Professional practice for COVID-19 risk reduction among health care workers: A cross-sectional study with matched case-control comparison.

BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCWs) are particularly exposed to COVID-19 and therefore it is important to study preventive measures in this population. AIM: To investigate socio-demographic factors and professional practice associated with the risk of COVID-19 among HCWs in health establishments in Normandy, France. METHODS: A cross-sectional and 3 case-control studies using bootstrap methods were conducted in order to explore the possible risk factors that lead to SARS-CoV2 transmission within HCWs. Case-control studies focused on risk factors associated with (a) care of COVID-19 patients, (b) care of non COVID-19 patients and (c) contacts between colleagues. PARTICIPANTS: 2,058 respondents, respectively 1,363 (66.2%) and 695 (33.8%) in medical and medico-social establishments, including HCW with and without contact with patients. RESULTS: 301 participants (14.6%) reported having been infected by SARS-CoV2. When caring for COVID-19 patients, HCWs who declared wearing respirators, either for all patient care (ORa 0.39; 95% CI: 0.29-0.51) or only when exposed to aerosol-generating procedures (ORa 0.56; 95% CI: 0.43-0.70), had a lower risk of infection compared with HCWs who declared wearing mainly surgical masks. During care of non COVID-19 patients, wearing mainly a respirator was associated with a higher risk of infection (ORa 1.84; 95% CI: 1.06-3.37). An increased risk was also found for HCWs who changed uniform in workplace changing rooms (ORa 1.93; 95% CI: 1.63-2.29). CONCLUSION: Correct use of PPE adapted to the situation and risk level is essential in protecting HCWs against infection.

Association Between Implementation of a Universal Face Mask Policy for Healthcare Workers in a Health Care System and SARS-CoV-2 Positivity Testing Rate in Healthcare Workers.

OBJECTIVE: Examine the effect of a universal facemask policy for healthcare workers (HCW) and incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positivity. METHODS: Daily number of symptomatic HCW tested, SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates, and HCW job-descriptions were collected pre and post Universal HCW facemask policy (March 26, 2020). Multiple change point regression was used to model positive-test-rate data. SARS-CoV-2 testing and positivity rates were compared for pre-intervention, transition, post-intervention, and follow-up periods. RESULTS: Between March 12 and August 10, 2020, 19.2% of HCW were symptomatic for COVID-19 and underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing. A single change point was identified ∼March 28-30 (95% probability). Before the change point, the odds of a tested HCW having a positive result doubled every 4.5 to 7.5 days. Post-change-point, the odds of a tested HCW having a positive result halved every 10.5 to 13.5 days. CONCLUSIONS: Universal facemasks were associated with reducing HCW's risk of acquiring COVID-19.

What Industrial Categories Are Workers at Excess Risk of Filing a COVID-19 Workers' Compensation Claim? A Study Conducted in 11 Midwestern US States.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the industries with the highest proportion of accepted COVID-19 related workers' compensation (WC) claims. METHODS: Study included 21,336 WC claims (1898 COVID-19 and 19,438 other claims) that were filed between January 1, 2020 and August 31, 2020 from 11 states in the Midwest United States. RESULT: The overwhelming proportion of all COVID-19 related WC claims submitted and accepted were from healthcare workers (83.77%). Healthcare was the only industrial classification that was at significantly higher COVID-19 WC claim submission risk (odds ratio [OR]: 4.00; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 2.77 to 5.79) controlling for type of employment, sex, age, and presumption of COVID-19 work-relatedness. Within healthcare employment, WC claims submitted by workers in medical laboratories had the highest risk (crude rate ratio of 8.78). CONCLUSION: Healthcare employment is associated with an increased risk of developing COVID-19 infections and submitting a workers' compensation claim.

Depression among physicians and other medical employees involved in the COVID-19 outbreak: A cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT: Health care employees are the front liners whom are directly involved in the management of COVID-19 at high risk of developing psychological distress and other mental health illness. We aim to assess the burden of depression during this pandemic on health care employees treating COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia. We also will shed the light on the best solutions of how to encounter depression.A cross-sectional, hospital-based survey conducted via a region-stratified, 2-stage cluster sample was conducted for 554 participants in >15 hospitals from April 29, 2020, to June 30, 2020. Depression is measured using the established PHQ9 score system. We grade PHQ9 depression scores as: normal, 0 to 4, mild, 5 to 9, significant (moderate or severe), 10 to 27. χ2/Fisher exact test was used; significant association between level of depression and survey characteristics were made. P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.A total of 554 participants completed the survey. A total of 18.9% (n = 105) were aged <29 years, 51.2% (n = 284) were between 30 to 39 years and female represent 70% of all participants. Of all participants, 53.7% (n = 298) were nurses, and 38.6% (n = 214) were physicians; 68.5% (n = 380) worked in central area hospitals in Saudi Arabia. No significant (P = .432, 95% confidence interval [CI]) association was observed between sex and depression classifications. However, female had high proportion of significant depression 75.0% (n = 76) was observed as compared to male 24.8% (n = 25). Depression was significant in Saudis 61.4% (n = 62) (P < .001, 95% CI) and medical staff who encountered corona patients 51.5% (n = 52) (P < .002, 95% CI). Hospital preparedness associated with more freedom of depression symptoms 69.1% (n = 199/288) (P < .001, 95% CI).Frontline young health care workers especially physician in Saudi Arabia reported a high rate of depression symptoms. Countermeasures for health care workers represent a key component for the mental and physical well-being as part of public health measures during this pandemic. Attention to hospital preparedness and adequacy of personal protective equipment contributed to milder depression symptoms. Further studies need to be conducted on crisis management and depression.

Infection and death by COVID-19 in a cohort of healthcare workers in Mexico.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the risk of SARS-Cov2 infection and severe COVID-19 among healthcare workers from a major social security system. METHODS: This study actively followed a cohort of social security workers from March to December 2020 to determine the number of laboratory-confirmed symptomatic cases, asymptomatic associated contacts and COVID-19-associated hospitalizations and deaths. Workers were classified into those providing direct care to infected patients (COVID teams), other active healthcare workers (OAHCW), and workers under home protection (HPW). The number of cases and rates were also estimated by job category. RESULTS: Among a total of 542 381 workers, 41 461 were granted stay-at-home protection due to advanced age or comorbidities. Among the 500 920 total active workers, 85 477 and 283 884 were classified into COVID teams and OAHCW, respectively. Infection rates for COVID teams, OAHCW, and HPW were 20.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 19.8-20.4], 13.7% (95% CI 15.0-15.3), and 12.2% (95% CI 11.8-12.5), respectively. The risk of hospitalization was higher among HPW. COVID teams had lower mortality rate per 10 000 workers compared to HPW (5.0, 95% CI 4.0-7.0 versus 18.1, 95% CI 14.0-23.0). Compared to administrative workers, ambulance personnel (RR 1.20; 95% CI 1.09-1.32), social workers (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.08-1.24), patient transporters (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.09-1.22) and nurses (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.10-1.15) had a higher risk of infection after adjusting for age and gender. Crude differences in mortality rates were observed according to job category, which could be explained by differences in age, sex, and comorbidity distribution. Diabetes, obesity, hypertension, hemolytic anemia, and HIV were associated with increased fatality rates. CONCLUSIONS: COVID team workers had higher infection rates compared to the total population of active workers and HPW. Doctors had lower risk of infection than respiratory therapists, nurses, and patient transporters, among whom interventions should be reconsidered to reduce risks. The presence of comorbidities, such as diabetes, obesity, arterial hypertension, hemolytic anemia, and HIV, increased the likelihood of complications caused by COVID-19, culminating in a poor prognosis.

Evaluation of COVID-19 related knowledge and preparedness in health professionals at selected health facilities in a resource-limited setting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization has declared that infection with SARS-CoV-2 is a pandemic. Experiences with SARS in 2003 and SARS-CoV-2 have shown that health professionals are at higher risk of contracting COVID-19. Hence, it has been recommended that aperiodic wide-scale assessment of the knowledge and preparedness of health professionals regarding the current COVID-19 pandemic is critical. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the knowledge and preparedness of health professionals regarding COVID-19 among selected hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. METHODS: A facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted from the last week of March to early April, 2020. Government (n = 6) and private hospitals (n = 4) were included. The front-line participants with high exposure were proportionally recruited from their departments. The collected data from a self-administered questionnaire were entered using EpiData and analyzed in SPSS software. Both descriptive statistics and inferential statistics (chi-square tests) are presented. RESULTS: A total of 1334 health professionals participated in the study. The majority (675, 50.7%) of the participants were female. Of the total, 532 (39.9%) subjects were nurses/midwives, followed by doctors (397, 29.8%) and pharmacists (193, 14.5%). Of these, one-third had received formal training on COVID-19. The mean knowledge score of participants was 16.45 (±4.4). Regarding knowledge about COVID-19, 783 (58.7%), 354 (26.5%), and 196 (14.7%) participants had moderate, good, and poor knowledge, respectively. Lower scores were seen in younger age groups, females, and non-physicians. Two-thirds (63.2%) of the subjects responded that they had been updated by their hospital on COVID-19. Of the total, 1020 (76.5%) participants responded that television, radio, and newspapers were their primary sources of information. Established hospital preparedness measures were confirmed by 43-57% of participants. CONCLUSION: The current study revealed that health professionals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, already know important facts but had moderate overall knowledge about the COVID-19 pandemic. There were unmet needs in younger age groups, non-physicians, and females. Half of the respondents mentioning inadequate preparedness of their hospitals point to the need for more global solidarity, especially concerning the shortage of consumables and lack of equipment.

Risk of COVID-19 in health-care workers in Denmark: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Health-care workers are thought to be highly exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in health-care workers and the proportion of seroconverted health-care workers with previous symptoms of COVID-19. METHODS: In this observational cohort study, screening was offered to health-care workers in the Capital Region of Denmark, including medical, nursing, and other students who were associated with hospitals in the region. Screening included point-of-care tests for IgM and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Test results and participant characteristics were recorded. Results were compared with findings in blood donors in the Capital Region in the study period. FINDINGS: Between April 15 and April 23, 2020, we screened 29 295 health-care workers, of whom 28 792 (98·28%) provided their test results. We identified 1163 (4·04% [95% CI 3·82-4·27]) seropositive health-care workers. Seroprevalence was higher in health-care workers than in blood donors (142 [3·04%] of 4672; risk ratio [RR] 1·33 [95% CI 1·12-1·58]; p<0·001). Seroprevalence was higher in male health-care workers (331 [5·45%] of 6077) than in female health-care workers (832 [3·66%] of 22 715; RR 1·49 [1·31-1·68]; p<0·001). Frontline health-care workers working in hospitals had a significantly higher seroprevalence (779 [4·55%] of 16 356) than health-care workers in other settings (384 [3·29%] of 11 657; RR 1·38 [1·22-1·56]; p<0·001). Health-care workers working on dedicated COVID-19 wards (95 [7·19%] of 1321) had a significantly higher seroprevalence than other frontline health-care workers working in hospitals (696 [4·35%] of 15 983; RR 1·65 [1·34-2·03]; p<0·001). 622 [53·5%] of 1163 seropositive participants reported symptoms attributable to SARS-CoV-2. Loss of taste or smell was the symptom that was most strongly associated with seropositivity (377 [32·39%] of 1164 participants with this symptom were seropositive vs 786 [2·84%] of 27 628 without this symptom; RR 11·38 [10·22-12·68]). The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04346186. INTERPRETATION: The prevalence of health-care workers with antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was low but higher than in blood donors. The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in health-care workers was related to exposure to infected patients. More than half of seropositive health-care workers reported symptoms attributable to COVID-19. FUNDING: Lundbeck Foundation.

Risk of hospital admission with coronavirus disease 2019 in healthcare workers and their households: nationwide linkage cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of hospital admission for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) among patient facing and non-patient facing healthcare workers and their household members. DESIGN: Nationwide linkage cohort study. SETTING: Scotland, UK, 1 March to 6 June 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare workers aged 18-65 years, their households, and other members of the general population. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Admission to hospital with covid-19. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 158 445 healthcare workers, most of them (90 733; 57.3%) being patient facing, and 229 905 household members. Of all hospital admissions for covid-19 in the working age population (18-65 year olds), 17.2% (360/2097) were in healthcare workers or their households. After adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic deprivation, and comorbidity, the risk of admission due to covid-19 in non-patient facing healthcare workers and their households was similar to the risk in the general population (hazard ratio 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.26) and 0.86 (0.49 to 1.51), respectively). In models adjusting for the same covariates, however, patient facing healthcare workers, compared with non-patient facing healthcare workers, were at higher risk (hazard ratio 3.30, 2.13 to 5.13), as were household members of patient facing healthcare workers (1.79, 1.10 to 2.91). After sub-division of patient facing healthcare workers into those who worked in "front door," intensive care, and non-intensive care aerosol generating settings and other, those in front door roles were at higher risk (hazard ratio 2.09, 1.49 to 2.94). For most patient facing healthcare workers and their households, the estimated absolute risk of hospital admission with covid-19 was less than 0.5%, but it was 1% and above in older men with comorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare workers and their households contributed a sixth of covid-19 cases admitted to hospital. Although the absolute risk of admission was low overall, patient facing healthcare workers and their household members had threefold and twofold increased risks of admission with covid-19.

COVID-19 risk management at the workplace, fear of infection and fear of transmission of infection among frontline employees.

OBJECTIVES: We compared COVID-19 risk management, fear of infection and fear of transmission of infection among frontline employees working within eldercare, hospital/rehabilitation, psychiatry, childcare and ambulance service and explored if group differences in fear of infection and transmission could be explained by differences in risk management. We also investigated the association of risk management with fear of infection and fear of transmission of infection among eldercare personnel. METHODS: We used cross-sectional questionnaire data collected by the Danish labour union, FOA . Data were collected 5½ weeks after the first case of COVID-19 was registered in Denmark. Data for the first aim included 2623 participants. Data for the second aim included 1680 participants. All independent variables were mutually adjusted and also adjusted for sex, age, job title and region. RESULTS: Fear of infection (49%) and fear of transmitting infection from work to the private sphere (68%) was most frequent in ambulance service. Fear of transmitting infection during work was most frequent in the eldercare (55%). Not all differences in fear of infection and transmission between the five areas of work were explained by differences in risk management. Among eldercare personnel, self-reported exposure to infection and lack of access to test was most consistently associated with fear of infection and fear of transmission, whereas lack of access to personal protective equipment was solely associated with fear of transmission. CONCLUSION: We have illustrated differences and similarities in COVID-19 risk management within five areas of work and provide new insights into factors associated with eldercare workers' fear of infection and fear of transmission of infection.

Healthcare workers in Singapore infected with COVID-19: 23 January-17 April 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of healthcare workers (HCWs) infected with COVID-19 and to examine their sources of exposure. METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional study using data extracted from the centralized disease notification system comprising individuals confirmed with COVID-19 in Singapore between 23 January and 17 April 2020. Occupation of HCWs was categorized into six categories. Their job nature was classified into "frontline" or "back-end" based on the frequency of direct patient contact, and source of exposure was classified as family/household, social interaction or workplace. Chi-square and median tests were used to identify differences between categorical groups and sample medians, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 88 (1.7%) HCWs were identified from 5,050 cases. Their median age was 35 years. Chinese and Indians constituted 42.0% and 31.8%, respectively, and 43.2% were foreigners. The majority (63.6%) was serving at frontlines handling patient-facing duties, 15.9% were doctors, 11.4% were nurses and 44.3% were ancillary staff. About 81.8% acquired the infection locally, of which 40.3% did not have a clearly identifiable source of exposure. Exposure from the family/household was most common (27.8%), followed by workplace (16.7%) and social interaction (15.3%). All HCWs were discharged well with no mortality; three (3.4%) were ever admitted to intensive care unit and required increased care. CONCLUSION: Healthcare workers accounted for a small proportion of COVID-19 cases in Singapore with favourable outcomes. The possibility of transmission resulting from family/household exposure and social interactions highlights the need to maintain strict vigilance and precautionary measures at all times beyond the workplace.

Assessing the spreading potential of an undetected case of COVID-19 in orthopaedic surgery.

BACKGROUND: With the novel coronavirus-induced disease (COVID-19), there is the fear of nosocomial infections and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmissions to healthcare workers (HCW). We report the case of a 64-year-old male patient who underwent explantation of a shoulder prosthesis due to a periprosthetic infection. He was tested SARS-CoV-2 positive 7 days after admission to the orthopaedic department following strict infection control measures, routinely including screening all patients for multi-drug-resistant organism (MDRO) colonization upon admission. Aim of our study is to report on the spreading potential of SARS-CoV-2 in a healthcare setting if standard contact precautions and infection control measures have been established. METHODS: All HCW with exposure to the patient from day of admission until confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 were identified and underwent oropharyngeal swab testing for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time RT-PCR. RESULTS: Sixty-six HCW were identified: nine orthopaedic surgeons, four anaesthesiologists, 25 orthopaedic nurses, five nurse anesthetists, eight scrub nurses, five nursing students, two medical assistants and seven service employees. Fourteen HCW (21%) showed clinical symptoms compatible with a SARS-CoV-2 infection: cough (n = 4), sore throat (n = 3), nasal congestion (n = 3), dyspnea (n = 2), fever (n = 1), headache and myalgia (n = 1). SARS-CoV-2 was not detected in any of the 66 HCW. CONCLUSION: Hygienic measures and contact precautions, aimed at preventing the spread of MRDO, may have helped to prevent a SARS-CoV-2 transmission to HCW-despite high-risk exposure during intubation, surgical treatment and general care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, case series.

Medical Students Are Not Essential Workers: Examining Institutional Responsibility During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

In light of the evolving COVID-19 pandemic, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) released a joint statement in March 2020 recommending an immediate suspension of medical student participation in direct patient contact. As graduating medical students who will soon begin residency, the authors fully support this recommendation. Though paid health care workers, like residents, nurses, and environmental services staff, are essential to the management of COVID-19 patients, medical students are not. Students' continued involvement in direct patient care will contribute to SARS-CoV-2 exposures and transmissions and will waste already limited personal protective equipment. By decreasing nonessential personnel in health care settings, including medical students, medical schools will contribute to national and global efforts to "flatten the curve."The authors also assert that medical schools are responsible for ensuring medical student safety. Without the protections provided to paid health care workers, students are uniquely disadvantaged within the medical hierarchy; these inequalities must be addressed before medical students are safely reintegrated into clinical roles. Although graduating medical students and institutional leadership may worry that suspending clinical rotations might prevent students from completing graduation requirements, the authors argue the ethical obligation to "flatten the curve" supersedes usual teaching responsibilities. Therefore, the authors request further guidance from the LCME and AAMC regarding curricular exemptions/alternatives and adjusted graduation timelines. The pool of graduating medical students affected by this pause in direct patient contact represents a powerful reserve, which may soon need to be used as the COVID-19 pandemic continues to challenge the U.S. health care infrastructure.