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
BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at a high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to exposure to potentially infectious material, especially during aerosol-generating procedures (AGP). We aimed to investigate risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs in medical disciplines with AGP. METHODS: A nationwide questionnaire-based study in private practices and hospital settings was conducted between 12/16/2020 and 01/24/2021. Data on SARS-CoV-2 infections among HCWs and potential risk factors of infection were investigated. RESULTS: 2070 healthcare facilities with 25113 employees were included in the study. The overall infection rate among HCWs was 4.7%. Multivariate analysis showed that regions with higher incidence rates had a significantly increased risk of infection. Furthermore, hospital setting and HCWs in gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) had more than double the risk of infection (OR 2.63; 95% CI 2.50-2.82, p<0.01 and OR 2.35; 95% CI 2.25-2.50, p<0.01). For medical facilities who treated confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases, there was a tendency towards higher risk of infection (OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.11-1.63, p=0.068). CONCLUSION: Both factors within and outside medical facilities appear to be associated with an increased risk of infection among HCWs. Therefore, GIE and healthcare delivery setting were related to increased infection rates. Regions with higher SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates were also significantly associated with increased risk of infection.
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.