Healthcare workers' infection risk perceptions of aerosol-generating procedures and affective response.

Objective: To understand healthcare worker (HCW) perceptions of infection risk associated with aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) and their affective response to performing AGPs. Design: Systematic review. Methods: Systematic searches of PubMed, CINHAL Plus, and Scopus were conducted using combinations of selected keywords and synonyms. To reduce bias, titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility by 2 independent reviewers. Also, 2 independent reviewers extracted data from each eligible record. Discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached. Results: In total, 16 reports from across the globe were included in this review. Findings suggest that AGPs are generally perceived to place HCWs at high risk of becoming infected with respiratory pathogens and that this perception stimulates a negative affective response and hesitancy to participate in the procedures. Conclusions: AGP risk perception are complex and context dependent but have important influences on HCW infection control practices, decision to participate in AGPs, emotional welfare, and workplace satisfaction. New and unfamiliar hazards paired with uncertainty lead to fear and anxiety about personal and others' safety. These fears may create a psychological burden conducive to burnout. Empirical research is needed to thoroughly understand the interplay between HCW risk perceptions of distinct AGPs, their affective responses to conducting these procedures under various conditions, and their resulting decision to participate in these procedures. Results from such studies are essential for advancing clinical practice; they point to methods for mitigating provider distress and better recommendations for when and how to conduct AGPs.

Pulmonary and Critical Care Considerations for e-Cigarette, or Vaping, Product Use-Associated Lung Injury.

BACKGROUND: In 2019, the United States experienced a nationwide outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI). More than one-half of these patients required admission to an ICU. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the recent literature and expert opinions which inform the diagnosis and management of patients with critical illness with EVALI? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: To synthesize information critical to pulmonary/critical care specialists in the care of patients with EVALI, this study examined data available from patients hospitalized with EVALI between August 2019 and January 2020; reviewed the clinical course and critical care experience with those patients admitted to the ICU; and compiled opinion of national experts. RESULTS: Of the 2,708 patients with confirmed or probable EVALI requiring hospitalization as of January 21, 2020, a total of 1,604 (59.2%) had data available on ICU admission; of these, 705 (44.0%) were admitted to the ICU and are included in this analysis. The majority of ICU patients required respiratory support (88.5%) and in severe cases required intubation (36.1%) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (6.7%). The majority (93.0%) of these ICU patients survived to discharge. Review of the clinical course and expert opinion provided insight into: imaging; considerations for bronchoscopy; medical treatment, including use of empiric antibiotics, antiviral agents, and corticosteroids; respiratory support, including considerations for intubation, positioning maneuvers, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; and patient outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Review of the clinical course of patients with EVALI requiring ICU admission and compilation of expert opinion provided critical insight into pulmonary/critical care-specific considerations for this patient population. Because a large proportion of patients hospitalized with EVALI required ICU admission, it is important to remain prepared to care for patients with EVALI.

Emergency department personnel patient care-related COVID-19 risk.

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.

COVID-19 test positivity by occupation using the Delphi US COVID-19 trends and impact survey, September-November 2020.

BACKGROUND: The potential for work to be a risk factor for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was recognized early in the pandemic based on the likelihood of work-related differences in exposures to COVID-19 in different occupations. Due to intense demands of the pandemic, implementation of recommendations to collect information on occupation in relation to COVID-19 has been uneven across the United States. The objective of this study was to investigate COVID-19 test positivity by occupation. METHODS: We analyzed data collected from September 8 to November 30, 2020, by the Delphi Group at Carnegie Mellon University US COVID-19 Trends and Impact Survey, offered daily to a random sample of US-based Facebook users aged 18 years or older, who were invited via a banner in their news feed. Our focus was ever testing positive for COVID-19 in respondents working outside the home for pay in the past 4 weeks. RESULTS: The major occupational groups of "Production", "Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance," "Construction and extraction," "Healthcare support," and "Food preparation and serving" had the five highest test positivity percentages (16.7%-14.4%). Highest detailed occupational categories (28.6%-19.1%) were "Massage therapist," "Food processing worker," "Bailiff, correctional officer, or jailer," "Funeral service worker," "First-line supervisor of production and operating workers," and "Nursing assistant or psychiatric aide." Differences in test positivity by occupation remained after adjustment for age, gender, and pre-existing medical conditions. CONCLUSION: Information on differences in test positivity by occupation can aid targeting of messaging for vaccination and testing and mitigation strategies for the current and future respiratory infection epidemics and pandemics. These results, obtained before availability of COVID-19 vaccines, can form a basis for comparison to evaluate impacts of vaccination and subsequent emergence of viral variants.

Contributions of Emotion Regulation and Brain Structure and Function to Adolescent Internalizing Problems and Stress Vulnerability During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Longitudinal Study.

BACKGROUND: Adolescence is a period of increased vulnerability for internalizing problems, particularly following stressful life events. We examined how emotion regulation and brain structure and function were associated with internalizing problems during the COVID-19 pandemic and moderated the association between pandemic-related stressors and internalizing problems. METHODS: Data are from a longitudinal sample (N = 145, age range, 10-15 years) strategically assessed at 3 crucial time points: before the COVID-19 pandemic, early during the stay-at-home order period, and again 6 months later. We examined associations of amygdala and hippocampal volume and amygdala activation during an emotional processing task before the pandemic, examined use of emotion regulation strategies before and during the pandemic, and examined pandemic-related stressors with internalizing problems. RESULTS: Greater exposure to pandemic-related stressors was associated with higher internalizing problems both early and later in the COVID-19 pandemic. Youths who reported more frequent use of rumination before the pandemic and higher use of expressive suppression and lower use of cognitive reappraisal early in the pandemic had higher internalizing problems early in the pandemic. Higher left amygdala activation to neutral relative to fearful faces before the pandemic was associated with greater internalizing problems and a stronger link between pandemic-related stressors and internalizing problems early in the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Stressors related to the COVID-19 pandemic are strongly associated with adolescent internalizing problems, as are individual differences in emotional reactivity and regulation and their underlying neural mechanisms. Interventions that reduce pandemic-related stressors and foster adaptive emotion regulation skills may protect against adolescent psychopathology during this period of heightened exposure to stress.

Proposed Framework for Considering SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Testing of Unexposed Asymptomatic Workers in Selected Workplaces.

OBJECTIVES: To propose a framework for considering SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing of unexposed asymptomatic workers in selected workplaces. METHODS: This is a commentary based on established occupational safety and health principles, published articles, and other pertinent literature, including non-peer-reviewed preprints in medrixiv.org prior to April 16, 2021. RESULTS: Not applicable to this commentary/viewpoint article. CONCLUSION: Antigen testing is a rapidly evolving and useful public health tool that can be used to guide measures to reduce spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the community and in selected workplaces. This commentary provides a proposed framework for occupational safety and health practitioners and employers for considering antigen testing as a method to screen asymptomatic workers in selected non-healthcare settings. When applied selectively, antigen testing can be a useful, effective part of a comprehensive workplace program for COVID-19 prevention and control.

Considerations for Pooled Testing of Employees for SARS-CoV-2.

OBJECTIVES: To identify important background information on pooled tested of employees that employers workers, and health authorities should consider. METHODS: This paper is a commentary based on the review by the authors of pertinent literature generally from preprints in medrixiv.org prior to August 2020. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: Pooled testing may be particularly useful to employers in communities with low prevalence of COVID-19. It can be used to reduce the number of tests and associated financial costs. For effective and efficient pooled testing employers should consider it as part of a broader, more comprehensive workplace COVID-19 prevention and control program. Pooled testing of asymptomatic employees can prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and help assure employers and customers that employees are not infectious.