Working conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic in primary and tertiary healthcare: a comparative cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has globally affected healthcare workers' (HCWs) health and wellbeing. Most studies on COVID-19 have focused on tertiary healthcare. The aim of this study was to increase the knowledge on the effects of the pandemic on working conditions in tertiary and primary healthcare. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The comparative cross-sectional study consisted of an online questionnaire sent to HCWs of the City of Helsinki (primary healthcare) and Helsinki University Hospital (tertiary healthcare). Altogether 1580 HCWs with direct patient contact participated in the study: 895 from tertiary and 685 from primary healthcare. Statistical analysis used SPSS 25 from IBM. The tests used were the χ2 test, Fisher's exact test, and binary logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Primary HCWs were less likely to treat COVID-19 patients (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.37-0.56). However, both groups reported a similar number of COVID-19 infections, primary HCWs 4.9% and tertiary HCWs 5.0%, and workrelated quarantine was significantly more prevalent (OR = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.38-2.79) among primary HCWs. In addition, work-related wellbeing was poorer among primary HCWs than tertiary HCWs in terms of feeling more stressed at work (OR = 3.20, 95% CI: 2.55-4.02), not recovering from work (OR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.39-0.62), reported mental wellbeing below normal levels (OR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.26-2.00), and increased working hours (OR = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.25-2.12). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates how the pandemic has affected the wellbeing and working conditions of not only tertiary but also less studied primary HCWs. The authors' findings suggest that the challenges identified during the COVID-19 pandemic in the health and wellbeing of healthcare workers are even greater in primary care than in tertiary care. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2023;36(1):139-50.

"As protective gear began to run low, guidance on protection became looser" - Healthcare workers' perspectives on infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has posed several risk factors to healthcare workers' (HCWs') emotional distress. The purpose of the study was to enhance understanding of the experiences and feelings of HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic, with specific reference to infection prevention and control (IPC) practices and guidance, focusing on the quality and availability of personal protective equipment (PPE), guidelines, and management. With a qualitative approach, we aimed to enable a wider narrative; to gain a more detailed understanding related to PPE use and identify experiences that can be overlooked in forced-choice questionnaires. Methods: An online questionnaire was conducted among HCWs of the City of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital between 12.6.2020 and 5.4.2021. Altogether 1,580 HCWs participated in the study, from whom 579 shared 1,666 free-text responses. These responses were analyzed qualitatively, and the results were combined with statistical data on the participants' working conditions and backgrounds. Results: We identified problems in PPE availability and changing guidelines as factors causing the most distress in the participants. Regarding availability, running out of masks and respirators emerged as the most worrying issue, and inadequate PPE was associated with the excessive workload (OR 1.51, CI 95% 1.01-2.25). The results also highlight the importance of transparent and clear communication regarding IPC instructions and guidance, and clear IPC guidance was associated with better levels of reported recovery from work (OR 1.51, CI 95% 1.06-2.14). Conclusions: Our study highlights the importance of adequate PPE provision, transparent communication, clear guidance, and supportive supervisory work in this ongoing pandemic and potential new ones. We suggest more rigorous preparation, with crisis communication planning and emergency storage of PPE.

Mental well-being of healthcare workers in 2 hospital districts during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Finland: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unseen pressure on healthcare systems in many countries, jeopardizing the mental well-being of healthcare workers. The authors aimed to assess the mental well-being of Finnish healthcare workers from 2 hospital districts (Helsinki University Hospital [HUS] and Social and Health Services in Kymenlaakso [Kymsote]) with differing COVID-19 incidence rates during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total number of 996 healthcare workers (HUS N = 862, Kymsote N = 134) participated in this prospectively conducted survey study during summer 2020. Symptom criteria of self-reported mental health symptoms followed ICD-10 classification, excluding duration criteria. Participants were divided into symptom categories "often/sometimes", and "rarely/never". These groups were compared to sociodemographic factors and factors related to work, workload, and well-being. RESULTS: The degree of mental health symptoms did not differ between the 2 healthcare districts despite differing COVID-19 incidences (p = 1). The authors observed a significant relationship between self-reported diagnostic mental health symptoms and experiences of insufficient instructions for protection against COVID-19 (in HUS cohort p < 0.001), insufficient recovery from work (p < 0.001), and subjective increased workload (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The authors' results show the importance of well-planned and sufficient instructions for protection from SARS-CoV-2 for healthcare workers, indicating their need to feel safe and protected at work. The workload of healthcare workers should be carefully monitored to keep it moderate and ensure sufficient recovery. Sufficient control of the epidemic to keep the burden of the healthcare system low is vital for healthcare workers' well-being.

Blood and saliva SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels in self-collected dried spot samples.

We examined the usefulness of dried spot blood and saliva samples in SARS-CoV-2 antibody analyses. We analyzed 1231 self-collected dried spot blood and saliva samples from healthcare workers. Participants filled in a questionnaire on their COVID-19 exposures, infections, and vaccinations. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgA, and IgM levels were determined from both samples using the GSP/DELFIA method. The level of exposure was the strongest determinant of all blood antibody classes and saliva IgG, increasing as follows: (1) no exposure (healthy, non-vaccinated), (2) exposed, (3) former COVID-19 infection, (4) one vaccination, (5) two vaccinations, and (6) vaccination and former infection. While the blood IgG assay had a 99.5% sensitivity and 75.3% specificity to distinguish participants with two vaccinations from all other types of exposure, the corresponding percentages for saliva IgG were 85.3% and 65.7%. Both blood and saliva IgG-seropositivity proportions followed similar trends to the exposures reported in the questionnaires. Self-collected dry blood and saliva spot samples combined with the GSP/DELFIA technique comprise a valuable tool to investigate an individual's immune response to SARS-CoV-2 exposure or vaccination. Saliva IgG has high potential to monitor vaccination response wane, since the sample is non-invasive and easy to collect.

Sources of healthcare workers' COVID­19 infections and related safety guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of safety guidelines in the workplace, the authors analyzed the work-related exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and the source of COVID­19 infections among healthcare workers (HCWs), together with the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional prospective study was conducted in tertiary hospitals in the Uusimaa region, Finland, with 1072 volunteers being enrolled in the study from among the HCWs at the Helsinki University Hospital. Overall, 866 (80.8%) HCWs (including 588 nurses, 170 doctors, and 108 laboratory and medical imaging nurses) completed the questionnaire by July 15, 2020, with 52% of the participants taking care of COVID­19 patients. The participants answered a structured questionnaire regarding their use of PPE, the ability to follow safety guidelines, exposure to COVID­19, and the source of potential COVID­19 infections. The participants with COVID­19 symptoms were tested with the SARS-CoV-2 realtime polymerase chain reaction method. All infected participants were contacted, and their answers were confirmed regarding COVID­19 exposure. RESULTS: In total, 41 (4.7%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, with 22 (53.6%) of infections being confirmed or likely occupational, and 12 (29.3%) originating from colleagues. In 14 cases (63.6%), occupational infections occurred while using a surgical mask, and all infections originating from patients occurred while using a surgical mask or no mask at all. No occupational infections were found while using an FFP2/3 respirator and following aerosol precautions. The combined odds ratio for working at an intensive care unit, an emergency department, or a ward was 3.4 (95% CI: 1.2-9.2, p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: A high infection rate was found among HCWs despite safety guidelines. Based on these findings, the authors recommend the use of FFP2/3 respirators in all patient contacts with confirmed or suspected COVID­19, along with the use of universal masking, also in personnel rooms. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2021;34(2):239-49.