Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Characteristics of wet work in nurses

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background objectives: Nursing is known for its high prevalence of hand dermatitis, mainly caused by the intense exposure to wet work in nursing activities. We aimed to study the characteristics of wet work exposure in nursing. Method: Trained observers monitored the duration and frequency of different wet work activities in 45 randomly chosen nurses from different wards during a morning shift, using a method of continuous observation based on labour-observation techniques. Results: Wet work in intensive care units accounted for 24% of the overall morning shift duration, with a frequency of 49 incidents. This was 16% in dialysis wards, with a frequency of 30 incidents, and 9% on regular wards, with a frequency of 39 incidents. The wet work activities had short mean duration cycles. The mean duration of occlusion by gloves was 3.1 min on regular wards and 6.7 min in intensive care units. Discussion: The characteristics of wet work in nurses differed substantially, depending on the ward. According to the German regulation TRGS 531, our observations classify nursing as a wet work occupation, due to the frequency of wet work rather than its duration. The mean duration of occlusion in our observations was short, which makes an occlusion-induced irritating effect doubtful. Reduction in wet work exposure in nursing on regular wards could focus on the reduction of the frequency of hand-washing and patient-washing. We suggest increasing the use of gloves for patient washing. Although this will increase exposure to occlusion from gloves, it may reduce the frequency of exposure to water and soap by about a quarter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barnes RM (1980) Motion and time study, design and measurement of work, 7th edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dickel H, Kuss O, Blesius CR, Schmidt A, Diepgen TL (2001) Occupational skin diseases in Northern Bavaria between 1990 and 1999: a population-based study. Br J Dermatol 145:453–462

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dickel H, Kuss O, Schmidt A, Kretz J, Diepgen TL (2002) Importance of irritant contact dermatitis in occupational skin disease. Am J Clin Dermatol 3:283–289

    Google Scholar 

  4. Held E, Wolff C, Gyntelberg F, Agner T (2001) Prevention of work-related skin problems in student auxiliary nurses: an intervention study. Contact Dermatitis 44:297–303

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hendrix ATM (1997) Instruction for performing time studies (Nota P 97–94). IMAG Institute, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hendrix ATM, Looije AAJ, Van der Schilden M (2000) Waarnemings-en vastlegtechnieken in de arbeidskunde. IMAG, Wageningen

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jungbauer FH, Lensen GJ, Groothoff JW, Coenraads PJ (2004) Handeczeem in de zorgsector [Hand dermatitis in the healthcare sector]. Tijdschrift voor Bedrijfs-en Verzekeringsgeneeskunde 12:135–139

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jungbauer FH, Lensen GJ, Groothoff JW, Coenraads PJ (2004) Exposure of the hands to wet work in nurses. Contact Dermatitis 50:225–229

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lammintausta K (1983) Hand dermatitis in different hospital workers who perform wet work. Derm Beruf Umwelt 31:14–19

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lammintausta K, Kalimo K (1981) Atopy and hand dermatitis in hospital wet work. Contact Dermatitis 7:301–308

    Google Scholar 

  11. Lammintausta K, Kalimo K, Aantaa S (1982) Course of hand dermatitis in hospital workers. Contact Dermatitis 8:327–332

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lammintausta K, Kalimo K, Havu VK (1982) Contact allergy in atopics who perform wet work in hospital. Derm Beruf Umwelt 30:184–188

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lammintausta K, Kalimo K, Havu V (1982) Occurrence of contact allergy and hand eczemas in hospital wet work. Contact Dermatitis 8:84–90

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lammintausta K, Maibach HI, Wilson D (1987) Human cutaneous irritation: induced hyporeactivity. Contact Dermatitis 17:193–198

    Google Scholar 

  15. Larson E, Friedman C, Cohran J, Treston-Aurand J, Green S (1997) Prevalence and correlates of skin damage on the hands of nurses. Heart Lung 26:404–412

    Google Scholar 

  16. Malten KE (1981) Thoughts on irritant contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 7:238–247

    Google Scholar 

  17. Malten KE, den Arend JA (1985) Irritant contact dermatitis. Traumiterative and cumulative impairment by cosmetics, climate, and other daily loads. Derm Beruf Umwelt 33:125–132

    Google Scholar 

  18. McCracken S (1999) Latex glove hypersensitivity and irritation: a literature review. Probe 33:13–15

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nettis E, Colanardi MC, Soccio AL, Ferrannini A (2002) Occupational irritant and allergic contact dermatitis among healthcare workers. Contact Dermatitis 46:101–107

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Nilsson E (1986) Individual and environmental risk factors for hand eczema in hospital workers. Acta Derm Venereol Suppl (Stockh) 128:1–63

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pal TM, Spreewers D, Laan van der G, Stinis HPJ, Brand T, Kuijer PFM et al (2003) Alert report on occupational diseases. Coronel Instituur, Netherlands Center for Occupational Diseases, Universiteit van Amsterdam

  22. Ramsing DW, Agner T (1996) Effect of glove occlusion on human skin (II). Long-term experimental exposure. Contact Dermatitis 34:258–262

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ramsing DW, Agner T (1996) Effect of glove occlusion on human skin. (I). Short-term experimental exposure. Contact Dermatitis 34:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  24. Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, Frosch PJ, Rustemeyer T (1998) Contact allergies in healthcare workers. Results from the IVDK. Acta Derm Venereol 78:358–363

    Google Scholar 

  25. Smit HA, Burdorf A, Coenraads PJ (1993) Prevalence of hand dermatitis in different occupations. Int J Epidemiol 22:288–293

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wrangsjo K, Meding B (1997) Occupational dermatitis—what’s new? Hospital workers. Clin Dermatol 15:573–578

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Dermatology, Groningen University Hospital, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands

    F. H. W. Jungbauer & P. J. Coenraads

  2. Department for Working Conditions, Safety and the Environment, Groningen University Hospital, Groningen, The Netherlands

    F. B. Steenstra

  3. Northern Centre for Health Care Research, Groningen University, Groningen, The Netherlands

    J. W. Groothoff

Authors
  1. F. H. W. Jungbauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. B. Steenstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. W. Groothoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. J. Coenraads
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. H. W. Jungbauer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jungbauer, F.H.W., Steenstra, F.B., Groothoff, J.W. et al. Characteristics of wet work in nurses. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 78, 248–251 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-004-0561-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-004-0561-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation