SARS-Coronavirus-2 cases in healthcare workers may not regularly originate from patient care: lessons from a university hospital on the underestimated risk of healthcare worker to healthcare worker transmission

SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity amongst healthcare workers in South Africa during the Omicron wave: natural infection versus vaccination

AIMS

Concerns over population-level immunity have been heightened with each successive wave of COVID-19, prompting questions about whether it is primarily derived from vaccination efforts or from previous natural infections with the virus. We wished to determine the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Pretoria (Tshwane), South Africa, and to establish whether they were derived from vaccination or natural infection.

METHODS

Serum samples were collected from HCWs during the fourth wave of COVID-19 between 1 December 2021 and 13 March 2022. The samples were tested using the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 Spike IgG (S-IgG), IgM (S-IgM) and the SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid IgG (NC-IgG) kits.

RESULTS

Of the 221 participants, 76% (n=168) were women and 24% (n=53) were men. A total of 96.4% (n=213) of the participants were vaccinated. Natural infection-derived antibodies were detected in 23% (n=51) of participants, and vaccine-derived antibodies in 74% (n=164) of the HCWs.

CONCLUSIONS

Even after three waves of COVID-19, HCWs derived most of their detectable antibodies from vaccination. Vaccination remains an essential tool to protect HCWs and patients from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Architectural interventions to mitigate the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in emergency departments

INTRODUCTION

Emergency departments (EDs) are a critical entry gate for infectious agents into hospitals. In this interdisciplinary study, we explore how infection prevention and control (IPC) architectural interventions mitigate the spread of emerging respiratory pathogens using the example of SARS-CoV-2 in a prototypical ED.

METHODS

Using an agent-based approach, we integrated data on patients' and healthcare workers' (HCWs) routines and the architectural characteristics of key ED areas. We estimated the number of transmissions in the ED by modelling the interactions between and among patients and HCWs. Architectural interventions were guided towards the gradual separation of pathogen carriers, compliance with a minimum interpersonal distance, and deconcentrating airborne pathogens (higher air exchange rates (AERs)). Interventions were epidemiologically evaluated for their mitigation effects on diverse endpoints.

RESULTS

Simulation results indicated that higher AERs in the ED (compared with baseline) may provide a moderate level of infection mitigation (incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93-0.98)) while the overall burden decreased more when rooms in examination areas were separated (IRR of 0.78 (95% CI 0.76-0.81)) or when the size of the ED base was increased (IRR of 0.79 (95% CI 0.78-0.81)). The reduction in SARS-CoV-2-associated nosocomial transmissions was largest when architectural interventions were combined (IRR of 0.61 (95% CI 0.59-0.63)).

CONCLUSIONS

These modelling results highlight the importance of IPC architectural interventions; they can be devised independently of profound knowledge of an emerging pathogen, focusing on technical, constructive, and functional components. These results may inform public health decision-makers and hospital architects on how IPC architectural interventions can be optimally used in healthcare premises.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infections Among Emergency Health Care Personnel: Impact on Delivery of United States Emergency Medical Care, 2020

STUDY OBJECTIVE

In the early months of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and before vaccine availability, there were concerns that infected emergency department (ED) health care personnel could present a threat to the delivery of emergency medical care. We examined how the pandemic affected staffing levels and whether COVID-19 positive staff were potentially infectious at work in a cohort of US ED health care personnel in 2020.

METHODS

The COVID-19 Evaluation of Risks in Emergency Departments (Project COVERED) project was a multicenter prospective cohort study of US ED health care personnel conducted from May to December 2020. During surveillance, health care personnel completed weekly electronic surveys and underwent periodic serology and nasal reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing for SARS-CoV-2, and investigators captured weekly data on health care facility COVID-19 prevalence and health care personnel staffing. Surveys asked about symptoms, potential exposures, work attendance, personal protective equipment use, and behaviors.

RESULTS

We enrolled 1,673 health care personnel who completed 29,825 person weeks of surveillance. Eighty-nine (5.3%) health care personnel documented 90 (0.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2% to 0.4%) person weeks of missed work related to documented or concerns for COVID-19 infection. Health care personnel experienced symptoms of COVID-19 during 1,256 (4.2%) person weeks and worked at least one shift whereas symptomatic during 1,042 (83.0%) of these periods. Seventy-five (4.5%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the surveillance period, including 43 (57.3%) who indicated they never experienced symptoms; 74 (98.7%; 95% CI 90.7% to 99.9%) infected health care personnel worked at least one shift during the initial period of infection, and 71 (94.7%) continued working until laboratory confirmation of their infection. Physician staffing was not associated with the facility or community COVID-19 levels within any time frame studied (Kendall tau's 0.02, 0.056, and 0.081 for no shift, one-week time shift, and 2-week time shift, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

During the first wave of the pandemic, COVID-19 infections in ED health care personnel were infrequent, and the time lost from the workforce was minimal. Health care personnel frequently reported for work while infected with SARS-CoV-2 before laboratory confirmation. The ED staffing levels were poorly correlated with facility and community COVID-19 burden.

From wild-type to Omicron: changes in SARS-CoV-2 hospital cluster dynamics. Observations from a German tertiary care hospital

Aim

SARS-CoV-2 hospital clusters are a challenge for healthcare systems. There is an increased risk of infection for both healthcare workers (HCWs) and patients; cluster countermeasures are also a drain on resources for the wards affected. We analysed to which extent characteristics and dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 clusters varied throughout the pandemic at a German university hospital.

Methods

Patient and/or HCW clusters from 10/2020 to 04/2022 were included in the study and grouped by virus variant into i.) clusters comprised of the presumably predominant wild-type, Alpha or Delta (WAD) SARS-COV-2 variants, and ii.) clusters comprised predominantly of Omicron subtype cases. The two groups were compared for specific characteristics and dynamics.

Results

Forty-two SARS-CoV-2 clusters and 528 cases were analysed. Twenty-one clusters and 297 cases were attributed to the WAD and 21 clusters and 231 cases to the Omicron group. There were no significant differences in median size (8 vs. 8 cases, p=0.94) or median duration (14 vs. 12 days; p=0.48), nor in the percentage of HCWs involved (46.8% vs. 50.2%; p=0.48). Patients in the WAD group were older (median 75 vs. 68 years of age; p≤0.05). The median time from cluster onset to case onset was significantly shorter for the Omicron group (median 6 vs. 11 days; p≤0.05).

Conclusions

Omicron clusters exhibited a more rapid dynamic, forcing all parties involved to adapt to the increased workload. Compared to excessive community case counts, constant Omicron cluster-affiliated case counts and stable cluster characteristics suggest an improved compliance with IPC countermeasures.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among oral health care workers worldwide: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to answer the following question 'What are the worldwide prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and associated factors among oral health-care workers (OHCWs) before vaccination?'

METHODS

Seven databases and registers as well as three grey databases were searched for observational studies in the field. Paired reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality. Overall seroprevalence for SARS-CoV-2 infection was analysed using a random-effect model subgrouped by professional category. Meta-regression was used to explore whether the Human Development Index (HDI) influenced the heterogeneity of results. The associated factors were narratively evaluated, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were included (five cohorts and twelve cross-sectional studies), summing 73 935 participants (54 585 dentists and 19 350 dental assistants/technicians) from 14 countries. The overall estimated pooled prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among OHCWs was 9.3% (95% CI, 5.0%-14.7%; I2  = 100%, p < .01), being 9.5% for dentists (95% CI, 5.1%-15.0%; I2  = 100%, p < .01) and 11.6% for dental assistants/technicians (95% CI, 1.6%-27.4%; I2  = 99.0%, p < .01). In the meta-regression, countries with lower HDI showed higher prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection (p = .002). Age, comorbidities, gender, ethnicity, occupation, smoking, living in areas of greater deprivation, job role and location/municipalities, income and protective measures in dental settings were associated with positive serological SARS-CoV-2 test, with very low certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The SARS-CoV-2 virus infected 9.3% of the OHCWs evaluated worldwide before vaccination. OHCWs should be included in policy considerations, continued research, monitoring and surveillance (PROSPERO CRD42021246520).

Severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak investigation in a hospital emergency department-California, December 2020-January 2021

We describe a large outbreak of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) involving an acute-care hospital emergency department during December 2020 and January 2021, in which 27 healthcare personnel worked while infectious, resulting in multiple opportunities for SARS-CoV-2 transmission to patients and other healthcare personnel. We provide recommendations for improving infection prevention and control.

Demographic and risk characteristics of healthcare workers infected with SARS-CoV-2 from two tertiary care hospitals in the United Arab Emirates

BACKGROUND

Understanding the transmission dynamics of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare workers (HCWs) and their social contacts is crucial to plan appropriate risk-reduction measures.

AIM

To analyze the socio-demographic risk factors and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs in two tertiary care hospitals in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

METHODS

The demographic and clinical characteristics were available for all HCWs in both facilities from the human resources department. A cross-sectional survey was conducted from January-April 2022 among HCWs who tested positive through Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction of the nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 between March 2020 and August 2021 in two tertiary-level hospitals. The survey included questions on demographics, work profile, characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and infection among their household or co-workers. The survey also checked the knowledge and perception of participants on the infection prevention measures related to SARS-CoV-2.

RESULTS

Out of a total of 346 HCWs infected with SARS-CoV-2, 286 (82.7%) HCWs consented to participate in this study. From the sample population, 150 (52.5%) of participants were female, and a majority (230, 80.4%) were frontline HCWs, including 121 nurses (121, 42.4%). Only 48 (16.8%) participants were fully vaccinated at the time of infection. Most infected HCWs (85%) were unaware of any unprotected exposure and were symptomatic at the time of testing (225, 78.7%). Nearly half of the participants (140, 49%) had co-infection among household, and nearly one-third (29.5%) had co-infection among three or more household. Another 108 (37.8%) participants reported cross-infection among co-workers. The frontline HCWs were significantly more infected (25.1% vs 8.6%, P < 0.001) compared to non-frontline HCWs. Another significant risk factor for a high infection rate was male sex (P < 0.001). Among the infected frontline HCWs, a significantly higher proportion were male and shared accommodation with family (P < 0.001). COVID-19 vaccination significantly reduced the infection rate (83.2% vs 16.8, P < 0.001) among HCWs. Most participants (99.3%) were aware about importance of appropriate use of personal protective equipment. However, only 70% agreed with the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccination in preventing an infection and severe disease.

CONCLUSION

The risk profiling of the HCWs infected with SARS-CoV-2 found that working at frontline and being male increase the rate of infection. COVID-19 vaccination can effectively reduce the rate of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among HCWs.

Factors Associated With Nosocomial COVID-19 Infection Among Health Care Workers in an Urban-Setting Malaysia Hospital

This single-center study aimed to explore the factors associated with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) transmission in a hospital. All laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases among health care workers (HCWs) in a tertiary hospital in Malaysia were analyzed cross-sectionally from January 25, 2020, to September 10, 2021. A total of 897 HCWs in the hospital had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection during the study period. Around 37.4% of HCWs were suspected to acquire COVID-19 infection from the hospital workplace. Factors associated with lower odds of workplace COVID-19 transmission were being females, ≥30 years old, fully vaccinated, and working as clinical support staff. Involvement in COVID-19 patient care was significantly associated with higher odds (adjusted odds ratio = 3.53, 95% confidence interval: [2.42, 5.12]) of workplace COVID-19 transmission as compared with non-workplace transmission. Most HCWs in the tertiary hospital acquired COVID-19 infection from non-workplace settings. During a pandemic, it is important to communicate with HCWs about the risk of both workplace and non-workplace COVID-19 transmission and to implement measures to reduce both workplace and non-workplace COVID-19 transmission.

Infection control strategies for healthcare workers during COVID-19 pandemic in German hospitals: A cross-sectional study in march-april 2021

Background

Healthcare workers (HCW) are at risk of getting infected with COVID-19 at work. To prevent such incidents and provide a safe environment in hospitals, comprehensive infection control strategies are necessary. We aimed to collect information on COVID-19 infection control strategies regarding personal protective equipment (PPE), regulations during breaks for HCW and dissemination of pandemic-related information.

Methods

We invited infection control practitioners from 987 randomly selected German hospitals in March-April 2021 to participate in our cross-sectional online survey. We categorized the hospital based on bed capacity (≤499 beds = small; ≥500 beds = large). Fisher's exact test was performed and p < 0.05 defined as statistically significant.

Findings

100 participants completed the questionnaire. Small hospitals were more directive about requiring FFP2 respirators (63%), whereas larger hospitals more often gave their HCW a choice between these and medical masks (67%). For the care of COVID-19 and suspected COVID-19 cases, >90% of the participants recommended the use of gloves. Notably, gloves were recommended beyond COVID-19 in 30% of the hospitals. During meal breaks various strategies were followed.

Conclusion

Recommendations for PPE varied across hospital sizes, which could be due to different assessments of necessity and safety. Regulations during breaks varied strongly which illustrates the need for clear official guidelines.

Guidelines for Infection Control and Burnout Prevention in Healthcare Workers Responding to COVID-19

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) suffered more distress from the possibility of contracting the virus, quarantine, social stigma, and prejudice against their families. Many studies have investigated the impact of the pandemic on HCWs; however, studies or guidelines presenting strategies to overcome these challenges are lacking. As part of a 2020 research project supported by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, titled "Health impact assessment of healthcare workers undertaking coronavirus disease 2019 treatment and management in Korea: Identifying problems and researching effective solutions" (HC20C0003), we created guidelines to respond to serious problems posed by infection control. and burnout among HCWs during COVID-19 response measures throughout the extended pandemic period. We formulated the guidelines by means of a systematic review and collated them with the latest literature. The guidelines will highlight the gravity and impact of infection control and burnout among HCWs responding to COVID-19 and include potential prevention strategies, and they can be used as a reference in the event of another emerging infectious disease outbreak in the future.

[Recommendations for action for SARS-CoV-2 testing concepts for asymptomatic healthcare workers]

Background and objective

When implementing SARS-CoV‑2 testing concepts in healthcare facilities, different laws and regulations of equal rank apply. In the light of experienced impediments in translating legal requirements appropriately into legally secure concepts on an operational level, the objective of this paper was to develop corresponding specific recommendations for action.

Methods

On the basis of guiding questions on previously identified fields of action, a focus group consisting of representatives of administration, different medical disciplines, and special interest groups discussed critical aspects of implementation using a holistic approach. The transcribed contents were analyzed through inductive development and deductive application of categories.

Results

All contents of discussion could be matched with the identified categories legal backgrounds, requirements and objectives of testing concepts in healthcare facilities, responsibilities for implementing in operational decision-making chains, and implementing SARS-CoV‑2 testing concepts.

Implications

The correct implementation of the legal requirements into legally compliant SARS-CoV‑2 testing concepts in healthcare facilities previously required the involvement of ministries, representatives of different medical disciplines and professional associations, employer and employee representatives and data privacy experts as well as representatives of possible cost bearers. In addition, an integrative and enforceable composition of laws and regulations is necessary. Defining objectives for testing concepts is significant for the following operational process flows that need to consider aspects of employee data privacy as well as providing additional personnel for fulfilling the tasks. Also, in future one central issue of healthcare facilities concerns the finding of solutions for IT interfaces for information transfer to employees in accordance with data privacy.

Semi-automated contact tracing and management of contact precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic within a tertiary hospital

Background

Evaluation of a spreadsheet-based COVID-19 contact-tracing tool (CTT) and determination of risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 transmission among hospital staff members.

Design

Observational descriptive study on the application and acceptance of the CTT. Retrospective case-control study for SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk factor determination and for evaluation of the CTT's risk stratification algorithm. Setting: Tertiary hospital in Germany.

Participants

3514 contacts of hospital staff members to 322 SARS-CoV-2-positive cases.

Methods

A case-control study was performed to identify risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 transmission and for unprotected contacts among staff members. To evaluate strengths and weaknesses of the CTT performance statistics were analyzed and users completed a questionnaire measuring satisfaction and acceptance of the tool.

Results

In 2021, the CTT was used for the algorithm-based semi-automated management of 3514 in-hospital contacts. The tool determined the risk category of individual contacts and generated messages for the information of the local public health department, the in-hospital SARS-CoV-2 test center and all staff members who had contact to the index case. Staff members without regular contacts to patients had significantly (P<0.005) more unprotected contacts to other staff members (25.5% vs. 9.6%) and more SARS-CoV-2 transmissions per contact (4.9% vs. 0.6%) than staff members with frequent contacts to patients. The profession "nurse or medical technical service" was associated with significantly (P<0.005) more unprotected contacts between staff members (11.0% vs. 2.6%) compared to the profession "physician".

Conclusions

Digital tools can increase the efficiency of in-hospital contact tracing. The CTT enable a timely systematic analysis of risk factors among staff members.

The Implementation of a Health Care Worker Screening Program Based on the Advanta RT-qPCR Saliva Assay in a Tertiary Care Referral Hospital in Northern Greece

Health care workers are at increased risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection due to different exposures in the community and in hospital settings. Interventions implemented to avoid nosocomial outbreaks include preventive testing strategies. In this report, we present results from the mass screening program applied in our hospital to all professionals, irrespective of symptoms or risk of exposure. We processed saliva specimens with real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. The total number of samples received was 43,726. Positive results were 672 and average positivity rate was 1.21%. The average positivity rate was similar to the positivity rate in the community in Greece and EU. More specifically, 80.5% of the positive participants care for patients in their daily activities, 31% experienced no symptoms before receiving the positive result, 46.1% reported a close contact with a patient or infected coworkers and 32.8% reported a close contact with infected family members. We believe that the identification of asymptomatic carriers has proved the effectiveness of the screening program by preventing the putative nosocomial spread of the virus and the depletion of workforce. In conclusion, in times of high incidence in the community, the periodic testing of health care personnel is wise and relevant for implementation costs.

Improving physical distancing among healthcare workers in a pediatric intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers (HCWs) not adhering to physical distancing recommendations is a risk factor for acquisition of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The study objective was to assess the impact of interventions to improve HCW physical distancing on actual distance between HCWs in a real-life setting.

METHODS

HCWs voluntarily wore proximity beacons to measure the number and intensity of physical distancing interactions between each other in a pediatric intensive care unit. We compared interactions before and after implementing a bundle of interventions including changes to the layout of workstations, cognitive aids, and individual feedback from wearable proximity beacons.

RESULTS

Overall, we recorded 10,788 interactions within 6 feet (∼2 m) and lasting >5 seconds. The number of HCWs wearing beacons fluctuated daily and increased over the study period. On average, 13 beacons were worn daily (32% of possible staff; range, 2-32 per day). We recorded 3,218 interactions before the interventions and 7,570 interactions after the interventions began. Using regression analysis accounting for the maximum number of potential interactions if all staff had worn beacons on a given day, there was a 1% decline in the number of interactions per possible interactions in the postintervention period (incident rate ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.00; P = .02) with fewer interactions occurring at nursing stations, in workrooms and during morning rounds.

CONCLUSIONS

Using quantitative data from wearable proximity beacons, we found an overall small decline in interactions within 6 feet between HCWs in a busy intensive care unit after a multifaceted bundle of interventions was implemented to improve physical distancing.

A social identity approach to COVID-19 transmission in hospital settings

The COVID-19 pandemic poses a substantial risk of disease spread among healthcare workers (HCWs), making it important to understand what impacts perceived risk of COVID-19 spread in hospital settings and what causes HCWs to mitigate COVID-19 spread by following COVID-19 safety measures. One determinant of risk perception and safe behaviors is the influence of seeing others as group members. The current study aims to (a) evaluate how social identification as an HCW and trust in co-workers may influence perceived risk of COVID-19 spread and (b) explore how communication transparency, trust in leaders, and identity leadership are associated with self-reported adherence to COVID-19 safety guidance. Using a correlational design, HCWs of a Scottish hospital were invited to participate in an online questionnaire measuring their perceptions of risk of COVID-19 transmission, measures of social identification as an HCW, perception of leaders as members of the team, trust in co-workers to follow the COVID-19 guidelines and perception of leaders to manage COVID-19 prevention effectively. Results showed that increased trust in co-workers was associated with reduced risk perception of COVID-19 transmission. Perceptions of transparent communication about COVID-19 were found to be associated with increased adherence to COVID-19 safety guidelines. Findings show the importance of the association between social identity processes and reduced risk perception and highlight the relationship between transparent communication strategies and self-reported adherence to COVID-19 guidelines, identity leadership, and trust in leaders to manage COVID-19 appropriately.

Estimating the risk of incident SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers in quarantine hospitals: the Egyptian example

In response to the COVID-19 epidemic, Egypt established a unique care model based on quarantine hospitals where only externally-referred confirmed COVID-19 patients were admitted, and healthcare workers resided continuously over 1- to 2-week working shifts. Using a mathematical model accounting for the false-negative rates of RT-PCR tests, we computed the incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs, while unveiling the proportion of infections remaining undiagnosed despite routine testing. We relied on longitudinal data, including results of routine RT-PCR tests, collected within three Egyptian quarantine hospitals. We estimated an incidence rate (per 100 person-day, PD) of 1.05 (95% CrI 0.58-1.65) at Hospital 1, 1.92 (95% CrI 0.93-3.28) at Hospital 2 and 7.62 (95% CrI 3.47-13.70) at Hospital 3. We found that the risk for an HCW to be infected during a working shift lay within the range of risk levels previously documented in standard healthcare settings for Hospitals 1-2, whereas it was > threefold higher for Hospital 3. This large variation suggests that HCWs from quarantine hospitals may face a high occupational risk of infection, but that, with sufficient infection control measures, this risk can be brought down to levels similar to those observed in standard healthcare settings.

One year of COVID-19 pandemic: Health care workers' infection rates and economical burden in medical facilities for oral and maxillofacial surgery

The aim of this study was to create an overview on the COVID-associated burdens faced by the oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) workforce during 1 year of the pandemic. OMS hospitals and private practices nationwide were surveyed regarding health care worker (HCW) screening, infection status, pre-interventional testing, personal protective equipment (PPE), and economic impact. Participants were recruited via the German Society for Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. A total of 11 hospitals (416 employees) and 55 private practices (744 employees) participated. The HCW infection rate was significantly higher in private practices than in clinics (4.7% vs. 1.4%, p<0.01), although most infections in HCW occurred in private environment (hospitals 88.2%, private practice 66.7%). Pre-interventional testing was performed significantly less for outpatients in private practices than in hospitals (90.7% vs. 36.4%, p<0.01). Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used significantly more for inpatients in hospitals than in private practices (100.0% vs. 27.3%, p<0.01). FFP2/3 use rose significantly in hospitals (0% in second quarter vs. 46% in fourth quarter, p<0.05) and private practices (15% in second quarter vs. 38% in fourth quarter, p<0.01). The decrease in procedures (≤50%) was significantly higher in hospitals than in private practices (90.9% vs. 40.0%, p<0.01). Despite higher infection rates in private practices, declining procedures and revenue affected hospitals more. Future COVID-related measures must adjust the infrastructure especially for hospitals to prevent further straining of staff and finances.

Are Healthcare Workers Infected with SARS-CoV-2 at Home or at Work? A Comparative Prevalence Study

Prior to the widespread use of vaccinations, healthcare workers (HCWs) faced the double burden of caring for unprecedented numbers of critically ill COVID-19 patients while also facing the risk of becoming infected themselves either in healthcare facilities or at home. In order to assess whether SARS-CoV-2-positivity rates in HCWs reflected or differed from those in their residential areas, we compared the SARS-CoV-2-positivity rates during 2020 among HCWs in Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Centers (HHUMC), a tertiary medical center in Jerusalem, Israel, to those of the general population in Jerusalem, stratified by neighborhood. Additionally, we compared the demographic and professional parameters in every group. Four percent of the adult population (>18 years) in Jerusalem tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during 2020 (24,529/605,426) compared to 7.1% of HHUMC HCWs (317/4470), rate ratio 1.75 (95% CI 1.57-1.95), with wide variability (range 0.38-25.0) among different neighborhoods. Of the 30 neighborhoods with more than 50 infected HCWs, 25 showed a higher positivity rate for HCWs compared to the general population. The higher risk of HCWs compared to residents representing the general population in most neighborhoods in Jerusalem may be explained by their behavior in and out of the hospital.

Emergency department personnel patient care-related COVID-19 risk

OBJECTIVES

Emergency department (ED) health care personnel (HCP) are at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study was to determine the attributable risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from providing ED care, describe personal protective equipment use, and identify modifiable ED risk factors. We hypothesized that providing ED patient care increases the probability of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of 1,673 ED physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), nurses, and nonclinical staff at 20 U.S. centers over 20 weeks (May to December 2020; before vaccine availability) to detect a four-percentage point increased SARS-CoV-2 incidence among HCP related to direct patient care. Participants provided monthly nasal and serology specimens and weekly exposure and procedure information. We used multivariable regression and recursive partitioning to identify risk factors.

RESULTS

Over 29,825 person-weeks, 75 participants (4.5%) acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection (31 were asymptomatic). Physicians/APPs (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 0.56-2.03) did not have higher risk of becoming infected compared to nonclinical staff, but nurses had a marginally increased risk (aOR 1.91; 95% CI 0.99-3.68). Over 99% of participants used CDC-recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), but PPE lapses occurred in 22.1% of person-weeks and 32.1% of SARS-CoV-2-infected patient intubations. The following factors were associated with infection: household SARS-CoV-2 exposure; hospital and community SARS-CoV-2 burden; community exposure; and mask non-use in public. SARS-CoV-2 intubation was not associated with infection (attributable risk fraction 13.8%; 95% CI -2.0-38.2%), and nor were PPE lapses.

CONCLUSIONS

Among unvaccinated U.S. ED HCP during the height of the pandemic, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was similar in nonclinical staff and HCP engaged in direct patient care. Many identified risk factors were related to community exposures.

Contact Tracing for COVID-19 among Health-Care Workers of a Tertiary Care Hospital in Mumbai

Background

Contact tracing (CT) is an effective tool for breaking the chains of transmission in infectious disease outbreaks. This study was conducted to observe the trend of isolation and quarantine, assess the source of infection and contacts, and assess the effectiveness of CT in the early detection of infection among health-care workers (HCWs).

Methods

This study was conducted using secondary analysis of routine CT records of HCWs of a tertiary care hospital in Mumbai from April 9, 2020, to December 31, 2020. Details of all HCWs exposed or infected with COVID-19 were collected in a standard format developed for this purpose telephonically. The exposed HCWs were further divided into high-risk (HR)/low-risk (LR) contacts and quarantined.

Results

A total of 744 HCWs were isolated during this period and 1486 contacts were quarantined against them. Majority of the HCWs affected from COVID-19 were resident doctors, interns, and nursing staff. More than 81% of the positive HCWs were symptomatic. The overall ratio between isolated HCWs and quarantined HCWs is 1:2. A total of 88 (6%) HCWs tested positive from quarantine. The test positivity rate among HR contacts was 9.01% and among LR contacts was 2.72%.

Conclusions

Effective CT of positive HCWs greatly aids in the early identification of contacts and timely quarantine. Over a period of time, the number of HCWs getting isolated or quarantined is found to decrease. This is the true success of CT. This strategy can be implemented among other medical colleges and hospitals too.

COVID-19 contact tracing in the hospitals located in the North Denmark region: A retrospective review

Background

The Department of Infection Control, at our University Hospital conducted contact tracing of COVID-19 positive patients and staff members at all hospitals in the North Denmark Region.

Aim

To describe the contact tracing performed during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Region and its outcomes.

Methods

Data from each contact tracing were collected prospectively during 14 May 2020–26 May 2021. Data included information about the index case (patient or hospital staff member), presentation (asymptomatic vs symptomatic), probable source of transmission (community-acquired or hospital-acquired), number of close contacts and if any of these were SARS-CoV-2 PCR-test positive.

Findings

362 contact tracing were performed. A total of 573 COVID-19 positive cases were identified among 171 (30%) patients and 402 (70%) staff members. 192 (34%) of all cases were tested due to symptoms of COVID-19, whereas two-third were tested for other reasons including outbreak and systematic screening tests. A total of 1575 close contacts were identified, including 225 (14%) patients and 1350 (86%) staff members. 100 (6%) close contacts, including 24 patients and 76 staff members, were infected with SARS-CoV-2, of which 33 (43%) staff members was positive at day 0 i.e. the same day as being identified as close contacts.

Discussion

We found a three to one of close contacts to each index case, but only 6% became SARS-CoV-2 positive, with a surprisingly high number of those identified at day 0. Our data confirm that regular testing of patients and staff will identify asymptomatic carriers and thereby prevent new cases.

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission upon return to work in RNA-positive healthcare workers

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and for spreading severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) amongst colleagues and patients.

AIM

To study the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and possible onward transmission by HCWs upon return to work after COVID-19, and association with disease severity and development of antibodies over time.

METHODS

Unvaccinated HCWs with positive SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) were recruited prospectively. Data on symptoms were collected via telephone questionnaires on days 2, 7, 14 and 21 after a positive test. Upon return to work, repeat SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR was performed and serum was collected. Repeat serum samples were collected at weeks 4, 8, 12 and 16 to determine antibody dynamics over time. Phylogenetic analysis was conducted to investigate possible transmission events originating from HCWs with a positive repeat RT-PCR.

FINDINGS

Sixty-one (84.7%) participants with mild/moderate COVID-19 had a repeat SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR performed upon return to work (median 13 days after symptom onset), of which 30 (49.1%) were positive with a median cycle threshold (Ct) value of 29.2 (IQR 26.9-29.9). All HCWs developed antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. No significant differences in symptomatology and presence of antibodies were found between repeat RT-PCR-positive and -negative HCWs. Eleven direct colleagues of six participants with a repeat RT-PCR Ct value <30 tested positive after the HCW returned to work. Phylogenetic and epidemiologic analysis did not indicate onward transmission through HCWs who were SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive upon return to work.

CONCLUSIONS

HCWs regularly return to work with substantial SARS-CoV-2 RNA loads. However, this study found no evidence for subsequent in-hospital transmission.

Healthcare Worker Mental Health After the Initial Peak of the COVID-19 Pandemic: a US Medical Center Cross-Sectional Survey

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data on the mental health impact of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on United States (US) healthcare workers (HCWs) after the first surge in the spring of 2020.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of the pandemic on HCWs, and the relationship between HCW mental health and demographics, occupational factors, and COVID-19 concerns.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey in an urban medical center (September-November 2020) in Baltimore, MD, in the United States.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 605 HCWs (physicians, nurse practitioners, nurses, physician assistants, patient care technicians, respiratory therapists, social workers, mental health therapists, and case managers).

MAIN MEASURES

Measures of mental health (Patient Health Questionnaire-2, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, PROMIS Sleep Disturbance 4a, Impact of Event Scale-Revised, Maslach Burnout Inventory-2 item, Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale-2 item), demographics, occupational factors, and COVID-19 related concerns.

KEY RESULTS

Fifty-two percent of 1198 HCWs responded to the survey and 14.2% reported depression, 43.1% mild or higher anxiety, 31.6% sleep disturbance, 22.3% posttraumatic stress symptoms, 21.6% depersonalization, 46.0% emotional exhaustion, and 23.1% lower resilience. Relative to HCWs providing in-person care to COVID-19 infected patients none of their working days, those doing so all or most days were more likely to experience worse depression (adjusted odds ratio, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-11.7), anxiety (aOR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.4-6.3), possible PTSD symptoms (aOR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-5.8), and higher burnout (aOR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-6.0). Worse mental health in several domains was associated with higher health fear (aORs ranged from 2.2 to 5.0), job stressors (aORs ranged from 1.9 to 4.0), perceived social stigma/avoidance (aORs ranged from 1.8 to 2.9), and workplace safety concerns (aORs ranged from 1.8 to 2.8).

CONCLUSIONS

US HCWs experienced significant mental health symptoms eight months into the pandemic. More time spent providing in-person care to COVID-19-infected patients and greater COVID-19-related concerns were consistently associated with worse mental health.

Occupational and community risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among employees of a long-term care facility: an observational study

BACKGROUND

We investigated the contribution of both occupational and community exposure for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among employees of a university-affiliated long-term care facility (LTCF), during the 1st pandemic wave in Switzerland (March-June 2020).

METHODS

We performed a nested analysis of a seroprevalence study among all volunteering LTCF staff to determine community and nosocomial risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity using modified Poison regression. We also combined epidemiological and genetic sequencing data from a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak investigation in a LTCF ward to infer transmission dynamics and acquisition routes of SARS-CoV-2, and evaluated strain relatedness using a maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree.

RESULTS

Among 285 LTCF employees, 176 participated in the seroprevalence study, of whom 30 (17%) were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2. Most (141/176, 80%) were healthcare workers (HCWs). Risk factors for seropositivity included exposure to a COVID-19 inpatient (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] 2.6; 95% CI 0.9-8.1) and community contact with a COVID-19 case (aPR 1.7; 95% CI 0.8-3.5). Among 18 employees included in the outbreak investigation, the outbreak reconstruction suggests 4 likely importation events by HCWs with secondary transmissions to other HCWs and patients.

CONCLUSIONS

These two complementary epidemiologic and molecular approaches suggest a substantial contribution of both occupational and community exposures to COVID-19 risk among HCWs in LTCFs. These data may help to better assess the importance of occupational health hazards and related legal implications during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Transmission of COVID-19 among healthcare workers - an epidemiological study during the first phase of the pandemic in Sweden

During the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, concerns were raised that healthcare workers (HCWs) were at high risk of infection. The aim of this study was to explore the transmission of COVID-19 among HCWs during a staff outbreak at an inpatient ward in Sweden 1 March to 31 May 2020. A mixed-methods approach was applied using several data sources. In total, 152 of 176 HCWs participated. The incidence of COVID-19 among HCWs was 33%. Among cases, 48 (96%) performed activities involving direct contact with COVID-19 patients. Contact tracing connected 78% of cases to interaction with another contagious co-worker. Only a few HCW cases reported contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case at home (n = 6; 12%) or in the community (n = 3; 6%). Multiple logistic regression identified direct care of COVID-19 patients and positive COVID-19 family contact as risk factors for infection (adjusted OR 8.4 and 9.0 respectively). Main interventions to stop the outbreak were physical distancing between HCWs, reinforcement of personal hygiene routines and rigorous surface cleaning. The personal protective equipment used in contact with patients was not changed in response to the outbreak. We highlight HCW-to-HCW transmission of COVID-19 in a hospital environment and the importance of preventing droplet and contact transmission between co-workers.

Healthcare-associated COVID-19 outbreaks: a nationwide population-based cohort study

Background

Aim

Methods

Findings

Conclusion

Mitigating SARS-CoV-2 Transmission in Hospitals: A Systematic Literature Review

Objectives: Hospital outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection are dreaded but preventable catastrophes. We review the literature to examine the pattern of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in hospitals and identify potential vulnerabilities to mitigate the risk of infection.

Methods: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Scopus) were searched from inception to July 27, 2021 for publications reporting SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in hospital. Relevant articles and grey literature reports were hand-searched.

Results: Twenty-seven articles that described 35 SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks were included. Despite epidemiological investigations, the primary case could not be identified in 37% of outbreaks. Healthcare workers accounted for 40% of primary cases (doctors 17%, followed by ancillary staff 11%). Mortality among infected patients was approximately 15%. By contrast, none of the infected HCWs died. Several concerning patterns were identified, including infections involving ancillary staff and healthcare worker infections from the community and household contacts.

Conclusion: Continuous efforts to train-retrain and enforce correct personal protective equipment use and regular routine screening tests (especially among ancillary staff) are necessary to stem future hospital outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2.

New Zealand Emergency Department COVID-19 Preparedness: a cross-sectional survey and narrative view

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to assess the level of COVID-19 preparedness of emergency departments (EDs) in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) through the views of emergency medicine specialists working in district health boards around the country. Given the limited experience NZ hospitals have had with SARS-CoV-2, a comparison of current local practice with recent literature from other countries identifying known weaknesses may help prevent future healthcare worker infections in NZ.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of NZ emergency specialists in November 2020 to evaluate preparedness of engineering, administrative policy and personal protective equipment (PPE) use.

RESULTS

A total of 137 surveys were completed (32% response rate). More than 12% of emergency specialists surveyed reported no access to negative pressure rooms. N95 fit testing had not been performed in 15 (12%) of respondents. Most specialists (77%) work in EDs that cohort patients with COVID-19, about one-third (34%) do not use spotters during PPE doffing, and most (87%) do not have required space for physical distancing in non-patient areas. Initial PPE training, simulations and segregating patients were widespread but appear to be waning with persistent low SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. PPE shortages were not identified in NZ EDs, yet 13% of consultants do not plan to use respirators during aerosol-generating procedures on patients with COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

NZ emergency specialists identified significant gaps in COVID-19 preparedness, and they have a unique opportunity to translate lessons from other locations into local action. These data provide insight into weaknesses in hospital engineering, policy and PPE practice in advance of future SARS-CoV-2 endemic transmission.

Risk factors for nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients: results from a retrospective matched case-control study in a tertiary care university center

BACKGROUND

Factors contributing to the spread of SARS-CoV-2 outside the acute care hospital setting have been described in detail. However, data concerning risk factors for nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infections in hospitalized patients remain scarce. To close this research gap and inform targeted measures for the prevention of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infections, we analyzed nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 cases in our hospital during a defined time period.

METHODS

Data on nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infections in hospitalized patients that occurred between May 2020 and January 2021 at Charité university hospital in Berlin, Germany, were retrospectively gathered. A SARS-CoV-2 infection was considered nosocomial if the patient was admitted with a negative SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test and subsequently tested positive on day five or later. As the incubation period of SARS-CoV-2 can be longer than five days, we defined a subgroup of "definite" nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 cases, with a negative test on admission and a positive test after day 10, for which we conducted a matched case-control study with a one to one ratio of cases and controls. We employed a multivariable logistic regression model to identify factors significantly increasing the likelihood of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infections.

RESULTS

A total of 170 patients with a nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified. The majority of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 patients (n = 157, 92%) had been treated at wards that reported an outbreak of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 cases during their stay or up to 14 days later. For 76 patients with definite nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infections, controls for the case-control study were matched. For this subgroup, the multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed documented contact to SARS-CoV-2 cases (odds ratio: 23.4 (95% confidence interval: 4.6-117.7)) and presence at a ward that experienced a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak (odds ratio: 15.9 (95% confidence interval: 2.5-100.8)) to be the principal risk factors for nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection.

CONCLUSIONS

With known contact to SARS-CoV-2 cases and outbreak association revealed as the primary risk factors, our findings confirm known causes of SARS-CoV-2 infections and demonstrate that these also apply to the acute care hospital setting. This underscores the importance of rapidly identifying exposed patients and taking adequate preventive measures.

Diagnosing occupational COVID-19 in Croatian healthcare workers

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can be diagnosed as occupational disease by an occupational health physician (OHP), if supported by relevant work-related and medical documentation. The aim of this study was to analyse such documentation submitted by Croatian healthcare workers (HCWs) and discuss its relevance in view of European and Croatian guidelines. The study included 100 Croatian HCWs who were SARS-CoV-2-positive and requested that their infection be diagnosed as occupational disease by their OHPs from 1 May 2020 to 10 March 2021. As participants they were asked to fill out our online Occupational COVID-19 in Healthcare Workers Questionnaire. For the purpose of this study we analysed answers about the type of close contact at the workplace, COVID-19 symptoms, and enclosed work-related (job description, employer statement about exposure to SARS-CoV-2) and medical documentation (positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test and patient history confirming the diagnosis of COVID-19). Most participants were working in hospitals (N=95), mostly nurses (N=75), who became infected by a patient (N=68) or colleague (N=31), and had at least one COVID-19 symptom (N=87). Eighty participants did not enclose obligatory documents, 41 of whom failed to submit job description and 31 both job description and employer statement. These findings confirm that the major risk of occupational COVID-19 in HCWs is close contact with patients and colleagues, and points out the need for better cooperation between OHPs, occupational safety experts, employers, and diseased workers.

The case for wearable proximity devices to inform physical distancing among healthcare workers

Objective

Despite the importance of physical distancing in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, this practice is challenging in healthcare. We piloted use of wearable proximity beacons among healthcare workers (HCWs) in an inpatient unit to highlight considerations for future use of trackable technologies in healthcare settings.

Materials and Methods

We performed a feasibility pilot study in a non-COVID adult medical unit from September 28 to October 28, 2020. HCWs wore wearable proximity beacons, and interactions defined as <6 feet for ≥5 s were recorded. Validation was performed using direct observations.

Results

A total of 6172 close proximity interactions were recorded, and with the removal of 2033 false-positive interactions, 4139 remained. The highest proportion of interactions occurred between 7:00 Am–9:00 Am. Direct observations of HCWs substantiated these findings.

Discussion

This pilot study showed that wearable beacons can be used to monitor and quantify HCW interactions in inpatient settings.

Conclusion

Technology can be used to track HCW physical distancing.

Physical distancing, or social distancing, is important in preventing COVID-19. It is hard for healthcare workers (HCWs) to physically distance at work. We tested a device (proximity beacon) that HCWs could wear to measure their distance from each other among HCWs on a medical unit. The device measured any time HCWs were within 6 feet of each other for at least 5 s. We watched HCWs who were close to each other. The devices and our observations showed that 7:00 Am—9:00 Am was the highest risk time for not physically distancing. This study shows that wearable devices can be a tool to monitor HCWs physical distancing on a hospital unit.

COVID-19 outbreaks in hospital workers during the first COVID-19 wave

Background

Health care workers (HCWs) are on the frontline, playing a crucial role in the prevention of infection and treatment of patients.

Aims

This study was aimed to evaluate the prevalence of hospital-acquired coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection at work and related factors at the University Hospital of Trieste workers exposed to COVID-19 patients.

Methods

From March 1 to May 31, of 4216 employees, 963 were in contact with COVID-19 patients or colleagues and were followed up. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in nasopharyngeal swabs was determined every 3 days, by RT-PCR.

Results

During the follow-up period, 193 workers were positive for COVID-19 (5%), and 165 of these (86%) were symptomatic. We identified five major cluster outbreaks of COVID-19 infection in Trieste Hospitals, four of which occurred before the implementation of universal masking for HCWs and patients (1–14 March 2020). COVID-19 infection was significantly higher in high-risk ward workers (Infectious Diseases, and Geriatric and Emergency Medicine, odds ratio [OR] 13.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.8–31), in subjects with symptoms (OR 5.4; 95% CI 2.9–10) and in those with contacts with COVID-19 patients and colleagues (OR 2.23; 95% CI 1.01–4.9).

Conclusions

Hospital workers were commonly infected due to contact with COVID-19 patients and colleagues, mainly in the first 15 days of the pandemic, before the implementation of universal mask wearing of HCWs and patients. Repetitive testing and follow-up permitted the identification of COVID-19 cases before symptom onset, obtaining better infection prevention and control.

Occupational management of healthcare workers exposed to COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The year 2020 was marked by the new coronavirus pandemic, resulting in millions of cases and deaths, placing healthcare workers at high risk of infection.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to describe the role of an occupational health service during coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in an oncologic hospital and characterize the most likely sources of viral infection.

METHODS

The information of all healthcare workers with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from 11 March to 15 December 2020 was collected through an epidemiological survey conducted during contact tracing. The data extracted included gender, age, comorbidities, occupational group, source of infection, clinical presentation, duration of the disease, need for hospitalization and persistent or late symptoms after disease or upon returning to work.

RESULTS

Out of a total of 2300 workers, 157 were infected, consisting of nurses (36%), nurse assistants (33%) and diagnostic and therapeutic professionals (10%). Physicians and administrative staff accounted for 8% each. The most frequently reported source of infection was occupational (43%), owing to worker-to-worker transmission (45%) and patient-to-worker transmission (36%). The most frequent moments of infection perceived corresponded to the removal of protective equipment during meals and moments of rest in the staff and changing rooms.

CONCLUSIONS

The study revealed that occupational transmission from patients and colleagues might be an important source of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers. Spread between colleagues accounted for 45% of the occupational source infections reported. Implementing physical distancing measures and limiting the number of people in changing and rest rooms could significantly reduce infection and related absenteeism.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among nurses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims and Objectives

This systematic review and meta‐analysis reports the seroprevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies among nurses.

Background

With a growing body of literature reporting the positive serology for SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies among healthcare workers, it remains unclear whether staff at the point of direct patient care are more prone to developing and transmitting the virus. Given nurses make up the majority of the global health workforce, outbreaks among these workers could severely undermine a health system’s capability to manage the pandemic. We aimed to summarise and report the seroprevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies among nurses globally.

Design

Systematic review and meta‐analyses.

Methods

This systematic review was developed, undertaken and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. We searched the electronic medical literature databases: MEDLINE; CINAHL; and EMBASE for studies reporting the seroprevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies among nursing staff. Studies that reported nursing specific data were included in this review. Study quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for studies reporting prevalence data. Studies were stratified according to the World Health Organisation region classifications, and results were presented using forest plots and summary prevalence and variance was estimated using a random effects model.

Results

Our electronic search identified 1687 potential studies, of which 1148 were screened for eligibility after duplicates were removed, and 51 of the studies were included in our meta‐analysis. The overall seroprevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies among nurses was estimated to be 8.1% (95% CI 6.9%–9.4%) among the 60,571 participants included in the studies. Seropositivity was highest in the African region (48.2%, 95% CI 39.2%–57.3%), followed by the European region (10.3%, 95% CI 8.0%–12.5%), the Region of the Americas (8.4%, 95% CI 6.0%–10.7%), the South‐East Asia region (3.0%, 95% CI 0.00%–6.5%) and the Western Pacific region (0.5%, 95% CI 0.0%–1.0%). Pooled estimates were unable to be calculated in the Eastern Mediterranean region due to insufficient studies.

Conclusion

The seroprevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies among nurses is comparable to other healthcare workers, and possibly similar to the general population. Early adoption and adherence to personal protective equipment and social distancing measures could explain these similarities, meaning the majority of staff contracted the virus through community transmission and not in a healthcare setting.

Relevance to clinical practice

Fear and uncertainty have been features of this pandemic, including among nurses. This meta‐analysis should provide some comfort to nurses that risks are similar to community exposure when adequate PPE is available and there is an adherence to infection control measures.

Impact and Management of COVID-19 Among Healthcare Workers in Two Acute Care Hospitals and Two Associated Long-term Care Centres in Barcelona, Spain

OBJECTIVE

To describe the characteristics of COVID-19-related episodes in healthcare workers (HCW) of two hospitals.

METHODS

Prospective study of HCW with COVID-like symptoms and/or who were close contacts of confirmed COVID-19. The percentage of positive PCRs among those with symptoms was calculated, and symptom's positive predictive value and negative predictive value. The characteristics of contacts were described, as well as the secondary clinical attack rate.

RESULTS

We registered 1222 episodes of HCW with COVID-like symptoms; 340 (27.8%) had a positive PCR. In 885 episodes, a HCW was a close contact of a confirmed case. In 45.5% of these, the HCW had contact with another HCW. The secondary clinical attack rate of contacts of HCW was 14.5%.

CONCLUSION

We found a high prevalence of disease and transmission between HCW during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Risk for Acquiring Coronavirus Disease Illness among Emergency Medical Service Personnel Exposed to Aerosol-Generating Procedures

We investigated the risk of coronavirus disease (COVID-19)- patients transmitting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to emergency medical service (EMS) providers, stratified by aerosol-generating procedures (AGP), in King County, Washington, USA, during February 16-July 31, 2020. We conducted a retrospective cohort investigation using a statewide COVID-19 registry and identified 1,115 encounters, 182 with ≥1 AGP. Overall, COVID-19 incidence among EMS personnel was 0.57 infections/10,000 person-days. Incidence per 10,000 person-days did not differ whether or not infection was attributed to a COVID-19 patient encounter (0.28 vs. 0.59; p>0.05). The 1 case attributed to a COVID-19 patient encounter occurred within an at-risk period and involved an AGP. We observed a very low risk for COVID-19 infection attributable to patient encounters among EMS first responders, supporting clinical strategies that maintain established practices for treating patients in emergency conditions.

Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Infection among Healthcare Workers of a German COVID-19 Treatment Center

To date, more than 160 million people have been infected with COVID-19 worldwide. In the present study, we investigated the history of SARS-CoV-2 infection among 3067 healthcare workers (HCW) in a German COVID-19 treatment center during the early phase of the pandemic (July 2020) based on the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and self-reported previous PCR results. The results demonstrate a low prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 107 [3.5%]) with no increased risk for employees with a high level of patient exposure in general or working in COVID-19-confined areas in particular. This suggests that the local hygiene standards implemented in our hospital during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic were effective in preventing patient-to-HCW transmission. No evidence for highly mobile staff serving as a vector for SARS-CoV-2 transmission could be found. In addition, impairment of smell and/or taste was strongly associated with SARS-CoV-2 history.

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding COVID-19 among Healthcare Workers in Uganda: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of COVID-19. However, data on HCWs' knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) toward COVID-19 are limited. Between September and November 2020, we conducted a questionnaire-based COVID-19 KAP survey among HCWs at three hospitals in Uganda. We used Bloom's cut-off of ≥80% to determine sufficient knowledge, good attitude, and good practice, and multivariate Poisson regression with robust variance for statistical analysis. Of 717 HCWs invited to participate, 657 (91.6%) agreed and were enrolled. The mean age (standard deviation) of enrollees was 33.2 (10.2) years; most were clinical HCWs (64.7%) and had advanced secondary school/other higher-level education (57.8%). Overall, 83.9% had sufficient knowledge, 78.4% had a positive attitude, and 37.0% had good practices toward COVID-19. Factors associated with KAP were: Knowledge: being a clinical HCW (aRR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.02-1.23) and previous participation in health research (aRR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.04-1.17); Attitude: age > 35 years (aRR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.79-0.98); Practice: being a clinical HCW (aRR: 1.91; 95% CI: 1.41-2.59). HCWs in Uganda have good knowledge and positive attitude but poor practices towards COVID-19. Differences in COVID-19 KAP between clinical and non-clinical HCWs could affect uptake of COVID-19 interventions including vaccination.

SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Screening in Healthcare Workers in Non-Infectious Hospitals in Two Different Regions of Southern Poland (Upper Silesia and Opole Voivodeships): A Prospective Cohort Study

(1) Background: Detection of asymptomatic or subclinical human coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers (HCWs) is crucial for understanding the overall prevalence of the new coronavirus and its infection potential in public (non-infectious) healthcare units with emergency wards. (2) Methods: We evaluated the host serologic responses, measured with semi-quantitative ELISA tests (IgA, IgG, IgM abs) in sera of 90 individuals in Hospital no. 4 in Bytom, 84 HCWs in the University Hospital in Opole and 25 in a Miasteczko Śląskie local surgery. All volunteers had negative RT-PCR test results or had not had the RT-PCR test performed within 30 days before sampling. The ELISA test was made at two different time points (July/August 2020) with a 2-weeks gap between blood collections to avoid the “serological window” period. (3) Results: The IgG seropositivity of asymptomatic HCWs varied between 1.2% to 10% (Opole vs. Bytom, p < 0.05; all without any symptoms). IgA seropositivity in HCWs was 8.8% in Opole and 7.14% in Bytom. IgM positive levels in HCWs in Opole and Bytom was 1.11% vs. 2.38%, respectively. Individuals with IgA and IgM seropositivity results were observed only in Opole (1.19%). More studies are needed to determine whether these results are generalizable to other populations and geographic as well as socio-demographic locations. (4) Conclusions: 100% of IgG(+) volunteers were free from any symptoms of infection in the 30 days before first or second blood collection and they had no awareness of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Asymptomatic HCWs could spread SARS-CoV-2 infection to other employees and patients. Only regular HCWs RT-PCR testing can reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 spreading in a hospital environment. The benefit of combining the detection of specific IgA with that of combined specific IgM/IgG is still uncertain.

Barriers to physical distancing among healthcare workers on an academic hospital unit during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic

Background:

Physical distancing among healthcare workers (HCWs) is an essential strategy in preventing HCW-to-HCWs transmission of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Objective:

To understand barriers to physical distancing among HCWs on an inpatient unit and identify strategies for improvement.

Design:

Qualitative study including observations and semistructured interviews conducted over 3 months.

Setting:

A non–COVID-19 adult general medical unit in an academic tertiary-care hospital.

Participants:

HCWs based on the unit.

Methods:

We performed a qualitative study in which we (1) observed HCW activities and proximity to each other on the unit during weekday shifts July–October 2020 and (2) conducted semi-structured interviews of HCWs to understand their experiences with and perspectives of physical distancing in the hospital. Qualitative data were coded based on a human-factors engineering model.

Results:

We completed 25 hours of observations and 20 HCW interviews. High-risk interactions often occurred during handoffs of care at shift changes and patient rounds, when HCWs gathered regularly in close proximity for at least 15 minutes. Identified barriers included spacing and availability of computers, the need to communicate confidential patient information, and the desire to maintain relationships at work.

Conclusions:

Physical distancing can be improved in hospitals by restructuring computer workstations, work rooms, and break rooms; applying visible cognitive aids; adapting shift times; and supporting rounds and meetings with virtual conferencing. Additional strategies to promote staff adherence to physical distancing include rewarding positive behaviors, having peer leaders model physical distancing, and encouraging additional safe avenues for social connection at a safe distance.