Occupational differences in COVID-19 incidence, severity, and mortality in the United Kingdom: Available data and framework for analyses

There are important differences in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and death depending on occupation. Infections in healthcare workers have received the most attention, and there are clearly increased risks for intensive care unit workers who are caring for COVID-19 patients. However, a number of other occupations may also be at an increased risk, particularly those which involve social care or contact with the public. A large number of data sets are available with the potential to assess occupational risks of COVID-19 incidence, severity, or mortality. We are reviewing these data sets as part of the Partnership for Research in Occupational, Transport, Environmental COVID Transmission (PROTECT) initiative, which is part of the National COVID-19 Core Studies. In this report, we review the data sets available (including the key variables on occupation and potential confounders) for examining occupational differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 incidence, severity and mortality. We also discuss the possible types of analyses of these data sets and the definitions of (occupational) exposure and outcomes. We conclude that none of these data sets are ideal, and all have various strengths and weaknesses. For example, mortality data suffer from problems of coding of COVID-19 deaths, and the deaths (in England and Wales) that have been referred to the coroner are unavailable. On the other hand, testing data is heavily biased in some periods (particularly the first wave) because some occupations (e.g. healthcare workers) were tested more often than the general population. Random population surveys are, in principle, ideal for estimating population prevalence and incidence, but are also affected by non-response. Thus, any analysis of the risks in a particular occupation or sector (e.g. transport), will require a careful analysis and triangulation of findings across the various available data sets. Copyright: .. 2023 Pearce N et al.

Sleepiness and safety at work among night shift NHS nurses.

BACKGROUND: Sleepiness associated with night shift working (NSW) is known to adversely affect workers' health and well-being. It has been associated with adverse safety outcomes and is a recognized workplace hazard among healthcare workers. AIMS: This study was aimed to assess the prevalence of self-reported sleepiness in NSW nurses and midwives. This study also explored the consequences of sleepiness on safety at work and driving. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of NSW nurses and midwives was conducted at an National Health Service (NHS) hospital trust from 16 March 2020 to 1 June 2020. Data were collected by online questionnaire and included information on demographics, shift work and safety aspects. Sleepiness was assessed with the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). RESULTS: Data collection coincided with the first coronavirus pandemic peak in England. Out of 1985 eligible NSW nurses and midwives, 229 participated in the study, with a response rate of 12%. The prevalence of sleepiness was 28%. Following a night shift, 49% of nurses reported nodding off at the wheel and 44% reported a near-miss car accident in past 12 months. An abnormal ESS score was significantly associated with near-miss car accidents (odds ratio [OR] 2.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-5.77) and with low confidence in undertaking complex tasks at night (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.20-5.84). CONCLUSIONS: More than a quarter of NSW nurses and midwives reported excessive daytime sleepiness although, due to the low response rate, this may not be representative. Adverse driving events were common. Elevated ESS scores correlated well with safety issues relating to work and driving.

Skin and respiratory ill-health attributed to occupational face mask use.

BACKGROUND: Face mask use in the workplace has become widespread since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and has been anecdotally linked to adverse health consequences. AIMS: To examine reports of adverse health consequences of occupational face mask use received by The Health and Occupation Research (THOR) network before and after the pandemic onset. METHODS: THOR databases were searched to identify all cases of ill-health attributed to 'face mask' or similar suspected causative agent between 1 January 2010 and 30 June 2021. RESULTS: Thirty two cases were identified in total, 18 reported by occupational physicians and 14 by dermatologists. Seventy-five per cent of cases were reported after the pandemic onset and 91% cases were in the health and social care sector. 25 of the 35 (71%) diagnoses were dermatological, the most frequent diagnoses being contact dermatitis (14 cases) and folliculitis/acne (6 cases). Of the seven respiratory diagnoses, four were exacerbation of pre-existing asthma. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence of an abrupt increase in reports of predominantly dermatological ill-health attributed to occupational face mask use since the start of the pandemic. Respiratory presentations have also occurred.

Contributors to stress and burnout in junior doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction: Junior doctors have reported high levels of burnout and additional stressors emerging from the COVID-19 pandemic may further accelerate burnout. There is a need to identify which stressors are most likely to lead to burnout in order to develop appropriate interventions. This project therefore aims to compile a comprehensive list of stressors relevant to junior doctors and assesses which stressors are most strongly associated with burnout. Materials and Methods: An anonymous online questionnaire was sent in July 2020 to 1000 randomly selected junior doctors in the North West of England. It included 37 questions on general and pandemic specific stressors and the Maslach Burnout Inventory Health Services Survey. Stepwise regression analysis was undertaken to explore associations between stressors and burnout. Results and Conclusions: In total, 326 responses were received. Six of the 10 highest rated stressors were specific to the pandemic. Fatigue (β=0.43), pandemic-related workload increase (β=0.33) and feeling isolated (β=0.24) had the strongest associations with Emotional Exhaustion. Fatigue (β=0.24), uncertainty around COVID-19 information (β=0.22) and doing unfulfilling tasks (β =0.22) had the strongest associations with Depersonalisation. Lacking in ability (β=-0.24) and not feeling valued (β=-0.20) had the strongest associations with Personal Accomplishment. In conclusion, junior doctors reported a combination of general and pandemic-specific stressors that significantly impact burnout. Monitoring these stressors and targeting them as part of interventions could help mitigate burnout in junior doctors.

Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:. To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection relative to other interventions or no intervention. Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.