A retrospective observational insight into COVID-19 exposures resulting from personal protective equipment (PPE) breaches.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) stand the risk of acquiring infection directly, while attending to patients or indirectly while handling and testing patient specimens. Considering this, the present study was planned to assess Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) breaches and exposures among HCWs working in COVID-19 wards/ screening areas and to evaluate their COVID-19 positivity rates post-exposure concerning the level of exposure, type of PPE breach, and the cadre of HCWs exposed in COVID-19 wards. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study involved the analysis of all instances of PPE breaches which occurred during a period of nine months from June 2020 to February 2021 at a tertiary care level hospital in Central India. The analysis included all exposures involving any cadre of HCWs that occurred while handling the patients or while doffing the contaminated PPE in COVID -19 wards. RESULTS: A total of 347 PPE breaches were analyzed from the available records of the Hospital Infection Control team repository. Amongst the 347 breaches, 268 (77.2%) were classified as low-risk exposures and 79 (22.8%) as high-risk exposures. Cadre wise distribution of high and low-risk exposures revealed that, PPE breaches occurred most commonly in the category of nursing officers (n = 174, 50.1%). Among all of the breaches, 15.2% of high-risk exposures and 2.6% of low-risk exposures resulted in COVID-19 positivity with a cumulative positivity of 5.4%. Collectively, non-mask related breaches accounted for the majority (63.2%) of the positive COVID-19 cases. CONCLUSION: Appropriate use of PPE by HCWs is vital for their protection. However, breaches in the use of PPE may occur while managing COVID-19 patients due to physical and mental exhaustion among HCWs resulting from work overload. Early identification and appropriate management of HCWs with high-risk exposures can help prevent transmission to other hospital staff and patients, thus preserving resources and workforce.

Correction: Comparative analysis of various clinical specimens in detection of SARS-CoV-2 using rRT-PCR in new and follow up cases of COVID-19 infection: Quest for the best choice.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249408.].

Comparative analysis of various clinical specimens in detection of SARS-CoV-2 using rRT-PCR in new and follow up cases of COVID-19 infection: Quest for the best choice.

BACKGROUND: An appropriate specimen is of paramount importance in Real Time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) based diagnosis of novel coronavirus (nCoV) disease (COVID-19). Thus, it's pertinent to evaluate various diversified clinical specimens' diagnostic utility in both diagnosis and follow-up of COVID-19. METHODS: A total of 924 initial specimens from 130 COVID-19 symptomatic cases before initiation of treatment and 665 follow up specimens from 15 randomly selected cases comprising of equal number of nasopharyngeal swab (NPS), oropharyngeal swab (OPS), combined NPS and OPS (Combined swab), sputum, plasma, serum and urine were evaluated by rRT-PCR. RESULTS: Demographic analysis showed males (86) twice more affected by COVID-19 than females (44) (p = 0.00001). Combined swabs showed a positivity rate of 100% followed by NPS (91.5%), OPS (72.3%), sputum (63%), while nCoV was found undetected in urine, plasma and serum specimens. The lowest cycle threshold (Ct) values of targeted genes E, ORF1b and RdRP are 10.56, 10.14 and 12.26 respectively and their lowest average Ct values were found in combined swab which indicates high viral load in combined swab among all other specimen types. Analysis of 665 follow-up multi-varied specimens also showed combined swab as the last specimen among all specimen types to become negative, after an average 6.6 (range 4-10) days post-treatment, having lowest (15.48) and average (29.96) Ct values of ORF1b respectively indicating posterior nasopharyngeal tract as primary nCoV afflicted site with high viral load. CONCLUSION: The combined swab may be recommended as a more appropriate specimen for both diagnosis and monitoring of COVID-19 treatment by rRT-PCR for assessing virus clearance to help physicians in taking evidence-based decision before discharging patients. Implementing combined swabs globally will definitely help in management and control of the pandemic, as it is the need of the hour.