Fear for CoViD-19 and reluctance to work among health care workers during the epidemic, a prospective monocentric cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCW) are facing the Coronavirus disease 2019 (CoViD-19) epidemic. Consequently, psychological impairments have been reported. However, literature showed controversial results on the relationship between gender, frontline HCW, and psychological impairments. This study aims to investigate CoViD-19 fear and reluctance to work in HCW. METHODS: Employees who worked between April and October 2020 at the UZ Brussel were included. Data were prospectively collected in 2 phases through a survey together with serological tests. Sampling strategy was convenience sampling. RESULTS: About 2,336 employees completed the study and response rate was 70%. The prevalence of severe CoViD-19 fear in participants increased from 9% to 15%. Employees showing way less motivation rose from 9% to 14%. The seroprevalence was 7.4% and 7.9%. Multivariable analysis found a relation between reluctance to work, study phase, female gender, shortage of personal protective equipment, and poor education on CoViD-19. Furthermore, CoViD-19 fear was related to the study phase, older age, female gender, being second-line HCW, reported exposure to CoViD-19 during work, and insufficient education on CoViD-19. DISCUSSION: Seroprevalence remained rather stable, but fear and reluctance to work significantly increased. Differences in time of data collection together with epidemiological setting might be responsible for conflicting data reported in literature. CONCLUSIONS: The evolution of the epidemiological setting might influence the results of studies investigating psychological impairments in HCW.

Diagnostic accuracy of screening tests for patients suspected of COVID-19, a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic gold standard for Coronavirus-2019 disease (CoViD-19) is reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). However, its sensitivity might be suboptimal. The current study aims to investigate predictive factors for false-negative nasopharyngeal RT-PCR in CoViD-19 patients. Additionally, the specificity and sensitivity of RT-PCR on the nasopharyngeal swab, serology and chest computerized-tomography (CCT) as a screening tool for the diagnosis of CoViD-19 were investigated. METHODS: Medical records of patients admitted at the university hospital UZ Brussel during the CoViD-19 epidemic were reviewed. A group of CoViD-19 patients with false-negative RT-PCR was identified through scrupulous examination of medical records. Serological testing was performed through chemiluminescent microparticle assay. RESULTS: Eighteen CoViD-19 patients with 'false negative' RT-PCR were identified and compared to 51 'true positives'. Logistic regression for prediction of 'false negative' RT-PCR found significantly higher serology results at hospitalization and more intensive care unit admission in the group with false-negative testing. In a cohort of 228 patients, the sensitivity of RT-PCR for the diagnosis of CoViD-19 was 85%. The sensitivity of serology was 86% and its specificity 92%. Chest computerized-tomography (CCT) showed a sensitivity of 93%, its specificity was 62%. By combining RT-PCR and serology results any 'false negative' could be excluded. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, the sensitivity and specificity of RT-PCR and serology for the diagnosis of CoViD-19 were high and comparable. CCT had the highest sensitivity and confirmed its efficacy as a screening tool. CoViD-19 patients, who have a more severe presentation, might have negative RT-PCR and positive serology results.