Examination of Common Occupational Hazards among Healthcare Workers in a University Healthcare Center in Southeastern Nigeria

Background: Healthcare workers are challenged by an imposing group of occupational hazards. These hazards include exposure to biological and non-biological hazards like ionizing radiation, stress, injury, infectious agents, and chemicals. The aim of this study was to assess common occupational hazards among health workers at the Department of Health Services (DHS), Federal University of Technology, Owerri. Methods: A hospital-based cross-sectional study design was employed for the study, and a self-administered questionnaire was used for data collection. The SPSS Version 22.0 software was al hazards. Biological hazards among health workers are 47.9% (45) cuts and wounds, 29.8% (28) direct contact with contaminated specimens/hazardous materials, and 26.6% (26) sharp related injuries, while for non-biological hazards, 44.7% (42) have slipped, tripped or fallen, and 35.1% (33) have been stressed. Common safety measures include 86.2% (81) washing their hands regularly; 78.7% (74) using hand gloves; and 85.1% (80) agreeing they use face masks. Conclusion: Despite good knowledge of occupational hazards, participants at DHS were faced with certain hazards. It is recommended that the university, government, and policymakers revise and implement actions to provide health workers at DHS with equipment to encourage safety in work activity.


Introduction
Occupational hazards in the health care sector are a major public health concern.
Globally, the healthcare workforce accounts for 12% of the labor force [1] [2] [3]. Healthcare workers work in what is regarded as one of the most hazardous occupational settings [2]. Healthcare workers face a formidable set of occupational hazards. Among the dangers are ionizing radiation, stress, injury, pathogenic agents, and toxins. The magnitude and variety of these threats are underappreciated. The acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) epidemic has increased occupational hazards and brought attention to the issue of health-care worker occupational hazards [1]. Concerns about human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) nosocomial transmission have fueled efforts to implement universal infection control precautions and reduce needle stick injuries [1]. In addition to the usual workplace hazards, healthcare workers are exposed to a variety of hazards as a result of their work activities [4]. To avoid occupational hazards such as blood and blood-borne pathogens, there are well-established guidelines. These include training healthcare workers in the safe use of devices, procedures, and exposure management [5].
Furthermore, by 2030, the World Health Organization (WHO) has instructed governments to switch to safety injection devices exclusively [3] [6]. While developed countries have acted on this advice, the vast majority of African countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have failed to enact legislation to protect healthcare workers [7]. Apart from provider behaviors that increase occupational hazard exposure, system-level barriers in the healthcare setting also increase the risk of hazard exposure [8]. Unsafe conditions in the healthcare setting, a lack of personal protective equipment (PPE), and a high provider-to-patient ratio raise the risk of bloodborne pathogen exposure and infection [9].
Despite this knowledge, governments and organizations continue to overlook the healthcare work environment [10]. In comparison to other occupational groups, healthcare workers have a higher annual prevalence of back pain (77%) [1] [2]. Ergonomic injuries are the most common occupational injury in the healthcare industry [9], despite the fact that they pose a significant health risk to workers. Healthcare workers are at risk for blood-borne infections, which can lead to diseases like HIV, tuberculosis, and hepatitis B and C [11]. Significant morbidity and mortality among these workers will inevitably result in the loss of skilled personnel, putting a strain on healthcare services in many low and middle-income countries [12].
Several studies found significant deficiencies in health care providers' know-  [2]. Health-care administrators must also ensure that OHS is implemented in their facilities [11].
Due to significant emigration of trained professionals, difficult working con- zards and challenges remains a major concern that prompted the researcher to conduct this research. It is through this that the researchers examined the common occupational hazards associated with health care workers at the Department of Health Services, Federal University of Technology, Owerri.

Methods
This study was conducted from September 2020 to April 2021.

Sampling and Sampling Techniques
A purposive sampling technique was used for this study in recruiting a total of 94 health workers who participated in the study. All the categories of health workers (clinical and non-clinical) were sampled without omitting any cadre of workforce at the facility. The particular type of purposive sampling used was the

Data Collection
A self-administered questionnaire was used to gather the data for this study. The questionnaire consisted of information for the socio-demographics of the respondents, questions about the knowledge of the health workers regarding common occupational hazards, questions on biological hazards and non-biological hazards, and questions on the commonly adopted safety measures for occupational hazards among health workers. The questionnaire was designed in such a way that every question in the questionnaire was related to the research questions.
The reliability of the instrument was determined using the test retest method.
The researcher gave 15 copies of the questionnaire to some health care workers at the Federal Medical Center Owerri, which is outside the area of study by the researcher. This area shared similar organizational characteristics with the Department of Health Services, Federal University of Technology, Owerri that were used for this study. The Chrombach alpha test was used to test for the reliability of the questionnaire, and a reliability coefficient of 0.8 was obtained.
The researcher and the research assistants visited the hospital until all the questionnaires were administered face-to-face to the health workers and retrieved.

Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data obtained from questionnaires. Data entry and analysis were done using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) 20.0. Descriptive statistics from this study were presented with information on the mean data of various variables and presented in pie charts, tables, and percentages.

Ethics
A letter of introduction and ethical clearance were obtained from the Department of Public Health Ethical Clearance Committee before the research was conducted. The purpose of the research was explained to each respondent and verbal informed consent was obtained from them before inclusion in the study.
Also, the anonymity of the respondents was assured and ensured. The confidentiality of the information they gave was also maintained.

Safety Measures of Occupational Hazards among Respondents
Disclosed in Table 5

Discussion
Considering the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents at the de-  Multiple selection*.  [39]. The study also showed that 78.7% (74) of the health workers at DHS, FUTO use hand gloves, which is corroborated by a similar study by Al-Otaibi and colleagues [40] who found that 83.2% of health workers at a governmental hospital in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia use hand gloves.
Findings from this study also revealed that a majority, 94.7% (89) of the health workers do not use helmets. This is because of the nature of the study. A large 96.8% (91) do not use safety plugs as noted by the health workers, in line with a study by [38] showing 87.6% of health workers in Kampala do not use safety plugs. The study also showed that a bulk of 94.7% (89) of the health workers at DHS, FUTO said "No" when they were asked if they used boots. This could be due to the nature of clinical activity by health workers at the facility.

Limitations
The idea of getting the attention of the health staff at the facility was one of the challenges confronted by researchers in this study. Health professionals could constantly be seen working in clinical or non-clinical settings. Another draw-D. C. Innocent et al.
back of the study was its failure to provide proof of a statistical relationship between various hazards faced by health workers and their cadre of employees.
Future research is urged to assess the relationship between these risks and the cadre of health personnel.

Conclusion
This study revealed that the majority of healthcare workers, both clinical and non-clinical, experienced one type of occupational hazard or the other, ranging from biological and non-biological hazards. The results could have been affected by recall bias as respondents were required to recall past experiences. This being a cross-sectional study, cause and effect could not be established. Nevertheless, this study provides useful information on occupational health hazards in this facility.
Based on the study findings, it is recommended that health workers in the department should ensure that they put on their necessary personal protective equipment to forestall the occurrence of future occupational hazards. And also, the university, government, and policymakers should revise and implement actions to provide health workers at DHS with equipment to encourage safety in work activity.

Availability of Data and Materials
The Data set from the study are available to the corresponding author upon request.