The need to nurture Aotearoa New Zealand's healthcare workforce.

This commentary examines the ethical significance of recently published research demonstrating the extent to which healthcare workers experienced stress and increased challenges in the workplace due to inadequate access to personal protective equipment (PPE) during the first COVID-19 surge in Aotearoa New Zealand. The inadequate state of New Zealand's PPE stockpile and distribution system at the beginning of the pandemic was a critical signal, a "canary in the coalmine", of broader challenges facing the New Zealand healthcare system, particularly for healthcare worker safety and wellbeing. As New Zealand reforms its health system with the aim of improving access to and equity of care, an opportunity exists to apply critical lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic about the need to prioritise the wellbeing of the healthcare workers we are dependent upon to deliver that care. Failure to apply this new knowledge will see the system similarly unprepared for future public health emergencies, which are likely to be imminent, and potentially with healthcare workers less willing to accept the burdens placed on them. The Nurture Framework, which has emerged from the voices of healthcare workers within this research, should be adopted as part of health reforms and ongoing emergency preparedness planning. Trust, transparency, respect and safety, the four values of the Framework, are fundamental for all workers who contribute their skills, knowledge and time to our healthcare organisations.

End-user acceptability of personal protective equipment disinfection for potential reuse: a survey of health-care workers in Aotearoa New Zealand.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted personal protective equipment (PPE) supply, distribution, and disposal issues worldwide. Calls to conserve PPE stocks and increase supply resulted in the rapid development of potential disinfection methods, with the possibility of improvements in medical waste reduction. However, how receptive health-care workers are to PPE reuse remains unknown. We aimed to examine the views of health-care workers who used PPE during the first COVID-19 wave in Aotearoa New Zealand, in relation to acceptability of PPE disinfection and reuse. METHODS: In this multi-methods survey, health-care workers in New Zealand, were invited via a multimodal recruitment strategy to complete a survey regarding use of PPE during the first COVID-19 wave. Gender question options were male, female, gender diverse, or prefer not to say. Demographic differences in self-reported PPE reuse and acceptability were examined. The survey included closed (single-response, multi-response, ranking, and Likert-scale questions) and open-text questions. Any open-text comments were analysed with thematic analysis. The survey was built and deployed using Qualtrics software. FINDINGS: 1411 health-care workers completed the survey between Oct 7 and Nov 30, 2020. 1397 participants had gender data available (1140 [82%] female and 257 [18%] male) and 995 (74%) of 1347 were of New Zealand European ethnicity. PPE reuse was common and reported by 628 (45%) of the 1411 participants, with 396 (63%) of the 628 reporting reusing PPE multiple times in 1 day. Acceptability of the concept of PPE disinfection for potential reuse was high overall (1196 [85%] of 1411) but varied depending on the type of PPE. Thematic analysis confirmed that PPE reuse was already occurring and respondents recognised the potential benefits of reduced medical wastage and increased PPE supply. Important caveats for consideration included the availability of scientific evidence, level of negotiated risk, and trust in the organisation undertaking PPE disinfection, with clear communication about decontamination processes being crucial to acceptability. INTERPRETATION: PPE reuse occurred frequently during the first wave of COVID-19 in New Zealand. Although support for the disinfection of PPE for reuse was high, the success of any future programmes to reuse PPE will require meaningful engagement and clear communication with health-care workers. Further research into PPE disinfection safety and logistics is warranted, alongside the development of standard operating procedures and clearly communicated policies for the end user, should this more sustainable health-care practice be planned for adoption in certain settings. FUNDING: New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (COVID-19 Innovation Acceleration Fund) and the Medical Assurance Society Foundation.

Aotearoa New Zealand must learn how to vaccinate children most at risk of vaccine-preventable diseases first

Since we did choose this cheaper vaccine, how do you feel now that that we can see, since this choice was made, that the number of pneumococcal serotype 19A cases in young children, and the proportion of pneumococcal isolates that are penicillin-resistant, has increased? [...]of COVID-19, we now have a larger and more diverse vaccination workforce and many more strategies for delivering vaccines to those who want them and really need them, but for whom the current healthcare system is incapable of delivering. Dr Teuila Percival: Paediatrician, Kidz First Children's Hospital & Community Health, Counties Manukau District;Honorary Associate Professor, The University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Learning from healthcare workers' experiences with personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic in Aotearoa/New Zealand: a thematic analysis and framework for future practice.

OBJECTIVES: Safety and welfare are critical as pandemic-related demands on the healthcare workforce continue. Access to personal protective equipment (PPE) has been a central concern of healthcare workers throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Against the backdrop of an already strained healthcare system, our study aimed to explore the experiences of healthcare workers with PPE during the first COVID-19 surge (February-June 2020) in Aotearoa/New Zealand (NZ). We also aimed to use these findings to present a strengths-based framework for supporting healthcare workers moving forward. DESIGN: Web-based, anonymous survey including qualitative open-text questions. Questions were both closed and open text, and recruitment was multimodal. We undertook inductive thematic analysis of the dataset as a whole to explore prominent values related to healthcare workers' experiences. SETTING: October-November 2020 in New Zealand. PARTICIPANTS: 1411 healthcare workers who used PPE during surge one of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: We identified four interactive values as central to healthcare workers' experiences: transparency, trust, safety and respect. When healthcare workers cited positive experiences, trust and safety were perceived as present, with a sense of inclusion in the process of stock allocation and effective communication with managers. When trust was low, with concerns over personal safety, poor communication and lack of transparency resulted in perceived lack of respect and distress among respondents. Our proposed framework presents key recommendations to support the health workforce in terms of communication relating to PPE supply and distribution built on those four values. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare worker experiences with PPE access has been likened to 'the canary in the coalmine' for existing health system challenges that have been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. The four key values identified could be used to improve healthcare worker experience in the future.

The epidemiology of aseptic meningitis in New Zealand children from 1991 to 2020.

AIM: Aseptic meningitis, including culture negative and viral meningitis, contributes a significant health-care burden, including unnecessary antibiotic use and hospitalisation to treat possible bacterial meningitis. This study analysed aseptic meningitis hospitalisations in New Zealand (NZ) children over 29 years. METHODS: In this population-based study, aseptic meningitis hospitalisations in NZ children <15 years old were analysed from 1991 to 2020. Incident rate ratios were calculated using Poisson regression models. Variations in hospitalisations by age, year, sex, ethnicity, geographical region and socio-economic deprivation were analysed. RESULTS: There were 5142 paediatric aseptic meningitis hospitalisations from 1991 to 2020. Most were unspecified viral meningitis (64%), followed by enterovirus (29%). Hospitalisation rates varied annually with a median of 18.4/100 000 children including a peak in 2001 of 56.4/100 000 (51.7-61.6). From 2002 to 2019, rates increased by 8.4%/year (7.2-9.5%) in infants <90 days old but decreased in all other age groups. In 2020, a reduction in hospitalisations to 9.6/100 000 (7.9-11.8) occurred, and in infants <90 days old were 0.37 times expected. Hospitalisations were 1.50 times (1.49-1.68) higher in males than females; higher in children of Maori (P < 0.001) and Pacific (P < 0.001) versus European ethnicity; and higher for children living in the most (2.44 times, (2.16-2.75)) versus least deprived households; and in northern versus southern NZ. CONCLUSIONS: Aseptic meningitis hospitalisations increased in young infants during 29 years of surveillance, apart from 2020 when admissions reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast, hospitalisations decreased in children aged >1 year. Further investigation into reasons for higher admissions by ethnic group, geographical location and increased deprivation are required.

Mixed-Methods Survey of Healthcare Workers' Experiences of Personal Protective Equipment during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

There have been widespread issues with the supply and distribution of personal protective equipment (PPE) globally throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, raising considerable public concern. We aimed to understand the experiences of healthcare workers using PPE during the first COVID-19 surge (February-June 2020) in Aotearoa/New Zealand (NZ). This study consisted of an online, voluntary, and anonymous survey, distributed nationwide via multimodal recruitment. Reported domains included PPE supply, sourcing and procurement, fit-testing and fit-checking, perceived protection, trust and confidence in the workplace, mental health, and the likelihood of remaining in the profession. Differences according to demographic variables (e.g., profession and workplace) were examined. We undertook a descriptive analysis of responses to open-text questions to provide explanation and context to the quantitative data. The survey was completed in October-November 2020 by 1411 healthcare workers. Reported PPE shortages were common (26.8%) among healthcare workers during surge one in NZ. This led to respondents personally saving both new (31.2%) and used (25.2%) PPE, purchasing their own PPE (28.2%), and engaging in extended wear practices. More respondents in the public system reported being told not to wear PPE by their organisation compared with respondents in the private sector. Relatively low numbers of respondents who were required to undertake aerosol-generating procedures reported being fit-tested annually (3.8%), a legal requirement in NZ. Healthcare workers in NZ reported a concerning level of unsafe PPE practices during surge one, as well as a high prevalence of reported mental health concerns. As NZ and other countries transition from COVID-19 elimination to suppression strategies, healthcare worker safety should be paramount, with clear communication regarding PPE use and supply being a key priority.

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data from randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) revealed a protective effect of this intervention. We aimed to examine the link between vitamin D supplementation and prevention of ARIs in an updated meta-analysis. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry for studies listed from database inception to May 1, 2020. Double-blind RCTs of vitamin D3, vitamin D2, or 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) supplementation for any duration, with a placebo or low-dose vitamin D control, were eligible if they had been approved by a research ethics committee, and if ARI incidence was collected prospectively and prespecified as an efficacy outcome. Studies reporting results of long-term follow-up of primary RCTs were excluded. Aggregated study-level data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration and age, were obtained from study authors. Using the proportion of participants in each trial who had one or more ARIs, we did a random-effects meta-analysis to obtain pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs to estimate the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of having one or more ARIs (primary outcome) compared with placebo. Subgroup analyses were done to estimate whether the effects of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of ARI varied according to baseline 25(OH)D concentration (<25 nmol/L vs 25·0-49·9 nmol/L vs 50·0-74·9 nmol/L vs >75·0 nmol/L), vitamin D dose (daily equivalent of <400 international units [IU] vs 400-1000 IU vs 1001-2000 IU vs >2000 IU), dosing frequency (daily vs weekly vs once per month to once every 3 months), trial duration (≤12 months vs >12 months), age at enrolment (<1·00 years vs 1·00-15·99 years vs 16·00-64·99 years vs ≥65·00 years), and presence versus absence of airway disease (ie, asthma only, COPD only, or unrestricted). Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020190633. FINDINGS: We identified 1528 articles, of which 46 RCTs (75 541 participants) were eligible. Data for the primary outcome were obtained for 48 488 (98·1%) of 49 419 participants (aged 0-95 years) in 43 studies. A significantly lower proportion of participants in the vitamin D supplementation group had one or more ARIs (14 332 [61·3%] of 23 364 participants) than in the placebo group (14 217 [62·3%] of 22 802 participants), with an OR of 0·92 (95% CI 0·86-0·99; 37 studies; I2=35·6%, pheterogeneity=0·018). No significant effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of having one or more ARIs was observed for any of the subgroups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration. However, protective effects of supplementation were observed in trials in which vitamin D was given in a daily dosing regimen (OR 0·78 [95% CI 0·65-0·94]; 19 studies; I2=53·5%, pheterogeneity=0·003), at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (0·70 [0·55-0·89]; ten studies; I2=31·2%, pheterogeneity=0·16), for a duration of 12 months or less (0·82 [0·72-0·93]; 29 studies; I2=38·1%, pheterogeneity=0·021), and to participants aged 1·00-15·99 years at enrolment (0·71 [0·57-0·90]; 15 studies; I2=46·0%, pheterogeneity=0·027). No significant interaction between allocation to the vitamin D supplementation group versus the placebo group and dose, dose frequency, study duration, or age was observed. In addition, no significant difference in the proportion of participants who had at least one serious adverse event in the vitamin supplementation group compared with the placebo group was observed (0·97 [0·86-1·07]; 36 studies; I2=0·0%, pheterogeneity=0·99). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials. INTERPRETATION: Despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials, vitamin D supplementation was safe and overall reduced the risk of ARI compared with placebo, although the risk reduction was small. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU for up to 12 months, and age at enrolment of 1·00-15·99 years. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires further investigation. FUNDING: None.

Impact of the COVID-19 nonpharmaceutical interventions on influenza and other respiratory viral infections in New Zealand.

Stringent nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as lockdowns and border closures are not currently recommended for pandemic influenza control. New Zealand used these NPIs to eliminate coronavirus disease 2019 during its first wave. Using multiple surveillance systems, we observed a parallel and unprecedented reduction of influenza and other respiratory viral infections in 2020. This finding supports the use of these NPIs for controlling pandemic influenza and other severe respiratory viral threats.

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data from randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections revealed a protective effect of the intervention. Since then, 20 new RCTs have been completed. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D for ARI prevention using a random effects model. Pre-specified sub-group analyses were done to determine whether effects of vitamin D on risk of ARI varied according to baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentration or dosing regimen. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry from inception to 1st May 2020. Double-blind RCTs of supplementation with vitamin D or calcidiol, of any duration, were eligible if they were approved by a Research Ethics Committee and if ARI incidence was collected prospectively and pre-specified as an efficacy outcome. Aggregate data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration, were obtained from study authors. The study was registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42020190633). FINDINGS: We identified 45 eligible RCTs (total 73,384 participants). Data were obtained for 46,331 (98.0%) of 47,262 participants in 42 studies, aged 0 to 95 years. For the primary comparison of vitamin D supplementation vs. placebo, the intervention reduced risk of ARI overall (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; P for heterogeneity 0.01). No statistically significant effect of vitamin D was seen for any of the sub-groups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration. However, protective effects were seen for trials in which vitamin D was given using a daily dosing regimen (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93); at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89); and for a duration of ≤12 months (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.93). No significant interaction was seen between allocation to vitamin D vs. placebo and dose frequency, dose size, or study duration. Vitamin D did not influence the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials. A funnel plot showed left-sided asymmetry (P=0.008, Egger's test). INTERPRETATION: Vitamin D supplementation was safe and reduced risk of ARI, despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU vitamin D for up to 12 months. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires investigation. FUNDING: None.