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
Healthcare workers (HCW) who perform aerosol-generating procedures (AGP) are at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data on infection rates and vaccination are limited. A nationwide, cross-sectional study focusing on AGP-related specialties was conducted between 3 May 2021 and 14 June 2021. Vaccination rates among HCW, perception of infection risk, and infection rates were analyzed, focusing on the comparison of gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) and other AGP-related specialties (NON-GIE), from the beginning of the pandemic until the time point of the study. Infections rates among HCW developed similarly to the general population during the course of the pandemic, however, with significantly higher infections rates among the GIE specialty. The perceived risk of infection was distributed similarly among HCW in GIE and NON-GIE (91.7%, CI: 88.6-94.4 vs. 85.8%, CI: 82.4-89.0; p < 0.01) with strongest perceived threats posed by AGPs (90.8%) and close patient contact (70.1%). The very high vaccination rate (100-80%) among physicians was reported at 83.5%, being significantly more frequently reported than among nurses (56.4%, p < 0.01). GIE had more often stated very high vaccination rate compared with NON-GIE (76.1% vs. 65.3%, p < 0.01). A significantly higher rate of GIE was reported to have fewer concerns regarding infection risk after vaccination than NON-GIE (92.0% vs. 80.3%, p < 0.01).
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a global surge in critically ill patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, some of whom may benefit from tracheostomy. Decisions on if, when, and how to perform tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 have major implications for patients, clinicians, and hospitals. We investigated the tracheostomy protocols and practices that institutions around the world have put into place in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. DATA SOURCES: Protocols for tracheostomy in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection from individual institutions (n = 59) were obtained from the United States and 25 other countries, including data from several low- and middle-income countries, 23 published or society-endorsed protocols, and 36 institutional protocols. REVIEW METHODS: The comparative document analysis involved cross-sectional review of institutional protocols and practices. Data sources were analyzed for timing of tracheostomy, contraindications, preoperative testing, personal protective equipment (PPE), surgical technique, and postoperative management. CONCLUSIONS: Timing of tracheostomy varied from 3 to >21 days, with over 90% of protocols recommending 14 days of intubation prior to tracheostomy. Most protocols advocate delaying tracheostomy until COVID-19 testing was negative. All protocols involved use of N95 or higher PPE. Both open and percutaneous techniques were reported. Timing of tracheostomy changes ranged from 5 to >30 days postoperatively, sometimes contingent on negative COVID-19 test results. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Wide variation exists in tracheostomy protocols, reflecting geographical variation, different resource constraints, and limited data to drive evidence-based care standards. Findings presented herein may provide reference points and a framework for evolving care standards.