Kersten Maren, Kozak Agnessa, Adler Mareike, Wohlert Claudia, Stamer Susanne, Gregersen Sabine
Abteilung Arbeitsmedizin, Gefahrstoffe und Gesundheitswissenschaften, Berufsgenossenschaft für Gesundheitsdienst und Wohlfahrtspflege (BGW), Pappelallee 33/35/37, 22089 Hamburg, Deutschland.
Institut für Versorgungsforschung in der Dermatologie und bei Pflegeberufen (IVDP), Competenzzentrum für Epidemiologie und Versorgungsforschung bei Pflegeberufen (CVcare), Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Deutschland.
Zentralbl Arbeitsmed Arbeitsschutz Ergon. 2022;72(1):41-49. doi: 10.1007/s40664-021-00450-w. Epub 2021 Nov 26.
The aim of the risk assessment for mental stress is to evaluate the hazards associated with the work in order to derive measures for the healthy design of the work. The range of procedures for assessment of mental stress is, however, extensive and unclear. Against this background, this article presents a reduced and structured overview of instruments for social and healthcare services.
A comprehensive search was carried out to identify appropriate tools. Prior to beginning the search, criteria were defined to test the suitability of the identified tools. For one thing, there are minimum requirements that must be fulfilled so that the tool is accepted for the review process. There are also structuring criteria that can be divided into descriptive and evaluative aspects.
The search identified a total of 83 instruments for risk assessment of mental stress (GBU Psyche), of which 58 were accepted for a further suitability review process following initial evaluation. The comprehensive review of 44 services from the nonsystematic search has so far been completed. Of these, 19 procedures were deemed suitable and are presented in a structured overview matrix. The review of the 14 procedures from the systematic search is projected to be finished by mid-2022 and is part of the continual review process.
The numerous procedures identified for risk assessment of mental stress clearly show that it is reasonable and relevant to find a limited selection of tools that have been tested in practice and are quality assured. The criteria for evaluating the tools, which are also presented in this article, render this selection transparent.
精神压力风险评估的目的是评估与工作相关的危害,以便得出工作健康设计的措施。然而,精神压力评估程序的范围广泛且不明确。在此背景下,本文对社会和医疗服务工具进行了精简且结构化的概述。
进行了全面搜索以识别合适的工具。在开始搜索之前,定义了标准以测试所识别工具的适用性。一方面,存在必须满足的最低要求,以便该工具被接受用于审查过程。还有结构化标准,可分为描述性和评估性方面。
搜索共识别出83种精神压力风险评估工具(GBU Psyche),其中58种在初步评估后被接受进行进一步的适用性审查。到目前为止,对非系统搜索中的44种服务的全面审查已经完成。其中,19种程序被认为是合适的,并在结构化概述矩阵中呈现。对系统搜索中的14种程序的审查预计在2022年年中完成,并且是持续审查过程的一部分。
为精神压力风险评估识别出的众多程序清楚地表明,找到经过实践测试且质量有保证的有限工具选择是合理且相关的。本文中也提出的评估工具的标准使这种选择变得透明。