The role of healthcare staff COVID-19 screening in infection prevention & control

COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake among Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The vaccine-induced immunity of healthcare workers (HCWs) is crucial to controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the COVID-19 vaccine uptake among HCWs worldwide and to identify predictors of vaccination. We searched Scopus, Web of Science, Medline, PubMed, ProQuest, CINAHL, and medRxiv up to 25 August 2022. We applied the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. We found 25 studies including 491,624 vaccinated HCWs, while the full sample included 555,561 HCWs. The overall proportion of vaccinated HCWs was 77.3%. Vaccine uptake for studies that were conducted in North America (85.6%) was higher than the proportion for studies that were conducted in Asia (79.5%), Europe (72.8%), and Africa (65.6%). The overall prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine uptake was 83.6% and 77.4% for physicians and nurses, respectively. Older age, white race, physicians' profession, seasonal influenza vaccine, direct COVID-19 patient care, and confidence in COVID-19 vaccine safety and effectiveness were positive predictors of vaccine uptake, while history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was a negative predictor. Deep understanding of the factors that influence HCWs' decisions to receive a COVID-19 vaccine is critical to implementing tailored communication strategies for HCWs who are at risk for not getting vaccinated.

Surveillance testing using salivary RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 in managed quarantine facilities in Australia: A laboratory validation and implementation study

BACKGROUND

Regular repeat surveillance testing is a strategy to identify asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infections in high-risk work settings to prevent onward community transmission. Saliva sampling is less invasive compared to nasal/oropharyngeal sampling, thus making it suitable for regular testing. In this multi-centre evaluation, we aimed to validate RT-PCR using salivary swab testing of SARS-CoV-2 for large-scale surveillance testing and assess implementation amongst staff working in the hotel quarantine system in Victoria, Australia.

METHODS

A multi-centre laboratory evaluation study was conducted to systematically validate the in vitro and clinical performance of salivary swab RT-PCR for implementation of SARS-CoV-2 surveillance testing. Analytical sensitivity for multiple RT-PCR platforms was assessed using a dilution series of known SARS-CoV-2 viral loads, and assay specificity was examined using a panel of viral pathogens other than SARS-CoV-2. In addition, we tested capacity for large-scale saliva testing using a four-sample pooling approach, where positive pools were subsequently decoupled and retested. Regular, frequent self-collected saliva swab RT-PCR testing was implemented for staff across fourteen quarantine hotels. Samples were tested at three diagnostic laboratories validated in this study, and results were provided back to staff in real-time.

FINDINGS

The agreement of self-collected saliva swabs for RT-PCR was 84.5% (95% CI 68.6 to 93.8) compared to RT-PCR using nasal/oropharyngeal swab samples collected by a healthcare practitioner, when saliva samples were collected within seven days of symptom onset. Between 7th December 2020 and 17th December 2021, almost 500,000 RT-PCR tests were performed on saliva swabs self-collected by 102 staff working in quarantine hotels in Melbourne. Of these, 20 positive saliva swabs were produced by 13 staff (0.004%). The majority of staff that tested positive occurred during periods of community transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant.

INTERPRETATION

Salivary RT-PCR had an acceptable level of agreement compared to standard nasal/oropharyngeal swab RT-PCR within early symptom onset. The scalability, tolerability and ease of self-collection highlights utility for frequent or repeated testing in high-risk settings, such as quarantine or healthcare environments where regular monitoring of staff is critical for public health, and protection of vulnerable populations.

FUNDING

This work was funded by the Victorian Department of Health.

Using a national level cross-sectional study to develop a Hospital Preparedness Index (HOSPI) for Covid-19 management: A case study from India

Background

We developed a composite index–hospital preparedness index (HOSPI)–to gauge preparedness of hospitals in India to deal with COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

We developed and validated a comprehensive survey questionnaire containing 63 questions, out of which 16 critical items were identified and classified under 5 domains: staff preparedness, effects of COVID-19, protective gears, infrastructure, and future planning. Hospitals empaneled under Ayushman Bharat Yojana (ABY) were invited to the survey. The responses were analyzed using weighted negative log likelihood scores for the options. The preparedness of hospitals was ranked after averaging the scores state-wise and district-wise in select states. HOSPI scores for states were classified using K-means clustering.

Findings

Out of 20,202 hospitals empaneled in ABY included in the study, a total of 954 hospitals responded to the questionnaire by July 2020. Domains 1, 2, and 4 contributed the most to the index. The overall preparedness was identified as the best in Goa, and 12 states/ UTs had scores above the national average score. Among the states which experienced high COVID-19 cases during the first pandemic wave, we identified a cluster of states with high HOSPI scores indicating better preparedness (Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh), and a cluster with low HOSPI scores indicating poor preparedness (Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Uttarakhand).

Interpretation

Using this index, it is possible to identify areas for targeted improvement of hospital and staff preparedness to deal with the COVID-19 crisis.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: a midwifery survey into attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine

BACKGROUND

Ethnically minoritised people have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Emerging evidence suggests a lower uptake of the vaccine in ethnically minoritised people, particularly Black females of reproductive age. Unvaccinated pregnant women are high risk for morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. Midwives are the principal healthcare professionals responsible for counselling the pregnant population on decisions relating to vaccine uptake. The aim of this study was to explore midwifery uptake of and attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine in two ethnically diverse areas.

METHODS

A 45-point questionnaire was circulated over a six-week period to midwives employed in two teaching hospitals in England; London (Barts Health NHS Trust) and Sussex (Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust (BSUH)). A total of 378 out of 868 midwives responded. Results were analysed to determine vaccine uptake as well as factors influencing vaccine hesitancy and decision-making between the two trusts and ethnic groups. Thematic analysis was also undertaken.

RESULTS

Midwives of Black ethnicities were over 4-times less likely to have received a COVID-19 vaccine compared to midwives of White ethnicities (52% vs 85%, adjusted OR = 0.22, p = < 0.001). Overall, there were no significant differences between trusts in receipt of the COVID-19 vaccine (p = 0.13). Midwives at Barts Health were significantly more likely to have tested positive for COVID-19 compared to midwives at BSUH (adjusted OR = 2.55, p = 0.007). There was no statistical difference between ethnicities in testing positive for COVID-19 (p = 0.86). The most common concerns amongst all participants were regarding the long-term effect of the vaccine (35%), that it was developed too fast (24%), having an allergic reaction (22%) and concerns about fertility (15%). Amongst unvaccinated midwives, those of Black ethnicity had a higher occurrence of concern that the vaccine contained meat / porcine products (adjusted OR = 5.93, p = 0.04) and that the vaccine would have an adverse effect on ethnic minorities (adjusted OR = 4.42, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the significantly higher level of vaccine hesitancy amongst Black midwives and offer insights into midwives' concerns. This can facilitate future targeted public health interventions. It is essential that vaccine hesitancy amongst midwifery staff is addressed to improve vaccine uptake in the pregnant population.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccine uptake in a multi-ethnic UK healthcare workforce: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers (HCWs) and ethnic minority groups are at increased risk of COVID-19 infection and adverse outcomes. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination is now available for frontline UK HCWs; however, demographic/occupational associations with vaccine uptake in this cohort are unknown. We sought to establish these associations in a large UK hospital workforce.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted cross-sectional surveillance examining vaccine uptake amongst all staff at University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust. We examined proportions of vaccinated staff stratified by demographic factors, occupation, and previous COVID-19 test results (serology/PCR) and used logistic regression to identify predictors of vaccination status after adjustment for confounders. We included 19,044 HCWs; 12,278 (64.5%) had received SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Compared to White HCWs (70.9% vaccinated), a significantly smaller proportion of ethnic minority HCWs were vaccinated (South Asian, 58.5%; Black, 36.8%; p < 0.001 for both). After adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, occupation, SARS-CoV-2 serology/PCR results, and COVID-19-related work absences, factors found to be negatively associated with vaccine uptake were younger age, female sex, increased deprivation, pregnancy, and belonging to any non-White ethnic group (Black: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.30, 95% CI 0.26-0.34, p < 0.001; South Asian: aOR 0.67, 95% CI 0.62-0.72, p < 0.001). Those who had previously had confirmed COVID-19 (by PCR) were less likely to be vaccinated than those who had tested negative. Limitations include data being from a single centre, lack of data on staff vaccinated outside the hospital system, and that staff may have taken up vaccination following data extraction.

CONCLUSIONS

Ethnic minority HCWs and those from more deprived areas as well as younger staff and female staff are less likely to take up SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. These findings have major implications for the delivery of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination programmes, in HCWs and the wider population, and should inform the national vaccination programme to prevent the disparities of the pandemic from widening.

Prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Irish hospital healthcare workers

Hospital healthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of contracting COVID-19 infection. We aimed to determine the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies in HCWs in Ireland. Two tertiary referral hospitals in Irish cities with diverging community incidence and seroprevalence were identified; COVID-19 had been diagnosed in 10.2% and 1.8% of staff respectively by the time of the study (October 2020). All staff of both hospitals (N = 9038) were invited to participate in an online questionnaire and blood sampling for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. Frequencies and percentages for positive SARS-CoV-2 antibody were calculated and adjusted relative risks (aRR) for participant characteristics were calculated using multivariable regression analysis. In total, 5788 HCWs participated (64% response rate). Seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 was 15% and 4.1% in hospitals 1 and 2, respectively. Thirty-nine percent of infections were previously undiagnosed. Risk for seropositivity was higher for healthcare assistants (aRR 2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4–3.0), nurses (aRR: 1.6, 95% CI 1.1–2.2), daily exposure to patients with COVID-19 (aRR: 1.6, 95% CI 1.2–2.1), age 18–29 years (aRR: 1.4, 95% CI 1.1–1.9), living with other HCWs (aRR: 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.5), Asian background (aRR: 1.3, 95% CI 1.0–1.6) and male sex (aRR: 1.2, 95% CI 1.0–1.4). The HCW seroprevalence was six times higher than community seroprevalence. Risk was higher for those with close patient contact. The proportion of undiagnosed infections call for robust infection control guidance, easy access to testing and consideration of screening in asymptomatic HCWs. With emerging evidence of reduction in transmission from vaccinated individuals, the authors strongly endorse rapid vaccination of all HCWs.

Transmission dynamics and timing of key events for SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers (HCWs) have increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection via contacts in hospitals, as well as via transmission in the community. Serial interval, which is defined as the time between symptom onsets in an infector-infectee pair, and the incubation period are key parameters in determining the control strategies for COVID-19. This study aimed to evaluate surveillance of HCWs and estimate the serial interval and incubation period of COVID-19.

METHODS

A total of 149 HCWs and 36 certain infector-infectee pairs between 19th March 2020 and 1st November 2020 in a university hospital were included in the study. Epidemiological characteristics were recorded. Serial interval and incubation period were estimated using parametric accelerated failure time models.

RESULTS

Forty HCWs (26.8%) were detected via contact-based surveillance. Of 100 HCWs epidemiologically linked with a confirmed COVID-19 case, 36 (36%) had contact with a colleague. The median serial interval was 3.93 days (95% CI: 3.17-4.83). Of symptomatic HCWs, 97.5% had developed symptoms 13.71 (95% CI: 9.39-18.73) days after symptom onset of the primary case. The median incubation period was 3.99 (95% CI: 3.25-4.84) days. Of symptomatic HCWs, 97.5% developed symptoms within 9.49 (95% CI: 6.75-12.20) days after infection.

CONCLUSIONS

The serial interval and the incubation period of COVID-19 in HCWs were shorter than in the general population. Rigorous contact tracing and isolation of infected HCWs could have resulted in shorter serial intervals. Implementation of more stringent in-hospital control measures focussed on transmission between HCWs should be considered.

Healthcare worker protection against epidemic viral respiratory disease

Lower respiratory infections are often caused or precipitated by viruses and are a leading cause of global morbidity and mortality. Mutations in these viral genomes can produce highly infectious strains that transmit across species and have the potential to initiate epidemic, or pandemic, human viral respiratory disease. Transmission between humans primarily occurs via the airborne route and is accelerated by our increasingly interconnected and globalised society. To this date, there have been four major human viral respiratory outbreaks in the 21st century. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at particular risk during respiratory epidemics or pandemics. This is due to crowded working environments where social distancing, or wearing respiratory personal protective equipment for prolonged periods, might prove difficult, or performing medical procedures that increase exposure to virus-laden aerosols, or bodily fluids. This review aims to summarise the evidence and approaches to occupational risk and protection of HCWs during epidemic or pandemic respiratory viral disease.