Work-Related Stress And Covid 19 Pandemic Stress: Proposed Improvement Methodology SLC Assessment Commensurate With The Psychosocial Risk Deriving From The Pandemic

Abstract

Work-related stress is described in art. 3 of the European Agreement of 2004 as a “condition that may be accompanied by physical, psychological or social disorders or dysfunctions and is a consequence of the fact that not everyone
feels able to meet the demands or expectations placed on them”.
Since the 1990s of the past century, the world of work in Italy has undergone a process of organizational and economic
transformation. These changes, underestimating the impact on the well-being of workers, have generated significant
discomfort, not exclusively of a material nature, for larger sectors of the working population. Consequently, we found
ourselves directly facing the consequences of this discomfort characterized, on the one hand, by forms of pathology in
the organization of work and, on the other hand, by pathologies on the psycho-physical health of individuals.
Currently, the Covid 19 pandemic emergency situation represents a strong source of stressor, both for the organization
of work and for the psycho-physical health of individuals. Pandemic stress is in fact an entirely new condition; on the
one hand there is a strong fear of contagion, on the other hand the new working methods also due to technological
progress (e.g. remote work, smart-working), represent stressful conditions for workers that cause different effects
compared to what we know about clinical practice and also described in the common effects deriving from work-related stress risk. The pandemic involves an unconventional state of stress, due to a persistent and perturbing situation
that can evolve in subtle ways and that develops through different phases passing from acute stress to a subsequent
chronic stress.
The work-related stress risk assessment methodology with particular attention to Covid 19 that is proposed with this
work, will be even more relevant for the management of the post-pandemic in consideration of the uncertainty caused
by the psycho-social, economic, health implications that they will determine in the near future.
The work-related stress risk assessment methodology proposed by the 2010 and 2017 INAIL Guidelines is taken as a
reference. This INAIL methodology consists of two assessment phases (Phase 1: Preliminary assessment; Phase 2: Indepth assessment). This method has been subjected to careful study and with the occasion of the presentation of this
work, a revision of Phase 1 is proposed, also taking into account the psycho-social risk deriving from the pandemic.
This review provides that the same is carried out by the subjects of corporate prevention and protection, as well as it
breaks it down into two sub-phases (1a, 1b).
In phase 1a, the preliminary assessment is carried out by submitting, to each homogeneous assessment group identified, checklists based on the dimensions “Business indicators, work content and work context” taking into consideration the Covid 19 factor.
The administered checklists consist of a series of analysis indicators and for each of these three choice situations are
identified (optimal, alert, alarm), each with a respective score. In addition, a specific “NOTES” column is inserted in
the check-lists in which the explanation of the chosen situation is indicated.
If from phase 1a the overall result of the evaluation is estimated at medium-low, the results of each indicator evaluated
are analyzed considering the organizational complexity, the company size, the homogeneous group with indication of
control and monitoring measures.
If the result deriving from the various indicators estimates a medium-high risk level, the abovementioned subjects
evaluate the in-depth analysis referred to in phase 1b, analyzing the individual explanations of the chosen situations
and the ordinary risk elements, emerged in the activities in presence and in agile way of working. From this activity,
through the administration of specific checklists, collective and individual interviews and focus-groups, corrective
and improvement measures will be proposed and, where possible, a training program that can effectively affect the
prevention of the topic dealt with. .
Finally, in this phase the abovementioned subjects can request support from a specific commission, composed of
specialist figures (e.g. psychologists, psychotherapists) and together with it, they can decide the transition to Phase 2
which will provide for the exclusive competence of the commission with targeted collective and individual interventions of psycho-social analysis