scholarly journals Hospital-wide SARS-CoV-2 antibody screening of staff in a university psychiatric centre in Belgium

BJPsych Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kawtar El Abdellati ◽  
Violette Coppens ◽  
Jobbe Goossens ◽  
Heidi Theeten ◽  
Pierre Van Damme ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Population ◽  
Immunoglobulin G ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Antibody Screening ◽  
Limited Availability ◽  
Staff Members ◽  
Psychiatric Facilities

In this first serosurvey among psychiatric healthcare providers, only 3.2% of a sample of 431 staff members of a Belgian University Psychiatric Centre, screened 3–17 June 2020, had SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G antibodies, which is considerably lower compared with both the general population and other healthcare workers in Belgium. The low seroprevalence was unexpected, given the limited availability of personal protective equipment and the high amount of COVID-19 symptoms reported by staff members. Importantly, exposure at home predicted the presence of antibodies, but exposure at work did not. Measures to prevent transmission from staff to patients are warranted in psychiatric facilities.

scholarly journals COVID-19 infections among Healthcare Workers and Transmission within Households

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin L. Schwartz ◽  
Camille Achonu ◽  
Sarah A. Buchan ◽  
Kevin A. Brown ◽  
Brenda Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Population ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Nosocomial Transmission ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Testing Bias

AbstractImportanceProtecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from COVID-19 is a priority to maintain a safe and functioning healthcare system. The risk of transmitting COVID-19 to family members is a source of stress for many.ObjectiveTo describe and compare HCW and non-HCW COVID-19 cases in Ontario, Canada, as well as the frequency of COVID-19 among HCWs’ household members.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsUsing reportable disease data at Public Health Ontario which captures all COVID-19 cases in Ontario, Canada, we conducted a population-based cross-sectional study comparing demographic, exposure, and clinical variables between HCWs and non-HCWs with COVID-19 as of 14 May 2020. We calculated rates of infections over time and determined the frequency of within household transmissions using natural language processing based on residential address.Exposures and OutcomesWe contrasted age, gender, comorbidities, clinical presentation (including asymptomatic and presymptomatic), exposure histories including nosocomial transmission, and clinical outcomes between HCWs and non-HCWs with confirmed COVID-19.ResultsThere were 4,230 (17.5%) HCW COVID-19 cases in Ontario, of whom 20.2% were nurses, 2.3% were physicians, and the remaining 77.4% other specialties. HCWs were more likely to be between 30-60 years of age and female. HCWs were more likely to present asymptomatically (8.1% versus 7.0%, p=0.010) or with atypical symptoms (17.8% versus 10.5%, p<0.001). The mortality among HCWs was 0.2% compared to 10.5% of non-HCWs. HCWs commonly had exposures to a confirmed case or outbreak (74.1%), however only 3.1% were confirmed to be nosocomial. The rate of new infections was 5.5 times higher in HCWs than non-HCWs, but mirrored the epidemic curve. We identified 391 (9.8%) probable secondary household transmissions and 143 (3.6%) acquisitions. Children < 19 years comprised 14.6% of secondary cases compared to only 4.2% of the primary cases.Conclusions and RelevanceHCWs represent a disproportionate number of COVID-19 cases in Ontario but with low confirmed numbers of nosocomial transmission. The data support substantial testing bias and under-ascertainment of general population cases. Protecting HCWs through appropriate personal protective equipment and physical distancing from colleagues is paramount.Key PointsQuestionWhat are the differences between healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers with COVID-19?FindingsIn this population-based cross-sectional study there were 4,230 healthcare workers comprising 17.5% of COVID-19 cases. Healthcare workers were diagnosed with COVID-19 at a rate 5.5 times higher than the general population with 0.8% of all healthcare workers, compared to 0.1% of non-healthcare workers.MeaningHigh healthcare worker COVID-19 burden highlights the importance of physical distancing from colleagues, appropriate personal protective equipment, as well as likely substantial testing bias and under-ascertainment of COVID-19 in the general population.

scholarly journals Infection Control Practices among Laboratory Healthcare Workers in an Urban Local Government Area of Lagos State, Nigeria

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 86-96
Author(s):  
Omobola Ojo ◽  
Adeyinka Adeniran ◽  
Olayinka Goodman ◽  
Bisola Adebayo ◽  
Esther Oluwole ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Local Government ◽  
Infection Control ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Local Government Area ◽  
Good Knowledge ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Major Barrier ◽  
Limited Availability ◽  
Wide Range

Background: Laboratory healthcare workers do handle a wide range of potentially dangerous materials which exposes them to numerous hazards. This study aimed to assess the practices of laboratory health care workers towards safety, infection control and the associated factors to its practices. Case Presentation: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 181 laboratory healthcare workers in all registered 33 laboratory facilities in Ikeja Local Government Area in 2017. Data were collected with pre-tested, structured self-administered questionnaires. Data analysed with SPSS version 20 and p-value of < 0.05. The mean age of respondents was 35.0 ± 2.45 years, most of whom were females (57.7%) and married (61.1%). The majority (98.9%) demonstrated good knowledge of infection control. A total of 62.3% identified hand washing as the most important infection control practice while HIV and Tuberculosis were diseases respondents majorly considered as high risk of contracting. A total of 84.6% of the respondents showed good practices. Limited availability of personal protective equipment in the laboratories was a major barrier identified by 98.1% of respondents. Respondents displayed good knowledge, attitude and practice of infection control. Discussion and Conclusion: Barrier to infection control was the limited availability of personal protective equipment. Therefore, concerted efforts should be mustered to ensure continuous training and retraining with the provision of personal protective equipment.        

scholarly journals The prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic healthcare workers with intensive exposure to COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shue Xiong ◽  
Chunxia Guo ◽  
Ulf Dittmer ◽  
Xin Zheng ◽  
Baoju Wang
Keyword(s):  
General Population ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Asymptomatic Infection ◽  
Chest Ct ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Rna Detection ◽  
Negative Results ◽  
Epidemic Area ◽  
Chest Ct Scan

AbstractThe prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers with intensive exposure to COVID-19 is unclear. In this study, we investigated the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in 797 asymptomatic healthcare workers with intensive exposure to COVID-19 patients in Wuhan, China. Positive IgG was detected from 35 asymptomatic healthcare workers, and the prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic healthcare workers was 4.39% (35/797). None of them developed COVID-19 until May 15. 33 of them have performed at least one chest CT scan showing no viral pneumonia features, and 16 have finished at least one-time SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection with negative results. When contacting with the patients, 15 of them dressed with full personal protective equipment (PPE), and 16 worn N95 mask and gown. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first investigation reported that the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was 4.39% in asymptomatic healthcare workers with applied PPE in a high epidemic area, which may provide useful information of estimating asymptomatic infection rate in general population.

scholarly journals Should neurosurgeons continue to work in the absence of personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 era?

2021 ◽  
Vol 163 (3) ◽  
pp. 593-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marleen Eijkholt ◽  
Alexander Hulsbergen ◽  
Ivo Muskens ◽  
Tiit Illimar Mathiesen ◽  
Ciaran Bolger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Moral Decision ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
High Demand ◽  
Limited Availability ◽  
Challenging Issue ◽  
Limited Efficacy ◽  
Professional Responsibilities

AbstractThe COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a widespread shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). Many healthcare workers, including neurosurgeons, have expressed concern about how to safely and adequately perform their medical responsibilities in these challenging circumstances. One of these concerns revolves around the pressing question: should providers continue to work in the absence of adequate PPE? Although the first peak of the COVID-19 crisis seems to have subsided and supply of PPE has increased, concerns about insufficient PPE availability remain. Inconsistent supply, limited efficacy, and continued high demand for PPE, combined with the continued threat of a second COVID-19 wave, mean that the issues surrounding PPE availability remain unresolved, including a duty to work. This paper offers an ethical investigation of whether neurosurgeons should perform their professional responsibilities with limited availability of PPE. We evaluate ethical considerations and conflicting duties and thereby hope to facilitate providers in making a well-considered personal and moral decision about this challenging issue.

scholarly journals An outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) in a secondary care hospital in Finland, May 2021

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (30) ◽  
Author(s):  
Iivo Hetemäki ◽  
Sohvi Kääriäinen ◽  
Pirjo Alho ◽  
Janne Mikkola ◽  
Carita Savolainen-Kopra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Secondary Care ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
National Guidelines ◽  
Staff Members ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
Permanent Staff

An outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) spread from one inpatient in a secondary care hospital to three primary care facilities, resulting in 58 infections including 18 deaths in patients and 45 infections in healthcare workers (HCW). Only one of the deceased cases was fully vaccinated. Transmission occurred despite the use of personal protective equipment by the HCW, as advised in national guidelines, and a high two-dose COVID-19 vaccination coverage among permanent staff members in the COVID-19 cohort ward.

scholarly journals SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence among Healthcare Workers in General Hospitals and Clinics in Japan

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (7) ◽  
pp. 3786
Author(s):  
Tatsuya Yoshihara ◽  
Kazuya Ito ◽  
Masayoshi Zaitsu ◽  
Eunhee Chung ◽  
Izumi Aoyagi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Social Support ◽  
General Population ◽  
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ◽  
Immunoglobulin G ◽  
Health Problem ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Public Health Problem ◽  
General Hospitals ◽  
Second Wave

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a serious public health problem worldwide. In general, healthcare workers are considered to be at higher risk of COVID-19 infection. However, the prevalence of COVID-19 among healthcare workers in Japan is not well characterized. In this study, we aimed to examine the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies among 2160 healthcare workers in hospitals and clinics that are not designated to treat COVID-19 patients in Japan. The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G was 1.2% in August and October 2020 (during and after the second wave of the pandemic in Japan), which is relatively higher than that in the general population in Japan (0.03–0.91%). Because of the higher risk of COVID-19 infection, healthcare workers should be the top priority for further social support and vaccination against SARS-CoV-2.

scholarly journals Stress and Associated Factors among Frontline Healthcare Workers in the COVID-19 Epicenter of Da Nang City, Vietnam

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (14) ◽  
pp. 7378
Author(s):  
Nhan Phuc Thanh Nguyen ◽  
Duong Dinh Le ◽  
Robert Colebunders ◽  
Joseph Nelson Siewe Fodjo ◽  
Trung Dinh Tran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Stress Component ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Working Hours ◽  
Health Facilities ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Laboratory Workers ◽  
Frontline Healthcare Workers ◽  
Second Wave

Frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) involved in the COVID-19 response have a higher risk of experiencing psychosocial distress amidst the pandemic. Between July and September 2020, a second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic appeared in Vietnam with Da Nang city being the epicenter. During the outbreak, HCWs were quarantined within the health facilities in a bid to limit the spread of COVID-19 to their respective communities. Using the stress component of the 21-item Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21), we assessed the level of stress among HCWs in Da Nang city. Between 30 August and 15 September 2020, 746 frontline HCWs were recruited to fill in an online structured questionnaire. Overall, 44.6% of participants experienced increased stress and 18.9% severe or extremely severe stress. In multivariable analysis, increased stress was associated with longer working hours (OR = 1.012; 95% CI: 1.004–1.019), working in health facilities providing COVID-19 treatment (OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.04–2.39), having direct contact with patients or their bio-samples (physicians, nurses and laboratory workers; OR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.02–1.99), low confidence in the available personal protective equipment (OR = 0.846; 95% CI: 0.744–0.962) and low knowledge on COVID-19 prevention and treatment (OR = 0.853; 95% CI: 0.739–0.986). In conclusion, many frontline HCWs experienced increased stress during the COVID-19 outbreak in Da Nang city. Reducing working time, providing essential personal protective equipment and enhancing the knowledge on COVID-19 will help to reduce this stress. Moreover, extra support is needed for HCWs who are directly exposed to COVID-19 patients.

scholarly journals Evaluating the Environmental Impacts of Personal Protective Equipment Use by the General Population during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Study of Lombardy (Northern Italy)

Environments ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Gilberto Binda ◽  
Arianna Bellasi ◽  
Davide Spanu ◽  
Andrea Pozzi ◽  
Domenico Cavallo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Population ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Population Data ◽  
Test Site ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
National Guidelines ◽  
Plastic Pollution ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Lombardy Region ◽  
Life Habits

The diffusion of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) impacted the whole world, changing the life habits of billions of people. These changes caused an abundant increase in personal protective equipment (PPE, e.g., masks and gloves) use by the general population, which can become a concerning issue of plastic pollution. This study aims to evaluate the negative effects of the abundant PPE use following the COVID-19 diffusion using the test site of the Lombardy region, an area highly affected by the pandemic. Population data were retrieved from national databases, and the COVID-19 national guidelines were considered to estimate the total use of PPEs during 2020. Then, the quantity of waste derived from their use was evaluated based on the weight of PPEs. As well, possible scenarios for 2021 were proposed based on 2020 estimations. The results suggested different negative effects of the diffusion of PPEs both on waste management and on the environment: The abundant increase in PPEs-derived waste caused an increase in terms of costs for management, and the potential direct spreading in the environment of these materials (especially masks) poses a serious threat for an increase in microplastics in water bodies. Following this evaluation, a careful choice regarding COVID-19 measures of containment should be performed especially by the general population, avoiding contagion diffusion and reducing the possible environmental impact derived from disposable PPE use.

scholarly journals Implementing a Massive Personal Protective Equipment Education—A Multidisciplinary Team Approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s280-s281
Author(s):  
Mayar Al Mohajer ◽  
Megan Fischer ◽  
Melissa Rouse ◽  
Takei Pipkins ◽  
John Byrne
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Education ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Multidisciplinary Team ◽  
Infection Prevention ◽  
Just In Time ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Team Approach ◽  
Online Video ◽  
Staff Members ◽  
Multidisciplinary Team Approach

Background: Personal protective equipment (PPE) is defined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as specialized clothing or equipment worn by an employee for protection against infectious materials. They include gloves, gowns, masks, respirators, googles and face shields. The CDC has issued guidelines on appropriateness of when, what, and how to use PPE. Despite these guidelines, compliance with PPE remains challenging. Methods: We implemented a massive hospital-wide rapid education program on PPE donning and doffing of all employees and staff. This program included an online video, return demonstration and just-in-time training. To develop the program, we recorded PPE training video, reviewed PPE validation checklist, developed new isolation precaution signage with quick response (QR) code to video, developed a nutrition tray removal video and a equipment cleaning video, developed family and visitor guidelines for isolation precautions, and created an audit tool for PPE donning and doffing practices. The program required interdisciplinary collaboration including administration, infection prevention, nursing education, central supply, environmental services, facility maintenance, and security. Results: The first phase of the program was implemented through 30 separate 4-hour PPE skills fair offered over 48 hours. In total, 500 staff members were trained in the first 48 hours; 6 additional 3-hour sessions were provided on site in the following 3 month. Additionally, training was provided in off-site clinics, physician leadership meetings, new-hire orientation for nursing staff, and monthly resident and fellow training through graduate medical education. As needed, training was provided by infection prevention, nursing education, and floor nurses. In total, 5,237 staff members were trained within 3 months after implementation. Actual audit results (50 audits per week) showed improved and sustained compliance to >94%. Conclusions: A massive hospital-wide educational program including online video, return demonstration, and just-in-time training is a feasible and very effective method to improve compliance with PPE donning and doffing. A multidisciplinary team approach, administration support, and continuous education and audits are key factors in successful implementation.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document