ABSTRACT
BackgroundPatients with chronic inflammatory diseases (CID) have an increased risk for contracting infections. For patients with rheumatic diseases EULAR recommends protecting them from vaccine-preventable diseases.ObjectivesTo assess the knowledge and awareness of common vaccinations and extent of immunization among patients with CID in Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden (Nordics), and to identify gaps between the existing EULAR vaccination recommendations and current practice as experienced by patients.MethodsA structured anonymous online survey for patients with CID ((rheumatological disease (RD), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and dermatological diseases (DD)) was conducted in 2022.The survey was answered by 1748 respondents (1031 patients with RD, 543 with IBD and 563 with DD).ResultsAmong respondents, 89% were female and 58% had disease duration of above 10 years. In total, 56% were treated in specialised and 32% in primary care. Majority had ongoing systemic immunosuppressive treatment (IT) (65%). Majority of RD (59%) and IBD (66%) patients were treated in specialised care whereas minority of DD patients (38%) were treated in specialised care.Forty-nine percent (49%) responded that their healthcare professional (HCP) did not inform them about the increased risk of infection – however, 55% of the respondents believed they are somewhat or much more likely to suffer from infections than those without CID or treatment, 33% thought there is no difference and 13% did not know there is a difference.In total 68% of respondents considered it important to get vaccinated due to CID or IT. The number was particularly high in RD group (74%), although 63% stated they had not received any information regarding vaccinations at the start of their treatment.Commonly recommended vaccinations by the HCP were COVID 19 (66%), influenza (63%) and pneumococcal (45%) vaccination. When comparing respondents ≥65 and <65 years, there was a difference in how often the influenza (71% vs. 57%) and pneumococcal (57% vs. 38%), but not COVID 19 vaccination (68% vs. 65%), were recommended. In addition, 74% and 75% of respondents receiving IT were recommended influenza and COVID 19 vaccination, respectively.In total, 22% had their vaccination status checked before initiating treatment;the lowest percentage was in DD (16%) and the highest in RD (25%). However, 44% of respondents received influenza vaccination before initiation of treatment. Moreover, 62% and 74% of respondents received influenza and COVID 19 vaccination while on treatment, respectively.Eighty-six percent (86%) did not receive a vaccination plan in relation to their CID and treatment. Moreover, 64% of the respondents (RD 57%;DD 71% and IBD 66%) did not have vaccination status assessed on a regular basis. Forty-three percent (43%) were dissatisfied with the follow-up of vaccination status by their HCP. Respondents of age ≥65 years were more satisfied than the younger ones (34% vs. 25% very satisfied) and respondents with RD were more satisfied than those with IBD or DD (33% vs. 25% vs. 20%).Forty-four percent (44%) responded that the information on vaccinations related to their CID and treatment was difficult to find and 71% would like to receive more information.The respondents with RD had different level of awareness regarding EULAR vaccination recommendations. The degree of awareness among patients with RD treated with IT are presented in Figure 1.ConclusionThis Nordic survey provides insights on patients' information needs, information sources and own experiences related to recommendations on vaccinations in relation to their CID and IT. The results confirm a gap between patients' expectations and needs vs. the information they actually receive. Our findings demonstrate a need for increased awareness among patients, providers and HCP regarding EULAR vaccination recommendations in patients with RD.Reference[1]Furer V, et al. 2019 update of EULAR recommendations for vaccination in adult patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Ann Rheum Dis 2020;79: 9–52.Acknowledgements:NIL.Disclosure of InterestsMeliha C Kapetanovic Grant/research support from: Received independent research grants from Roche and Pfizer, Randeep Mandla Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Current employee of Pfizer Norway, Maria Seddighzadeh Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Current employee of Pfizer Sweden, Susanne Thiesen Gren Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Current employee of Pfizer Denmark, Maaria Palmroth Consultant of: Employee of MedEngine Oy and contractor for Pfizer Oy, Employee of: Contractor for Pfizer Oy, Finland, Dan Henrohn Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Current employee of Pfizer AB, Sweden, Anne Grete Frostrup Shareholder of: Pfizer, Employee of: Current employee of Pfizer Denmark, Anna-Maria Hiltunen Consultant of: Pfizer. Employee of Nordic Healthcare Group, Jussi Ranta Consultant of: Pfizer. Employee of Nordic Healthcare Group, Anna-Kaisa Asikainen Consultant of: Pfizer. Employee of Nordic Healthcare Group, Veli-Jukka Anttila Speakers bureau: Lectures for Pfizer, MSD, Astellas, Roche, GSK, BMS, Biogen, Sandoz, Gilead, Unimedic Pharma, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Astra-Zeneca, Consultant of: Consultant for Pfizer and MSD.
ABSTRACT
SARS-CoV-2 has been detected both in air and on surfaces, but questions remain about the patient-specific and environmental factors affecting virus transmission to the environment. Additionally, more detailed information on viral findings in the air is needed. In this cross-sectional study, we present results from 259 air and 252 surface samples from the surroundings of 23 hospitalized and eight home-treated COVID-19 patients between July 2020 and March 2021 and compare the results between the measured environments and patient factors. In four cases, positive environmental samples were detected even after the patients had developed a neutralizing IgG response. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in multiple particle sizes and different air samplers. Appropriate infection control against airborne and surface transmission routes is needed in both environments, even after antibody production has begun. © 2022 17th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, INDOOR AIR 2022. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Objectives Healthcare systems and healthcare workers have been under considerable strain during the COVID-19 pandemic in many countries. Our study aimed to assess the mental well-being of Finnish healthcare workers from two hospital districts with differing COVID-19 incidence rates (HUS, Hospital district of Helsinki and Uusimaa/Helsinki University Hospital;and Kymsote, Social and Health services in Kymenlaakso region) during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020. Material and methods The data of this prospective survey study was collected during summer 2020, and a total of 996 healthcare workers (HUS N = 862, Kymsote N = 134) participated. Mental health symptoms were self-reported, and symptom criteria followed ICD-10 classification, excluding duration criteria. We divided participants into symptom categories “often/sometimes” (those who met the diagnostic criteria), and “rarely/never” (those not meeting the diagnostic criteria), and compared these groups to sociodemographic factors and factors related to work, workload, and well-being. Results Despite differences in COVID-19 incidence, the degree of mental health symptoms did not differ between HUS and Kymsote districts (p = 1). A significant relationship was found between self-reported diagnostic mental health symptoms and experiences of insufficient instructions for protection against COVID-19 (in HUS cohort, p < 0.001), insufficient recovery from work (p < 0.001), and subjective increased workload (p < 0.001). Conclusions These findings show the importance of sufficient, well-designed instructions for protection from SARS-CoV-2 for healthcare workers, indicating their need to feel safe and protected at work. The workload of healthcare workers should be carefully monitored to keep it moderate and ensure their adequate recovery from work. Sufficient control of the epidemic to keep the burden of the healthcare system as low as possible is essential for healthcare workers’ well-being. Key messages Workload of healthcare workers should be carefully monitored during a pandemic to keep it moderate and ensure adequate recovery in all regions, regardless of the local disease burden. The importance of sufficient, well-designed instructions for healthcare workers and their need to feel safe and protected at work.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Isolation precautions are essential prevent spread of COVID-19 infection but may have a negative impact on inpatient care. The impact of these measures on non-COVID-19 patients remains largely unexplored. AIM: This study aimed to investigate diagnostic and treatment delays related to isolation precautions, the associated patient outcome, and the predisposing risk factors for delays. METHODS: This observational study was conducted in seven Helsinki region hospitals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Finland. The study used data on all non-COVID-19 inpatients, who were initially isolated due to suspected COVID-19, to estimate whether isolation precautions resulted in diagnostic or treatment delays. RESULTS: Out of 683 non-COVID-19 patients, 33 (4.8%) had delays related to isolation precautions. Clinical condition deteriorated non-fatally in seven (1.0%) patients. The following events were associated with an increased risk of treatment or a diagnostic delay: more than three ward transfers (P = 0.025); referral to an incorrect speciality in the emergency department (P = 0.004); more than three SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests performed (P = 0.022); and where cancer was the final diagnosis (P = 0.018). In contrast, lower respiratory tract symptoms (P = 0.013) decreased the risk. CONCLUSIONS: The use of isolation precautions for patients who did not have COVID-19 had minor negative effects on patient outcomes. The present study underlines the importance of targeting diagnostic efforts to patients with unspecified symptoms and to those with a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result. Thorough investigations to achieve an accurate diagnosis improves the prognosis of patients and facilitates appropriate targeting of hospital resources.