Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 1.389
Filter
1.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 7(6): e27189, 2021 06 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2197904

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, swab tests proved to be effective in containing the infection and served as a means for early diagnosis and contact tracing. However, little evidence exists regarding the correct timing for the execution of the swab test, especially for asymptomatic individuals and health care workers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyze changes in the positive findings over time in individual SARS-CoV-2 swab tests during a health surveillance program. METHODS: The study was conducted with 2071 health care workers at the University Hospital of Verona, with a known date of close contact with a patient with COVID-19, between February 29 and April 17, 2020. The health care workers underwent a health surveillance program with repeated swab tests to track their virological status. A generalized additive mixed model was used to investigate how the probability of a positive test result changes over time since the last known date of close contact, in an overall sample of individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 and in a subset of individuals with an initial negative swab test finding before being proven positive, to assess different surveillance time intervals. RESULTS: Among the 2071 health care workers in this study, 191 (9.2%) tested positive for COVID-19, and 103 (54%) were asymptomatic with no differences based on sex or age. Among 49 (25.7%) cases, the initial swab test yielded negative findings after close contact with a patient with COVID-19. Sex, age, symptoms, and the time of sampling were not different between individuals with an initial negative swab test finding and those who initially tested positive after close contact. In the overall sample, the estimated probability of testing positive was 0.74 on day 1 after close contact, which increased to 0.77 between days 5 and 8. In the 3 different scenarios for scheduled repeated testing intervals (3, 5, and 7 days) in the subgroup of individuals with an initially negative swab test finding, the probability peaked on the sixth, ninth and tenth, and 13th and 14th days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Swab tests can initially yield false-negative outcomes. The probability of testing positive increases from day 1, peaking between days 5 and 8 after close contact with a patient with COVID-19. Early testing, especially in this final time window, is recommended together with a health surveillance program scheduled in close intervals.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/diagnosis , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Contact Tracing/methods , False Negative Reactions , Female , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/statistics & numerical data , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors
2.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(30): e26781, 2021 Jul 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2191045

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted our clinical practice. Many gastroenterologists have changed their attitudes toward various gastroenterological clinical settings. The aim of the present study is to explore the gastroenterologist's attitudes in several clinical settings encountered in the clinical practice.An online based survey was completed by 101 of 250 Israeli gastroenterologists (40.5%).Most of the participants were males (76.2%), and most of them were in the age range of 40 to 50 (37.6%). For all questionnaire components, the 2 most common chosen options were "I perform endoscopy with N95 mask, gloves and gown protection in a standard endoscopy room without preendoscopy severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing" and "Tend to postpone endoscopy until SARS-CoV-2 test is performed because of fear from being infected, or virus spreading in the endoscopy suite." Notably, 12 (11.9%) gastroenterologists were infected by Coronavirus disease 2019 during their work. Classifying the clinical settings to either elective and non-elective, most gastroenterologists (77.4%) chose the attitude of "I perform endoscopy with N95 mask, gloves and gown protection in a standard endoscopy room without SARS-COV-2 testing" in the nonelective settings as compared to 54.2% for the elective settings, (P < .00001), whereas 32.9% of the responders chose the attitude of "Tend to postpone endoscopy until SARS-COV-2 test is performed because of fear from being infected, or virus spreading in the endoscopy suite" in the elective settings (P < .00001).Gastroenterologists' attitude in various gastroenterological settings was based on the clinical indication. Further studies are needed to assess the long-term consequences of the different attitudes.


Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , COVID-19/epidemiology , Gastroenterologists/statistics & numerical data , Adult , COVID-19/prevention & control , Endoscopy, Digestive System/adverse effects , Endoscopy, Digestive System/psychology , Female , Gastroenterologists/psychology , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Israel , Male , Middle Aged , Surveys and Questionnaires
3.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 100(21): e25945, 2021 May 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2191011

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: To investigate the prevalence of anxiety and depressive symptoms and the associated risk factors among first-line medical staff in Wuhan during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic.From March 5 to 15, 2020, the Hamilton Anxiety Scale and Hamilton Depression scale were used to investigate the anxiety and depression status of medical staff in Wuhan Cabin Hospital (a Hospital). Two hundred seventy-six questionnaires were received from 96 doctors and 180 nurses, including 79 males and 197 females.During the COVID-19 epidemic, the prevalence rate of anxiety and depression was 27.9% and 18.1%, respectively, among 276 front-line medical staff in Wuhan. The prevalence rate of anxiety and depression among doctors was 19.8% and 11.5%, respectively, and the prevalence rate of anxiety and depression among nurses was 32.2% and 21.7%, respectively. Females recorded higher total scores for anxiety and depression than males, and nurses recorded higher scores for anxiety and depression than doctors.During the COVID-19 epidemic, some first-line medical staff experienced mental health problems such as depression and anxiety. Nurses were more prone to anxiety and depression than doctors. Effective strategies toward to improving the mental health should be provided to first-line medical staff, especially female medical staff and nurses.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Depression/epidemiology , Medical Staff/psychology , Mobile Health Units/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Anxiety/psychology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/transmission , China/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/psychology , Fear , Female , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional , Male , Medical Staff/statistics & numerical data , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Prevalence , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , Sex Factors , Workload/psychology
5.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 43(8): 963-967, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2185251

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Public health authorities recommend symptom monitoring of healthcare personnel (HCP) after defined exposures to monkeypox. We report on the rapid development and implementation of mobile responsive survey solutions for notification of possible exposure, exposure risk assessment and stratification, and symptom monitoring. SETTING: An academic health center in Boston, Massachusetts, after admission of first diagnosed case of monkeypox in the United States during the current global outbreak. PARTICIPANTS: Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) design and programmers, infection control, occupational health, and emergency preparedness specialists, and HCP with possible exposure to monkeypox. INTERVENTIONS: Design and deployment of REDCap tools to identify HCP with possible exposure to monkeypox, to perform exposure risk assessment and stratification for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP), and to conduct symptom monitoring during the exposure window. Project enhancements included dashboards for HCP tracking and short message service (SMS text) reminders for symptom monitoring. RESULTS: Tools to support the contact tracing and exposure investigation were deployed within 24 hours of identification of a patient with suspected monkeypox, with the full suite in production within 4 days of confirmation of the monkeypox diagnosis. Clinical follow-up of HCP was integrated into the design, and real-time versioning allowed for improvements in HCP symptom monitoring compliance and enhanced tracking. CONCLUSIONS: During the current monkeypox outbreak, timely and comprehensive evaluation of potential HCP exposures is necessary but presents logistical challenges. Rapid development of monkeypox-specific solutions using REDCap facilitated flexibility in design and approach, and integration of targeted clinical support enhanced functionality.


Subject(s)
Monkeypox , Occupational Exposure , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Monkeypox/diagnosis , Monkeypox/epidemiology , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Post-Exposure Prophylaxis , Risk Assessment , United States
7.
Elife ; 92020 08 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2155740

ABSTRACT

We conducted voluntary Covid-19 testing programmes for symptomatic and asymptomatic staff at a UK teaching hospital using naso-/oro-pharyngeal PCR testing and immunoassays for IgG antibodies. 1128/10,034 (11.2%) staff had evidence of Covid-19 at some time. Using questionnaire data provided on potential risk-factors, staff with a confirmed household contact were at greatest risk (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.82 [95%CI 3.45-6.72]). Higher rates of Covid-19 were seen in staff working in Covid-19-facing areas (22.6% vs. 8.6% elsewhere) (aOR 2.47 [1.99-3.08]). Controlling for Covid-19-facing status, risks were heterogenous across the hospital, with higher rates in acute medicine (1.52 [1.07-2.16]) and sporadic outbreaks in areas with few or no Covid-19 patients. Covid-19 intensive care unit staff were relatively protected (0.44 [0.28-0.69]), likely by a bundle of PPE-related measures. Positive results were more likely in Black (1.66 [1.25-2.21]) and Asian (1.51 [1.28-1.77]) staff, independent of role or working location, and in porters and cleaners (2.06 [1.34-3.15]).


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Asymptomatic Infections/epidemiology , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Female , Hospitals, Teaching/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Incidence , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/statistics & numerical data , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Risk , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Young Adult
8.
PLoS One ; 17(6): e0268974, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1885351

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease pandemic has raised concerns regarding the transmission of infections to healthcare workers. We developed a new protective device to reduce the risk of aerosol diffusion and droplet infection among healthcare workers. Here, we report the results of a theoretical evaluation of the efficacy of this device. METHODS: We used suction-capable masks with and without rubber slits, sleeves for the insertion section of endoscopes and treatment tools, and a cover for the control section of the endoscope. To simulate droplet spread from patients, we created a droplet simulation model and an aerosol simulation model. The results with and without the devices attached and with and without the suction were compared. RESULTS: The droplet simulation model showed a 95% reduction in droplets with masks with rubber slits; furthermore, a reduction of 100% was observed when the insertion sleeve was used. Evaluation of aerosol simulation when suction was applied revealed an aerosol reduction of 98% and >99% with the use of the mask without rubber slits and with the combined use of the mask and insertion sleeve, respectively. The elimination of droplet emission upon instrument removal confirmed that the instrument sleeve prevented the diffusion of droplets. The elimination of droplets upon repeated pressing of the suction button confirmed that the cover prevented the diffusion of droplets. CONCLUSION: We developed a device for infection control, in collaboration with a gastrointestinal endoscopist and Olympus Medical Systems Corporation, that was effective in reducing droplet and aerosol diffusion in this initial theoretical assessment.


Subject(s)
Otolaryngology , Rubber , Aerosols , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Protective Devices
9.
Anesth Analg ; 132(1): 2-14, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2140282

ABSTRACT

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic created an extraordinary demand for N95 and similarly rated filtering facepiece respirators (FFR) that remains unmet due to limited stock, production constraints, and logistics. Interest in decontamination and reuse of FFR, a product class designed for single use in health care settings, has undergone a parallel surge due to shortages. A worthwhile decontamination method must provide effective inactivation of the targeted pathogen(s), and preserve particle filtration, mask fit, and safety for a subsequent user. This discussion reviews the background of the current shortage, classification, structure, and functional aspects of FFR, and potentially effective decontamination methods along with reference websites for those seeking updated information and guidance. The most promising techniques utilize heat, hydrogen peroxide, microwave-generated steam, or ultraviolet light. Many require special or repurposed equipment and a detailed operational roadmap specific to each setting. While limited, research is growing. There is significant variation between models with regard to the ability to withstand decontamination yet remain protective. The number of times an individual respirator can be reused is often limited by its ability to maintain a tight fit after multiple uses rather than by the decontamination method itself. There is no single solution for all settings; each individual or institution must choose according to their need, capability, and available resources. As the current pandemic is expected to continue for months to years, and the possibility of future airborne biologic threats persists, the need for plentiful, effective respiratory protection is stimulating research and innovation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Decontamination , Equipment Contamination , Equipment Reuse , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Inhalation Exposure/prevention & control , N95 Respirators/virology , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Humans , Inhalation Exposure/adverse effects , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Occupational Health , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors
12.
Virol J ; 19(1): 189, 2022 11 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2115806

ABSTRACT

The term, "aerosol-generating procedures" (AGPs), was proposed during the prior SARS-CoV-1 epidemic in order to maximise healthcare worker and patient protection. The concept of AGPs has since expanded to include routine therapeutic processes such as various modes of oxygen delivery and non-invasive ventilation modalities. Evidence gained during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has brought into question the concept of AGPs with regard to intubation, airway management, non-invasive ventilation and high flow nasal oxygen delivery. Although encounters where these procedures occur may still be associated with increased risk of infectious transmission, this is a function of the clinical context and not because the procedure itself is aerosol-generating.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Language , COVID-19/prevention & control , Respiratory Aerosols and Droplets , Health Personnel , Oxygen
13.
G Ital Med Lav Ergon ; 44(1): 32-40, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2101747

ABSTRACT

SUMMARY: SARS-CoV-2-related infection can determine hospital-acquired infections among patients and healthcare workers. Aim of this paper was to review the literature for developing a strategy for protecting healthcare workers, patients, and visitors by COVID-19 hospital infection. A critical and rapid revision of the literature and international standards and Regulations on this topic allowed us to propose an evidencebased strategy in the framework of the workplace risk assessment for preventing nosocomial COVID-19 outbreaks. The virus' high transmissibility, the high prevalence of asymptomatic carriers and false-negative Covid-19 rates on naso- and oropharingeal swabs, put hospitals at high-risk of COVID-19 outbreaks. A comprehensive strategy based on standard precautions, administrative, environmental, and engineering controls, a screening protocol for patients on their admission to hospital, and a testing-based strategy for HCWs within health surveillance programs may prevent the onset of hospital outbreaks, which are a threat to community, patients and HCWs, compromising the sustainability of healthcare facilities.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Infection Control , Health Personnel , Hospitals
18.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 41(7): 820-825, 2020 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2096308

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Patients with COVID-19 may present with respiratory syndromes indistinguishable from those caused by common viruses. Early isolation and containment is challenging. Although screening all patients with respiratory symptoms for COVID-19 has been recommended, the practicality of such an effort has yet to be assessed. METHODS: Over a 6-week period during a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, our institution introduced a "respiratory surveillance ward" (RSW) to segregate all patients with respiratory symptoms in designated areas, where appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) could be utilized until SARS-CoV-2 testing was done. Patients could be transferred when SARS-CoV-2 tests were negative on 2 consecutive occasions, 24 hours apart. RESULTS: Over the study period, 1,178 patients were admitted to the RSWs. The mean length-of-stay (LOS) was 1.89 days (SD, 1.23). Among confirmed cases of pneumonia admitted to the RSW, 5 of 310 patients (1.61%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. This finding was comparable to the pickup rate from our isolation ward. In total, 126 HCWs were potentially exposed to these cases; however, only 3 (2.38%) required quarantine because most used appropriate PPE. In addition, 13 inpatients overlapped with the index cases during their stay in the RSW; of these 13 exposed inpatients, 1 patient subsequently developed COVID-19 after exposure. No patient-HCW transmission was detected despite intensive surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Our institution successfully utilized the strategy of an RSW over a 6-week period to contain a cluster of COVID-19 cases and to prevent patient-HCW transmission. However, this method was resource-intensive in terms of testing and bed capacity.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Cross Infection/transmission , Infection Control/methods , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Patient Isolation , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Population Surveillance/methods , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Early Diagnosis , Female , Humans , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patients' Rooms/organization & administration , Personal Protective Equipment , Pneumonia/virology , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Singapore , Symptom Assessment , Tertiary Care Centers
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL