Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
PLoS One ; 16(11): e0260261, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1528726

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers are disproportionately affected by COVID-19. In low- and middle- income countries, they may be particularly impacted by underfunded health systems, lack of personal protective equipment, challenging working conditions and barriers in accessing personal healthcare. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, occupational health screening was implemented at the largest public sector medical centre in Harare, Zimbabwe, during the "first wave" of the country's COVID-19 epidemic. Clients were voluntarily screened for symptoms of COVID-19, and if present, offered a SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection assay. In addition, measurement of height, weight, blood pressure and HbA1c, HIV and TB testing, and mental health screening using the Shona Symptom Questionnaire (SSQ-14) were offered. An interviewer-administered questionnaire ascertained client knowledge and experiences related to COVID-19. RESULTS: Between 27th July and 30th October 2020, 951 healthcare workers accessed the service; 210 (22%) were tested for SARS-CoV-2, of whom 12 (5.7%) tested positive. Clients reported high levels of concern about COVID-19 which declined with time, and faced barriers including lack of resources for infection prevention and control. There was a high prevalence of largely undiagnosed non-communicable disease: 61% were overweight or obese, 34% had a blood pressure of 140/90mmHg or above, 10% had an HbA1c diagnostic of diabetes, and 7% had an SSQ-14 score consistent with a common mental disorder. Overall 8% were HIV-positive, with 97% previously diagnosed and on treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Cases of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers mirrored the national epidemic curve. Implementation of comprehensive occupational health services during a pandemic was feasible, and uptake was high. Other comorbidities were highly prevalent, which may be risk factors for severe COVID-19 but are also important independent causes of morbidity and mortality. Healthcare workers are critical to combatting COVID-19; it is essential to support their physical and psychological wellbeing during the pandemic and beyond.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Delivery of Health Care/standards , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Health Services/standards , Occupational Health/standards , Personal Protective Equipment/standards , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19/virology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , SARS-CoV-2 , Zimbabwe/epidemiology
2.
Ann Biol Clin (Paris) ; 79(4): 325-330, 2021 Aug 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1412311

ABSTRACT

Health care workers (HCWs) are at major risk to be infected by SARS-CoV-2 and transmit the virus to the patients. Furthermore, travels are a major factor in the diffusion of the virus. We report our experience regarding the screening of asymptomatic HCWs returning from holidays, following the issue of a national guideline on 08/20/2020. The organization of the occupational health department and the clinical laboratory was adapted in order to start the screening on August, 24, 2020. All HCWs tested for SARS-CoV-2 the week before and 4 weeks after the implementation of the screening were included. The mean number of tests was analyzed per working day and working week. Overall, 502 (31.4%) HCWs were tested for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period. The mean number of HCWs tested per working day was 27.1. HCWs accounted for 36.9% (n = 167) and 11.2% (n = 84) of the tests performed in the 1st and the 4th week following the implementation of the guidelines. The number of tests performed each week in HCWs increased by at least 20-fold after the implementation of the guidelines. No asymptomatic HCW was tested positive. Screening of asymptomatic HCWs was poorly effective in the context of low circulation of the virus. We suggest giving priority to infection prevention and control measures and screening of symptomatic subjects and asymptomatic contacts.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , Health Personnel , Asymptomatic Infections , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19 Testing/standards , Cross Infection/prevention & control , France/epidemiology , Guideline Adherence/organization & administration , Guideline Adherence/standards , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Hospitals, General , Humans , Implementation Science , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/organization & administration , Infection Control/standards , Mass Screening/methods , Mass Screening/organization & administration , Mass Screening/standards , Occupational Health Services/organization & administration , Occupational Health Services/standards , Occupational Health Services/statistics & numerical data , Return to Work/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
3.
Rev Colomb Psiquiatr (Engl Ed) ; 50(3): 225-231, 2021.
Article in English, Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1401810

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The crisis situation generated by COVID-19 and the measures adopted have generated social changes in the normal dynamics of the general population and especially for health workers, who find themselves caring for patients with suspected or confirmed infection. Recent studies have detected in them depression and anxiety symptoms and burnout syndrome, with personal and social conditions impacting their response capacity during the health emergency. Our aim was to generate recommendations for the promotion and protection of the mental health of health workers and teams in the first line of care in the health emergency due to COVID-19. METHODS: A rapid literature search was carried out in PubMed and Google Scholar, and an iterative expert consensus and through electronic consultation, with 13 participants from the areas of psychology, psychiatry and medicine; the grading of its strength and directionality was carried out according to the international standards of the Joanna Briggs Institute. RESULTS: Thirty-one recommendations were generated on self-care of health workers, community care among health teams, screening for alarm signs in mental health and for health institutions. CONCLUSIONS: The promotion and protection activities in mental health to face the health emergency generated by COVID-19 worldwide can include coordinated actions between workers, health teams and health institutions as part of a comprehensive, community care, co-responsible and sustained over time.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Mental Disorders/diagnosis , Mental Disorders/therapy , Occupational Diseases/diagnosis , Occupational Diseases/therapy , Occupational Health Services/methods , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Mass Screening/standards , Mental Disorders/etiology , Mental Disorders/psychology , Occupational Diseases/etiology , Occupational Diseases/psychology , Occupational Health Services/standards , Preventive Health Services/methods , Preventive Health Services/standards , Self Care/methods , Self Care/standards
4.
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
6.
J Occup Environ Med ; 63(2): 119-125, 2021 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1132640

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The higher education industry in the United States is large (almost four million employees and 19 million students) with diverse hazards. METHODS: We apply a novel health services research approach to systematically assess a sample of 55 institutional websites. The accessibility, content, and coverage of occupational health/safety program information were systematically coded for several domains (eg, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-related, specific hazards, clinical, person-oriented, COVID-19, and coverage). RESULTS: Information was more available for programs related to OSHA mandates (eg, chemical hygiene) and specific hazards than for person-oriented programs (eg, counseling). Larger institutions provide better information and more comprehensive programs than smaller institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Higher education institutions warrant increasing attention to occupational health and safety, particularly as COVID-19 increased attention to workplace health issues.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Internet , Occupational Health Services/standards , Occupational Health/education , Universities , Health Planning , Health Services Research , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology , United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL