Level of Stress at Nurses Working in Emergency Clinic and Central Intensive Care: University Clinical Centre of Kosovo

Background: Emergency Clinic (EC) and Central Intensive Care (CIC) are high-stress environments that directly affect the health status of nurses. Methods: The aim of this study was to assess the level of stress at nurses working in the Emergency Clinic and nurses working in the Central Intensive Care. The study included 90 nurses, 45 nurses working in Emergency Clinic and 45 nurses working in Central Intensive Care. The study applied the Emergency Nurse Stress Questionnaire as an instrument to gather the data. This questionnaire was adopted from the Operational Police Stress Questionnaire in order to serve for the function and aim of the present study. Results: Nurses’ cohort-age ranged from 20 to 62 years. The largest proportion of respondents 40 (44.4%) was in the 20 - 30 age group, 58 (64.4%) were married, 60 (66.6%) hold bachelor degree and (33.3%) were with secondary school educational level. In terms of work-related fatigue, significant difference was found in working hours, participants reported that there was a significant difference in fatigue between 12 hours shift nurses (61 ± 10.5) compared to 8 hours nurses (41 ± 23.6) with P < 0.001. Results indicated that a vast majority of participants reported moderate to high levels of stress (81% of participants). There was no significant difference in the level of stress between the two groups of participants. There were also no significant differences compared to their demographic characteristics. Conclusion: These findings emphasize the role of using and assuring adequate strategies for ensuring quality management and finding ways of facilitating the increase in the number of nursing staff in these two departments because workplace overload and fatigue are potential factors that increase nurses’ stress levels.

AB026. Referrals from optometry-a comparative study (the R.O.C.S study)

Background:To characterize emergency optometrist referrals triaged at a tertiary ophthalmology care center by pathology,physical exam findings,and provisional diagnosis accuracy.Methods:Variables extracted from the patients’charts included date of referral,age,sex,eye(s)under examination,visual acuity(VA)at the time of referral,intraocular pressure(IOP)at the time of the referral,the referring optometrist’s provisional diagnosis,VA at the time of the ophthalmologist consultation,IOP at the time of the ophthalmologist consultation,number of days between referral and ophthalmic consultation,and the ophthalmologist’s diagnosis.Results:After categorizing disease by anatomical location,absolute agreement between optometrist provisional diagnosis and ophthalmologist diagnosis was 60%.A strong correlation was found between optometrist and ophthalmologist VA measurements.IOP measurements were checked less frequently by optometrists.In cases where referral IOP was documented,no significant difference was observed between optometrist and ophthalmologist IOP measures.Conclusions:VA and IOP measurements by optometrists are reliable,but IOP is less frequently checked in the optometry setting.While optometrist referrals correctly localized eye pathology in 60%of cases,posterior pathology was missed in two cases of retinal tear and retinal detachment.