Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 160
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
2.
J Infect Dev Ctries ; 15(11): 1593-1596, 2021 11 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1572710

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 outbreak has resulted in a substantial morbidity and mortality, and has put the health system under tremendous stress. A need for devising and adopting newer methods and techniques is being emphasized in the healthcare facilities to combat the effects of the SARS-CoV-2. Besides patient care, focus needs to be laid on the effective and dignified management of the deceased and medico-legal services provided by the hospitals and medical institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Considering the likelihood of forensic experts and autopsy personnel being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 inadvertently during the autopsy, it is recommended to resort to safer and minimally invasive techniques of postmortem examination of the dead. In this regard, employing radiological techniques for postmortem examination appears to be a promising option during the COVID-19 pandemic. An inherent advantage of postmortem radiography over conventional autopsies is the minimization of the risk of transmission of infection to the health care workers. Our correspondence highlights on the possibility of using radiological facilities as an effective replacement of high-risk conventional autopsy procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
Autopsy , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Facilities , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Radiology , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , India/epidemiology , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Pandemics , Regional Health Planning
3.
J Infect Dev Ctries ; 15(11): 1640-1645, 2021 11 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1572709

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: To analyze the virus spread among Sassari Hospital staff in the first Covid-19 wave and the impact of the Swab Team, a multidisciplinary task force entitled of nasopharyngeal swab collection and testing. METHODOLOGY: Nasopharyngeal swabs from HCWs between March 6 and May 28 2020 are evaluated. RESULTS: 4919 SARS-CoV-2 tests were performed on 3521 operators. Nurses and doctors are the categories at highest risk. After the Swab Team institution, the average number of swabs raised from 47/day to 86/day (p = 0.007). Positive samples decreased from 18.6% to 1.7% (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The Swab Team is effective in increasing the cases tested and in reducing the reporting time. Procedure standardization reduces the risk for all the subjects involved (no transmission among swab team members, nor during the sample collection).


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Medical Staff, Hospital , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Patient Care Team , SARS-CoV-2 , Specimen Handling , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies
4.
J Infect Dev Ctries ; 15(11): 1615-1617, 2021 Nov 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1572706

ABSTRACT

The impacts of COVID -19 pandemic have been quite significant on healthcare providers. I was particularly challenging for those in Low and Middle-Income Countries including Sudan . Unfortunately, the pandemic has hit Sudan on extremely difficult time for the country and its people. The country was coming out of long-brutal and devastating dictatorship and transitioning to new democracy with civilian leadership. In addition to the pandemic related issues, trying to rebuild the health system during socioeconomic crisis, healthcare providers  in the country were challenged personally and professionally. These challenges include the stress of working in under-resourced settings with limited access to personal-protection equipment and testing kits raised the fear of contracting the virus and spreading it to their families. The professional, social, and personal life of healthcare providers have been dramatically changed by the ongoing pandemic, however, they are heroically accepting this change in a hope that, this will save the life of many more people. Nevertheless, their fights and sacrifices should at least be rewarded by governments and communities altogether strictly enforce the implementation of other preventive measures including vaccination, face masking, and social distancing and get all protected. We should all understand that, unless we are all protected no one is protected, so all must adapt to the new norm of life and collaborate not only on ending this pandemic but to prevent similar ones in the future.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment , Sudan/epidemiology , Vaccination
5.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(21)2021 Oct 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1488572

ABSTRACT

The epidemic of psychosocial risks continues to increase and the COVID-19 pandemic has even worsened this threat on workers' health. This inexorable and evidence-based rise seems to be impervious to the preventive strategies proposed for more than 40 years. Hypotheses are proposed to explain this serious problem that drastically impacts public health and the economy. The objectives of this paper are to present, in this broad context of societal and cultural changes, how the present shift in management paradigms may represent opportunities to reduce work-related diseases. In the first part of this paper, we will summarize the situation on three main issues and their relation with psychosocial risks: (1) evolution of the occupational safety and health field, (2) change in the nature of work, and (3) emerging models of governance. In the second part, we will describe, through a few examples (among many others), how emerging models of corporate governance may reduce and prevent stress and burnout. Work is changing fundamentally, and this impacts workers' (and managers') health and well-being; that is why approaches in line with these changes are necessary. The COVID-19 pandemic has produced major changes in work organization. This may offer promising opportunities to reanalyze working conditions for a better control of occupational diseases and stress with all the benefits these improvements will bring for society and for individuals.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Occupational Diseases , Occupational Health , Humans , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
7.
Pan Afr Med J ; 39: 283, 2021.
Article in French | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1472501

ABSTRACT

Self-denial and sense of duty are fundamental ethical principles in health care. Since the outbreak of health crisis, healthcare workers have been the first bulwark against the spread of coronavirus, and therefore, the occupational category at higher risk of contamination. In this regard, in a statement dated 23 March 2020, the World Health Organization published a guidance regarding the management of the disease caused by Covid-19 in health workers, but also in workers employed in all sectors exposed to the risk of contamination. In Morocco, the Ministry of Health published on April 6, on its official website, a condolence message to the families of the first two doctors died following contraction of coronavirus, while specifying that coronavirus infection was not due to the exercise of their professional functions. The Minister of Labor and Professional Integration recently appointed an internal committee to undertake a reflection on this issue. At present, given Morocco's law, what are the chances to categorize coronavirus as an occupational disease?


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Personnel/psychology , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Occupational Health , Pandemics/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , Morocco/epidemiology , Personal Protective Equipment , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Am J Ind Med ; 64(11): 941-951, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1408312

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: App-based drivers face work disruptions and infection risk during a pandemic due to the nature of their work, interactions with the public, and lack of workplace protections. Limited occupational health research has focused on their experiences. METHODS: We surveyed 100 app-based drivers in Seattle, WA to assess risk perceptions, supports, and controls received from the company that employs them, sources of trust, stress, job satisfaction, COVID-19 infection status, and how the pandemic had changed their work hours. Data were summarized descriptively and with simple regression models. We complemented this with qualitative interviews to better understand controls and policies enacted during COVID-19, and barriers and facilitators to their implementation. RESULTS: Drivers expressed very high levels of concern for exposure and infection (86%-97% were "very concerned" for all scenarios). Only 31% of drivers reported receiving an appropriate mask from the company for which they drive. Stress (assessed via PSS-4) was significantly higher in drivers who reported having had COVID-19, and also significantly higher in respondents with lower reported job satisfaction. Informants frequently identified supports such as unemployment benefits and peer outreach among the driver community as ways to ensure that drivers could access available benefits during COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: App-based drivers received few protections from the company that employed them, and had high fear of exposure and infection at work. There is increased need for health-supportive policies and protections for app-based drivers. The most effective occupational and public health regulations would cover employees who may not have a traditional employer-employee relationship.


Subject(s)
Automobile Driving/psychology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Safety Management/organization & administration , Workplace/psychology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mobile Applications , Occupational Diseases/virology , Occupational Health , Organizational Culture , Perception , SARS-CoV-2 , Transportation , Washington , Workplace/organization & administration , Young Adult
9.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(17): 622-626, 2021 Apr 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1410367

ABSTRACT

Large COVID-19 outbreaks have occurred in high-density workplaces, such as food processing facilities (1). Alaska's seafood processing industry attracts approximately 18,000 out-of-state workers annually (2). Many of the state's seafood processing facilities are located in remote areas with limited health care capacity. On March 23, 2020, the governor of Alaska issued a COVID-19 health mandate (HM10) to address health concerns related to the impending influx of workers amid the COVID-19 pandemic (3). HM10 required employers bringing critical infrastructure (essential) workers into Alaska to submit a Community Workforce Protective Plan.* On May 15, 2020, Appendix 1 was added to the mandate, which outlined specific requirements for seafood processors, to reduce the risk for transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in these high-density workplaces (4). These requirements included measures to prevent introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into the workplace, including testing of incoming workers and a 14-day entry quarantine before workers could enter nonquarantine residences. After 13 COVID-19 outbreaks in Alaska seafood processing facilities and on processing vessels during summer and early fall 2020, State of Alaska personnel and CDC field assignees reviewed the state's seafood processing-associated cases. Requirements were amended in November 2020 to address gaps in COVID-19 prevention. These revised requirements included restricting quarantine groups to ≤10 persons, pretransfer testing, and serial testing (5). Vaccination of this essential workforce is important (6); until high vaccination coverage rates are achieved, other mitigation strategies are needed in this high-risk setting. Updating industry guidance will be important as more information becomes available.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Food-Processing Industry , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Alaska/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control
10.
J Occup Health ; 63(1): e12273, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1406069

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: It is unclear how many workplace COVID-19 preventive measures were maintained during repeated outbreaks. The aim of this study was to investigate a longitudinal change of implementation of workplace preventive measures responding to COVID-19 in Japan. METHODS: An online longitudinal study was conducted using a cohort of full-time employees in Japan, starting in March 2020 (T1), with follow-up surveys in May (T2), August (T3), and November (T4) 2020. A repeated measures analysis of variance was performed to compare the difference among the four surveys in the mean number of 23 predetermined items of the measures implemented. RESULTS: The final sample comprised 800 employees. The mean number of the implemented measures increased from T1 to T2, but did not change from T2 to T3, then decreased from T3 to T4. The number of workplace preventive measures significantly increased from T1 to T2 for 21 items (P < .001), and significantly decreased from T3 to T4 for 14 items (P < .001 to P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: While the preventive measures responding to COVID-19 in the workplace were well-implemented during the earlier phase of the outbreak, they seem to have been relaxed after a huge outbreak (T3 to T4: August to November 2020). Workplaces should be encouraged to continue the preventive measures over repeated outbreaks.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control/statistics & numerical data , Health Plan Implementation/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Workplace/statistics & numerical data , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Disease Outbreaks , Employment/statistics & numerical data , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Japan , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Occupational Diseases/virology , Occupational Health/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
11.
Allergy Asthma Proc ; 42(5): 395-399, 2021 Sep 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1394716

ABSTRACT

Background: Adverse reactions, including anaphylaxis, to messenger RNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines rarely occur. Because of the need to administer a timely second dose in subjects who reported a reaction to their first dose, a panel of health-care professionals developed a safe triage of the employees and health care providers (EHCP) at a large health-care system to consider administration of future dosing. Methods: There were 28,544 EHCPs who received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccines between December 15, 2020, and March 8, 2021. The EHCPs self-reported adverse reactions to a centralized COVID-19 command center (CCC). The CCC screened and collected information on the quality of reaction, symptoms, and timing of the onset of the reaction. Results: Of 1253 calls to the CCC, 113 were identified as requiring consideration by a panel of three (American Board of Allergy and Immunology) ABAI-certified allergists for future dosing or formal in-person assessment. Of the 113 EHCPs, 94 (83.2%) were recommended to get their second dose. Eighty of 94 received their second planned dose without a severe or immediate reaction. Of the 14 of 113 identified as needing further evaluation, 6 were evaluated by a physician and subsequently received their second dose without a serious adverse reaction. Eight of 14 did not receive their second dose. Only 5 of the 113 EHCPs reported reactions (4.4%) were recommended to not take the second dose: 3 (2.6%) because of symptoms consistent with anaphylaxis, and 2 because of neurologic complications (seizure, stroke). Conclusion: The panel demonstrated that, by consideration of reaction history alone, the ECHPs could be appropriately triaged to receive scheduled second dosing of COVID-19 vaccines without delays for in-person evaluation and allergy testing.


Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis/etiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Triage/methods , Vaccines, Synthetic/adverse effects , Adult , Aged , Anaphylaxis/diagnosis , Anaphylaxis/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Health Services/methods , Occupational Health Services/standards , Quality Improvement , Retrospective Studies , Self Report , Triage/standards , Vaccines, Synthetic/administration & dosage
15.
Infect Dis Now ; 51(5): 410-417, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1349451

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2 mainly infects the respiratory tract, and presents significantly higher active replication in the upper airways. To remain viable and infectious, the SARS-CoV-2 virion must be complete and integral, which is not easily demonstrated in the environment by positive reverse transcriptase PCR results. Real-life conditions in healthcare settings may be conducive to SARS-CoV-2 RNA dissemination in the environment but without evidence of its viability and infectiveness in air. Theoretically, SARS-CoV-2 shedding and dissemination nonetheless appears to be air-mediated, and a distinction between "air" and "droplet" transmission is too schematic to reflect the reality of the respiratory particles emitted by patients, between which a continuum exists. Airborne transmission is influenced by numerous environmental conditions that are not transposable between different viral agents and situations in healthcare settings or in the community. Even though international guidelines on "droplet" versus "air" precautions and personal protective equipment (surgical versus respirator masks) are under discussion, the existing literature underscores the effectiveness of "droplet" precautions as a means of protecting healthcare workers. Differentiation in guidelines between healthcare venues, community settings and, more generally, confined environments is of paramount importance, especially insofar as it underlines the abiding pandemic-related need for systematic mask wearing by the general population.


Subject(s)
Air Microbiology , COVID-19/transmission , Health Personnel , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Occupational Diseases/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans
16.
Indian J Gastroenterol ; 40(4): 410-419, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1338283

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: During Corona Virus Disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic, it has been estimated that approximately 10% of health care professionals (HCPs) have been diagnosed contacting  COVID-19. Aerosol-generating procedures have led to change in safety practices among HCPs. We thus evaluated the efficacy of the endoscopic safety measures among HCPs posted in the endoscopy unit. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, all endoscopic procedures performed over a period of 4 months, from 1 April to 31 July 2020 were included. We noted indications and number of COVID-positive procedures as well as comprehensive screening of HCPs posted in our endoscopy unit. The aim of the study was to evaluate the incidence and outcome of COVID-19 among HCPs. RESULTS: Three thousand four hundred and sixty procedures were included in the analysis. Indications were divided as urgent (n = 190, 5.49%), semi-urgent (n = 553, 16%) and non-urgent group (n = 2717, 78.52%). Thirty-four procedures (0.98%) were done on diagnosed COVID-19 patients. The most common indications were gastrointestinal bleed (n = 12/34, 35.30%) followed by biliary sepsis (n = 9/34, 26.5%). Among the HCPs, the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 was 6.58% (n = 5/76). All HCPs recovered with excellent outcomes. A comprehensive screening showed 7.90% (n = 6/76) HCPs having Immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody in their sera. CONCLUSION: Addition of safety measures in endoscopy leads to low risk of transmission among HCPs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Endoscopy/methods , Health Personnel , Infection Control/methods , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Occupational Health , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Female , Humans , Incidence , India , Infection Control/instrumentation , Infection Control/standards , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Diseases/diagnosis , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Occupational Health/standards , Personal Protective Equipment , Retrospective Studies , Tertiary Care Centers , Young Adult
17.
Rev. baiana enferm ; 34: e37234, 2020. graf
Article in Portuguese | LILACS (Americas) | ID: covidwho-1328341

ABSTRACT

Objetivo relatar a experiência de produção de máscaras cirúrgicas por uma comissão de produção de inovação tecnológica. Método estudo descritivo do tipo relato de experiência. O processo de produção envolveu seis costureiras, uma cortando o tecido-não-tecido hospitalar, uma na máquina Overlock para fazer o acabamento nas laterais e quatro, costurando na máquina Reta. Foi utilizado tecido-não-tecido gramatura de 60, linhas brancas e arame galvanizado encapado. Resultado a produção chegou a 1.300 máscaras cirúrgicas por dia. Todas passaram pelo teste de qualidade em uma central de distribuição antes de serem encaminhadas aos serviços de saúde. O processo foi gerenciado por duas enfermeiras. Conclusão a estratégia relatada representou a produção de 63 mil unidades de máscaras cirúrgicas e foi uma maneira alternativa de suprir a demanda de máscaras cirúrgicas nos serviços de saúde, contribuindo para melhorar a segurança dos profissionais de saúde no âmbito da COVID-19.


Objetivo informar la experiencia de producción de mascarillas quirúrgicas por una comisión de producción de innovación tecnológica. Método estudio descriptivo del tipo informe de experiencia. El proceso de producción implicó seis costureras, una cortando la tela no tejida hospitalaria, una en la máquina Sobrehilada para hacer el acabado en los lados y cuatro cosiendo en la máquina Recta. Se utilizó una tela no tejida de 60 gramos, hilos blancos y un alambre galvanizado camuflado. Resultado la producción alcanzó 1.300 máscaras quirúrgicas por día. El proceso fue gestionado por dos enfermeras. Conclusión la estrategia reportada representó la producción de 63.000 unidades de mascarillas quirúrgicas y fue una forma alternativa de satisfacer la demanda de mascarillas quirúrgicas en los servicios de salud, contribuyendo a mejorar la seguridad de los profesionales de la salud en el contexto da la COVID-19.


Objective to report the experience of production of surgical masks by a committee of technological innovation production. Method descriptive study of the experience-report type. The production process involved six seamstresses, one cutting the hospital nonwoven fabric, one at the Overlock stitch machine to make the finish of sides and four sewing with the Straight stitch machine. A 60-grammage nonwoven fabric, white thread and a cloaked galvanized wire were used. Result production reached 1,300 surgical masks per day. The process was managed by two nurses. Conclusion the strategy reported represented the production of 63,000 units of surgical masks and was an alternative to meet the demand for surgical masks in health services, contributing to improve the safety of health professionals within the scope of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Humans , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Pandemics , Betacoronavirus , Masks/supply & distribution , Quality Control , Containment of Biohazards/methods , Equipment and Supplies, Disasters , Masks/economics , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control
18.
Clin Dermatol ; 39(1): 92-97, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1300695

ABSTRACT

The life of medical specialists worldwide has dramatically changed due to the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Health care professionals (HCPs) have personally faced the outbreak by being on the first line of the battlefield with the disease and, as such, compose a significant number of people who have contracted COVID-19. We propose a classification and discuss the pathophysiology, clinical findings, and treatments and prevention of the occupational skin hazards COVID-19 poses to HCPs. The multivariate pattern of occupational skin diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic can be classified into four subgroups: mechanical skin injury, moisture-associated skin damage, contact reactions, and exacerbation of preexisting dermatoses. The clinical pattern is versatile, and the most affected skin sites were the ones in contact with the protective equipment. Dermatologists should recognize the plethora of HCPs' occupational skin reactions that are occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic and implement treatment and preventive strategies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel , Occupational Diseases/classification , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Skin Diseases/classification , Skin/injuries , COVID-19/prevention & control , Disease Progression , Humans , Occupational Diseases/etiology , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Occupational Injuries/etiology , Occupational Injuries/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Skin Diseases/etiology , Skin Diseases/prevention & control
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...