Healthcare Workers
Recently Published Documents





2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 1190-1202
Gadji Mahamat ◽  
Sebastien Kenmoe ◽  
Etheline W Akazong ◽  
Jean Thierry Ebogo-Belobo ◽  
Donatien Serge Mbaga ◽  

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (18) ◽  
pp. 4204
Marcello Salvaggio ◽  
Federica Fusina ◽  
Filippo Albani ◽  
Maurizio Salvaggio ◽  
Rasula Beschi ◽  

The Pfizer/BioNtech Comirnaty vaccine (BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19) against SARS-CoV-2 is currently in use in Italy. Antibodies to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to administration are not routinely tested; therefore, two doses may be administered to asymptomatic previously exposed subjects. The aim of this study is to assess if any difference in antibody concentration between subjects exposed and not exposed to SARS-CoV-2 prior to BNT162b2 was present after the first dose and after the second dose of vaccine. Data were retrospectively collected from the clinical documentation of 337 healthcare workers who underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing before and after BNT162b2. Total anti RBD (receptor-binding domain) antibodies against SARS-CoV-2′s spike protein were measured before and 21 days after the first dose, and 12 days after the second dose of BNT162b2. Twenty-one days after the first dose, there was a statistically significant difference in antibody concentration between the two groups, which was also maintained twelve days after the second dose. In conclusion, antibody response after receiving BNT162b2 is greater in subjects who have been previously exposed to SARS-CoV-2 than in subjects who have not been previously exposed to the virus, both after 21 days after the first dose and after 12 days from the second dose. Antibody levels, 21 days after the first dose, reached a titer considered positive by the test manufacturer in the majority of subjects who have been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. Evaluating previous infection prior to vaccination in order to give the least effective number of doses should be considered.

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. e0257420
Rhiannon Edge ◽  
Josh Meyers ◽  
Gabriella Tiernan ◽  
Zhicheng Li ◽  
Alexandra Schiavuzzi ◽  

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically impacted cancer care worldwide. Disruptions have been seen across all facets of care. While the long-term impact of COVID-19 remains unclear, the immediate impacts on patients, their carers and the healthcare workforce are increasingly evident. This study describes disruptions and reorganisation of cancer services in Australia since the onset of COVID-19, from the perspectives of people affected by cancer and healthcare workers. Two separate online cross-sectional surveys were completed by: a) cancer patients, survivors, carers, family members or friends (n = 852) and b) healthcare workers (n = 150). Descriptive analyses of quantitative survey data were conducted, followed by inductive thematic content analyses of qualitative survey responses relating to cancer care disruption and perceptions of telehealth. Overall, 42% of cancer patients and survivors reported experiencing some level of care disruption. A further 43% of healthcare workers reported atypical delays in delivering cancer care, and 50% agreed that patient access to research and clinical trials had been reduced. Almost three quarters (73%) of patients and carers reported using telehealth following the onset of COVID-19, with high overall satisfaction. However, gaps were identified in provision of psychological support and 20% of participants reported that they were unlikely to use telehealth again. The reorganisation of cancer care increased the psychological and practical burden on carers, with hospital visitation restrictions and appointment changes reducing their ability to provide essential support. COVID-19 has exacerbated a stressful and uncertain time for people affected by cancer and healthcare workers. Service reconfiguration and the adoption of telehealth have been essential adaptations for the pandemic response, offering long-term value. However, our findings highlight the need to better integrate psychosocial support and the important role of carers into evolving pandemic response measures. Learnings from this study could inform service improvements that would benefit patients and carers longer-term.

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 345-355
Imran Sarihasan ◽  
Judit Oláh ◽  
Main Al-Dalahmeh ◽  
Allam Yousuf ◽  
Krisztina Dajnoki

The Covid-19 pandemic has caused changes in the social and economic environments for healthcare. Particularly, to avoid spreading the Coronavirus pandemic, release the stress among healthcare workers, and make them work effectively during the epidemic, high-reliability healthcare organizations give great importance to the improvement of their functions. This study aims to show the importance of high-reliability healthcare organizations comparing their effectiveness during a pandemic by applied qualitative research method with many statistical analyses. In order to achieve the aim of the study, a Likert scale survey technique is used to collect the data by using an online survey. 280 healthcare workers filled the survey from January 17, 2021, to February 22, 2021. Based on the outcomes of the analyses, it has been found that such functions as shared knowledge pattern, provision of self-care, awareness of the coronavirus consequences at the workplace of high-reliability healthcare organizations have a positive and significant relationship at p < 0.01 level with taken appropriate measures against coronavirus variable. Self-awareness of organizational role, organizational resources to provide safety, flexibility of work, environmental safety, and collective mindfulness do not have any relationship with the appropriate measures against Covid-19 variable. This outcome indicates that shared knowledge pattern, provision of self-care, and awareness of the coronavirus consequences at the workplace have a more important role in combating Covid-19 in high-reliability healthcare organizations. AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank all the healthcare workers, who filled the survey of the study. This paper is supported by EFOP-3.6.3-VEKOP-16-2017-00007—“Young researchers for talent”— supporting careers in research activities in higher education program.

Amy E. Badwaik ◽  
Robert P. Tucker ◽  
Peggy Leung ◽  
Michael Klompas

Abstract We assessed the extent to which healthcare workers report more favorable hand hygiene rates when observing members of their own professional group versus other groups’ observations of them. Healthcare workers consistently reported higher compliance rates for their own group compared to others’ observations of them (97 vs 92%; P ≤ .001).

2021 ◽  
M. Emad Al Madadha ◽  
Khalid E. Ahmed ◽  
Rama Rayyan ◽  
Mamoun Ahram ◽  
Nancy Al-Sanouri ◽  

Abstract Background With the implementation of nucleotide-based vaccines (NBVs) in the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, a wide controversy surrounding NBVs has become a heated subject of debate, and it did not spare healthcare workers (HCW) and staff. HCW have a powerful influence on the acceptance of NBVs by the general public. Hence, the aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and attitude of healthcare workers regarding this new vaccine technology. Methods This is a cross-sectional study using an online survey involving health workers in Jordan. The survey assessed the participants' socio-demographic characteristics, knowledge, and attitude about the safety and efficacy if NBVs. The study population was divided into two groups, educated and uneducated groups, whereby the former received a small educational pamphlet on NBVs. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare between the response of the two groups. Results A total of 330 health workers participated in this study. Respondents believed that RNA-based NBVs would be a safer option compared to DNA-based ones, with the educated group showing significant difference. The notion of NBVs being a form of gene therapy was more common among the educated group. The majority of the participants, particularly amongst the uneducated group, were concerned about undiscovered effects of NBVs. Respondents also agreed that NBVs must be reevaluated in phase 1 trials. As for efficacy, our study population agreed that these vaccines would prevent severe illness. Conclusions Although healthcare workers have positive knowledge and attitude towards NBVs, misconceptions and skepticism exist and must be addressed with more education efforts.

Tara C Bouton ◽  
Sara Lodi ◽  
Jacquelyn Turcinovic ◽  
Beau Schaeffer ◽  
Sarah E Weber ◽  

Abstract Background COVID-19 vaccine trials and post-implementation data suggest vaccination decreases SARS-CoV-2 infections. We examine COVID-19 vaccination’s impact on SARS-CoV-2 case rates and viral diversity among healthcare workers (HCW) during a high community prevalence period. Methods A prospective cohort study from Boston Medical Center (BMC)’s HCW vaccination program, where staff received two doses of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273. We included PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases among HCWs from December 09, 2020 to February 23, 2021. Weekly SARS-CoV-2 rates per 100,000 person-day overall and by time from first injection (1-14 and >14 days) were compared with surrounding community rates. Viral genomes were sequenced from SARS CoV-2 positive samples. Results SARS-CoV-2 cases occurred in 1.4% (96/7109) of HCWs given at least a first dose and 0.3% (17/5913) of HCWs given both vaccine doses. Adjusted SARS-CoV-2 infection rate ratios were 0.73 (95% CI 0.53-1.00) 1-14 days and 0.18 (0.10-0.32) >14 days from first dose. HCW SARS-CoV-2 cases >14 days from initial dose compared to within 14 days were more often older (46 versus 38 years, p=0.007), Latinx (10% versus 8%, p=0.03), and asymptomatic (48% versus 11%, p=0.0002). SARS-CoV-2 rates among HCWs fell below those of the surrounding community, with a 18% versus 11% weekly decrease respectively (p=0.14). Comparison of 50 SARS-CoV-2 genomes sequenced from post-first dose cases did not indicate selection pressure towards known spike-antibody escape mutations. Conclusions Our results indicate an early positive impact of COVID-19 vaccines on SARS-CoV-2 case rates. Post-vaccination isolates did not show unusual genetic diversity or selection for mutations of concern.

Tan Seng Beng ◽  
Carol Lai Cheng Kim ◽  
Chai Chee Shee ◽  
Diana Ng Leh Ching ◽  
Tan Jiunn Liang ◽  

According to the WHO guideline, palliative care is an integral component of COVID-19 management. The relief of physical symptoms and the provision of psychosocial support should be practiced by all healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients. In this review, we aim to provide a simple outline on COVID-19, suffering in COVID-19, and the role of palliative care in COVID-19. We also introduce 3 principles of palliative care that can serve as a guide for all healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients, which are (1) good symptom control, (2) open and sensitive communication, and (3) caring for the whole team. The pandemic has brought immense suffering, fear and death to people everywhere. The knowledge, skills and experiences from palliative care could be used to relieve the suffering of COVID-19 patients.

2021 ◽  
Daniel A.M. Villela ◽  
Tatiana Guimarães de Noronha ◽  
Leonardo S Bastos ◽  
Antonio G. F. Pacheco ◽  
Oswaldo G. Cruz ◽  

Background. Mass vaccination campaigns started in Brazil on January/2021 with CoronaVac followed by ChAdOx1 nCov-19, and BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines. Target populations initially included vulnerable groups such as people older than 80 years, with comorbidities, of indigenous origin, and healthcare workers. Younger age groups were gradually included. Methods. A national cohort of 66.3 million records was compiled by linking registry-certified COVID-19 vaccination records from the Brazilian National Immunization Program with information on severe COVID-19 cases and deaths. Cases and deaths were aggregated by state and age group. Mixed-effects Poisson models were used to estimate the rate of severe cases and deaths among vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, and the corresponding estimates of vaccine effectiveness by vaccine platform and age group. The study period is from mid-January to mid-July 2021. Results. Estimates of vaccine effectiveness preventing deaths were highest at 97.9% (95% CrI: 93.5-99.8) among 20-39 years old with ChAdOx1 nCov-19, at 82.7% (95% CrI: 80.7-84.6) among 40-59 years old with CoronaVac, and at 89.9% (87.8--91.8) among 40-59 years old with partial immunization of BNT162b2. For all vaccines combined in the full regimen, the effectiveness preventing severe cases among individuals aged 80+ years old was 35.9% (95% CrI: 34.9-36.9) which is lower than that observed for individuals aged 60-79 years (61.0%, 95% CrI: 60.5-61.5). Conclusion. Despite varying effectiveness estimates, Brazil′s population benefited from vaccination in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes. Results, however, suggest significant vaccine-specific reductions in effectiveness by age, given by differences between age groups 60-79 years and over 80 years.

Cureus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Narmada Ashok ◽  
Kandamaran Krishnamurthy ◽  
Keerti Singh ◽  
Sayeeda Rahman ◽  
Md. Anwarul A Majumder

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document