SARS-CoV-2 Exposures of Healthcare Workers from Primary Care, Long-Term Care Facilities and Hospitals: A Nationwide Matched Case-Control Study

Barriers to healthcare-worker adherence to infection prevention and control practices in British Columbia during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted the importance of robust infection prevention and control (IPAC) practices to maintain patient and staff safety. However, healthcare workers (HCWs) face many barriers that affect their ability to follow these practices. We identified barriers affecting HCW adherence to IPAC practices during the pandemic in British Columbia, Canada.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional web-based survey.

SETTING

Acute care, long-term care or assisted living, outpatient, mental health, prehospital care, and home care.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligible respondents included direct-care providers and IPAC professionals working in these settings in all health authorities across British Columbia.

METHODS

We conducted a web-based survey from August to September 2021 to assess respondent knowledge and attitudes toward IPAC within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which various barriers affected their ability to follow IPAC practices throughout the pandemic and to make suggestions for improvement.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 2,488 responses; 36% of respondents worked in acute care. Overall, perceptions of IPAC practice among non-IPAC professionals were positive. The main self-perceived barriers to adherence included inadequate staffing to cover absences (58%), limited space in staff rooms (57%), multibed rooms (51%), and confusing messages about IPAC practices (51%). Common suggestions for improvement included receiving more support from IPAC leadership and clearer communication about required IPAC practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight frontline HCW perspectives regarding priority areas of improvement for IPAC practices. They will inform policy and guideline development to prevent transmission of COVID-19 and future emerging infections.

SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence and associated factors among primary healthcare workers in France after the third COVID-19 wave

Data on the SARS-CoV-2 infection among primary health care workers (PHCWs) are scarce but essential to reflect on policy regarding prevention and control measures. We assessed the prevalence of PHCWs who have been infected by SARS-CoV-2 in comparison with modeling from the general population in metropolitan France, and associated factors. A cross-sectional study was conducted among general practitioners (GPs), pediatricians, dental and pharmacy workers in primary care between May and August 2021. Participants volunteered to provide a dried-blood spot for SARS-CoV-2 antibody assessment and completed a questionnaire. The primary outcome was defined as the detection of infection-induced antibodies (anti-nucleocapsid IgG, and for non-vaccinees: anti-Spike IgG and neutralizing antibodies) or previous self-reported infection (positive RT-qPCR or antigenic test, or positive ELISA test before vaccination). Estimates were adjusted using weights for representativeness and compared with prediction from the general population. Poisson regressions were used to quantify associated factors. The analysis included 1612 PHCWs. Weighted prevalences were: 31.7% (95% CI 27.5-36.0) for GPs, 28.7% (95% CI 24.4-33.0) for pediatricians, 25.2% (95% CI 20.6-31.0) for dentists, and 25.5% (95% CI 18.2-34.0) for pharmacists. Estimates were compatible with model predictions for the general population. PHCWs more likely to be infected were: GPs compared to pharmacist assistants (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 2.26; CI 95% 1.01-5.07), those living in Île-de-France (aPR = 1.53; CI 95% 1.14-2.05), South-East (aPR = 1.57; CI 95% 1.19-2.08), North-East (aPR = 1.81; CI 95% 1.38-2.37), and those having an unprotected contact with a COVID-19 case within the household (aPR = 1.48; CI 95% 1.22-1.80). Occupational factors were not associated with infection. In conclusion, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure for PHCWs was more likely to have occurred in the community rather than at their workplace.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among healthcare workers in Dutch hospitals after the 2020 first wave: a multicentre cross-sectional study with prospective follow-up

BACKGROUND

We aimed to estimate the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) seroprevalence and describe its determinants and associated symptoms among unvaccinated healthcare workers (HCWs) after the first wave of the pandemic.

METHODS

HCWs from 13 Dutch hospitals were screened for antibodies against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 in June-July 2020 and after three months. Participants completed a retrospective questionnaire on determinants for occupational and community exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 experienced since January 2020. The seroprevalence was calculated per baseline characteristic and symptom at baseline and after follow-up. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for seropositivity were determined using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 2328 HCWs, 323 (13.9%) were seropositive at enrolment, 49 of whom (15%) reported no previous symptoms suggestive of COVID-19. During follow-up, only 1% of the tested participants seroconverted. Seroprevalence was higher in younger HCWs compared to the mid-age category (aOR 1.53, 95% CI 1.07-2.18). Nurses (aOR 2.21, 95% CI 1.34-3.64) and administrative staff (aOR 1.87, 95% CI 1.02-3.43) had a higher seroprevalence than physicians. The highest seroprevalence was observed in HCWs in the emergency department (ED) (aOR 1.79, 95% CI 1.10-2.91), the lowest in HCWs in the intensive, high, or medium care units (aOR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31-0.71). Chronic respiratory disease, smoking, and having a dog were independently associated with a lower seroprevalence, while HCWs with diabetes mellitus had a higher seroprevalence. In a multivariable model containing all self-reported symptoms since January 2020, altered smell and taste, fever, general malaise/fatigue, and muscle aches were positively associated with developing antibodies, while sore throat and chills were negatively associated.

CONCLUSIONS

The SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in unvaccinated HCWs of 13 Dutch hospitals was 14% in June-July 2020 and remained stable after three months. A higher seroprevalence was observed in the ED and among nurses, administrative and young staff, and those with diabetes mellitus, while a lower seroprevalence was found in HCWs in intensive, high, or medium care, and those with self-reported lung disease, smokers, and dog owners. A history of altered smell or taste, fever, muscle aches and fatigue were independently associated with the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in unvaccinated HCWs.

SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers: the role of occupational and household exposures during the first three pandemic waves in Quebec, Canada

Objective

We described the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 source of infection in a cohort of healthcare workers (HCWs) of Quebec, Canada, during the first three pandemic waves. We also estimated their household secondary attack rate (SAR) and its risk factors.

Design

Cross-sectional surveys.

Participants

HCWs with a SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by polymerasa chain reaction and diagnosed between March 2020 and May 2021.

Methods

We collected demographic, clinical, vaccination, and employment information, self-reported perceived source of infection, and transmission to household members during the first three pandemic waves. SAR was calculated for households with ≥2 members where the HCW was the index case. A Poisson regression model estimated the association between risk factors and SAR.

Results

Among the 11,670 HCWs completing the survey, 91%, perceived their workplace as the source of infection during the first wave (March-July 2020), 71% during the second wave (July 2020-March 2021), and 40% during the third wave (March-May 2021). Conversely, HCWs reported an increasing proportion of household-acquired infections with each wave from 4% to 14% and 33%, respectively. The overall household SAR of 7,990 HCWs living with ≥1 person was 30% (95%CI: 29-30). SAR increased with the presence of symptoms, older age, and during Alpha-variant predominant period.

Conclusions

HCWs and their household members were largely affected during the first pandemic waves of COVID-19, but the relative importance of occupational exposure changed overtime. Pandemic preparedness in healthcare settings is essential to protect HCWs from emerging biological hazard exposures.

Non-Pharmacological Strategies and Interventions for Effective COVID-19 Control: A Narrative Review

The COVID-19 pandemic had a devastating impact on the world, causing widespread illness and death. Focusing on prevention strategies to limit the spread of the disease remains essential. Despite the advent of vaccines, maintaining a vigilant approach to prevention remains paramount. We reviewed effective strategies to prevent COVID-19 transmission, including various prevention measures and interventions and both established practices and unresolved issues that have been addressed in meta-analyses, literature reviews, or in the health care context. Standard precautions are the cornerstone of infection control, with hand hygiene and mask use as key components. The use of surgical masks is recommended to prevent droplet transmission, while eye protection is recommended in combination with masks. In terms of room occupancy, ventilation is critical in reducing the risk of transmission in poorly ventilated environments. Chemical disinfection of indoor air with Triethylene glycol-based products can provide safe additional protection. Since viral RNA detection on surfaces does not necessarily indicate infectivity, the risk of transmission by surface contact remains low if surfaces are properly maintained and hand hygiene is practiced regularly. Thus, prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission requires a multifaceted approach, including reducing particle emissions from infected persons by wearing masks, eliminating aerosols by ventilation and air treatment, ensuring physical separation, and protecting exposed persons with masks and eye protection.

Effectiveness of face masks for reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a rapid systematic review

This rapid systematic review of evidence asks whether (i) wearing a face mask, (ii) one type of mask over another and (iii) mandatory mask policies can reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, either in community-based or healthcare settings. A search of studies published 1 January 2020-27 January 2023 yielded 5185 unique records. Due to a paucity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies were included in the analysis. We analysed 35 studies in community settings (three RCTs and 32 observational) and 40 in healthcare settings (one RCT and 39 observational). Ninety-five per cent of studies included were conducted before highly transmissible Omicron variants emerged. Ninety-one per cent of observational studies were at 'critical' risk of bias (ROB) in at least one domain, often failing to separate the effects of masks from concurrent interventions. More studies found that masks (n = 39/47; 83%) and mask mandates (n = 16/18; 89%) reduced infection than found no effect (n = 8/65; 12%) or favoured controls (n = 1/65; 2%). Seven observational studies found that respirators were more protective than surgical masks, while five found no statistically significant difference between the two mask types. Despite the ROB, and allowing for uncertain and variable efficacy, we conclude that wearing masks, wearing higher quality masks (respirators), and mask mandates generally reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission in these study populations. This article is part of the theme issue 'The effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: the evidence'.

Revisiting the personal protective equipment components of transmission-based precautions for the prevention of COVID-19 and other respiratory virus infections in healthcare

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted some potential limitations of transmission-based precautions. The distinction between transmission through large droplets vs aerosols, which have been fundamental concepts guiding infection control measures, has been questioned, leading to considerable variation in expert recommendations on transmission-based precautions for COVID-19. Furthermore, the application of elements of contact precautions, such as the use of gloves and gowns, is based on low-quality and inconclusive evidence and may have unintended consequences, such as increased incidence of healthcare-associated infections and spread of multidrug-resistant organisms. These observations indicate a need for high-quality studies to address the knowledge gaps and a need to revisit the theoretical background regarding various modes of transmission and the definitions of terms related to transmission. Further, we should examine the implications these definitions have on the following components of transmission-based precautions: (i) respiratory protection, (ii) use of gloves and gowns for the prevention of respiratory virus infections, (iii) aerosol-generating procedures and (iv) universal masking in healthcare settings as a control measure especially during seasonal epidemics. Such a review would ensure that transmission-based precautions are consistent and rationally based on available evidence, which would facilitate decision-making, guidance development and training, as well as their application in practice.

Major Update: Masks for Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 in Health Care and Community Settings-Final Update of a Living, Rapid Review

BACKGROUND

Optimal use of masks for preventing COVID-19 is unclear.

PURPOSE

To update an evidence synthesis on N95, surgical, and cloth mask effectiveness in community and health care settings for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, medRxiv (3 June 2022 to 2 January 2023), and reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials of interventions to increase mask use and risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and observational studies of mask use that controlled for potential confounders.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two investigators sequentially abstracted study data and rated quality.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Three randomized trials and 21 observational studies were included. In community settings, mask use may be associated with a small reduced risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection versus no mask use, on the basis of 2 randomized trials and 7 observational studies. In routine patient care settings, surgical masks and N95 respirators may be associated with similar risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, on the basis of 1 new randomized trial with some imprecision and 4 observational studies. Evidence from observational studies was insufficient to evaluate other mask comparisons due to methodological limitations and inconsistency.

LIMITATION

Few randomized trials, studies had methodological limitations and some imprecision, suboptimal adherence and pragmatic aspects of randomized trials potentially attenuated benefits, very limited evidence on harms, uncertain applicability to Omicron variant predominant era, meta-analysis not done due to heterogeneity, unable to formally assess for publication bias, and restricted to English-language articles.

CONCLUSION

Updated evidence suggests that masks may be associated with a small reduction in risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in community settings. Surgical masks and N95 respirators may be associated with similar infection risk in routine patient care settings, but a beneficial effect of N95 respirators cannot be ruled out.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

The evolution of workplace risk for Covid-19 in Canadian healthcare workers and its relation to vaccination: A nested case-referent study

BACKGROUND

During the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic, studies demonstrated that healthcare workers (HCWs) were at increased risk of infection. Few modifiable risks were identified. It is largely unknown how these evolved over time.

METHODS

A prospective case-referent study was established and nested within a cohort study of Canadian HCWs. Cases of Covid-19, confirmed by polymerase chain reaction, were matched with up to four referents on job, province, gender, and date of first vaccination. Cases and referents completed a questionnaire reporting exposures and experiences in the 21 days before case date. Participants were recruited from October 2020 to March 2022. Workplace factors were examined by mixed-effects logistic regression allowing for competing exposures. A sensitivity analysis was limited to those for whom family/community transmission seemed unlikely.

RESULTS

533 cases were matched with 1697 referents. Among unvaccinated HCWs, the risk of infection was increased if they worked hands-on with patients with Covid-19, on a ward designated for care of infected patients, or handled objects used by infected patients. Sensitivity analysis identified work in residential institutions and geriatric wards as high risk for unvaccinated HCWs. Later, with almost universal HCW vaccination, risk from working with infected patients was much reduced but cases were more likely than referents to report being unable to access an N95 mask or that decontaminated N95 masks were reused.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that, after a rocky start, the risks of Covid-19 infection from work in health care are now largely contained in Canada but with need for continued vigilance.

A two-ward acute care hospital outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 delta variant including a point-source outbreak associated with the use of a mobile vital signs cart and sub-optimal doffing of personal protective equipment

BACKGROUND

The arrival of the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 was associated with increased transmissibility and illness of greater severity. Reports of nosocomial outbreaks of Delta variant COVID-19 in acute care hospitals have been described but control measures varied widely.

AIM

Epidemiological investigation of a linked two-ward COVID-19 Delta variant outbreak was conducted to elucidate its source, risk factors, and control measures.

METHODS

Investigations included epidemiologic analysis, detailed case review serial SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing of patients and healthcare workers (HCWs), viral culture, environmental swabbing, HCW-unaware personal protective equipment (PPE) audits, ventilation assessments, and the use of whole genome sequencing (WGS).

FINDINGS

This linked two-ward outbreak resulted in 17 patient and 12 HCW cases, despite an 83% vaccination rate. In this setting, suboptimal adherence and compliance to PPE protocols, suboptimal hand hygiene, multi-bedded rooms, and a contaminated vital signs cart with potential fomite or spread via the hands of HCWs were identified as significant risk factors for nosocomial COVID-19 infection. Sudden onset of symptoms, within 72 h, was observed in 79% of all Ward 2 patients, and 93% of all cases (patients and HCWs) on Ward 2 occurred within one incubation period, consistent with a point-source outbreak. RT-PCR assays showed low cycle threshold (C_T) values, indicating high viral load from environmental swabs including the vital signs cart. WGS results with ≤3 SNP differences between specimens were observed.

CONCLUSION

Outbreaks on both wards settled rapidly, within 3 weeks, using a `back-to-basics' approach without extraordinary measures or changes to standard PPE requirements. Strict adherence to recommended PPE, hand hygiene, education, co-operation from HCWs, including testing and interviews, and additional measures such as limiting movement of patients and staff temporarily were all deemed to have contributed to prompt resolution of the outbreak.