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 SARS-CoV-2 testing of 11,884 healthcare workers at an acute NHS hospital trust in England: a retrospective analysis

2020 ◽  
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 ◽  
Serological Testing ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Occupational Groups ◽  
Exposure Data ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Icu Management

ABSTRACTHealthcare 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 logistic regression model adjusting for these factors showed 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 hospitalisation (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 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 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 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 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.

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 375. High Laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Attack Rate in Lima Health Care Personnel During August 2020-March 2021 Suggests Role for Improved Infection Control

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S289-S290
Author(s):  
Matthew Westercamp ◽  
Giselle Soto ◽  
Rachel Smith ◽  
Eduardo Azziz-Baumgartner ◽  
Susan Bollinger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Attack Rate ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
P Value ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Vaccine Introduction ◽  
Specimen Collection ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Reduction Strategies ◽  
Risk Reduction Strategies

Abstract Background Peru has one of the highest per capita SARS-CoV-2 death rates in Latin America. Healthcare workers (HCW) are a critical workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic but are themselves often at increased risk of infection. We evaluated SARS-CoV-2 attack rate and risk factors among frontline HCWs. Methods We performed a prospective cohort study of HCW serving two acute care hospitals in Lima, Peru from Aug 2020 to Mar 2021. Participants had baseline SARS-CoV-2 serology using the CDC ELISA, active symptom monitoring, and weekly respiratory specimen collection with COVID-19 exposure/risk assessment for 16-weeks regardless of symptoms. Respiratory specimens were tested by real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (rRT-PCR). Results Of 783 eligible, 667 (85%) HCW were enrolled (33% nurse assistants, 29% non-clinical staff, 26% nurses, 7% physicians, and 6% other). At baseline and prior to COVID-19 vaccine introduction, 214 (32.1%; 214/667) were reactive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. In total, 72 (10.8%; 72/667) HCWs were found to be rRT-PCR positive during weekly follow-up. Of the rRT-PCR positive HCWs, 37.5% (27/72) did not report symptoms within 1-week of specimen collection. During follow up, HCW without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline were significantly more likely to be rRT-PCR positive (65/453, 14.3%) compared to those with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline (4/214, 1.9%) (p-value: &lt; 0.001). Three HCW were both serologically reactive and rRT-PCR positive at baseline. Looking only at HCW without SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, nurse assistants (rRT-PCR positive: 18.6%; 27/141) and non-clinical healthcare workers (16.5%; 21/127) were at greater risk of infection compared to nurses (8.5%; 10/118), physicians (7.9%; 3/38), and other staff (10.3%; 4/29) (RR 1.95;95%CI 1.2,3.3; p-value: 0.01). Conclusion Baseline SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and 16-week cumulative incidence were substantial in this pre-vaccination Peruvian HCW cohort. Almost 40% of new infections occurred in HCW without complaint of symptoms illustrating a limitation of symptom-based HCW screening for COVID-19 prevention. Nurse assistants and non-clinical healthcare workers were at greater risk of infection indicating a role for focused infection prevention and risk reduction strategies for some groups of HCW. Disclosures Fernanda C. Lessa, MD, MPH, Nothing to disclose

scholarly journals Sacrificed: Ontario Healthcare Workers in the Time of COVID-19

2020 ◽  
pp. 104829112097435
Author(s):  
James T. Brophy ◽  
Margaret M. Keith ◽  
Michael Hurley ◽  
Jane E. McArthur
Keyword(s):  
General Public ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Elevated Rate ◽  
Depth Interviews

Healthcare workers (HCWs) in Ontario, Canada have faced unprecedented risks during the COVID-19 pandemic. They have been infected at an elevated rate compared to the general public. HCWs have argued for better protections with minimal success. A worldwide shortage of N95s and comparable respirators appears to have influenced guidelines for protection, which stand at odds with increasing scientific evidence. In-depth interviews were conducted with ten frontline HCWs about their concerns. They reported that the risk of contracting COVID-19 and infecting family members has created intense anxiety. This, in conjunction with understaffing and an increased workload, has resulted in exhaustion and burnout. HCWs feel abandoned by their governments, which failed to prepare for an inevitable epidemic, despite recommendations. The knowledge that they are at increased risk of infection due to lack of protection has resulted in anger, frustration, fear, and a sense of violation that may have long-lasting implications.

scholarly journals What influences the infection of COVID-19 in healthcare workers?

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. 1231-1237
Author(s):  
Xiaoquan Lai ◽  
Qian Zhou ◽  
Xinping Zhang ◽  
Li Tan
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Physical Examination ◽  
Protective Factors ◽  
Influencing Factors ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Protective Factor ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Hospital Response

Introduction: The outbreak of COVID-19 has spread worldwide. The evidence about risk factors of healthcare workers who infected COVID-19 is limited. This study aims to describe characteristics and influencing factors of the COVID-19 infection in healthcare workers. Methodology: The study was performed among COVID-19 infected and uninfected healthcare workers in three hospitals in Wuhan. A total of 325 healthcare workers participated; among them 151 COVID-19-infected healthcare workers were included. Characteristics of infected healthcare workers, and influencing factors including exposure histories, the use of protective equipment in different risk conditions and areas, perceptions, emotions, satisfactions and educations were described and analyzed. Results: Healthcare workers got infected clustered mostly in the physical examination center. When performing general operations on confirmed or suspected patients, the use of protective equipment including the effectiveness of masks (p < 0.001), gloves (p < 0.001); and the use of gloves (p < 0.001), suits (p < 0.001), gowns (p < 0.001), shoe covers (p < 0.001), and hats (p < 0.001) were protective factors. The use of protective equipment was a protective factor in most cases. Negative emotions and dissatisfaction to the hospital response were associated with the increased risk of infection. Conclusions: The use of protective equipment, emotions and satisfactions to hospital responses are key COVID-19-infected factors. The awareness, the supply and the use of protective equipment, the layout of departments and other environmental and management factors should be strictly equipped. In addition, hospitals should also pay attention to emotions and satisfaction of healthcare workers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document