012. Türk Tabipleri BirliğiTüberküloz Raporu; pp. 13–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Evyapan F. Solunum Yoluyla Bulaşan Etkenler Açısından Türkiye’de Durum ve Korunma Yolları. Ankara: Sağlık Çalışanlarının Sağlığı 4. Ulusal Kongresi Kongre Kitabı 16-17 Kasım 2013:75–78.
  • 31.Demir M., Tuncay E., Yentürk E., Kanmaz D. Göğüs Hastalıkları Hastanesi Çalışanlarında Tüberküloz Enfeksiyon Riski. Anatol J Clin Investig. 2014;8:57–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Öcek Z. Sağlık Çalışanlarının Sağlığı 3. Ulusal Kongresi Kongre Kitabı; Ankara: 2011. Sağlık Çalışanlarının Çalışma Yaşamındaki Kimyasal Tehlike ve Risklerle Sonuçları ve Önlemleri (Grup Çalışması-3) pp. 170–172. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Sağlıkta Buluşma Noktası. Hastanelerde Hasta ve Çalışan Güvenliği Ne Boyutlarda. Available at: http://www.sbn.gov.tr/icerik.aspx?id=113. Accessed June 24, 2015.
  • 34.American Society of Health-System Pharmacists . ASHP; Bethesda, MD: 2006. ASHP Guidelines on Handling Hazardous Drugs; pp. 1172–1193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) U.S. Department of Labor; Washington, DC: 1999. Technical Manual. Section VI, Chapter 2. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Occupational Safety and Health Administration . U.S. Department of Labor; Washington, DC: 2001. Controlling Occupational Exposure to Hazardous Drugs. Directorate of Technical Support. OSHA Instruction TED 1.15. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Antineoplastik (Sitotoksik) İlaçlarla Güvenli Çalışma Rehberi. Sağlık Bakanlığı Tedavi Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü; Ankara: 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Connor T.H., Mcdiarmid M.A. Preventing occupational exposures to antineoplastic drugs in health care settings. Cancer J Clin. 2006;56:354–365. doi: 10.3322/canjclin.56.6.354. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Platin N., Burgaz S. Sağlık Çalışanlarının Sağlığı 1. Ulusal Kongresi Kitabı; Ankara: 1999. Antineoplastikleri Uygulayan Onkoloji Hemşirelerinde Mesleki Sağlık Riskinin Değerlendirilmesi; pp. 122–127. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Parlar S. Sağlık Çalışanlarında Göz Ardı Edilen Bir Durum: Sağlıklı Çalışma Ortamı. TAF Prevent Med Bull. 2008;7:547–554. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kunduracılar Z. Sağlık Çalışanlarının Sağlığı 3. Ulusal Kongresi Kongre Kitabı; Ankara: 2011. Sağlık Çalışanlarının Çalışma Yaşamındaki Fiziksel Tehlike ve Risklerle Sonuçları ve Önlemleri (Grup Çalışması-1) pp. 166–169. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Özgür N. Sağlık Çalışanlarının Sağlığı 4. Ulusal Kongresi Kongre Kitabı; Ankara: 2013. Radyolojik Riskler Açısından Türkiye’de Durum ve Korunma Yolları; pp. 79–87. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Acil Çağrı Merkezlerinde Elektromanyetik Alan Seviyeleri ve Mesleki Maruz Kalmanın Değerlendirilmesi. Çevre ve Halk Sağlığı İçin Emanet 2011 Elektromanyetik Alanlar ve Etkileri Sempozyumu Bildirisi. İstanbul: TMMOB Elektrik Mühendisleri Odası; 2011:221–224.
  • 44.Güler Ç. Birinci Baskı. Çevre Sağlığı Temel Kaynak Dizisi No: 45; Ankara: 1997. Ergonomiye Giriş; pp. 43–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Vehid S., Ethem Erginöz E., Eray Yurtseven E., Çetin E., Köksal S., Kaypmaz A. Noise level of hospital environment. TAF Prevent Med Bull. 2011;10:409–414. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Beyzadeoğlu H., Cengiz İ. Sağlık Çalışanlarının Riskleri ve Sağlık Takipleri. Sağlık Düşüncesi ve Tıp Kültürü Dergisi Sonbahar. 2013;28:28–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Baykam N. Hastane Enfeksiyonları Derneği Yayını No: 2. Bilimsel Tıp Yayınevi; 2004. Hastane İnfeksiyonlarının Kontrolünde Havalandırmanın Önemi. Hastane İnfeksiyonları Kontrolü El Kitabı; pp. 373–381. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Vaizoğlu S, Güler Ç. Sağlık Çalışanlarının Çalışma Yaşamındaki Ergonomik Tehlike ve Risklerle Sonuçları ve Önlemleri. (Grup Çalışması-4). Ankara: Sağlık Çalışanlarının Sağlığı 3. Ulusal Kongresi Kongre Kitabı, 18-20 Kasım; 2011:177–183.
  • 49.İlçe A., Dramalı A. Yoğun Bakım Ünitelerinin Fiziksel Ergonomik Faktörler Açısından. İncelenmesi Hemşirelikte Araştırma Geliştirme Dergisi. 2010;12:53–63. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Atasoy A., Keskin F., Başkesen N., Tekingündüz S. Laboratuvar Çalışanlarında İşe Bağlı Kas İskelet Sistemi Sorunları ve ErgonomikRisklerinin Değerlendirilmesi. Sağlıkta Performans ve Kalite Dergisi. 2010;1:90–113. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ergonomics. Washington, DC: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), U.S. Department of Labor. Available at: http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/ergonomics. Accessed June 24, 2015.
  • 52.İlhan M.N. Ankara Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü; Ankara: 2007. Bir Tıp Fakültesi Hastanesinde Elektromanyetik Alan Haritası Çıkarılması ve Elektromanyetik Alan Bulunan Yerlerde Çalışanların Sağlık Durumları. Doktora Tezi. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Kevser Tarı, Selçuk K, Çevik C, Karataş G, Mercan Y. İstanbul’da Bir Doğumevi ve Çocuk Hastalıkları Hastanesinde Çalışan Ebe ve Hemşirelerde Son 12 Aylık Bel Ağrısı Prevalansı ve İlişkili Etmenler. Ankara: Sağlık Çalışanlarının Sağlığı 3. Ulusal Kongresi Kongre Kitabı. 18-20 Kasım 2011:134–135.
  • 54.Aksakal N., İlhan M.N., Yüksel H., Kurtcebe Ö Bumin MA. Bir Üniversite Hastanesinde Çalışan Hemşire Sağlık Memuru ve Hasta Bakıcılarda Bel Ağrısı Sıklığı ve Etkileyen Faktörler. Türk Tabipler Birliği Mesleki Sağlık ve Güvenlik Dergisi. 2009;32:38–46. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Demir A. Hemşirelikte Tükenmişliğe Bir Bakış. Atatürk Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Yüksekokulu Dergisi. 2004;7:71–80. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Birgili F., Salış F., Özdemir S. Sağlık Çalışanlarının İş Doyumunu Etkileyen Bazı Etmenlerin İncelenmesi. Anadolu Hemþirelik ve Saðlýk Bilimleri Dergisi. 2010;13:27–37. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Al B., Zengin S., Deryal Y., Gökçen C., Arı Yılmaz D., Yıldırım C. Increased violence towards health care staff. JAEM. 2012;11:115–124. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Saines J.C. Violence and aggression in A&E: recommendations for action. Accid Emerg Nurs. 1999;7:8–12. doi: 10.1016/s0965-2302(99)80094-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Kingma M. Workplace violence in the health sector: a problem of epidemic proportion. Int Nurs Rev. 2001;48:129–130. doi: 10.1046/j.1466-7657.2001.00094.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Ferns T. Violence, aggression and physical assault in health care settings. Nurs Standard. 2006;21:42–46. doi: 10.7748/ns2006.12.21.13.42.c6389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Roche M., Diers D., Duffield C., Catling-Paull C. Violence toward nurses, the work environment and patient outcomes. J Nurs Scholarship. 2010;42:13–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01321.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Hahn S., Hantikainen V., Needham I., Kok G., Dassen T., Halfens R.J. Patient and visitor violence in the general hospital, occurrence, staff intervention sand consequences: a cross-sectional survey. J Adv Nurs. 2012;68:2685–2699. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2012.05967.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Elliott P. Violence in health care: what nurse managers need to know. Nurs Manag. 1997;28:38–41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Health and Safety Executive. Violence at Work: Findings from the British Crime Survey. London: Home Office Information and Publications Group; Research, Development and Statistics Directorate; October 1999.
  • 65.Sibbald B. Physician, protect thyself. Can Med Assoc J. 1998;159:987–989. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Nau J., Halfens R., Needham I., Dassen T. The De-escalating aggressive behaviour scale: development and psychometric testing. J Adv Nurs. 2009;65:1956–1964. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05087.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Chen W.C., Hwu H.G., Kung S.M., Chiu H.J., Wang J.D. Prevalence and determinants of workplace violence of health care workers in a psychiatric hospital in Taiwan. J Occup Health. 2008;50:288–293. doi: 10.1539/joh.l7132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Violence. Occupational hazards in hospitals. NIOSH. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2002-101/pdfs/2002-101.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2015.
  • 69.Ünsal Atan S.¸, Dönmez S. Hemşirelere Karşı İşyeri Şiddeti. Adli Tıp Dergisi. 2011;25:1. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Ayranci U., Yenilmez C., Balci Y., Kaptanoglu C. Identification of violence in Turkish health care settings. J Interpers Violence. 2006;21:276–296. doi: 10.1177/0886260505282565. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Franz S., Zeh A., Schablon A., Kuhnert S., Nienhaus A. Aggression and violence against health care workers in Germany: a cross sectional retrospective survey. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:51. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Gerberich S.G., Church T.R., McGovern P.M. An epidemiological study of the magnitude and consequences of work related violence: the Minnesota Nurses’ Study. Occup Environ Med. 2004;61:495–503. doi: 10.1136/oem.2003.007294. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Stathopoulou HG. Violence and aggression towards health care professionals. Health Science Journal. Available at: http://www.Hsj.Gr. Accessed June 24, 2015.
  • 74.Estryn-Behar M., Van der Heijden B., Camerino D. Violence risks in nursing-results from the European ‘NEXT’ study. Occup Med (Lond) 2008;58:107–114. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqm142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Dursun S. İşyeri Şiddetinin Çalışanların Tükenmişlik Düzeyi Üzerine Etkisi: Sağlık Sektöründe Bir Uygulama. Çalışma İlişkileri Dergisi. 2012;3:105–115. [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Pınar T., Pınar G. Sağlık Çalışanları ve İşyerinde Şiddet. TAF Prev Med Bull. 2012;12:315–326. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Tekin I.˙. Violence against emergency staff. Türkiye Klinikleri Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi. 2006;2:68–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Delbel J.C. De-escalating workplace aggression. Nurs Manage. 2003;34:30–34. doi: 10.1097/00006247-200309000-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Yiğitbaş Ç., Deveci S.E. Sağlık Çalışanlarına Yönelik Mobbing. Türk Tabipler Birliği Mesleki Sağlık ve Güvenlik Dergisi. 2011;42:23–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Asi Karakaş S., Okanlı A. Hemşirelik ve Mobbing. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2013;2:562–576. [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Teymourzadeh E., Rashidian A., Arab M., Akbari-Sari A., Hakimzadeh S.M. Nurses exposure to workplace violence in a large teaching hospital in Iran. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014;3:301–305. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2014.98. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Dikmetaş E., Top M., Ergin G. Asistan Hekimlerin Tükenmişlik ve Mobbing Düzeylerinin İncelenmesi. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi. 2011;22:1–15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.West L.J. Southern Connecticut State University; New Haven, CT: 2003. The Effect of an Intervention on the Risk of Eruptive Violence in the Emergency Department (Master of Science in Nursing) [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Özen Çöl S. İşyerinde Psikolojik Şiddet: Hastane Çalışanları Üzerinde Yapılan Bir Araştırma. Çalışma ve Toplum. 2008;4:107–133. [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Hutchinson M., Wilkes L., Jackson D., Vickers M.H. Integrating individual, work group and organizational factors: testing a multidimensional model of bullying in the nursing workplace. J Nurs Manag. 2010;18:173–181. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2009.01035.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Efe S.Y., Ayaz S. Mobbing against nurses in the workplace in Turkey. Int Nurs Rev. 2010;57:328–334. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-7657.2010.00815.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Camerino D., Estryn-Behar M., Conway P.M., van Der Heijden B.I., Hasselhorn H.M. Work-related factors and violence among nursing staff in the European NEXT Study: a longitudinal cohort study. Int J Nurs Study. 2008;45:35–50. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.01.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Khorsid L., Akın E. 2006. Hemşirelikte Meslektaş Şiddeti. Hastane Yönetimi; pp. 14–18. [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Akdeniz Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi-Hasuder İSÇG. Sağlık Çalışanlarının Sağlığı Çalıştayı: Çalışan Sağlığı Birimlerinin Organizasyonu, İşlevleri ve Finansmanı, Available at: http://www.saglikcalisanisagligi.org/dosyalar/SCS-Calistay-Antalya.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2015.
  • 90.Sağlık Çalışanlarının Sağlığı Çalışma Grubu. Gündem. Sağlıkçının Sağlığı. 2000; 1:1–4.
  • 91.Türk M. Türkiye’de SağLık Kurumlarında Işçi Sağlığı ve İş Güvenliği Hizmetleri. Ankara: Sağlık Çalışanlarının Sağlığı 3. Ulusal Kongresi Kongre Kitabı, 18-20 Kasım 2011:98–103.
  • 92.Resmi Gazete. İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliğine İlişkin Tehlike Sınıfları Tebliği. Available at: http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2009/11/20091125-10.htm. Accessed June 24, 2015.
  • 93.Sağlık Bakanlığı TC. Hasta ve Çalışan Güvenliğinin Sağlanmasına Dair Yönetmelik. Available at: http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2011/04/20110406-3.htm. Accessed June 24, 2015.
  • 94.Sağlık Bakanlığı TC. Çalışan Güvenliği Genelgesi. Available at: http://www.saglik.gov.tr/TR/belge/1–15642/calisan-guvenligi-genelgesi.html. Accessed June 24, 2015.
  • 95.Burgmeier A, Türk M, Gonzalez M, Gehanno JF, Cantineau A. Sağlık kurumlarında işçi sağlığı örgütlenmesi: Avrupa ve Türkiye Örnekleri. Ankara: Sağlık Çalışanlarının Sağlığı 3. Ulusal Kongresi Kongre Kitabı, 18-20 Kasım; 2011:96–97. http://hasuder.org/anasayfa/index.php/docs-a-support/122-hastanelerde-sagl-k-cal-sanlar-n-sagl-g-oerguetlenmesi-cal-stay-18-eyluel-2010.
  • 96.Halk Sağlığı Uzmanları Derneği (HASUDER) İş Sağlığı Çalışma Grubu (İSÇG) 2010. Hastanelerde Sağlık Çalışanların Sağlığı Örgütlenmesi Çalıştayı Raporu. http://hasuder.org/anasayfa/index.php/docs-a-support/122-hastanelerde-sagl-k-cal-sanlar-n-sagl-g-oerguetlenmesi-cal-stay-18-eyluel-2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Halk Sağlığı Uzmanları Derneği (HASUDER) İş Sağlığı Çalışma Grubu (İSÇG) 2012. Sağlık Çalışanlarının Sağlığı Çalıştayı Raporu. [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Yılmaz F. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü; İstanbul: 2009. Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye’de İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği: Türkiye’de İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği Kurullarının Etkinlik Düzeyinin Ölçülmesi. Doktora Tezi. [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Hauijzendveld P. Güvenlik Kültürü: AB Yaklaşımı. Ankara: 4. Uluslararası İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği Bölgesel Konferansı, 15-17 Kasım; 2005:14.
  • 100.Devlet Planlama Teşkilatı (DPT) DPT: 258-ÖİK 564; Ankara: 2001. İş Gücü Piyasası Özel İhtisas Komisyon Raporu; p. 86. [Google Scholar]
  • 101.International Labour Office (ILO). Available at: http://laborsta.ilo.org/cgi–bin/brokerv8.exe. Accessed June 24, 2015.
  • 102.Sosyal Güvenlik Kurumu (SGK) 2006. İstatistik Raporu. http://www.sgk.gov.tr/wps/portal/tr/kurumsal/istatistikler/devredilen_kurum_istatistikleri/ssk_devredilen/ [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Çalışma ve Sosyal Güvenlik Bakanlığı, T.C. Ulusal İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği Politika Belgesi II (TaslakMetin); 2009–2013:3.
  • 104.Ünal D., Aycan N. Manisa MAY Tekstil San. A.Ş.’de Çalışan İşçilerin İşyeri Sağlık Birimi’ne Başvuru Nedenlerinin ve Sosyodemografik Özelliklerinin İncelenmesi. Hemşirelik Forumu Dergisi. 2003;6:49–57. [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Çilengiroğlu O. DEÜ Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü; İzmir: 2006. AB’ye Uyum Sürecinde Türkiye’de İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Erkul I. Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayını No: 79; Eskişehir:: 1986. İş ve Sosyal Güvenlik Hukuku; p. 183. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Annals of Global Health are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES