ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to create an overview on the COVID-associated burdens faced by the oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) workforce during 1 year of the pandemic. OMS hospitals and private practices nationwide were surveyed regarding health care worker (HCW) screening, infection status, pre-interventional testing, personal protective equipment (PPE), and economic impact. Participants were recruited via the German Society for Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. A total of 11 hospitals (416 employees) and 55 private practices (744 employees) participated. The HCW infection rate was significantly higher in private practices than in clinics (4.7% vs. 1.4%, p<0.01), although most infections in HCW occurred in private environment (hospitals 88.2%, private practice 66.7%). Pre-interventional testing was performed significantly less for outpatients in private practices than in hospitals (90.7% vs. 36.4%, p<0.01). Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used significantly more for inpatients in hospitals than in private practices (100.0% vs. 27.3%, p<0.01). FFP2/3 use rose significantly in hospitals (0% in second quarter vs. 46% in fourth quarter, p<0.05) and private practices (15% in second quarter vs. 38% in fourth quarter, p<0.01). The decrease in procedures (≤50%) was significantly higher in hospitals than in private practices (90.9% vs. 40.0%, p<0.01). Despite higher infection rates in private practices, declining procedures and revenue affected hospitals more. Future COVID-related measures must adjust the infrastructure especially for hospitals to prevent further straining of staff and finances.
ABSTRACT
(1) Background: The COVID-19 pandemic forced healthcare workers to adapt to challenges in both patient care and self-protection. Dental practitioners were confronted with a potentially high possibility of infection transmission due to aerosol-generating procedures. This study aims to present data on healthcare worker (HCW) screening, infection status of HCWs, pre-interventional testing, the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the economic impact of the pandemic in dental facilities. (2) Methods: Dental facilities were surveyed nationwide using an online questionnaire. The acquisition of participants took place in cooperation with the German Society for Dentistry, Oral and Maxillofacial Medicine. (3) Results: A total of 1094 private practices participated. Of these, 39.1% treated fewer than 600 patients per quarter and 59.9% treated over 600 patients per quarter. Pre-interventional testing was rarely performed in either small (6.6%) or large practices (6.0%). Large practices had a significantly higher incidence of at least one SARS-CoV-2-positive HCW than small practices (26.2% vs.14.4%, p < 0.01). The main source of infection in small practices was the private environment, and this was even more significant in large practices (81.8% vs. 89.7%, p < 0.01). The procedure count either remained stable (34.0% of small practices vs. 46.2% of large practices) or decreased by up to 50% (52.6% of small practices vs. 44.4% of large practices). Revenue remained stable (24.8% of small practices vs. 34.2% of large practices) or decreased by up to 50% (64.5% of small practices vs. 55.3% of large practices, p = 0.03). Overall, employee numbers remained stable (75.5% of small practices vs. 76.8% of large practices). A vaccination readiness of 60-100% was shown in 60.5% (n = 405) of large practices and 59.9% (n = 251) of small practices. (4) Conclusion: Pre-interventional testing in dental practices should be increased further. Economic challenges affected small practices as well as large practices. Overall, a steady employee count could be maintained. Vaccination readiness is high in dental practices, although with some room for improvement.