Changes in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and population immunity in Finland, 2020-2022.

Studying the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies (seroprevalence) allows for assessing the impact of epidemic containment measures and vaccinations and estimating the number of infections regardless of viral testing. We assessed antibody-mediated immunity to SARS-CoV-2 induced by infections and vaccinations from April 2020 to December 2022 in Finland by measuring serum IgG to SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein (N-IgG) and spike glycoprotein from randomly selected 18-85-year-old subjects (n = 9794). N-IgG seroprevalence remained at <7% until the last quartile (Q) of 2021. After the emergence of the Omicron variant, N-IgG seroprevalence increased rapidly and was 31% in Q1/2022 and 54% in Q4/2022. Seroprevalence was highest in the youngest age groups from Q2/2022 onwards. We did not observe regional differences in seroprevalence in 2022. We estimated that 51% of the Finnish 18-85-year-old population had antibody-mediated hybrid immunity induced by a combination of vaccinations and infections by the end of 2022. In conclusion, major shifts in the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting population immunity could be observed by serological testing.

Virtual visits at the Helsinki Head and Neck Center during the COVID-19 pandemic: patient safety incidents and the experiences of patients and staff.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, health care had to find new ways to care for patients while reducing infection transmission. The role of telemedicine role has grown exponentially. METHODS: A questionnaire on experiences and satisfaction was sent to the staff of the Head and Neck Center of Helsinki University Hospital and to otorhinolaryngology patients treated remotely between March and June 2020. Additionally, patient safety incident reports were examined for incidents involving virtual visits. RESULTS: Staff (response rate 30.6%, (n = 116)) opinions seemed to be quite polarized. In general, staff felt virtual visits were useful for select groups of patients and certain situations, and beneficial in addition to face-to-face visits, not instead of them. Patients (response rate 11.7%, (n = 77)) gave positive feedback on virtual visits, with savings in time (average 89 min), distance travelled (average 31.4 km) and travel expenses (average 13.84€). CONCLUSIONS: While telemedicine was implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure patient treatment, its usefulness after the pandemic must be examined. Evaluation of treatment pathways is critical to ensure that quality of care is upheld while new treatment protocols are introduced. Telemedicine offers the opportunity to save environmental, temporal, and monetary resources. Nonetheless, the appropriate use of telemedicine is essential, and clinicians must be offered the option to examine and treat patients face-to-face.

Understanding public procurement within the health sector: a priority in a post-COVID-19 world.

Every year, over 250,000 public authorities in the European Union (EU) spend about 14% of GDP on the purchase of services, works and supplies. Many are in the health sector, a sector in which public authorities are the main buyers in many countries. When these purchases exceed threshold values, EU public procurement rules apply. Public procurement is increasingly being promoted as a tool for improving efficiency and contributing to better health outcomes, and as a policy lever for achieving other government goals, such as innovation, the development of small and medium-sized enterprises, sustainable green growth and social objectives like public health and greater inclusiveness. In this paper, we describe the challenges that arise within health care systems with public procurement and identify potential solutions to them. We examined the tendering of pharmaceuticals, health technology, and e-health. In each case we identify a series of challenges relating to the complexity of the procurement process, imbalances in power on either side of transactions and the role of procurement in promoting broader public policy objectives. Finally, we recommend several actions that could stimulate better procurement, and suggest a few areas where further EU cooperation can be pursued.

SARS-CoV-2 indoor environment contamination with epidemiological and experimental investigations.

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. Additionally, more detailed information on viral sampling of the air is needed. This prospective cohort study (N = 56) presents results from 258 air and 252 surface samples from the surroundings of 23 hospitalized and eight home-treated COVID-19 index patients between July 2020 and March 2021 and compares the results between the measured environments and patient factors. Additionally, epidemiological and experimental investigations were performed. The proportions of qRT-PCR-positive air (10.7% hospital/17.6% homes) and surface samples (8.8%/12.9%) showed statistical similarity in hospital and homes. Significant SARS-CoV-2 air contamination was observed in a large (655.25 m3 ) mechanically ventilated (1.67 air changes per hour, 32.4-421 L/s/patient) patient hall even with only two patients present. All positive air samples were obtained in the absence of aerosol-generating procedures. In four cases, positive environmental samples were detected after the patients had developed a neutralizing IgG response. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in the following particle sizes: 0.65-4.7 µm, 7.0-12.0 µm, >10 µm, and <100 µm. Appropriate infection control against airborne and surface transmission routes is needed in both environments, even after antibody production has begun.

Mental well-being of healthcare workers in 2 hospital districts during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Finland: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unseen pressure on healthcare systems in many countries, jeopardizing the mental well-being of healthcare workers. The authors aimed to assess the mental well-being of Finnish healthcare workers from 2 hospital districts (Helsinki University Hospital [HUS] and Social and Health Services in Kymenlaakso [Kymsote]) with differing COVID-19 incidence rates during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total number of 996 healthcare workers (HUS N = 862, Kymsote N = 134) participated in this prospectively conducted survey study during summer 2020. Symptom criteria of self-reported mental health symptoms followed ICD-10 classification, excluding duration criteria. Participants were divided into symptom categories "often/sometimes", and "rarely/never". These groups were compared to sociodemographic factors and factors related to work, workload, and well-being. RESULTS: The degree of mental health symptoms did not differ between the 2 healthcare districts despite differing COVID-19 incidences (p = 1). The authors observed a significant relationship 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: The authors' results show the importance of well-planned and sufficient 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 sufficient recovery. Sufficient control of the epidemic to keep the burden of the healthcare system low is vital for healthcare workers' well-being.

Aerosol generation during general anesthesia is comparable to coughing: An observational clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Intubation, laryngoscopy, and extubation are considered highly aerosol-generating procedures, and additional safety protocols are used during COVID-19 pandemic in these procedures. However, previous studies are mainly experimental and have neither analyzed staff exposure to aerosol generation in the real-life operating room environment nor compared the exposure to aerosol concentrations generated during normal patient care. To assess operational staff exposure to potentially infectious particle generation during general anesthesia, we measured particle concentration and size distribution with patients undergoing surgery with Optical Particle Sizer. METHODS: A single-center observative multidisciplinary clinical study in Helsinki University Hospital with 39 adult patients who underwent general anesthesia with tracheal intubation. Mean particle concentrations during different anesthesia procedures were statistically compared with cough control data collected from 37 volunteers to assess the differences in particle generation. RESULTS: This study measured 25 preoxygenations, 30 mask ventilations, 28 intubations, and 24 extubations. The highest total aerosol concentration of 1153 particles (p)/cm³ was observed during mask ventilation. Preoxygenations, mask ventilations, and extubations as well as uncomplicated intubations generated mean aerosol concentrations statistically comparable to coughing. It is noteworthy that difficult intubation generated significantly fewer aerosols than either uncomplicated intubation (p = .007) or coughing (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesia induction generates mainly small (<1 µm) aerosol particles. Based on our results, general anesthesia procedures are not highly aerosol-generating compared with coughing. Thus, their definition as high-risk aerosol-generating procedures should be re-evaluated due to comparable exposures during normal patient care. IMPLICATION STATEMENT: The list of aerosol-generating procedures guides the use of protective equipments in hospitals. Intubation is listed as a high-risk aerosol-generating procedure, however, aerosol generation has not been measured thoroughly. We measured aerosol generation during general anesthesia. None of the general anesthesia procedures generated statistically more aerosols than coughing and thus should not be considered as higher risk compared to normal respiratory activities.

Sources of healthcare workers' COVID­19 infections and related safety guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of safety guidelines in the workplace, the authors analyzed the work-related exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and the source of COVID­19 infections among healthcare workers (HCWs), together with the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional prospective study was conducted in tertiary hospitals in the Uusimaa region, Finland, with 1072 volunteers being enrolled in the study from among the HCWs at the Helsinki University Hospital. Overall, 866 (80.8%) HCWs (including 588 nurses, 170 doctors, and 108 laboratory and medical imaging nurses) completed the questionnaire by July 15, 2020, with 52% of the participants taking care of COVID­19 patients. The participants answered a structured questionnaire regarding their use of PPE, the ability to follow safety guidelines, exposure to COVID­19, and the source of potential COVID­19 infections. The participants with COVID­19 symptoms were tested with the SARS-CoV-2 realtime polymerase chain reaction method. All infected participants were contacted, and their answers were confirmed regarding COVID­19 exposure. RESULTS: In total, 41 (4.7%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, with 22 (53.6%) of infections being confirmed or likely occupational, and 12 (29.3%) originating from colleagues. In 14 cases (63.6%), occupational infections occurred while using a surgical mask, and all infections originating from patients occurred while using a surgical mask or no mask at all. No occupational infections were found while using an FFP2/3 respirator and following aerosol precautions. The combined odds ratio for working at an intensive care unit, an emergency department, or a ward was 3.4 (95% CI: 1.2-9.2, p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: A high infection rate was found among HCWs despite safety guidelines. Based on these findings, the authors recommend the use of FFP2/3 respirators in all patient contacts with confirmed or suspected COVID­19, along with the use of universal masking, also in personnel rooms. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2021;34(2):239-49.