[State of immunization against measles among health professionals in at-risk units of the Caen University Hospital]. / État d'immunisation contre la rougeole chez les professionnels de santé au sein des services à risques du centre hospitalier universitaire de Caen.

BACKGROUND: France is facing a new resurgence of measles. Since November 2017, the number of cases has been increasing sharply. Immunization coverage in the general population, all ages combined, is below the threshold required for a rapid decline of the virus propagation. Regarding health professionals, the rate of immunization against this disease is insufficiently documented. In this context, the Occupational Health Service of the University Hospital of Caen has carried out an inventory of health personnel knowledge of immunization against measles in the units the most exposed to risk. METHODS: Knowledge of immunization against measles was studied in pediatric, imaging, and pediatric and adult emergencies departments of the University Hospital of Caen, and the Hematology Institute of Lower Normandy (IHBN). The analysis included all health professionals present within these units during the study period: March and April 2018. Data collection was carried out by consulting the medical files of the occupational health unit and considering the set of responses to postal inquiries sent to staff. RESULTS: Measured immunization status data refer to 1017 health professionals. Based on the criteria specific to the recommendations, 234 (50.6%) of the 462 professionals born before 1980 and 437 (78.7%) of the 555 professionals born in or after 1980 could be considered as immune. Of the total sample, 115 (11.3%) had positive measles serology. Among these 1017 professionals, information on the state of immunization against measles was lacking for 174 (17.1%). CONCLUSION: The state of immunization of the nursing staff remains insufficient to prevent the occurrence of measles cases and the staff is also insufficiently informed. It is essential to have knowledge of the immunization status of this population, to organize the vaccination of non-immunized personnel within the occupational health unit, to prevent the emergence of new cases of measles and to reinforce the information regarding the importance of precautions related to airborne transmission in case of measles.

[What tools should be used for follow-up post occupational exposure? What should be the frequency?]. / Quels outils doivent être utilisés pour le suivi post-professionnel ? Quel est le rythme de ce suivi ?

As long as the value of screening for cancers related to asbestos is not proven in the population at risk, the medical benefits of follow-up post-professional exposure remain uncertain and the only justification is to answer the questions of anxious retired workers concerning the consequences of their past-exposure and to provide compensation for any abnormalities that are demonstrated. In this country, to answer the questions posed in the title of this contribution in the case of pathologies related to asbestos, it is necessary, after verifying the fact and the level of exposure, to identify the pleural or pulmonary fibrosis and, above all, the pleural plaques, which constitute the essential lesions currently screened for. Thoracic CT scanning without contrast is the examination of choice to achieve this objective. There are, however, two significant problems. On one hand there is a high incidence of pulmonary micronodules, the necessary surveillance of which requires subsequent scans, leading to increased irradiation and anxiety. On the other hand the diagnostic uncertainty concerning discrete lesions is a source of confusion for the persons followed-up. There are, at present, neither scientific criteria to determine the optimum frequency of examination nor any arguments for replacing the pragmatic proposals of the consensus conference of 1999. It is important, therefore, to provide a medical assessment appropriate to the symptoms and anxiety expressed by a person previously exposed to asbestos. Overall it is necessary to question the benefit to the exposed person, in terms of quality of life, of a regular search for lesions that would usually be asymptomatic if not identified. Would it not be more judicious and more equitable to compensate persons whose past-exposure is sufficient to increase significantly their risk of cancer independently of the presence of benign abnormalities.