ABSTRACT
Hand hygiene (HH) is the paramount measure used to prevent healthcare-associated infections. A repeated cross-sectional study was undertaken with direct observation of the degree of compliance on HH of healthcare personnel during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Between, 2018-2019, 9,083 HH opportunities were considered, and 5,821 in 2020-2022. Chi squared tests were used to identify associations. The crude and adjusted odds ratios were used along with a logistic regression model for statistical analyses. Compliance on HH increased significantly (p < 0.001) from 54.5% (95% CI: 53.5, 55.5) to 70.1% (95% CI: 68.9, 71.2) during the COVID-19 pandemic. This increase was observed in four of the five key moments of HH established by the World Health Organization (WHO) (p < 0.05), except at moment 4. The factors that were significantly and independently associated with compliance were the time period considered, type of healthcare-personnel, attendance at training sessions, knowledge of HH and WHO guidelines, and availability of hand disinfectant alcoholic solution in pocket format. Highest HH compliance occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, reflecting a positive change in healthcare-personnel's behaviour regarding HH recommendations.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Guideline Adherence , Hand Hygiene , Health Personnel , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Hand Hygiene/statistics & numerical data , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Hand DisinfectionABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) is the third leading aetiological agent in healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and the one most frequently found in patients with pneumonia associated with mechanical ventilation. In intensive care units (ICU), its appearance is associated with higher mortality, an increase in the days spent on ventilation, and hospital stay length and costs. Thus, evaluating strategies for preventing these infections is essential for their control. Therefore, our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of the systematic use of antimicrobial filters in preventing PA infections in critical care units. METHODS: This was an open experimental crossover study. A total of 2,156 patients admitted for more than 24 hours in critical care units were included, 1,129 of them in units with filters, and 1,027 in units without filters. The study groups were followed-up for 24 months and HAIs were checked for the presence of PA. Chi-squared test were used to compare the rate of HAIs between groups and we calculated 95% confidence intervals adjusted by Poisson regression for the rate ratio (RR) of the association magnitude. RESULTS: Both groups were homogeneous in terms of intrinsic and extrinsic patient factors. The incidence of PA infections in the units with filters was 5.5 cases/1,000 hospitalized days and 5.4/1,000 hospitalized days for the units without water filters (RR = 1.09 [0.67-1.79]). CONCLUSIONS: Routine placing antimicrobial filters in the water taps in critical care units was not an effective means of preventing the emergence of HAIs caused by PA.
Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents , Pseudomonas aeruginosa , Critical Care , Cross-Over Studies , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Intensive Care Units , WaterABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: A first protective dose of vaccine may allow delaying the second dose in a context of low supply. The objective is to assess the effectiveness of a single dose of vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 (BNT162b2) after twelve days of its administration in healthcare personnel (HCP) of a Health Department. METHODS: A case-control study was made. HCP with suspected COVID-19 and HCP close contacts of COVID-19 cases were included between January 27 and February 7, 2021. They were PCR tested for SARS-CoV-2; those with positive PCR were considered cases and those with negative PCR were considered controls. The crude (VE) and adjusted (VEa) vaccine effectiveness to prevent COVID-19 cases and their 95% confidence interval were calculated using the formula VE = (1-Odds ratio) x 100. RESULTS: 268 HCP were included, of which 70 (26.1%) were considered cases and 198 (73.9%) controls. The frequency of vaccine exposure in cases was 55.7% vs. 69.7% in controls (p=0.035). The VEa of the first vaccine dose was 52.6% (95%CI: 1.1-77.3). The VEa in the subgroup of HCP studied for suspected disease was 74.6% (CI95%: 38.4-89.5). CONCLUSIONS: One dose of BNT162b2 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 offers early protection after twelve days of administration. These data could be considered to adapt strategies and consider postponing the second dose in situations of limited vaccine supply in order to achieve the maximum number of people covered with a first dose.
OBJETIVO: Una primera dosis de vacuna protectora permitiría aplazar la segunda dosis en un contexto de suministro escaso. El objetivo de este trabajo fue conocer la efectividad de una dosis de vacuna frente a SARS-CoV-2 (BNT162b2) tras doce días de su administración en personal sanitario (PS) de un Departamento de Salud. METODOS: Se realizó un estudio de casos y controles. Se incluyó a PS con sospecha de COVID-19 y PS que tuvo contactos estrechos con casos de COVID-19 entre el 27 de enero y el 7 de febrero de 2021. Se les realizó una PCR para determinar SARS-CoV-2; aquellos con PCR positiva fueron considerados casos y aquellos con PCR negativa fueron considerados controles. Se calculó la efectividad vacunal cruda (EV) y ajustada (EVa) para prevenir casos de COVID-19 y su intervalo de confianza al 95%, mediante la fórmula EV = (1-Odds ratio) x 100. RESULTADOS: Fueron incluidos 268 PS, de los cuales 70 (26,1%) fueron considerados casos y 198 (73,9%) controles. La frecuencia de exposición a la vacuna en los casos fue del 55,7% frente al 69,7% en los controles (p=0,035). La EVa de la primera dosis de vacuna fue del 52,6% (IC95%: 1,1-77,3). La EVa en el subgrupo de PS estudiados por sospecha de enfermedad fue del 74,6% (IC95%: 38,4-89,5). CONCLUSIONES: Una dosis de vacuna BNT162b2 frente a SARS-CoV-2 ofrece protección temprana tras doce días de su administración. Estos datos podrían considerarse para adaptar estrategias y valorar aplazar la segunda dosis en situaciones de limitación de suministro de vacuna, con el fin de conseguir el máximo número de personas cubiertas con una primera dosis.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Adult , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Case-Control Studies , Female , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Spain , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: This study examines the frequency, associated factors, and characteristics of healthcare personnel coronavirus disease 2019 cases in a healthcare department that comprises a tertiary hospital and its associated 12 primary healthcare centers. METHODS: This study included healthcare personnel that showed symptoms or were in contact with a coronavirus disease 2019 case patient from March 2, 2020 to April 19, 2020. Their evolution and characteristics (age, sex, professional category, type of contact) were recorded. Correlations between the different characteristics and risk of developing coronavirus disease 2019 and severe coronavirus disease 2019 were analyzed using chi-square tests. Their magnitudes were quantified with ORs, AORs, and their 95% CIs using a logistic regression model. RESULTS: Of the 3,900 healthcare professionals in the department, 1,791 (45.9%) showed symptoms or were part of a contact tracing study. The prevalence of those with symptoms was 20.1% (784/3,900; 95% CI=18.8, 21.4), with coronavirus disease 2019 was 4.0% (156/3,900; 95% CI=3.4, 4.6), and with severe coronavirus disease 2019 was 0.5% (18/3,900; 95% CI=0.2, 0.7). The frequency of coronavirus disease 2019 in symptomatic healthcare personnel with a nonprotected exposure was 22.8% (112/491) and 13.7% (40/293) in those with a protected exposure (AOR=2.2, 95% CI=1.2, 3.9). The service in which the healthcare personnel performed their activity was not significantly associated with being diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019. A total of 26.3% (10/38) of male healthcare personnel with coronavirus disease 2019 required hospitalization, compared with 6.8% (8/118) among female healthcare personnel (OR=4.9, 95% CI=1.8, 13.6). CONCLUSIONS: A surveillance and monitoring program centred on healthcare personnel enables an understanding of the risk factors that lead to coronavirus disease 2019 among this population. This knowledge allows the refinement of the strategies for disease control and prevention in healthcare personnel during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.
Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , COVID-19 , Contact Tracing/methods , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Occupations , Pandemics , Public Health Surveillance/methods , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Sex Factors , Spain/epidemiology , Tertiary Care CentersABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To determine vaccination coverage against seasonal influenza and the new A (H1N1) influenza virus among healthcare personnel during the 2009-2010 season and to identify its determining factors. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study among healthcare staff at the General University Hospital in Alicante (Spain) during the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 influenza vaccination campaigns. The 2009-2010 vaccination campaign was subdivided into two phases. In the first phase, from 1st October to 19th November, 2009, the seasonal influenza vaccine was administered; in the second phase, from 16th November to 30th December, 2009, vaccination against the new A (H1N1) influenza virus was performed. Each of the vaccine programs was preceded by a specific vaccination promotion campaign. Healthcare staff were asked to complete a brief self-administered questionnaire containing a list of reasons for being vaccinated. Coverage during both vaccination campaigns was calculated, and the results, both overall and for each profession, were then compared using a Chi-square test. RESULTS: Coverage against seasonal influenza was 31% and that against the new A (H1N1) influenza virus was 22.2% (p<0.05); these percentages were 36% and 34% respectively in medical personnel (NS), 33% and 24% respectively in nursing personnel (p<0.001), and 21% and 12% respectively in nursing assistants (p<0.001). The main reason given for being vaccinated was self-protection. CONCLUSIONS: The low coverage achieved is a public health problem. Specific intervention programs should be implemented.
Subject(s)
Disease Outbreaks , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype , Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Personnel, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Health Promotion , Hospitals, General/statistics & numerical data , Hospitals, University/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype/immunology , Influenza Vaccines/immunology , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/virology , Male , Medical Staff, Hospital/psychology , Medical Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Motivation , Nursing Assistants/psychology , Nursing Assistants/statistics & numerical data , Nursing Staff, Hospital/psychology , Nursing Staff, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Exposure , Personnel, Hospital/psychology , Spain/epidemiology , Vaccination/psychology , Vaccination/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
Objetivos: Determinar las coberturas vacunales frente a la gripe estacional y frente a la nueva gripe A(H1N1) en la temporada 2009-2010 en trabajadores sanitarios y conocer sus factores determinantes.Métodos: Estudio transversal realizado en el Hospital General Universitario de Alicante en trabajadoressanitarios durante las campanas de vacunación antigripal 2008-2009 y 2009-2010. La campana 2009-2010 se subdividió en dos fases: entre el 1-10-09 y el 13-11-09 se administró la vacuna de la gripeestacional 2009-2010; desde el 16-11-09 hasta el 30-12-09 se administró la vacuna frente al nuevo virusde la gripe A (H1N1). Cada fase estuvo precedida por una campana promocional específica. En el momentode la vacunación, el trabajador sanitario cumplimentó un cuestionario que incluía un listado de motivospara vacunarse. Se calculó la frecuencia de vacunación y se compararon las coberturas vacunales de cadacampana, de manera global y por estamentos, utilizando la prueba de ji cuadrado.Resultados: La cobertura frente a la gripe estacional 2009-2010 fue del 31%, y frente a la nueva gripe A(H1N1) fue del 22,2% (p < 0,05). En personal facultativo la cobertura fue del 36% y del 34%, respectivamente(NS); en personal de enfermería fue del 33% y del 24% (p < 0,001); en auxiliares de enfermería fue del 21%y del 12% (p < 0,001). El principal motivo para vacunarse en ambas campanas fue «proteger mi salud».Conclusiones: Las bajas coberturas alcanzadas constituyen un problema de salud pública que hace necesarioel desarrollo de programas de intervención específicos para mejorarlas (AU)
Objectives: To determine vaccination coverage against seasonal influenza and the new A (H1N1)influenza virus among healthcare personnel during the 2009-2010 season and to identify its determiningfactors.Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study among healthcare staff at the General University Hospitalin Alicante (Spain) during the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 influenza vaccination campaigns. The2009-2010 vaccination campaign was subdivided into two phases. In the first phase, from 1st October to19th November, 2009, the seasonal influenza vaccine was administered; in the second phase, from 16thNovember to 30th December, 2009, vaccination against the new A (H1N1) influenza virus was performed.Each of the vaccine programs was preceded by a specific vaccination promotion campaign. Healthcarestaff were asked to complete a brief self-administered questionnaire containing a list of reasons for beingvaccinated. Coverage during both vaccination campaigns was calculated, and the results, both overalland for each profession, were then compared using a Chi-square test.Results: Coverage against seasonal influenza was 31% and that against the new A (H1N1) influenza viruswas 22.2% (p < 0.05); these percentages were 36% and 34% respectively in medical personnel (NS), 33%and 24% respectively in nursing personnel (p < 0.001), and 21% and 12% respectively in nursing assistants(p < 0.001). The main reason given for being vaccinated was self-protection.Conclusions: The low coverage achieved is a public health problem. Specific intervention programsshould be implemented (AU)
