State investigates air quality concerns at Alaska Regional Hospital after nurses report recurring health issues – Anchorage Daily News

Report on Occupational Health and Safety at Alaska Regional Hospital

Introduction and Executive Summary

An investigation is underway by the Alaska Occupational Safety and Health (AKOSH) section concerning multiple complaints from nursing staff at Alaska Regional Hospital. The complaints allege hazardous air quality within the facility, leading to a range of adverse health symptoms. This situation directly challenges the principles of several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), most notably SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth). This report outlines the details of the complaints, the institutional response, and the ongoing investigation, contextualized within the framework of these critical global goals.

Health and Environmental Concerns

Adverse Health Impacts on Healthcare Personnel (SDG 3)

The failure to ensure a safe working environment directly contravenes SDG 3, which aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all. Since April, over 30 nurses have formally reported symptoms believed to be linked to air quality on the hospital’s second floor.

• Reported Symptoms: Staff have experienced a variety of recurring health issues, including headaches, dizziness, rashes, respiratory difficulties, sore throats, and burning sensations in the lips and eyes.
• Severity of Incidents: The health impacts have been significant, with reports of a nurse fainting onto a patient and others seeking emergency room treatment for cardiac-like symptoms.
• Long-Term Well-being: The persistent nature of these health issues has created considerable distress, with affected nurses expressing concern over long-term health consequences and considering premature departure from their positions, impacting workforce stability.

Suspected Contamination Source and Waste Management (SDG 12)

Staff concerns center on the hospital’s on-site medical waste sanitization system, raising questions about the operational safety of waste management practices, a key component of SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

1. The San-I-Pak System: Nurses suspect that the San-I-Pak system, which uses high-pressure steam to treat medical waste on the first floor, or its associated ventilation, may be releasing odorless vapors into the second-floor work areas.
2. Sustainable Operations: While on-site waste treatment can be an effective part of a sustainable waste management strategy, its implementation must not compromise the health and safety of workers or the surrounding environment. The current situation highlights a potential conflict between operational efficiency and the fundamental need for a safe workplace.
3. Specific Concerns: Staff have raised concerns about potential exposure to hazardous substances such as cleaning chemicals, ammonia, or volatile organic compounds that could be circulated through the ventilation system.

Institutional Response and Regulatory Oversight

Corporate and Hospital-Level Actions

HCA Healthcare, the parent company of Alaska Regional Hospital, has stated that ensuring caregiver safety is a top priority. The hospital reports taking numerous steps to investigate the issue.

• Environmental Testing: Management states that dozens of environmental tests have been conducted by outside experts, with all results reportedly returning within normal ranges, indicating the air quality is safe.
• Mitigation Efforts: The hospital reports it has disinfected the air handling system and refreshed the affected area as a precautionary measure.
• Operational Adjustments: In response to continued concerns, the hospital has shifted the operation of the San-I-Pak system to nighttime hours only.

State Investigations and Decent Work Standards (SDG 8)

The right to a safe and secure working environment is a core target of SDG 8. The involvement of AKOSH underscores the state’s role in upholding this right. AKOSH is conducting its second investigation into the matter after an initial inquiry was closed.

1. Initial Investigation (May-July): The first investigation found no discernible violations. However, records indicate that AKOSH noted an initial delay in the hospital’s response to employee complaints and recommended steps to reduce employee exposure to risk factors.
2. Discovery of Infrastructure Damage: During the initial period of complaints, damage to the ductwork venting the San-I-Pak room was discovered and subsequently repaired in May. A gash, reportedly caused by a dumpster, was identified.
3. Second Investigation (September-Present): A new complaint regarding nearly identical issues, reportedly spreading to an additional unit, prompted the current open investigation by AKOSH.

Worker Advocacy and Institutional Accountability (SDG 16)

Employee Concerns and Call for Transparency

The affected nurses remain skeptical of the adequacy of the hospital’s testing, particularly questioning the timing of tests conducted overnight when the suspected source of contamination may be less active. This reflects a need for more transparent and responsive institutional processes, as outlined in SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

• Employee-Led Data Collection: Nurses have compiled over 70 illness claim reports filed with management to document the scope and persistence of the health issues.
• Use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Staff have resorted to using N95 masks and powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) in an attempt to mitigate symptoms while on duty.
• Proposed Solution: A formal request was made by nurses and the union to trial a one-month period of processing medical waste off-site to determine if symptoms would subside. This request was not granted.

Union Representation and Collaborative Problem-Solving

Laborers’ Local 341, the union representing healthcare workers, has been actively involved in advocating for its members. The union’s role highlights the importance of strong institutions in ensuring worker rights and facilitating dialogue.

• Formal Reporting: The union has received reports from at least 16 of its members experiencing symptoms.
• Advocacy for Safety: The union has expressed concern that some members feel discouraged from reporting issues and has engaged with hospital management to find a solution.
• Commitment to Resolution: The union states its goal is to ensure members’ health concerns are fully addressed and remains committed to collaborative problem-solving to achieve a safe and transparent workplace.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The article highlights issues directly related to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), primarily focusing on health, well-being, and safe working conditions.

   • SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

     This goal is central to the article, which details the health problems faced by nurses at Alaska Regional Hospital. The text states that “More than 30 nurses since April have reported experiencing symptoms including headaches, dizziness, rashes, sore throats, burning lips and eyes, breathing difficulties and other problems” due to what they believe are “hazardous air conditions at the hospital.” This directly concerns the goal of ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being.

   • SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

     The article is fundamentally about workplace safety, a key component of decent work. The investigation by the “Alaska Occupational Safety and Health section” into complaints from nurses addresses the need to protect labor rights and promote safe and secure working environments. The fear of retaliation mentioned by some nurses (“declined to provide their names for this story for fear of retaliation at their jobs”) also touches upon the security and rights of workers.

   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

     This goal is relevant through the article’s focus on the responsiveness and accountability of institutions. It discusses the actions of both the hospital (a private institution) and the Alaska Occupational Safety and Health section (a public institution). The article notes that the hospital was “initially slow to respond to employee complaints” and that the state safety section conducted two investigations, highlighting the role of institutions in addressing grievances and enforcing safety standards.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   The content of the article allows for the identification of specific targets under the aforementioned SDGs.

   • Target 3.9

     “By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.”

     This target is directly addressed by the nurses’ situation. They have “fallen ill from what they believe are hazardous air conditions at the hospital” and are concerned about potential exposure to “odorless vapors,” “cleaning chemicals such as ammonia or volatile organic compounds.” The reported symptoms, such as “breathing difficulties,” “rashes,” and “mouth sores,” are illnesses resulting from potential air contamination in their workplace.

   • Target 8.8

     “Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers, in particular women migrants, and those in precarious employment.”

     This target is the core issue of the article. The entire narrative revolves around the nurses’ struggle for a safe working environment. The investigation by “Alaska workplace safety officers” and the involvement of the “Laborers’ Local 341” union are actions aimed at protecting the health and safety rights of these workers. The statement, “Keeping our caregivers safe is a top priority,” though disputed by the nurses’ experience, explicitly acknowledges this workplace responsibility.

   • Target 16.6

     “Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.”

     This target is reflected in the scrutiny of the hospital’s and the state’s response. The article points to a lack of initial accountability from the hospital, stating, “it is evident that there was an initial delay in following up on employee complaints of a potential health hazard.” The nurses’ assertion that the hospital “has not been fully transparent about the steps it has taken” further underscores the relevance of this target concerning institutional accountability.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   The article provides several explicit and implied indicators that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets.

   • Indicators for Target 3.9

     The article provides direct data to measure the incidence of illness from hazardous workplace conditions. An implied indicator is the number and type of illnesses reported by workers due to occupational air quality. The article quantifies this by stating, “More than 30 nurses since April have reported experiencing symptoms” and “At least 16 members of Laborers’ Local 341… have reported the symptoms.” The specific symptoms listed (headaches, dizziness, rashes, etc.) serve as qualitative data for this indicator.

   • Indicators for Target 8.8

     Progress towards a safe working environment can be measured using indicators mentioned in the text. One key indicator is the frequency of non-fatal occupational illnesses, which is directly evidenced by the “more than 30 nurses” who have fallen ill. Another indicator is the number of official workplace safety complaints and investigations. The article explicitly states there was an initial investigation in May and a “second investigation… which began in September.” The use of personal protective equipment, such as “N95 masks” and “powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs),” by nurses is another tangible indicator of perceived workplace hazards.

   • Indicators for Target 16.6

     The effectiveness and accountability of institutions can be measured by an implied indicator: the timeliness and transparency of institutional response to safety complaints. The article provides a negative measure of this, noting a “weeklong gap between when employees said they reported complaints to management, and when the hospital initially said it was made aware of the complaints.” The fact that the state safety section launched a second investigation after the first “found no source for the potential contamination” also serves as an indicator of the ongoing process of institutional accountability.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

   SDGs	Targets	Indicators
   SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being	Target 3.9: Substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.	Number of workers reporting illnesses attributed to workplace air quality (Explicitly stated as “More than 30 nurses” and “at least 16 members of Laborers’ Local 341”). Types of symptoms reported (e.g., headaches, dizziness, rashes, breathing difficulties).
   SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth	Target 8.8: Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers.	Frequency of non-fatal occupational illnesses (Over 30 nurses affected since April). Number of official workplace safety complaints filed with management and unions. Number of formal investigations conducted by state safety agencies (Two investigations mentioned).
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.	Timeliness of institutional response to employee complaints (A “weeklong gap” was noted). Level of transparency from the employer regarding safety tests and mitigation measures (Nurses feel the hospital “has not been fully transparent”).

Source: adn.com