Descriptive correlational research reveals significant occupational hazards in family health centers, indicating a need for improved safety measures.
Background Physical hazards in healthcare settings pose significant long-term health risks to workers, with effects ranging from physiological to genetic impacts. Aim To assess the reported and the observed occupational physical hazards among workers in family health centers in Cairo, Egypt. Patients and methods A descriptive correlational research design was employed with a convenience sample of 114 healthcare workers from four family healthcare centers in Cairo Governorate, Egypt. Results The study sample comprised predominantly female workers (79.8%), with 47.4% aged 25–35 years. Workers reported higher hazard risk levels (51.3%) than observed assessments (46.4%), with significant variations across hazard categories ( P <0.001). Noise and radiation are the most significant hazards in family health centers, with self-reported frequency (98.2 and 96.5%) and observed risk (100% for both). Extreme temperature ranks third (54.4% self-reported, 50% observed), followed by electricity and lighting. There were strong, statistically significant differences between self-reported and observed work-related hazards, in lighting ( P =0.000), fall ( P =0.009), and fire hazards ( P =0.000). Conclusion Healthcare workers in family health centers face significant occupational physical hazards, with noise and radiation emerging as the most severe risks based on both self-reported and observations. Substantial discrepancies exist between workers’ reported and objective assessments of lighting, fall, and fire hazards. Recommendations Implement comprehensive noise and radiation protection programs with regular monitoring, protective equipment availability, and specialized training for all healthcare workers. Address perception-reality gaps through targeted safety training that improves fall risk awareness while providing reassurance about existing fire safety measures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmed et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: