Healthcare workers' SARS-CoV-2 infection rates during the second wave of the pandemic: follow-up study

Beliefs, preferences, and acceptance of personal protective equipment for a shock room team in a tertiary care center

BACKGROUND

During coronavirus disease of 2019 pandemic a standard usage of personal protective equipment (PPE) in healthcare was mandatory, while actually the usage of PPE is currently decreasing. This raises the question about the further use of PPE in the clinical setting because healthcare workers (HCW) are at greater risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 than the general population. The primary objective of this study is to determine the proportion of shock room team members approving the further use of PPE including a FFP2 respirator in simulation training and reality. The secondary objectives are to describe the expertise and difficulties faced while using PPE in the shock room care.

METHODS

Fifty-four HCW participated in a shock room simulation training at a large urban tertiary care hospital in Germany, utilizing a PPE comprising an FFP2 mask, gloves, goggles, and gown. Subsequently, participants completed an online questionnaire featuring 15 questions presented on a 5-point Likert scale or as multiple-choice questions with predefined answers.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight point five percent of our participants voted for an established standard PPE in shock room care. The largest fraction of our participants (40.7%) favors a standard PPE consisting of FFP2 mask, gown, and gloves. Less HCW (31.5%) want to wear PPE in shock room simulation training. Except for goggles we could not detect relevant difficulties faced while using PPE in the shock room environment. Incorrect use of PPE was observed in 14.8%.

CONCLUSION

A majority of our participants favored a standard PPE including a FFP2 respirator in shock room care. In addition, we recommend the use of PPE in shock room simulation training, while further awareness of and training in proper use of PPE seems to be necessary to reduce risk of infectious diseases for HCW.

Education and pandemic SARS-CoV-2 infections in the German working population - the mediating role of working from home

OBJECTIVES

SARS-CoV-2 infections were unequally distributed during the pandemic, with those in disadvantaged socioeconomic positions being at higher risk. Little is known about the underlying mechanism of this association. This study assessed to what extent educational differences in SARS-CoV-2 infections were mediated by working from home.

METHODS

We used data of the German working population derived from the seroepidemiological study "Corona Monitoring Nationwide - Wave 2 (RKI-SOEP-2)" (N=6826). Infections were assessed by seropositivity against SARS-CoV-2 antigens and self-reports of previous PCR-confirmed infections from the beginning of the pandemic until study participation (November 2021 - February 2022). The frequency of working from home was assessed between May 2021 and January 2022.We used the Karlson-Holm-Breen (KHB) method to decompose the effect of education on SARS-CoV-2 infections.

RESULTS

Individuals with lower educational attainment had a higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection (adjusted prevalence ratio of low versus very high = 1.76, 95% confidence interval 1.08-2.88; P=0.023). Depending on the level of education, between 27% (high education) and 58% (low education) of the differences in infection were mediated by the frequency of working from home.

CONCLUSIONS

Working from home could prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections and contribute to the explanation of socioeconomic inequalities in infection risks. Wherever possible, additional capacities to work remotely, particularly for occupations that require lower educational attainment, should be considered as an important measure of pandemic preparedness. Limitations of this study are the observational cross-sectional design and that the temporal order between infection and working from home remained unclear.

Associations between an international COVID-19 job exposure matrix and SARS-CoV-2 infection among 2 million workers in Denmark

OBJECTIVES

This study investigates the associations between the Danish version of a job exposure matrix for COVID-19 (COVID-19-JEM) and Danish register-based SARS-CoV-2 infection information across three waves of the pandemic. The COVID-19-JEM consists of four dimensions on transmission: two on mitigation measures, and two on precarious work characteristics.

METHODS

The study comprised 2 021 309 persons from the Danish working population between 26 February 2020 and 15 December 2021. Logistic regression models were applied to assess the associations between the JEM dimensions and overall score and SARS-CoV-2 infection across three infection waves, with peaks in March-April 2020, December-January 2021, and February-March 2022. Sex, age, household income, country of birth, wave, residential region and during wave 3 vaccination status were accounted for.

RESULTS

Higher risk scores within the transmission and mitigation dimensions and the overall JEM score resulted in higher odds ratios (OR) of a SARS-CoV-2 infection. OR attenuated across the three waves with ranges of 1.08-5.09 in wave 1, 1.06-1.60 in wave 2, and 1.05-1.45 in those not (fully) vaccinated in wave 3. In wave 3, no associations were found for those fully vaccinated. In all waves, the two precarious work dimensions showed weaker or inversed associations.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19-JEM is a promising tool for assessing occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and other airborne infectious agents that mainly spread between people who are in close contact with each other. However, its usefulness depends on applied restrictions and the vaccination status in the population of interest.

Occupational risks associated with severe COVID-19 disease and SARS-CoV-2 infection - a Swedish national case-control study conducted from October 2020 to December 2021

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate whether workplace factors and occupations are associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe COVID-19 in the later waves of the pandemic.

METHODS

We studied 552 562 cases with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 in the Swedish registry of communicable diseases, and 5985 cases with severe COVID-19 based on hospital admissions from October 2020 to December 2021. Four population controls were assigned the index dates of their corresponding cases. We linked job histories to job-exposure matrices to assess the odds for different transmission dimensions and different occupations. We used adjusted conditional logistic analyses to estimate odds ratios (OR) for severe COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

The highest OR for severe COVID-19 were for: regular contact with infected patients, (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.23-1.54), close physical proximity (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.34-1.61), and high exposure to diseases or infections (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.52-1.96). Mostly working outside had lower OR (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.57-1.06). The odds for SARS-CoV-2 when mostly working outside were similar (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.80-0.86). The occupation with the highest OR for severe COVID-19 (compared with low-exposure occupations) was certified specialist physician (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.31-3.21) among women and bus and tram drivers (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.49-2.79) among men.

CONCLUSIONS

Contact with infected patients, close proximity and crowded workplaces increase the risks for severe COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Outdoor work is associated with decreased odds for SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19.

Occupational risks for infection with influenza A and B: a national case-control study covering 1 July 2006-31 December 2019

OBJECTIVES

We investigated whether crowded workplaces, sharing surfaces and exposure to infections were factors associated with a positive test for influenza virus.

METHODS

We studied 11 300 cases with a positive test for influenza A and 3671 cases of influenza B from Swedish registry of communicable diseases. Six controls for each case were selected from the population registry, with each control being assigned the index date of their corresponding case. We linked job histories to job-exposure matrices (JEMs), to assess different transmission dimensions of influenza and risks for different occupations compared with occupations that the JEM classifies as low exposed. We used adjusted conditional logistic analyses to estimate the ORs for influenza with 95% CI.

RESULTS

The highest odds were for influenza were: regular contact with infected patients (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.54 to 1.73); never maintained social distance (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.59); frequently sharing materials/surfaces with the general public (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.34 to 1.48); close physical proximity (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.45 to 1.62) and high exposure to diseases or infections (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.44 to 1.64). There were small differences between influenza A and influenza B. The five occupations with the highest odds as compared with low exposed occupations were: primary care physicians, protective service workers, elementary workers, medical and laboratory technicians, and taxi drivers.

CONCLUSIONS

Contact with infected patients, low social distance and sharing surfaces are dimensions that increase risk for influenza A and B. Further safety measures are needed to diminish viral transmission in these contexts.

Systemic reactogenicity following homologues and heterologous prime-boost AZD1222 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination of 2862 healthcare workers compared with an unvaccinated population

During spring 2021, AZD1222 and BNT162b2 were used as prime and BNT162b2 as booster COVID-19 vaccines in Denmark. We obtained self-reported information on systemic reactogenicity day-by-day during two weeks for 2862 healthcare workers vaccinated with heterologous AZD1222 + BNT162b2 or homologous BNT162b2 + BNT162b2 regimens and compared prevalences of symptoms with unvaccinated healthcare workers. We found comparable systemic reactogenicity during the first week in the two vaccine regimens and no reactogenicity during the second week. Most of the symptoms returned to a level equal to the control population four days after booster vaccination.

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.

Dietary Patterns, Occupational Stressors and Body Composition of Hospital Workers: A Longitudinal Study Comparing before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic

This longitudinal study aimed to evaluate the association between dietary patterns and the body composition of hospital workers subjected to occupational stressors before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data on sociodemographic, occupational, lifestyle, anthropometric, food consumption and occupational stress were collected before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 218 workers from a private hospital in Santo Antônio de Jesus, Bahia, Brazil were included in the study. After evaluating the normality of the data, parametric or non-parametric tests were used to characterize the sample. Dietary pattern was defined with Exploratory Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling was used to test the desired association. During the pandemic, work per shift increased by 8.2% (p = 0.004) and working hours > 40 h/week increased by 9.2% (p = 0.006). Despite the higher prevalence of low occupational stress (85.8% vs. 72.1%), high stress increased by 13.7% from 2019 to 2020 (p < 0.001) and 30.3% reported a positive mediating effect on the variables of body composition, body mass index (b = 0.478; p < 0.001), waist circumference (b = 0.395; p = 0.001), fat-free mass (b = 0.440; p = 0.001) and fat mass (b = -0.104; p = 0.292). Therefore, a dietary pattern containing high-calorie foods was associated with changes in the body composition of hospital workers, including occupational stressors as mediators of this relationship.

Use of Personal Protective Equipment Among Healthcare Workers During the First and the Second Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic

INTRODUCTION

To treat and properly care for COVID-19 patients it is vital to have healthy healthcare workers to ensure the continued function of the healthcare system and to prevent transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to patients, co-workers, and the community. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can prevent healthcare workers from being infected with and transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Experience and training are pivotal to ensure optimal protection. This study aims to examine the use and failure of PPE and compliance with PPE guidelines during the first and the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic among Danish healthcare workers.

METHODS

Healthcare workers from the Central Denmark Region and the Capital Region of Denmark were invited to participate April-June 2020 during the first wave and November 2020-April 2021 during the second wave. Day-by-day, participants reported work procedures, use and failure of PPE, and compliance with PPE guidelines. Register-based information on sex, age, department, and profession was available for all participants.

RESULTS

In total, 21 684 and 10 097 healthcare workers participated during the first and the second wave, respectively. During the first wave, 1.7% used filtering face piece-2 or -3 (FFP2 or FFP3) respirators and 8.2% used face masks [fluid resistant (type IIR) masks, masks with visor (typically type IIR), and other unspecified face masks] during physical contact with patients. During the second wave, the corresponding figures increased to 17.8% and 80.7%. During respiratory procedures, the use of FFP2 or FFP3 respirators increased from 5.6 to 24.3%, and the use of face masks from 14.7 to 77.8%. The no PPE use decreased from 21.3% during the first wave to 0.4% in the second wave, during respiratory procedures. Total PPE failures decreased from 0.7 to 0.4% from the first to second wave. The proportion not complying with PPE guidelines declined from 3.6 to 2.2% during physical contact with patients and from 6.5 to 4.6% during respiratory procedures. PPE failure and non-compliance varied by age, sex and type of department. Frequent reasons for non-compliance were forgetfulness and lack of time, and during the first but not during the second wave, limited availability of PPE.

CONCLUSION

We found a substantial increase in the use of PPE and a substantial decrease in PPE failures from the first to the second wave of COVID-19 in Denmark. However, there is still a need for continuous focus on compliance in use of PPE among healthcare workers.