Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
Health Secur ; 21(3): 222-232, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2320476

ABSTRACT

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe of southeastern Massachusetts requested US federal government assistance. The tribe collaborated successfully with many partners in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this case study, the authors describe the tribe's collaboration with a team from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who assisted with epidemiology, case investigation and contact tracing, infection prevention and control, community prevention measures, and vaccination. Collaborative efforts resulted in over 200 public service announcements and videos produced, 55 tribal staff trained, 222 people followed up for contact tracing, 80% of tribal members vaccinated, and 5 COVID-19 response plans written. Deployment response teams learned elements essential to partnering with a Native American tribe. This successful partnership during a rapidly evolving pandemic suggests the US federal government and tribal nations can work together effectively to build response capacity for future infectious disease threats.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , United States , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics/prevention & control , Contact Tracing/methods , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.
2.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 10(3): ofad091, 2023 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2261547

ABSTRACT

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody tests have had limited recommended clinical application during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. To inform clinical practice, an understanding is needed of current perspectives of United States-based infectious disease (ID) physicians on the use, interpretation, and need for SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests. Methods: In March 2022, members of the Emerging Infections Network (EIN), a national network of practicing ID physicians, were surveyed on types of SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays ordered, interpretation of test results, and clinical scenarios for which antibody tests were considered. Results: Of 1867 active EIN members, 747 (40%) responded. Among the 583 who managed or consulted on COVID-19 patients, a majority (434/583 [75%]) had ordered SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests and were comfortable interpreting positive (452/578 [78%]) and negative (405/562 [72%]) results. Antibody tests were used for diagnosing post-COVID-19 conditions (61%), identifying prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (60%), and differentiating prior infection and response to COVID-19 vaccination (37%). Less than a third of respondents had used antibody tests to assess need for additional vaccines or risk stratification. Lack of sufficient evidence for use and nonstandardized assays were among the most common barriers for ordering tests. Respondents indicated that statements from professional societies and government agencies would influence their decision to order SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for clinical decision making. Conclusions: Practicing ID physicians are using SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests, and there is an unmet need for clarifying the appropriate use of these tests in clinical practice. Professional societies and US government agencies can support clinicians in the community through the creation of appropriate guidance.

3.
Ann Emerg Med ; 2022 Nov 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2233404

ABSTRACT

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To describe endotracheal intubation practices in emergency departments by staff intubating patients early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: Multicenter prospective cohort study of endotracheal intubations conducted at 20 US academic emergency departments from May to December 2020, stratified by known or suspected COVID-19 status. We used multivariable regression to measure the association between intubation strategy, COVID-19 known or suspected status, first-pass success, and adverse events. RESULTS: There were 3,435 unique emergency department endotracheal intubations by 586 participating physicians or advanced practice providers; 565 (18%) patients were known or suspected of having COVID-19 at the time of endotracheal intubation. Compared with patients not known or suspected of COVID-19, endotracheal intubations of patients with known or suspected COVID-19 were more often performed using video laryngoscopy (88% versus 82%, difference 6.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0% to 9.6%) and passive nasal oxygenation (44% versus 39%, difference 5.1%; 95% CI, 0.9% to 9.3%). First-pass success was not different between those who were and were not known or suspected of COVID-19 (87% versus 86%, difference 0.6%; 95% CI, -2.4% to 3.6%). Adjusting for patient characteristics and procedure factors in those with low anticipated airway difficulty (n=2,374), adverse events (most commonly hypoxia) occurred more frequently in patients with known or suspected COVID-19 (35% versus 19%, adjusted odds ratio 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.3). CONCLUSION: Compared with patients not known or suspected of COVID-19, endotracheal intubation of those confirmed or suspected to have COVID-19 was associated with a similar first-pass intubation success rate but higher risk-adjusted adverse events.

4.
PLoS One ; 17(7): e0271597, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1957105

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) health care personnel (HCP) are at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study was to determine the attributable risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from providing ED care, describe personal protective equipment use, and identify modifiable ED risk factors. We hypothesized that providing ED patient care increases the probability of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of 1,673 ED physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), nurses, and nonclinical staff at 20 U.S. centers over 20 weeks (May to December 2020; before vaccine availability) to detect a four-percentage point increased SARS-CoV-2 incidence among HCP related to direct patient care. Participants provided monthly nasal and serology specimens and weekly exposure and procedure information. We used multivariable regression and recursive partitioning to identify risk factors. RESULTS: Over 29,825 person-weeks, 75 participants (4.5%) acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection (31 were asymptomatic). Physicians/APPs (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 0.56-2.03) did not have higher risk of becoming infected compared to nonclinical staff, but nurses had a marginally increased risk (aOR 1.91; 95% CI 0.99-3.68). Over 99% of participants used CDC-recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), but PPE lapses occurred in 22.1% of person-weeks and 32.1% of SARS-CoV-2-infected patient intubations. The following factors were associated with infection: household SARS-CoV-2 exposure; hospital and community SARS-CoV-2 burden; community exposure; and mask non-use in public. SARS-CoV-2 intubation was not associated with infection (attributable risk fraction 13.8%; 95% CI -2.0-38.2%), and nor were PPE lapses. CONCLUSIONS: Among unvaccinated U.S. ED HCP during the height of the pandemic, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was similar in nonclinical staff and HCP engaged in direct patient care. Many identified risk factors were related to community exposures.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Emergency Service, Hospital , Health Personnel , Humans , Patient Care , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Public Health Rep ; 137(5): 820-825, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1879190

ABSTRACT

Upon request from tribal nations, and as part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) emergency response, CDC staff provided both remote and on-site assistance to tribes to plan, prepare, and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. From April 2, 2020, through June 11, 2021, CDC deployed a total of 275 staff to assist 29 tribal nations. CDC staff typically collaborated in multiple work areas including epidemiology and surveillance (86%), contact tracing (76%), infection prevention control (72%), community mitigation (72%), health communication (66%), incident command structure (55%), emergency preparedness (38%), and worker safety (31%). We describe the activities of CDC staff in collaboration with 4 tribal nations, Northern Cheyenne, Hoopa Valley, Shoshone-Bannock, and Oglala Sioux Tribe, to combat COVID-19 and lessons learned from the engagement.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Civil Defense , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , United States/epidemiology
6.
Am J Public Health ; 112(3): 397-400, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1701451

ABSTRACT

During the COVID-19 pandemic, media accounts emerged describing faith-based organizations (FBOs) working alongside health departments to support the COVID-19 response. In May 2021, the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO) sent an electronic survey to the 59 ASTHO member jurisdictions and four major US cities to assess state and territorial engagement with FBOs. Findings suggest that public health officials in many jurisdictions were able to work effectively with FBOs during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide essential education and mitigation tools to diverse communities. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(3):397-400. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306620).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/ethnology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Faith-Based Organizations/organization & administration , Health Promotion/organization & administration , Community-Institutional Relations , Faith-Based Organizations/economics , Health Equity , Health Promotion/economics , Humans , Pandemics , Public Health Administration , SARS-CoV-2 , State Government , United States/epidemiology , Vaccination Hesitancy/ethnology
7.
Ann Emerg Med ; 78(1): 35-43.e2, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1179227

ABSTRACT

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Among a comprehensive range of frontline emergency department health care personnel, we assessed symptoms of anxiety and burnout, specific coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) work-related stressors, and risk for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We also determined whether COVID-19 serologic testing of HCP decreased their self-reported anxiety. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study from May 13, 2020, to July 8, 2020, we used electronic surveys to capture participant self-reported symptoms before and after serologic testing for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G antibodies. Participants were physicians, nurses, advanced practice providers, and nonclinical ED personnel at 20 geographically diverse United States EDs. We evaluated these domains: 1) the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on overall stress and anxiety; 2) COVID-19-related work stressors; 3) burnout; and 4) PTSD risk (measured using the Primary Care-PTSD Screen for DSM-5, a 5-item screening instrument in which a score of ≥3 signifies high risk for PTSD). We also assessed perceptions of whether results of COVID-19 antibody testing decreased participants' self-reported anxiety. RESULTS: Of 1,606 participants, 100% and 88% responded to the baseline and follow-up surveys, respectively. At baseline, approximately half (46%) reported symptoms of emotional exhaustion and burnout from their work, and 308 (19.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 17.3% to 21.1%) respondents screened positive for increased PTSD risk. Female respondents were more likely than males to screen positive (odds ratio [OR] 2.03, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.78). Common concerns included exposing their family and the health of coworkers diagnosed with COVID-19. After receiving antibody test results, 54% (95% CI 51.8 to 56.7) somewhat agreed, agreed, or strongly agreed that knowledge of their immune status had decreased their anxiety. A positive serology result indicating prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a higher likelihood of reporting decreased anxiety (2.83, 95% CI 1.37 to 5.83). CONCLUSION: Symptoms of anxiety and burnout were prevalent across the spectrum of ED staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. One-fifth of ED personnel appeared to be at risk for PTSD. Increased provision of serologic testing may help to mitigate anxiety.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic , Anxiety/diagnosis , Anxiety/epidemiology , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Emergency Service, Hospital , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/diagnosis , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/epidemiology , United States/epidemiology
8.
Ann Emerg Med ; 78(1): 27-34, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-987034

ABSTRACT

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We determine the percentage of diagnosed and undiagnosed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among a sample of US emergency department (ED) health care personnel before July 2020. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional analysis of ED health care personnel in 20 geographically diverse university-affiliated EDs from May 13, to July 8, 2020, including case counts of prior laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnoses among all ED health care personnel, and then point-in-time serology (with confirmatory testing) and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing in a sample of volunteers without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Health care staff were categorized as clinical (physicians, advanced practice providers, and nurses) and nonclinical (clerks, social workers, and case managers). Previously undiagnosed infection was based on positive SARS-CoV-2 serology or reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction result among health care personnel without prior diagnosis. RESULTS: Diagnosed COVID-19 occurred in 2.8% of health care personnel (193/6,788), and the prevalence was similar for nonclinical and clinical staff (3.8% versus 2.7%; odds ratio 1.5; 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.2). Among 1,606 health care personnel without previously diagnosed COVID-19, 29 (1.8%) had evidence of current or past SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most (62%; 18/29) who were seropositive did not think they had been infected, 76% (19/25) recalled COVID-19-compatible symptoms, and 89% (17/19) continued to work while symptomatic. Accounting for both diagnosed and undiagnosed infections, 4.6% (95% confidence interval 2.8% to 7.5%) of ED health care personnel were estimated to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with 38% of those infections undiagnosed. CONCLUSION: In late spring and early summer 2020, the estimated prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection was 4.6%, and greater than one third of infections were undiagnosed. Undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection may pose substantial risk for transmission to other staff and patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Hospitals, University/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , United States/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL