scholarly journals Health-care workers in gastrointestinal endoscopy are at higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to other aerosol-generating disciplines

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Roemmele ◽  
Alanna Ebigbo ◽  
Maria Kahn ◽  
Stephan Zellmer ◽  
Anna Muzalyova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Setting ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Healthcare Facilities ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Potential Risk Factors ◽  
Outpatient Settings ◽  
Medical Disciplines

Objective: Healthcare workers (HCW) are at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to exposure to potentially infectious material, especially during aerosol-generating procedures (AGP). We aimed to investigate the prevalence of infection among HCW in medical disciplines with AGP. Design: A nationwide questionnaire-based study in in- and outpatient settings was conducted between 12/16/2020 and 01/24/2021. Data on SARS-CoV-2 infections among HCW and potential risk factors were investigated. Results: 2,070 healthcare facilities with 25,113 employees were included in the study. Despite a higher rate of pre-interventional testing, clinics treated three times more confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases than private practices (28.8% vs. 88.4%, p<0.001). Overall infection rate among HCW accounted for 4.7%. Multivariate analysis revealed that ZIP-regions having comparably higher incidences were significantly associated with increased risk of infection. Furthermore, clinical setting and the GIE specialty have more than double the risk of infection (OR 2.63; 95% CI 2.501-2.817, p<0.01 and OR 2.35; 95% CI 2.245-2.498, p<0.01). The number of procedures performed per day was also significantly associated with an increased risk of infection (OR 1.01; 95% CI 1.007-1.014), p<0.01). No treatment of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases was tending to lower the risk of infection (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.507-1.025, p=0.068). Conclusion: HCW in GIE seem to be at higher risk of infection than those in other AGP, especially in the clinical setting. Regions having comparably higher incidences as well as the number of procedures performed per day were also significantly associated with increased risk of infection.

scholarly journals Healthcare Workers Infection Rate in the Era of Coronavirus Disease 2019 - in Tertiary Teaching Hospital

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (A) ◽  
pp. 651-658
Author(s):  
Mona Mohiedden ◽  
Aml M. Said ◽  
Ahmed M. Ali ◽  
Mohammed M. Abdel Razik ◽  
Maha Ali Gad
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
University Hospitals ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Infection Control Measures ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Tertiary Teaching ◽  
Potential Risk Factors

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at the frontline defense against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. AIM: The study aimed to describe the characteristics and appraise potential risk factors of COVID-19 transmission among HCWs who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in one of Cairo University Hospitals. METHOD: Cross-sectional descriptive analysis of confirmed polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive versus negative cases for COVID-19. RESULTS: Through March–June 2020, (145/846; 17%) suspected HCWs were tested for COVID-19 by PCR; out of them (70/145; 48.3%) were confirmed as positive, these positive cases represented (70/846; 8.3%) of all HCWs of the hospital. About 33% of confirmed COVID-19 positive HCWs acquired the infection from the healthcare while only (13/70; 19%) from community settings, and no clear exposure data were identified in (34/70; 48%) of cases. Most of symptomatic cases showed a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 versus asymptomatic cases, p < 0.001. There was no statistical significance regarding gender, age, presence of comorbidity, workload or the type of acquisition. CONCLUSION: HCWs are at an increased risk of COVID-19 infection at the workplace. Strict implementation of infection control measures is of crucial role in preventing transmission of COVID-19 infection in health-care settings.

scholarly journals Management of clozapine treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 204512532092816 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siobhan Gee ◽  
Fiona Gaughran ◽  
James MacCabe ◽  
Sukhi Shergill ◽  
Eromona Whiskey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Physical Contact ◽  
Full Blood Count ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Clozapine Treatment ◽  
Neutropenic Sepsis ◽  
Blood Assay ◽  
Blood Monitoring ◽  
Increased Risk

Clozapine is the only available treatment for refractory schizophrenia but its use involves frequent physical contact with healthcare workers for the purpose of mandatory blood monitoring. During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients taking clozapine will be self-isolating to reduce the risk of infection, not least because these patients are at high risk of serious illness and fatality because of high rates of diabetes, obesity and pulmonary disease and an increased risk of pneumonia. Problems may also arise because both clozapine-induced myocarditis and neutropenic sepsis share signs and symptoms with COVID-19 (fever, chest pain, dyspnoea, etc.). We recommend decreasing the frequency of physical contacts by extending the blood monitoring interval to 12 weeks in those patients taking clozapine for more than 1 year. To distinguish COVID-19 from clozapine-related physical adverse effects, we suggest an urgent antigen test alongside a full blood count. In those taking clozapine who develop COVID-19, we suggest continuing with clozapine whenever possible (even during ventilation), reducing the dose if necessary in line with blood assay results. Blood monitoring should continue but clozapine should only cease if there is a significant fall in neutrophils (COVID-19 is linked to lymphopenia but not neutropenia). To protect against the likelihood and severity of respiratory infection, we recommend the use of vitamin D in all clozapine patients. Initiation of clozapine is likely to remain problematic while the risk of infection remains, given the degree of physical contact required to assure safety.

scholarly journals Respiratory protective devices for the healthcare workers (literature review)

2021 ◽  
Vol 100 (3) ◽  
pp. 240-245
Author(s):  
Valery A. Kaptsov ◽  
Alexander V. Chirkin
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Dioxide Concentration ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Respiratory Protection ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Human Welfare ◽  
Oxford University ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Respiratory Protective Devices ◽  
Certification Requirements

Introduction. Healthcare practitioners are at increased risk of infection with infectious diseases, including the inhalation route. Healthcare practitioners use respirators of various designs providing different efficiency of protection. The purpose of the study was to improve efficiency of the respiratory protection of the healthcare practitioners in Russian Federation. There were analyzed available NIOSH publications, articles in journals Taylor & Francis, Oxford University Press, published materials of Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Welfare (Rospotrebnadzor), and western training manuals. Differences in the requirements of the legislation were identified that increase the risk of infection in healthcare practitioners. There are no methods for assessing the risk level, and there are no specific requirements for selecting the respirator’s type that corresponds to the risk level. The employer is not obliged to provide the fit test for all employees. The respirator must be used timely, so it should not negatively affect the worker. But the average carbon dioxide concentration can exceed the STEL by more than two times. The certification requirements for respirators do not correspond to the conditions of their use in the hospitals. Respirators were not certified as means of protection against bioaerosols. Conclusions. Identified shortcomings in the respiratory safety of health care workers show possible ways to improve their protection by harmonizing national legislation with the best of existing Western requirements.

scholarly journals Attitudes towards preventive tuberculosis treatment among hospital staff

PeerJ ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. e1738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vidya Pathak ◽  
Zinta Harrington ◽  
Claudia C. Dobler
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care Workers ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Hospital Staff ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Tb Treatment ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Latent Tb

Background.Healthcare workers have an increased risk of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI), but previous studies suggested that they might be reluctant to accept preventive tuberculosis (TB) treatment. We aimed to examine doctors’ and nurses’ experience of TB screening and to explore their attitudes towards preventive TB treatment.Methods.We conducted a survey among randomly selected healthcare workers at a tertiary hospital in Sydney, Australia, using a paper-based questionnaire.Results.A total of 1,304 questionnaires were distributed and 311 (24%) responses were received. The majority of hospital staff supported preventive TB treatment in health care workers with evidence of latent TB infection (LTBI) in general (74%, 164/223) and for them personally (81%, 198/244) while 80 and 53 healthcare workers respectively had no opinion on the topic. Staff working in respiratory medicine were significantly less likely to support preventive TB treatment in health care workers in general or for them personally if they would have evidence of LTBI compared to other specialties (p= 0.001). Only 13% (14/106) of respondents with evidence of LTBI indicated that they had been offered preventive TB treatment. Twenty-one percent (64/306) of respondents indicated that they did not know the difference between active and latent TB. Among staff who had undergone testing for LTBI, only 33% (75/230) felt adequately informed about the meaning of their test results.Discussion.Hospital staff in general had positive attitudes towards preventive TB treatment, but actual treatment rates were low and perceived knowledge about LTBI was insufficient among a significant proportion of staff. The gap between high support for preventive TB treatment among staff and low treatment rates needs to be addressed. Better education on the concept of LTBI and the meaning of screening test results is required.

scholarly journals Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG in healthcare workers and other staff at North Bristol NHS Trust: a sociodemographic analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Jones ◽  
Fergus W. Hamilton ◽  
Ameeka Thompson ◽  
Tim T. Morris ◽  
Ed Moran
Keyword(s):  
Socioeconomic Factors ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Relative Deprivation ◽  
Healthcare Setting ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Igg Antibody ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Neighbourhood Deprivation ◽  
Junior Staff ◽  
Increased Risk

Structured summaryBackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of infection with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). There are limited data exploring the relative impact of geographical and socioeconomic factors on risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs.AimTo estimate and explore SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody seroprevalence in HCWs and support staff at a hospital in South West England.MethodsWe conducted a nested cross-sectional study from May-July 2020. Inverse probability weighted regression was used to estimate seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 and associations with demographic and socioeconomic risk factors that were robust to selection into testing.FindingsAttendance for testing varied by demographic and socioeconomic factors. The overall rate of SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroprevalence among tested staff was 9.3% (638/6858). The highest seroprevalence was found in wards associated with SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks and among junior staff with patient-facing roles. Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) staff had increased odds of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence (adjusted OR: 1.99, 95%CI: 1.69, 2.34; p<0.001) relative to White staff, except for those categorised as Medical/Dental. We found a significant association between neighbourhood deprivation and seroprevalence (p<0.01). Seroprevalence ranged from 12% in staff residing in areas with the greatest relative deprivation to 8.4% in the least deprived.ConclusionTransmission between staff groups is evident within the healthcare setting. BAME individuals were at increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2. Work role, area of residence, and neighbourhood deprivation all contribute to SARS-CoV-2 infection risk. As hospitals introduce routine staff SARS-CoV-2 testing they should consider differential uptake of testing among staff groups.

scholarly journals Development of an Objective Risk Stratification Tool to facilitate workplace assessments of healthcare workers when dealing with the CoViD-19 pandemic

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
W David Strain ◽  
Janusz Jankowski ◽  
Angharad Davies ◽  
Peter MB English ◽  
Ellis Friedman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Health Care Workers ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
List Type ◽  
Care Workers ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Objective Risk ◽  
Risk Stratification Tool

SummaryHealthcare workers have a greater exposure to individuals with confirmed SARS-novel coronavirus 2, and thus a higher probability of contracting coronavirus disease (CoViD)-19, than the general population. Employers have a duty of care to minimise the risk for their employees. Several bodies including the Faculty of Occupational Medicine, NHS Employers, and Public Health England have published a requirement to perform risk assessments for all health care workers, however, with the absence of an objective risk stratification tool, comparing assessments between individuals is difficult if not impossible. Using published data, we explored the predictive role of basic demographics such as age, sex, ethnicity and comorbidities in order to establish an objective risk stratification tool that could help risk allocate duties to health care workers. We developed an objective risk stratification tool using a Caucasian female <50years of age with no comorbidities as a reference. Each point allocated to risk factors was associated with an approximate doubling in risk. This tool was then validated against the primary care-based analysis. This tool provides objective support for employers when determining which healthcare workers should be allocated to high-risk vs. lower risk patient facing clinical duties or to remote supportive roles.Strengths and limitations of this studyThere is an increased risk of mortality in the clinical workforce due to the effects of CoViD-19.This manuscript outlines a simple risk stratification tool that helps to quantify an individual’s biological riskThis will assist team leaders when allocating roles within clinical departments.This tool does not incorporate other external factors, such as high-risk household members or those at higher risk of mental health issues, that may require additional consideration when allocating clinical duties in an appropriate clinical domain.This population-based analysis did not explain for the very high risk observed in BAME healthcare workers suggesting there are other issues at play that require addressing. BAME healthcare workers suggesting there are other issues at play that require addressing.

scholarly journals Determinants of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Italian healthcare workers: a multicenter study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Boffetta ◽  
Francesco Violante ◽  
Paolo Durando ◽  
Giuseppe De Palma ◽  
Enrico Pira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Independent Effect ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Limited Information ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Logistic Regression Models ◽  
Pooled Data ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Job Titles ◽  
Job Title

Background. Healthcare workers (HCW) are at increased risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2, yet limited information is available on risk factors of infection. Methods. We pooled data on occupational surveillance of 10,654 HCW who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection in six Italian centers. Information was available on demographics, job title, department of employment, source of exposure, use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and COVID-19-related symptoms. We fitted multivariable logistic regression models to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Findings. The prevalence of infection varied across centers and ranged from 3.0% to 22.0%, being strongly correlated with that of the respective areas. Women were at lower risk of infection compared to men. Fever, cough, dyspnea and malaise were the symptoms most strongly associated with infection, together with anosmia and ageusia. No differences in the risk of infection were detected between job titles, or working in a COVID-19 designated department. Reported contact with a patient inside or outside the workplace was a risk factor. Use of a mask was strongly protective against risk of infection as was use of gloves. The use of a mask by the source of exposure (patient or colleague) had an independent effect in reducing infection risk.

scholarly journals SARS-CoV-2 Testing of 11,884 Healthcare Workers at an Acute NHS Hospital Trust in England: A Retrospective Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aidan T. Hanrath ◽  
Ina Schim van der Loeff ◽  
Dennis W. Lendrem ◽  
Kenneth F. Baker ◽  
David A. Price ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Analysis ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Social Deprivation ◽  
Staff Nurses ◽  
Multiple Logistic Regression ◽  
Serological Testing ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Occupational Groups ◽  
Exposure Data ◽  
Increased Risk

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are known to be at increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2, although whether these risks are equal across all roles is uncertain. Here we report a retrospective analysis of a large real-world dataset obtained from 10 March to 6 July 2020 in an NHS Foundation Trust in England with 17,126 employees. 3,338 HCWs underwent symptomatic PCR testing (14.4% positive, 2.8% of all staff) and 11,103 HCWs underwent serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 IgG (8.4% positive, 5.5% of all staff). Seropositivity was lower than other hospital settings in England but higher than community estimates. Increased test positivity rates were observed in HCWs from BAME backgrounds and residents in areas of higher social deprivation. A multiple logistic regression model adjusting for ethnicity and social deprivation confirmed statistically significant increases in the odds of testing positive in certain occupational groups, most notably domestic services staff, nurses, and health-care assistants. PCR testing of symptomatic HCWs appeared to underestimate overall infection levels, probably due to asymptomatic seroconversion. Clinical outcomes were reassuring, with only a small minority of HCWs with COVID-19 requiring hospitalization (2.3%) or ICU management (0.7%) and with no deaths. Despite a relatively low level of HCW infection compared to other UK cohorts, there were nevertheless important differences in test positivity rates between occupational groups, robust to adjustment for demographic factors such as ethnic background and social deprivation. Quantitative and qualitative studies are needed to better understand the factors contributing to this risk. Robust informatics solutions for HCW exposure data are essential to inform occupational monitoring.

scholarly journals Seroprevalence of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody in healthcare workers: a multicentre cross-sectional study in 10 Colombian cities

2021 ◽  
pp. oemed-2021-107487
Author(s):  
Jeadran Nevardo Malagón-Rojas ◽  
Marcela Mercado-Reyes ◽  
Yezith G Toloza-Pérez ◽  
Eliana L Parra Barrera ◽  
Marien Palma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Strong Association ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Automated Immunoassay

BackgroundHealthcare workers are at increased risk of infection due to occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. The objective of this study was to determine the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers in Colombia.MethodsThis study is a cross-sectional study focused on estimating the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in healthcare workers from 65 hospitals in 10 cities in Colombia during the second semester of 2020. The seroprevalence was determined using an automated immunoassay (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 CLIA IgG). The study included a survey to establish the sociodemographic variables and the risk of infection. A multivariate model was used to evaluate the association between the results of seroprevalence and risk factors.ResultsThe global seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was 35% (95% Bayesian CI 33% to 37%). All the personnel reported the use of protective equipment. General services personnel and nurses presented the highest ratios of seroprevalence among the healthcare workers. Low socioeconomic strata have shown a strong association with seropositivity.ConclusionThis study estimates the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers. Even though all the personnel reported the use of protective equipment, the seroprevalence in the general services personnel and nurses was high. Also, a significant difference by cities was observed.

scholarly journals Self-reported COVID-19 among physicians: An Egyptian online study during the pandemic

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 785
Author(s):  
Hala Samir Abou-ElWafa ◽  
Abdel-Hady El-Gilany ◽  
Ahmed A. Albadry
Keyword(s):  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Vulnerable Group ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Online Study ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Laboratory Investigations ◽  
Survey Monkey ◽  
Frontline Healthcare Workers

Abstract:  Background: COVID-19 causes a critical occupational risk to frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) who respond to the pandemic, as they are placed in environments with an increased risk of infection exposure. It is a public health priority to understand how transmission occurs to protect this vulnerable group of HCWs. This study was conducted to estimate the incidence of self-reported COVID-19 infection among physicians and its possible associated factors. Methods: An online national survey using Survey Monkey was initiated to collect sociodemographic e.g. age and sex, occupational e.g. place and duration of work, and clinical data e.g. COVID symptoms and laboratory investigations, and to describe affected physicians' diagnoses. Results: The self-reported incidence of COVID-19 infection was found to be 65.4% among studied physicians. The significant independent predictors of COVID-19 infection were  smoking, working as a frontline physician, having contact with a COVID-19 case, and working for less than ten years [ARR (95% CI): 3.0(1.6-5.7), 2.3(1.4-3.8), 2.1(1.2-3.6), and 1.8(1.2-2.9); respectively]. Conclusions: The incidence of COVID-19 infection among Egyptian physicians is relatively high. Smoking, being a frontline physician, having contact with a COVID-19 case, and working for less than 10 years are all factors associated with an increased risk of infection. There should be strict application of preventive measures, periodic screening for COVID-19 for early detection and isolation of infected HCWs together with effective vaccination.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document