Contributors to stress and burnout in junior doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction: Junior doctors have reported high levels of burnout and additional stressors emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic may further accelerate burnout. There is a need to identify which stressors are most likely to lead to burnout in order to develop appropriate interventions. This project therefore aims to compile a comprehensive list of stressors relevant to junior doctors and assesses which stressors are most strongly associated with burnout. Materials and Methods: An anonymous online questionnaire was sent in July 2020 to 1000 randomly selected junior doctors in the North West of England. It included 37 questions on general and pandemic specific stressors and the Maslach Burnout Inventory Health Services Survey. Stepwise regression analysis was undertaken to explore associations between stressors and burnout. Results and Conclusions: In total, 326 responses were received. Six of the 10 highest rated stressors were specific to the pandemic. Fatigue (β=0.43), pandemic-related workload increase (β=0.33) and feeling isolated (β=0.24) had the strongest associations with Emotional Exhaustion. Fatigue (β=0.24), uncertainty around COVID-19 information (β=0.22) and doing unfulfilling tasks (β =0.22) had the strongest associations with Depersonalisation. Lacking in ability (β=-0.24) and not feeling valued (β=-0.20) had the strongest associations with Personal Accomplishment. In conclusion, junior doctors reported a combination of general and pandemic-specific stressors that significantly impact burnout. Monitoring these stressors and targeting them as part of interventions could help mitigate burnout in junior doctors.

A position statement and practical guide to the use of particulate filtering facepiece respirators (N95, FFP2, or equivalent) for South African health workers exposed to respiratory pathogens including Mycobacterium tuberculosis and SARS-CoV-2.

SUMMARY: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is transmitted mainly by aerosol in particles <10 µm that can remain suspended for hours before being inhaled. Because particulate filtering facepiece respirators ('respirators'; e.g. N95 masks) are more effective than surgical masks against bio-aerosols, many international organisations now recommend that health workers (HWs) wear a respirator when caring for individuals who may have COVID-19. In South Africa (SA), however, surgical masks are still recommended for the routine care of individuals with possible or confirmed COVID-19, with respirators reserved for so-called aerosol-generating procedures. In contrast, SA guidelines do recommend respirators for routine care of individuals with possible or confirmed tuberculosis (TB), which is also transmitted via aerosol. In health facilities in SA, distinguishing between TB and COVID-19 is challenging without examination and investigation, both of which may expose HWs to potentially infectious individuals. Symptom-based triage has limited utility in defining risk. Indeed, significant proportions of individuals with COVID-19 and/or pulmonary TB may not have symptoms and/or test negative. The prevalence of undiagnosed respiratory disease is therefore likely significant in many general clinical areas (e.g. waiting areas). Moreover, a proportion of HWs are HIV-positive and are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and death. RECOMMENDATIONS: Sustained improvements in infection prevention and control (IPC) require reorganisation of systems to prioritise HW and patient safety. While this will take time, it is unacceptable to leave HWs exposed until such changes are made. We propose that the SA health system adopts a target of 'zero harm', aiming to eliminate transmission of respiratory pathogens to all individuals in every healthcare setting. Accordingly, we recommend: the use of respirators by all staff (clinical and non-clinical) during activities that involve contact or sharing air in indoor spaces with individuals who: (i) have not yet been clinically evaluated; or (ii) are thought or known to have TB and/or COVID-19 or other potentially harmful respiratory infections;the use of respirators that meet national and international manufacturing standards;evaluation of all respirators, at the least, by qualitative fit testing; andthe use of respirators as part of a 'package of care' in line with international IPC recommendations. We recognise that this will be challenging, not least due to global and national shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE). SA national policy around respiratory protective equipment enables a robust framework for manufacture and quality control and has been supported by local manufacturers and the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition. Respirator manufacturers should explore adaptations to improve comfort and reduce barriers to communication. Structural changes are needed urgently to improve the safety of health facilities: persistent advocacy and research around potential systems change remain essential.

Diagnosis of COVID-19: Considerations, controversies and challenges.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to a novel virus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is a global pandemic that has resulted in over 1.5 million confirmed cases and close to 100 000 deaths. In the majority of symptomatic cases, COVID-19 results in a mild disease predominantly characterised by upper respiratory tract symptoms. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) using a nasopharyngeal sample is the mainstay of diagnosis, but there is an ~30% false negative rate early in the disease and in patients with mild disease, and therefore repeat testing may be required. RT-PCR positivity can persist for several days after resolution of symptoms. IgM and IgG antibody responses become positive several days after the onset of symptoms, and robust antibody responses are detectable in the second week of illness. Antibody-based immunoassays have a limited role in the diagnosis of early symptomatic disease. However, their incremental benefit over RT-PCR in the first 2 weeks of illness is currently being clarified in ongoing studies. Such assays may be useful for surveillance purposes. However, their role in potentially selecting individuals who may benefit from vaccination, or as a biomarker identifying persons who could be redeployed into essential employment roles, is being investigated. Rapid antibody-based immunoassays that detect viral antigen in nasopharyngeal samples are being developed and evaluated.

Efficacy of the ChAdOxl nCoV-19 Covid-19 Vaccine against the B.1.351 Variant

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the safety and efficacy of vaccines against the severe acute respiradetory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in different populations is essential, as is investigation of the efficacy of the vaccines against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants concern, including the B.1.351 (501Y.V2) variant first identified in South Africa. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOxl nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) in people not infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in South Africa. Participants 18 to less than 65 years of age were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses of vaccine containing 5x1O10 viral particles or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride solution) 21 to 35 days apart. Serum samples obtained from 25 participants after the second dose were tested by pseudovirus and live-virus neutralization assays against the original D6146 virus and the B.1.351 variant. The primary end points were safety and efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic coronavirus 2019 illness (Covid-19) more than 14 days after the second dose. RESULTS: Between June 24 and November 9,2020, we enrolled 2026 HIV-negative adults (median age, 30 years);1010 and 1011 participants received at least one dose of placebo or vaccine, respectively. Both the pseudovirus and the live-virus neutralization assays showed greater resistance to the B.1.351 variant in serum samples obtained from vaccine recipients than in samples from placebo recipients. In the primary end-point analysis, mild-to-moderate Covid49 developed in 23 of 717 placebo recipients (3.296) and in 19 of750 vaccine recipients (2.596), for an efficacy of 21.9% (95% confidence interval ICI], -49.9 to 59.8). Among the 42 participants with Covid49, 39 cases (95.1% of 41 with sequencing data) were caused by the B.1.351 variant;vaccine efficacy against this variant, analyzed as a secondary end point, was 10.4% (95% CI, 76.8 to 54.8). The incidence of serious adverse events was balanced between the vaccine and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: A two-dose regimen of the ChAdOxl nCoV-19 vaccine did not show protection against mild-to-moderate Covid49 due to the B.1.351 variant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of New England Journal of Medicine is the property of New England Journal of Medicine and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

KN95 filtering facepiece respirators distributed in South Africa fail safety testing protocols.

BACKGROUND: Given the global shortage of N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFP2 in Europe) during the COVID-19 pandemic, KN95 masks (Chinese equivalent of the N95 and FFP2) were imported and distributed in South Africa (SA). However, there are hardly any published independent safety data on KN95 masks. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the seal, fit and filtration efficiency of several brands of KN95 masks marketed for widespread use in SA healthcare facilities, using standardised testing protocols. METHODS: The verifiability of manufacturer and technical details was first ascertained, followed by evaluation of the number of layers comprising the mask material. The testing protocol involved a directly observed positive and negative pressure user seal check, which if passed was followed by qualitative fit testing (sodium saccharin) in healthy laboratory or healthcare workers. Quantitative fit testing (3M) was used to validate the qualitative fit testing method. The filtration efficacy and integrity of the mask filter material were evaluated using a particle counter-based testing rig utilising aerosolised saline (expressed as filtration efficacy of 0.3 µm particles). Halyard FLUIDSHIELD 3 N95 and 3M 1860 N95 masks were used as controls. RESULTS: Twelve KN95 mask brands (total of 36 masks) were evaluated in 7 participants. The mask type and manufacturing details were printed on only 2/12 brands (17%) as per National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health and European Union regulatory requirements. There was considerable variability in the number of KN95 mask layers (between 3 and 6 layers in the 12 brands evaluated). The seal check pass rate was significantly lower in KN95 compared with N95 masks (1/36 (3%) v. 12/12 (100%); p<0.0001). Modification of the KN95 ear-loop tension using head straps or staples, or improving the facial seal using Micropore 3M tape, enhanced seal test performance in 15/36 KN95 masks evaluated (42%). However, none of these 15 passed downstream qualitative fit testing compared with the control N95 masks (0/15 v. 12/12; p<0.0001). Only 4/8 (50%) of the KN95 brands tested passed the minimum filtration requirements for an N95 mask (suboptimal KN95 filtration efficacy varied from 12% to 78%, compared with 56% for a surgical mask and >99% for the N95 masks at the 0.3 µm particle size). CONCLUSIONS: The KN95 masks tested failed the stipulated safety thresholds associated with protection of healthcare workers against airborne pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2. These preliminary data have implications for the regulation of masks and their distribution to healthcare workers and facilities in SA.