Working conditions for healthcare workers at a Swedish university hospital infectious disease department during the COVID-19 pandemic: barriers and facilitators to maintaining employee wellbeing.

Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) at infectious disease departments have held the frontline during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to maintaining the employees' wellbeing that may be used to increase preparedness for future pandemics within ID Departments. Methods: In September 2020, a web-based survey on demographics and work environment was distributed to all HCWs at the Infectious Disease Department at Sahlgrenska University Hospital. Results were compared with a pre-COVID-19 survey from October 2019. A quantitative analysis of the overall effects of the pandemic on the working conditions of HCWs was conducted; in addition, a qualitative content analysis of open-ended responses was performed. Results: In total, 222 and 149 HCWs completed the pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 surveys (84 and 54% response rate), respectively. Overall, we found significant changes regarding increased workload, lack of emotional support in stressful work situations, and inability to recover after shifts. These factors correlated both with younger age and concern of becoming infected. The open-ended answers (n = 103, 69%) revealed five generic categories (Workload; Organizational support; Worry and ethical stress; Capability; and Cooperation and unity) with a total of 14 identified factors representing plausible individual and organizational-level barriers or facilitators to sustained employee wellbeing. Conclusion: Younger HCWs as well as those expressing worries about contracting the infection were found to be particularly affected during the COVID-19 pandemic and these groups may require additional support in future outbreaks. Factors both increasing and decreasing the pandemic-induced negative health consequences for HCWs were identified; this knowledge may be utilized in the future.

Longevity of Immunoglobulin-G Antibody Response Against Nucleocapsid Protein Against SARS-CoV-2 Among Healthcare Workers.

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused the latest pandemic and the most significant challenge in public health worldwide. Studying the longevity of naturally developed antibodies is highly important clinically and epidemiologically. This paper assesses the longevity of antibodies developed against nucleocapsid protein amongst our health-care workers. Methods: This longitudinal cohort study was conducted at a tertiary hospital, Saudi Arabia. Anti-SARSsCoV-2 antibodies were tested among health-care workers at three-point intervals (baseline, eight weeks, and 16 weeks). Results: Of the 648 participants, 112 (17.2%) tested positive for Coronavirus (COVID-19) by PCR before the study. Of all participants, 87 (13.4%) tested positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, including 17 (2.6%) participants who never tested positive for COVID-19 using rt-PCR. Out of the 87 positive IgG participants at baseline, only 12 (13.7%) had remained positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies by the end of the study. The IgG titer showed a significant reduction in values over time, where the median time for the confirmed positive rt-PCR subgroup from infection to the last positive antibody test was 70 (95% CI: 33.4-106.5) days. Conclusion: Health-care workers are at high risk of exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and contracting an asymptomatic infection is not unlikely. Developing and sustaining natural immunity differs from one person to another, while the rate of positive IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 wanes over time. Clinicaltrialsgov Identifier: NCT04469647, July 14, 2020.

Analysis and comparison of SARS-CoV-2 variant antibodies and neutralizing activity for 6 months after a booster mRNA vaccine in a healthcare worker population.

Introduction: In the context of recurrent surges of SARS-CoV-2 infections, a detailed characterization of antibody persistence over a 6-month period following vaccine booster dose is necessary to crafting effective public health policies on repeat vaccination. Methods: To characterize the SARS-CoV-2 antibody profile of a healthcare worker population over a 6-month period following mRNA vaccination and booster dose. 323 healthcare workers at an academic medical center in Orange County, California who had completed primary vaccination and booster dose against SARS-CoV-2 were recruited for the study. A total of 690 blood specimens over a 6-month period were collected via finger-stick blood and analyzed for the presence of antibodies against 9 SARS-CoV-2 antigens using a coronavirus antigen microarray. Results: The primary outcome of this study was the average SARS-CoV-2 antibody level as measured using a novel coronavirus antigen microarray. Additional outcomes measured include levels of antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2 variants including Delta, Omicron BA.1, and BA.2. We also measured SARS-CoV-2 neutralization capacity for a subset of the population to confirm correlation with antibody levels. Although antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 wane throughout the 6-month period following a booster dose, antibody levels remain higher than pre-boost levels. However, a booster dose of vaccine based on the original Wuhan strain generates approximately 3-fold lower antibody reactivity against Omicron variants BA.1 and BA.2 as compared to the vaccine strain. Despite waning antibody levels, neutralization activity against the vaccine strain is maintained throughout the 6-month period. Discussion: In the context of recurrent surges of SARS-CoV-2 infections, our data indicate that breakthrough infections are likely driven by novel variants with different antibody specificity and not by time since last dose of vaccination, indicating that development of vaccinations specific to these novel variants is necessary to prevent future surges of SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Locating Medical Information during an Infodemic: Information Seeking Behavior and Strategies of Health-Care Workers in Germany.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a flood of-often contradictory-evidence. HCWs had to develop strategies to locate information that supported their work. We investigated the information-seeking of different HCW groups in Germany. METHODS: In December 2020, we conducted online surveys on COVID-19 information sources, strategies, assigned trustworthiness, and barriers-and in February 2021, on COVID-19 vaccination information sources. Results were analyzed descriptively; group comparisons were performed using χ2-tests. RESULTS: For general COVID-19-related medical information (413 participants), non-physicians most often selected official websites (57%), TV (57%), and e-mail/newsletters (46%) as preferred information sources-physicians chose official websites (63%), e-mail/newsletters (56%), and professional journals (55%). Non-physician HCWs used Facebook/YouTube more frequently. The main barriers were insufficient time and access issues. Non-physicians chose abstracts (66%), videos (45%), and webinars (40%) as preferred information strategy; physicians: overviews with algorithms (66%), abstracts (62%), webinars (48%). Information seeking on COVID-19 vaccination (2700 participants) was quite similar, however, with newspapers being more often used by non-physicians (63%) vs. physician HCWs (70%). CONCLUSION: Non-physician HCWs more often consulted public information sources. Employers/institutions should ensure the supply of professional, targeted COVID-19 information for different HCW groups.

Workplace aggression against healthcare workers in a Spanish healthcare institution between 2019 and 2021: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objectives: Describe the incidence of first aggressions among healthcare workers (HCWs) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in a Spanish healthcare institution, according to workers' socio-occupational characteristics and analyze the impact of the pandemic on it. Methods: A cohort involving HCWs who worked in the institution for at least 1 week each year from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2021. Adjusted relative risks (aRR) were estimated using generalized estimating equations and negative binomial models to calculate the differences in WPA between the different time periods. All analyses were stratified by gender. Results: Among women, the incidence was 6.8% (6.0; 7.8) during the pre-COVID-19 period, 6.0% (5.2; 7.0) during the COVID-19 baseline and 5.1% (4.3; 5.9) during the COVID-19 endline; and 4.6% (3.4; 6.1), 5.3% (4.1; 6.8) and 4.4% (3.5; 5.8), respectively, among men. Among men, the incidence of WPA was 4.6 (3.4; 6.1), 5.3 (4.1; 6.8), and 4.4% (3.5; 5.8), respectively. These incidences were significantly higher among male nurses and aides [11.1 (8.0; 15.4), 12.3 (8.9; 16.6), and 9.3% (6.5; 13.3) during each period] and psychiatric center workers [women: 14.7 (11.2; 19.0), 15.4 (11.8; 19.8), and 12.4% (9.2; 16.6); men: 12.3 (7.2; 20.0), 17.8 (11.6; 26.2), and 14.3% (8.8; 22.4)]. Among women, the risk of WPA was 23% lower in the post-COVID-19 period compared to before the pandemic [aRR = 0.77 (0.64; 0.93)], while the risk during the COVID-19 baseline was not significantly different [aRR = 0.89 (0.74; 1.06)]. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic led to an unexpected decrease in first-time WPA against HCWs. However, ~5% of HCWs experienced at least one incidence of aggression in the last follow-up year. Healthcare managers should continue to increase the prevention of aggression against HCWs, especially among vulnerable groups with a higher level of incidence.

The impact of the global COVID-19 pandemic on risk factors for suicide in healthcare workers: A narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Suicide is a leading cause of death in the United States. Worldwide, over 700,000 people die by suicide each year. Healthcare workers are more vulnerable to suicide risk factors than the general population. The global COVID-19 pandemic presents additional workplace and health concerns that relate to suicide risk factors in healthcare workers. It is important to recognise suicide risk factors in healthcare workers and to implement strategies to reduce these risk factors. OBJECTIVES: This study describes the impact of the global COVID-19 pandemic on risk factors for suicide in healthcare workers and identifies evidence-based strategies and resources to reduce suicide risk factors in healthcare workers. DESIGN: The authors conducted a thematic analysis and narrative review of the literature. METHODS: Using health science databases, the authors searched the literature, selected and analyzed studies, identified themes, synthesised findings and created a narrative review. The STROBE checklist was used in this study. RESULTS: Two themes were identified (1) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on work-related suicide risk factors in healthcare workers; (2) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health-related suicide risk factors in healthcare workers. The pandemic has affected suicide risk factors in healthcare workers. Many studies discussed evidence-based strategies and resources that can be used to reduce suicide risk factors. CONCLUSION: The global COVID-19 pandemic has negatively impacted suicide risk factors in healthcare workers. It is time for individuals and healthcare delivery systems to implement suicide risk prevention strategies to protect healthcare workers now and in the future. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This review increases awareness of the pandemic's impact on healthcare workers' risk factors for suicide and identifies evidence-based suicide risk prevention strategies and resources for healthcare workers. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Library services supported this research by generating search strategies and providing resources and tools.

The psychological impact of COVID-19 on healthcare work force in the Middle East region C-S study.

Introduction: COVID-19, is one of the biggest challenges facing humanity in the 21st century (1). The pandemic outbreak as affected all human activities, starting with healthcare and medical service passing with economy and social relationships, as well as political, religious and cultural enactments (2). The healthcare workers were the most affected fighting in the frontline working longer hours under a high risk of being infected (3). This study aims to assess the depression, anxiety and stress levels of the healthcare workforce (physicians, nurses, pharmacists and dentists) in the Middle East and North Africa-MENA-region. Methods: We invited healthcare workers in the Middle East to participate in our cross-sectional survey by answering to the DASS-21 questionnaire. Results: A total of 4,845 healthcare workers participated in the study. The participants were from 11 countries as follows: 436 from Egypt, 430 from Algeria, 458 from Iraq, 453 from Jordan, 473 from Libya, 428 from Palestine, 419 from Saudi Arabia, 452 from Sudan, 451 from Syria, 424 from Tunisia, and 421 from Yemen. The doctors among the healthcare workers were 51.7%, 19.0% were from the nursing staff, 16.8% were pharmacists, and 12.5% were from dentists. The depression level among the healthcare workers was as follows: 29.1% were normal, 13.7% were mildly depressed, 26.9% were moderately depressed, 14.4% were suffering from severe depression, and the depression state was extremely severe for the last 15.9%. At the same time, 29.1% were suffering from no anxiety, while 6.9% were at a mild level, 22.3% were at a moderate level, 13.4% were at a severe level, and 28.3% were at an extremely severe level. For the stress levels, 38.6% were normal, 14.9% were suffering from mild stress, 20.3% were moderate, 17.4% were severe, and the stress level was extremely severe for the other 8.9%. Discussion: This study indicates that in the Middle East and North Africa-MENA-region, the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress among the healthcare workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic was 70.9, 70.9, 61.4, respectively.

Psychological wellbeing and the association with burnout in a cohort of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Burnout, depression, and anxiety are prevalent among healthcare workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic and have been previously shown to contribute to poor health outcomes and reduced quality of care. Positive psychological constructs such as positive affect and meaning and purpose are related to resilience in the face of significant stress. No studies have examined these associations among a cohort of HCWs during this pandemic. The purpose of this study was to examine the association of depression, anxiety, positive affect, and meaning and purpose with burnout among HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. We utilized data from a cross-sectional survey conducted between September 29-December 8, 2021, among a cohort of 2,411 HCWs from a large, tertiary academic health care system in the Chicago area. We employed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures for depression, anxiety, positive affect, and meaning and purpose and burnout was measured by the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI). The majority (80.88%) of HCWs in this study identified as White, Non-Hispanic race/ethnicity, female sex (82.37%), and roughly one third were between ages 30-39 years old (30.98%). Registered nurses (26.96%) accounted for the largest single occupation group. The mean burnout score was 36.87 (SD = 7.65), with 53.38% of participants classified as having burnout, and registered nurses demonstrating the highest proportions of burnout (63.54%). Higher depression (coef = 0.15, SE = 0.03, p < 0.001) and anxiety (coef = 0.25, SE = 0.02, p < 0.001) scores were associated with higher burnout in multivariable linear regression models. Increased positive affect (coef= -0.19, SE= 0.02, p < 0.001) and meaning and purpose (coef= -0.12, SE= 0.01, p < 0.001) scores were significantly associated with reduced burnout. Positive affect and meaning and purpose were inversely associated with burnout among a cohort of HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous studies of positive affect and meaning and purpose suggest the potential buffering effect that these indices may have on burnout. Future research is needed to examine the effect of positive affect and meaning and purpose on mitigating the negative impacts of burnout, depression, and anxiety among HCWs as they cope with the stress of the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Determinants of anti-S immune response at 6 months after COVID-19 vaccination in a multicentric European cohort of healthcare workers - ORCHESTRA project.

Background: The duration of immune response to COVID-19 vaccination is of major interest. Our aim was to analyze the determinants of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titer at 6 months after 2-dose vaccination in an international cohort of vaccinated healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: We analyzed data on levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike antibodies and sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of 6,327 vaccinated HCWs from 8 centers from Germany, Italy, Romania and Slovakia. Time between 1st dose and serology ranged 150-210 days. Serological levels were log-transformed to account for the skewness of the distribution and normalized by dividing them by center-specific standard errors, obtaining standardized values. We fitted center-specific multivariate regression models to estimate the cohort-specific relative risks (RR) of an increase of 1 standard deviation of log antibody level and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), and finally combined them in random-effects meta-analyses. Results: A 6-month serological response was detected in 99.6% of HCWs. Female sex (RR 1.10, 95%CI 1.00-1.21), past infection (RR 2.26, 95%CI 1.73-2.95) and two vaccine doses (RR 1.50, 95%CI 1.22-1.84) predicted higher IgG titer, contrary to interval since last dose (RR for 10-day increase 0.94, 95%CI 0.91-0.97) and age (RR for 10-year increase 0.87, 95%CI 0.83-0.92). M-RNA-based vaccines (p<0.001) and heterologous vaccination (RR 2.46, 95%CI 1.87-3.24, one cohort) were associated with increased antibody levels. Conclusions: Female gender, young age, past infection, two vaccine doses, and m-RNA and heterologous vaccination predicted higher antibody level at 6 months. These results corroborate previous findings and offer valuable data for comparison with trends observed with longer follow-ups.

SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology, antibody dynamics, and neutralisation capacity in Irish healthcare workers in the era of booster COVID-19 vaccinations.

Background: The PRECISE Study, a multi-phase cross-sectional seroprevalence study of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Irish healthcare workers (HCW) investigated: (1) risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity, (2) the durability of antibody responses in a highly vaccinated HCW cohort, and (3) the neutralisation capacity of detected antibodies, prior to booster COVID-19 vaccination. Materials and methods: Serology samples were collected across two hospital sites in November 2021 and analysed using the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2/Elecsys-S Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays to detect anti-nucleocapsid (N) and anti-spike (S) antibodies respectively. Paired serology results from prior study phases were used to analyse changes in individual HCW serostatus over time. Risk-factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection were assessed for demographic and work-related factors. Antibody neutralisation capacity was assessed in a subset of samples via an in vitro ACE2 binding enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Results: 2,344 HCW samples were analysed. Median age was 43 years (IQR 33-50) with 80.5% (n = 1,886) female participants. Irish (78.9%, n = 1,850) and Asian (12.3%, n = 288) were the most commonly reported ethnicities. Nursing/midwifery (39.3%, n = 922) was the most common job role. 97.7% of participants were fully vaccinated, with Pfizer (81.1%, n = 1,902) and AstraZeneca (16.1%, n = 377) the most common vaccines received. Seroprevalence for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies indicating prior infection was 23.4%, of these 33.6% represented previously undiagnosed infections. All vaccinated participants demonstrated positive anti-S antibodies and in those with paired serology, no individual demonstrated loss of previously positive anti-S status below assay threshold for positivity. Interval loss of anti-N antibody positivity was demonstrated in 8.8% of previously positive participants with paired results. Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity suggestive of previous infection included age 18-29 years (aRR 1.50, 95% CI 1.19-1.90, p < 0.001), India as country of birth (aRR 1.35, 95% CI 1.01-1.73, p = 0.036), lower education level (aRR 1.35, 95% CI 1.11-1.66, p = 0.004) and HCA job role (aRR 2.12, 95% CI 1.51-2.95, p < 0.001). Antibody neutralisation varied significantly by anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody status, with highest levels noted in those anti-N positive, in particular those with vaccination plus previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Conclusion: All vaccinated HCWs maintained anti-S positivity prior to COVID-19 booster vaccination, however anti-N positivity was more dynamic over time. Antibody neutralisation capacity was highest in participants with COVID-19 vaccination plus prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Single-center Haemodialysis Experience in India During COVID-19.

Introduction: Since COVID-19 has been announced as a pandemic, outcome of dialysis patients in terms of morbidity and mortality from India is lacking. We studied the clinical, epidemiological features of COVID-19 along with outcome in terms of mortality in our dialysis cohort. Methods: Data of End-Stage Kidney Disease (ESKD) patients who were admitted in COVID-19 designated hospital block as positive and suspected patients from 1st April 2020 to 31st July 2020 was retrieved. Data about epidemiological characteristics, clinical features, mortality outcomes of COVID-19 positive and negative patients were analyzed. Results: A total of 97 ESKD patients were admitted during the study period, of which 44 (45.4%) and 53 (54.6%) patients were found to be COVID-19 positive and negative respectively. The mean age of COVID positive patients was 46 years with 54.5% being female. Only three patients (6.8%) remained asymptomatic throughout the course of illness. Amongst COVID-19 positive, 20 (45.45%) were severely ill while 18 (40.9%) were having mild illnesses. Breathlessness (65.9%) and fever (61.4%) were common symptoms. The death occurred in 17 (38.6%) and 25 (47.1%) COVID-19 positive and negative ESKD patients respectively. 14 (82.3%) patients who expired amongst COVID-19 positive were having severe illness and significantly more were associated with negligible residual renal function. Conclusions: Breathlessness and fever were common symptoms amongst COVID-19 ESKD patients. Very few patients remained asymptomatic in our cohort and significantly more mortality is observed in severely ill patients and those with negligible residual renal function.

Impact of Personal Protective Equipment on the Quality of Chest Compressions in Prehospital Care: A Prospective Randomized Crossover Study

Introduction:The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in prehospital emergency care has significantly increased since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Several studies investigating the potential effects of PPE use by Emergency Medical Service providers on the quality of chest compressions during resuscitation have been inconclusive.Study Objectives:This study aimed to determine whether the use of PPE affects the quality of chest compressions or influences select physiological biomarkers that are associated with stress.Methods:This was a prospective randomized, quasi-experimental crossover study with 35 Emergency Medical Service providers who performed 20 minutes of chest compressions on a manikin. Two iterations were completed in a randomized order: (1) without PPE and (2) with PPE consisting of Tyvek, goggles, KN95 mask, and nitrile gloves. The rate and depth of chest compressions were measured. Salivary cortisol, lactate, end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2), and body temperature were measured before and after each set of chest compressions.Results:There were no differences in the quality of chest compressions (rate and depth) between the two groups (P >.05). After performing chest compressions, the group with PPE did not have elevated levels of cortisol, lactate, or EtCO2 when compared to the group without PPE, but did have a higher body temperature (P <.001).Conclusion:The use of PPE during resuscitation did not lower the quality of chest compressions, nor did it lead to higher stress-associated biomarker levels, with the exception of body temperature.

Establishing local manufacture of PPE for healthcare workers in the time of a global pandemic.

A face shield is a secondary personal protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers (HCW). Worn with the appropriate face masks/respirators, it provides short term barrier protection against potentially infectious droplet particles. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused a spike in demand for PPE, leading to a shortage and risking the safety of HCW. Transport restrictions further challenged the existing PPE supply chain which has been reliant on overseas-based manufacturers. Despite the urgency in demand, PPE must be properly tested for functionality and quality. We describe the establishment of local face shields manufacture in Western Australia to ensure adequate PPE for HCW. Ten thousand face shields for general use (standard) and for ear, nose and throat (ENT) specialist use were produced. Materials and design considerations are described, and the face shields were vigorously tested to the relevant Standards to ensure their effectiveness as a protective barrier, including splash and impact resistance. Comparative testing with traditional and other novel face shields was also undertaken. Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) licence was obtained to manufacture and supply the face shields as a Class I medical device. The swiftness of process is a credit to collaboration from industry, academia and healthcare.

Perception and Practice on Different COVID-19 Vaccines and Precautionary Dose: A Study among Health Care Workers

Background: Health care workers (HCW's) belong to high-risk group and at the same time being the role model to the general population. Current study was undertaken to assess the general level of trust, acceptance and fear on different COVID-19 vaccines among them. Material(s) and Method(s): An online questionnaire were distributed to all the HCW's through WhatsApp link between 1 March 2022 and 30 April 2022 to evaluate the perception and practices on different COVID 19 vaccines and precautionary dose using a snowball sampling method using self-designed structured questionnaire. Result(s): A total of 434 HCWs participated, with doctors (38.5%) and nursing staff (44.30%) nursing students (9.50%), medical students (6%) and others (1.70%). 96% were vaccinated for both first and second dose with only 32.3% for precautionary dose. The main reason for not receiving second dose is that 30 were recently positive for COVID infection and 17 respondents were not convinced with study results. Only 2% took different vaccine for second dose due to non-availability of first vaccine, doubt regarding the efficacy of the vaccine, belief in taking two different vaccines for stronger immunity. Participants took different vaccine for precautionary dose due to non-availability of the vaccine (15.4%), belief in taking two different vaccines provides stronger immunity (76.9%) and shift of residence (7.7%). Conclusion(s): Majority of the HCW's in our study have a modest acceptance towards second dose and precautionary dose. Institutions and other health care set up should scale up educational efforts to disseminate reliable information about different COVID vaccine and provide recommendations about receiving a vaccine booster to promote herd immunity. Copyright © 2023, Dr Yashwant Research Labs Pvt Ltd. All rights reserved.

Development of a non-contact mobile screening center for infectious diseases: Effects of ventilation improvement on aerosol transmission prevention.

Under the global landscape of the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic, the number of individuals who need to be tested for COVID-19 through screening centers is increasing. However, the risk of viral infection during the screening process remains significant. To limit cross-infection in screening centers, a non-contact mobile screening center (NCMSC) that uses negative pressure booths to improve ventilation and enable safe, fast, and convenient COVID-19 testing is developed. This study investigates aerosol transmission and ventilation control for eliminating cross-infection and for rapid virus removal from the indoor space using numerical analysis and experimental measurements. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations were used to evaluate the ventilation rate, pressure differential between spaces, and virus particle removal efficiency in NCMSC. We also characterized the airflow dynamics of NCMSC that is currently being piloted using particle image velocimetry (PIV). Moreover, design optimization was performed based on the air change rates and the ratio of supply air (SA) to exhaust air (EA). Three ventilation strategies for preventing viral transmission were tested. Based on the results of this study, standards for the installation and operation of a screening center for infectious diseases are proposed.

Frontline healthcare workers' perspectives on interprofessional teamwork during COVID-19.

Effective interprofessional teamwork serves an important role in successful crisis response. Responses to past public health crises have relied on interprofessional communication and trust to support healthcare worker (HCW) resiliency. To understand interprofessional interactions and perceptions of teamwork during the COVID-19 response, we conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 18 inpatient HCWs (11 bedside nurses, 5 care coordinators, and 2 pharmacists) from one VA Medical Center between March and June 2020. Using thematic analysis, we identified four key themes that describe the strengths and challenges of interprofessional teamwork, communication, patient care, and organizational response during the initial COVID-19 surge. Interprofessional teams were fragmented. HCWs who transitioned to remote work lost their status on inpatient teams and struggled to provide pre-pandemic levels of quality of care. Conversely, interprofessional teamwork improved for HCWs who continued to work on inpatient units, where study participants described a decline in interprofessional hierarchies and an increase in mutual support. Participants described the need for timely, accurate, transparent communication as they faced new patient safety and communication challenges brought on by the pandemic. HCWs expressed a desire for sustained leadership support and inclusion in institutional decision-making. The challenges to teamwork, communication, and patient care reported in this study highlight the need for consistent, transparent communication and organizational response from hospital leadership during times of crisis.

An observational multi-centric COVID-19 sequelae study among health care workers.

Background: India has seen more than 43 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 as of April 2022, with a recovery rate of 98.8%, resulting in a large section of the population including the healthcare workers (HCWs), susceptible to develop post COVID sequelae. This study was carried out to assess the nature and prevalence of medical sequelae following COVID-19 infection, and risk factors, if any. Methods: This was an observational, multicenter cross-sectional study conducted at eight tertiary care centers. The consenting participants were HCWs between 12 and 52 weeks post discharge after COVID-19 infection. Data on demographics, medical history, clinical features of COVID-19 and various symptoms of COVID sequelae was collected through specific questionnaire. Finding: Mean age of the 679 eligible participants was 31.49 ± 9.54 years. The overall prevalence of COVID sequelae was 30.34%, with fatigue (11.5%) being the most common followed by insomnia (8.5%), difficulty in breathing during activity (6%) and pain in joints (5%). The odds of having any sequelae were significantly higher among participants who had moderate to severe COVID-19 (OR 6.51; 95% CI 3.46-12.23) and lower among males (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.39-0.76). Besides these, other predictors for having sequelae were age (≥45 years), presence of any comorbidity (especially hypertension and asthma), category of HCW (non-doctors vs doctors) and hospitalisation due to COVID-19. Interpretation: Approximately one-third of the participants experienced COVID sequelae. Severity of COVID illness, female gender, advanced age, co-morbidity were significant risk factors for COVID sequelae. Funding: This work is a part of Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR)- Rational Use of Medicines network. No additional financial support was received from ICMR to carry out the work, for study materials, medical writing, and APC.

Monkeypox Disease (MPOX) Perceptions among Healthcare Workers versus General Population during the First Month of the WHO Alert: Cross-Sectional Survey in Saudi Arabia.

Background: Monkeypox disease (MPOX) recently re-emerged in May 2022, causing international outbreaks in multiple non-endemic countries. This study demonstrates a novel comparison between the knowledge and perceptions of Saudi healthcare workers (HCWs) and the general public regarding MPOX. Methods: An online survey, conducted from 27 May to 5 June 2022, assessing participants' MPOX and monkeypox virus (MPV) knowledge in terms of transmission, vaccination, isolation precautions, and their attitudes toward seeking more information. Results: A total of 1546 members of the public and 1130 HCWs completed the survey. Briefly, 61.3% of the public and 74.2% of HCWs showed interest in seeking more information about MPOX. Both groups had average overall mean MPOX knowledge scores. Members of the public holding university degrees and those showing high levels of worry regarding MPOX had significantly higher knowledge scores. However, HCWs showed a poor vaccination knowledge score, while only 57% recognized that MPOX can present similarly to COVID-19 in the early stages. Female HCWs and those with high self-rated MPOX awareness had significantly high knowledge scores. HCWs in secondary and tertiary centers had significantly higher knowledge scores. Conclusion: Both groups showed a decent attitude in terms of seeking more MPOX knowledge, which correlated positively with their worry about and awareness of the disease. These observations are mostly as a consequence of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which encouraged the public and HCW to acquire more information about any novel emerging disease. Policymakers should make the most of this attitude in their awareness campaigns to prevent the spread of the disease and encourage vaccination in cases where it is needed. The knowledge gaps among HCWs were most evident in terms of clinical presentation and vaccinations; this problem needs addressing if we are to avoid further emerging MPOX cases.

SARS CoV-2 Infection among Health Care Workers from Different Health Care Facilities in Western Norway: A Prospective, Cross-Sectional Study.

Background: Comparative data on COVID-19 among health care workers (HCWs) in different health care settings are scarce. This study investigated the rates of previous COVID-19 among HCWs in nursing homes, hospitals and a municipal emergency room (ER). Methods: We prospectively included 747 HCWs: 313 from nursing homes, 394 from hospitals and 40 from the ER. The diagnosis of COVID-19 was based on serological evidence of SARS-CoV-2 antibody positivity and self-reported RT-PCR positivity prior to inclusion. Information regarding age, sex and exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection was collected. Results: A total of 4% (11/313) of nursing home HCWs and 6% (28/434) of HCWs in hospitals/the ER tested positive by serology and/or RT-PCR (p = 0.095). Fewer HCWs in nursing homes had occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 compared to those in hospitals/the ER (16% vs. 48%, p < 0, 001), but nursing homes had a higher proportion of HCWs with occupational exposure using partial/no PPE (56% vs. 19%, p < 0.001). Nevertheless, no significant differences in the risk for COVID-19 were found in relation to the rate of occupational exposure (p = 0.755) or use of inadequate PPE (p = 0.631). Conclusions: Despite a small sample size, the risk for COVID-19 among HCWs did not appear to be related to the type of health care facility, rates of occupational exposure or use of PPE.