Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 166
Filter
2.
PLoS One ; 17(2): e0263078, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1883624

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 posed the healthcare professionals at enormous risk during this pandemic era while vaccination was recommended as one of the effective preventive approaches. It was visualized that almost all health workforces would be under vaccination on a priority basis as they are the frontline fighters during this pandemic. This study was designed to explore the reality regarding infection and vaccination status of COVID-19 among healthcare professionals of Bangladesh. It was a web-based cross-sectional survey and conducted among 300 healthcare professionals available in the academic platform of Bangladesh. A multivariate logistic regression model was used for the analytical exploration. Adjusted and Unadjusted Odds Ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for the specified setting indicators. A Chi-square test was used to observe the association. Ethical issues were maintained according to the guidance of the declaration of Helsinki. Study revealed that 41% of all respondents identified as COVID-19 positive whereas a significant number (18.3%) found as non-vaccinated due to registration issues as 52.70%, misconception regarding vaccination as 29.10%, and health-related issues as 18.20%. Respondents of more than 50 years of age found more significant on having positive infection rather than the younger age groups. Predictors for the non-vaccination guided that male respondents (COR/p = 3.49/0.01), allied health professionals, and respondents from the public organizations (p = 0.01) who were ≤29 (AOR/p = 4.45/0.01) years of age significantly identified as non-vaccinated. As the older female groups were found more infected and a significant number of health care professionals found as non-vaccinated, implementation of specific strategies and policies are needed to ensure the safety precautions and vaccination among such COVID-19 frontiers.


Subject(s)
Academic Medical Centers/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Bangladesh/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/psychology , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Surveys and Questionnaires/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination/psychology , /statistics & numerical data
3.
Epidemiol Infect ; 150: e40, 2022 02 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1747291

ABSTRACT

Nosocomial transmission of COVID-19 among immunocompromised hosts can have a serious impact on COVID-19 severity, underlying disease progression and SARS-CoV-2 transmission to other patients and healthcare workers within hospitals. We experienced a nosocomial outbreak of COVID-19 in the setting of a daycare unit for paediatric and young adult cancer patients. Between 9 and 18 November 2020, 473 individuals (181 patients, 247 caregivers/siblings and 45 staff members) were exposed to the index case, who was a nursing staff. Among them, three patients and four caregivers were infected. Two 5-year-old cancer patients with COVID-19 were not severely ill, but a 25-year-old cancer patient showed prolonged shedding of SARS-CoV-2 RNA for at least 12 weeks, which probably infected his mother at home approximately 7-8 weeks after the initial diagnosis. Except for this case, no secondary transmission was observed from the confirmed cases in either the hospital or the community. To conclude, in the day care setting of immunocompromised children and young adults, the rate of in-hospital transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was 1.6% when applying the stringent policy of infection prevention and control, including universal mask application and rapid and extensive contact investigation. Severely immunocompromised children/young adults with COVID-19 would have to be carefully managed after the mandatory isolation period while keeping the possibility of prolonged shedding of live virus in mind.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Cancer Care Facilities , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Day Care, Medical , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient , Neoplasms/therapy , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/transmission , Caregivers , Child , Child, Preschool , Cross Infection/immunology , Cross Infection/transmission , Disease Outbreaks , Female , Humans , Immunocompromised Host , Infant , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/immunology , Republic of Korea/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
6.
Viruses ; 14(1)2021 12 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1580404

ABSTRACT

The burden of COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted the elderly, who are at increased risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death. This cross-sectional study aimed to assess the association between SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among nursing home staff, and cumulative incidence rates of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths among residents. Staff seroprevalence was estimated within the SEROCoV-WORK+ study between May and September 2020 across 29 nursing homes in Geneva, Switzerland. Data on nursing home residents were obtained from the canton of Geneva for the period between March and August 2020. Associations were assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficient and quasi-Poisson regression models. Overall, seroprevalence among staff ranged between 0 and 31.4%, with a median of 8.3%. A positive association was found between staff seroprevalence and resident cumulative incidence of COVID-19 cases (correlation coefficient R = 0.72, 95%CI 0.45-0.87; incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.10, 95%CI 1.07-1.17), hospitalizations (R = 0.59, 95%CI 0.25-0.80; IRR = 1.09, 95%CI 1.05-1.13), and deaths (R = 0.71, 95%CI 0.44-0.86; IRR = 1.12, 95%CI 1.07-1.18). Our results suggest that SARS-CoV-2 transmission between staff and residents may contribute to the spread of the virus within nursing homes. Awareness among nursing home professionals of their likely role in the spread of SARS-CoV-2 has the potential to increase vaccination coverage and prevent unnecessary deaths due to COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Nursing Homes/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/transmission , Cross-Sectional Studies , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization , Humans , Incidence , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Switzerland/epidemiology
8.
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control ; 10(1): 156, 2021 11 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1503693

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The effect of eye protection to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in the real-world remains uncertain. We aimed to synthesize all available research on the potential impact of eye protection on transmission of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We searched PROSPERO, PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library for clinical trials and comparative observational studies in CENTRAL, and Europe PMC for pre-prints. We included studies that reported sufficient data to estimate the effect of any form of eye protection including face shields and variants, goggles, and glasses, on subsequent confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: We screened 898 articles and included 6 reports of 5 observational studies from 4 countries (USA, India, Columbia, and United Kingdom) that tested face shields, goggles, and wraparound eyewear on 7567 healthcare workers. The three before-and-after and one retrospective cohort studies showed statistically significant and substantial reductions in SARS-CoV-2 infections favouring eye protection with odds ratios ranging from 0.04 to 0.6, corresponding to relative risk reductions of 96% to 40%. These reductions were not explained by changes in the community rates. However, the one case-control study reported odds ratio favouring no eye protection (OR 1.7, 95% CI 0.99, 3.0). The high heterogeneity between studies precluded any meaningful meta-analysis. None of the studies adjusted for potential confounders such as other protective behaviours, thus increasing the risk of bias, and decreasing the certainty of evidence to very low. CONCLUSIONS: Current studies suggest that eye protection may play a role in prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers. However, robust comparative trials are needed to clearly determine effectiveness of eye protections and wearability issues in both healthcare and general populations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Eye Protective Devices , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Communicable Disease Control , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
9.
PLoS Med ; 18(10): e1003816, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1463303

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Nosocomial spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been widely reported, but the transmission pathways among patients and healthcare workers (HCWs) are unclear. Identifying the risk factors and drivers for these nosocomial transmissions is critical for infection prevention and control interventions. The main aim of our study was to quantify the relative importance of different transmission pathways of SARS-CoV-2 in the hospital setting. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This is an observational cohort study using data from 4 teaching hospitals in Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, from January to October 2020. Associations between infectious SARS-CoV-2 individuals and infection risk were quantified using logistic, generalised additive and linear mixed models. Cases were classified as community- or hospital-acquired using likely incubation periods of 3 to 7 days. Of 66,184 patients who were hospitalised during the study period, 920 had a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test within the same period (1.4%). The mean age was 67.9 (±20.7) years, 49.2% were females, and 68.5% were from the white ethnic group. Out of these, 571 patients had their first positive PCR tests while hospitalised (62.1%), and 97 of these occurred at least 7 days after admission (10.5%). Among the 5,596 HCWs, 615 (11.0%) tested positive during the study period using PCR or serological tests. The mean age was 39.5 (±11.1) years, 78.9% were females, and 49.8% were nurses. For susceptible patients, 1 day in the same ward with another patient with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 was associated with an additional 7.5 infections per 1,000 susceptible patients (95% credible interval (CrI) 5.5 to 9.5/1,000 susceptible patients/day) per day. Exposure to an infectious patient with community-acquired Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) or to an infectious HCW was associated with substantially lower infection risks (2.0/1,000 susceptible patients/day, 95% CrI 1.6 to 2.2). As for HCW infections, exposure to an infectious patient with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 or to an infectious HCW were both associated with an additional 0.8 infection per 1,000 susceptible HCWs per day (95% CrI 0.3 to 1.6 and 0.6 to 1.0, respectively). Exposure to an infectious patient with community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 was associated with less than half this risk (0.2/1,000 susceptible HCWs/day, 95% CrI 0.2 to 0.2). These assumptions were tested in sensitivity analysis, which showed broadly similar results. The main limitations were that the symptom onset dates and HCW absence days were not available. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that exposure to patients with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 is associated with a substantial infection risk to both HCWs and other hospitalised patients. Infection control measures to limit nosocomial transmission must be optimised to protect both staff and patients from SARS-CoV-2 infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Community-Acquired Infections , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Health Personnel , Hospitals , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/transmission , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospitalization , Hospitals/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Infection Control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/statistics & numerical data , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Nurses , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom/epidemiology
10.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(35): 1221-1226, 2020 Sep 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1389852

ABSTRACT

Health care personnel (HCP) caring for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) might be at high risk for contracting SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Understanding the prevalence of and factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among frontline HCP who care for COVID-19 patients are important for protecting both HCP and their patients. During April 3-June 19, 2020, serum specimens were collected from a convenience sample of frontline HCP who worked with COVID-19 patients at 13 geographically diverse academic medical centers in the United States, and specimens were tested for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. Participants were asked about potential symptoms of COVID-19 experienced since February 1, 2020, previous testing for acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, and their use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the past week. Among 3,248 participants, 194 (6.0%) had positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Seroprevalence by hospital ranged from 0.8% to 31.2% (median = 3.6%). Among the 194 seropositive participants, 56 (29%) reported no symptoms since February 1, 2020, 86 (44%) did not believe that they previously had COVID-19, and 133 (69%) did not report a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Seroprevalence was lower among personnel who reported always wearing a face covering (defined in this study as a surgical mask, N95 respirator, or powered air purifying respirator [PAPR]) while caring for patients (5.6%), compared with that among those who did not (9.0%) (p = 0.012). Consistent with persons in the general population with SARS-CoV-2 infection, many frontline HCP with SARS-CoV-2 infection might be asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic during infection, and infection might be unrecognized. Enhanced screening, including frequent testing of frontline HCP, and universal use of face coverings in hospitals are two strategies that could reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , Betacoronavirus/immunology , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Personnel, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Academic Medical Centers , Adult , Asymptomatic Diseases , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , SARS-CoV-2 , Seroepidemiologic Studies , United States/epidemiology
11.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 41(10): 1209-1211, 2020 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1387076

ABSTRACT

We investigated potential transmissions of a symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive physician in a tertiary-care hospital who worked for 15 cumulative hours without wearing a face mask. No in-hospital transmissions occurred, despite 254 contacts among patients and healthcare workers. In conclusion, exposed hospital staff continued work, accompanied by close clinical and virologic monitoring.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient , Physicians , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Contact Tracing , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Cross Infection/transmission , Cross Infection/virology , Female , Germany , Hospitals , Humans , Masks , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , SARS-CoV-2
13.
Stroke Vasc Neurol ; 5(2): 180-184, 2020 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1318199

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has already stressed the healthcare system in the world. Many hospitals have been overwhelmed by the large number of patients with COVID-19. Due to the shortage of equipment and personnel and the highly contagious nature of COVID-19, many other healthcare services are on hold. However, at Beijing Tiantan Hospital, a rapid response system has been in place so that routine care is not interrupted. We, therefore, would like to share our hospital-wide prevention and management policy during this pandemic to help other healthcare systems to function in this crisis. METHOD: Tiantan hospital is one of the leading neuroscience institutions in the world. With 1650 beds, its annual inpatient admission exceeds 30 000 patients. Its COVID-19 rapid response policy was reviewed for its functionality. RESULTS: There are nine key components of this policy: an incident management system; a comprehensive infection prevention and control, outpatient triage and flow system; a designated fever clinic; patient screening and administration; optimised surgical operations, enhanced nucleic acid testing; screening of returning employees; and a supervision and feedback system. In addition, a specific protocol was designed for treating patients with acute stroke. CONCLUSION: A comprehensive policy is helpful to protect the employee from infection and to provide quality and uninterrupted care to all who need these, including patients with acute ischaemic stroke.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , Brain Ischemia/therapy , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Infection Control/methods , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Stroke/therapy , Beijing , Brain Ischemia/diagnosis , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Critical Pathways , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated , Health Services Needs and Demand , Host-Pathogen Interactions , Humans , Needs Assessment , Occupational Health , Pandemics , Patient Safety , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Stroke/diagnosis , Triage
14.
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control ; 10(1): 102, 2021 07 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1295486

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: In late 2019, a novel coronavirus was detected in China. Supported by its respiratory transmissibility, even by people infected without symptomatic disease, this coronavirus soon began to rapidly spread worldwide. BACKGROUND: Many countries have implemented different infection control and containment strategies due to ongoing community transmission. In this context, contact tracing as well as adequate testing and consequent quarantining of high-risk contacts play leading roles in containing the virus by interrupting infection chains. This approach is especially important in the hospital setting where contacts often cannot be avoided and physical distance is usually not possible. Furthermore, health care workers (HCWs) usually have contact with a variety of vulnerable people, making it essential to identify infections among hospital employees as soon as possible to interrupt the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the facility. Several electronic tools for contact tracing, such as specific software or mobile phone apps, are available for the public health sector. In contrast, contact tracing in hospitals often has to be carried out without helpful electronic tools, and an enormous amount of human resources is typically required. AIM: For rapid contact tracing and effective infection control and management measures for HCWs in hospitals, adapted technical solutions are needed. METHODS: In this study, we report the development of our containment strategy to a web-based contact tracing and rapid point-of-care-testing workflow. RESULTS/CONCLUSION: Our workflow yielded efficient control of the rapidly evolving situation during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic from May 2020 until January 2021 at a German University Hospital.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19/transmission , Computer Communication Networks , Contact Tracing/methods , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional , Pandemics , Point-of-Care Testing , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Germany/epidemiology , Hospitals, University , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Mobile Applications , Personnel, Hospital , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Retrospective Studies , Seasons , Software , Workflow
15.
Epidemiol Infect ; 149: e161, 2021 07 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1294412

ABSTRACT

Two general practitioners (GPs) with SARS-CoV-2 infection provided in-person patient care to patients of their joint medical practice before and after symptom onset, up until SARS-CoV-2 laboratory confirmation. Through active contact tracing, the local public health authorities recruited the cohort of patients that had contact with either GP in their putative infectious period. In this cohort of patient contacts, we assess the frequency and determinants of SARS-CoV-2-transmission from GPs to patients. We calculated incidence rate ratios (IRR) to explore the type of contact as an explanatory variable for COVID-19 cases. Among the cohort of 83 patient contacts, we identified 22 (27%) COVID-19 cases including 17 (21%) possible, three (4%) probable and two (2%) confirmed cases. All 22 cases had contact with a GP when the GP did not wear a mask, and/or when contact was ≥10 min. Importantly, patients who had contact <10 min with a GP wearing a facemask were at reduced risk (IRR 0.21; 95% CI 0.01-0.99) of COVID-19. This outbreak investigation adds to the body of evidence in supporting current guidelines on measures at preventing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in an outpatient setting.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient , Adult , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Cohort Studies , Contact Tracing , Female , General Practitioners , Germany , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
16.
World Neurosurg ; 153: e187-e194, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1275762

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess organizational and technical difficulties of neurosurgical procedures during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and their possible impact on survival and functional outcome and to evaluate virological exposure risk of medical personnel. METHODS: Data for all urgent surgical procedures performed in the COVID-19 operating room were prospectively collected. Preoperative and postoperative variables included demographics, pathology, Karnofsky performance status (KPS) and neurological status at admission, type and duration of surgical procedures, length of stay, postoperative KPS and functional outcome comparison, and destination at discharge. We defined 5 classes of pathologies (traumatic, oncological, vascular, infection, hydrocephalus) and 4 surgical categories (burr hole, craniotomy, cerebrospinal fluid shunting, spine surgery). Postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection was checked in all the operators. RESULTS: We identified 11 traumatic cases (44%), 4 infections (16%), 6 vascular events (24%), 2 hydrocephalus conditions (8%), and 2 oncological cases (8%). Surgical procedures included 11 burr holes (44%), 7 craniotomies (28%), 6 cerebrospinal fluid shunts (24%), and 1 spine surgery (4%). Mean patient age was 57.8 years. The most frequent clinical presentation was coma (44 cases). Mean KPS score at admission was 20 ± 10, mean surgery duration was 85 ± 63 minutes, and mean length of stay was 27 ± 12 days. Mean KPS score at discharge was 35 ± 25. Outcome comparison showed improvement in 16 patients. Four patients died. Mean follow-up was 6 ± 3 months. None of the operators developed postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized protocols are mandatory to guarantee a high standard of care for emergency and urgent surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic. Personal protective equipment affects maneuverability, dexterity, and duration of interventions without affecting survival and functional outcome.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Infection Control , Neurosurgical Procedures/mortality , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Emergencies , Female , Humans , Infant , Infection Control/instrumentation , Infection Control/methods , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Italy/epidemiology , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Operating Rooms/organization & administration , Pandemics , Perioperative Care , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Personal Protective Equipment/virology , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Survival Analysis , Treatment Outcome
17.
J Health Care Poor Underserved ; 32(2): 591-597, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1268209

ABSTRACT

Most people think that origami has little practical utility, but it has many applications, and this paper highlights particularly its usefulness in making face shields for the containment of COVID-19. The article presents an origami-based, do-it-yourself face shield that the end-user can make for personal use rather than commercial production.


Subject(s)
Masks , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Equipment Design , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control
19.
Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila) ; 10(2): 142-145, 2021 Mar 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1165516

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: Ophthalmologists and patients have an inherent increased risk for transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The human ocular surface expresses receptors and enzymes facilitating transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Personal protective equipment alone provides incomplete protection. Adjunctive topical ocular, nasal, and oral antisepsis with povidone iodine bolsters personal protective equipment in prevention of provider-patient transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in ophthalmology.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local/therapeutic use , COVID-19/transmission , Disinfection/methods , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Povidone-Iodine/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Administration, Ophthalmic , Humans , Ophthalmic Solutions , Personal Protective Equipment , Physical Examination
20.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(13): 467-472, 2021 Apr 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1168275

ABSTRACT

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is common in congregate settings such as correctional and detention facilities (1-3). On September 17, 2020, a Utah correctional facility (facility A) received a report of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in a dental health care provider (DHCP) who had treated incarcerated persons at facility A on September 14, 2020 while asymptomatic. On September 21, 2020, the roommate of an incarcerated person who had received dental treatment experienced COVID-19-compatible symptoms*; both were housed in block 1 of facility A (one of 16 occupied blocks across eight residential units). Two days later, the roommate received a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result, becoming the first person with a known-associated case of COVID-19 at facility A. During September 23-24, 2020, screening of 10 incarcerated persons who had received treatment from the DHCP identified another two persons with COVID-19, prompting isolation of all three patients in an unoccupied block at the facility. Within block 1, group activities were stopped to limit interaction among staff members and incarcerated persons and prevent further spread. During September 14-24, 2020, six facility A staff members, one of whom had previous close contact† with one of the patients, also reported symptoms. On September 27, 2020, an outbreak was confirmed after specimens from all remaining incarcerated persons in block 1 were tested; an additional 46 cases of COVID-19 were identified, which were reported to the Salt Lake County Health Department and the Utah Department of Health. On September 30, 2020, CDC, in collaboration with both health departments and the correctional facility, initiated an investigation to identify factors associated with the outbreak and implement control measures. As of January 31, 2021, a total of 1,368 cases among 2,632 incarcerated persons (attack rate = 52%) and 88 cases among 550 staff members (attack rate = 16%) were reported in facility A. Among 33 hospitalized incarcerated persons, 11 died. Quarantine and monitoring of potentially exposed persons and implementation of available prevention measures, including vaccination, are important in preventing introduction and spread of SARS-CoV-2 in correctional facilities and other congregate settings (4).


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Dentists , Disease Outbreaks , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient , Prisons , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Testing , Community-Acquired Infections , Humans , Mass Screening , Quarantine , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Utah/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL