Longitudinal SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence among Employees in Outpatient Care Services in Hamburg.

The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection is particularly high for healthcare workers during the pandemic. Home care workers visit many different households per shift. Encounters with mostly elderly patients and their relatives increase the potential for the undetected spread of SARS-CoV-2. In order to gain insight into the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and possible transmission risks in outpatient care, this follow-up study was conducted with nursing services in Hamburg. The aim was to estimate the dynamics of seroprevalence in this occupational group over a 12-month period, to identify occupation-specific risk factors, and to collect information on the vaccination status of the surveyed nursing staff. Antibody testing for SARS-CoV-2 IgG against the S1 domain (EUROIMUN Analyser I® Lübeck, Germany) was performed on participating healthcare workers with patient contact at a total of four time points within one year from July 2020 to October 2021 (baseline, follow-up after three, six and twelve months). The data were mostly analysed descriptively. Differences in IgG titres were analysed using variance analysis methods, particularly Tukey's range test. The seroprevalence was 1.2% (8/678) at baseline and 1.5% (9/581) at the three-month follow-up (T1). At the second follow-up (T2) after six months, vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 was available from January 2021 onwards. The prevalence rate of positive IgG antibodies relative to the S1 domain of the spike protein test among unvaccinated individuals was 6.5%. At (T3) after twelve months (July to October 2021), 482 participants were enrolled, and 85.7% of the workers were considered fully vaccinated at this time point, while 51 individuals were unvaccinated. The prevalence was 13.7% (7/51). In our study, a low seroprevalence was found among home care workers, which was lower than in our studies conducted in the clinical setting. Therefore, it can be assumed that the occupational risk of infection is rather low for both the nursing staff and the patients/clients cared for in the outpatient setting. The good provision of protective equipment and the high vaccination rate of the staff probably had a positive influence.

Prevalence of Adverse Skin Reactions in Nursing Staff Due to Personal Protective Equipment during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

In order to prevent the nosocomial transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, it has become necessary for health workers to increase their use of personal protective equipment (PPE). The aim of the study was to investigate the prevalence and influencing factors for adverse skin reactions (ASR) due to occupational PPE use among nursing staff in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study uses a mixed methods design. A focus group was created with experts from the field of healthcare, and an online survey was then carried out among nursing staff. Influencing factors were identified using multivariate logistic regression via odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 2274 nursing staff took part in the survey, with 1967 included in the analysis. The prevalence of ASR was 61%, with 94% affecting at least one area of the face. Statistically significant factors of influence were Filtering Face Peace (FFP) mask wearing duration of ≥4 h, a history of contact allergies, and being female and young. A pre-existing skin disease had a protective effect. The prevalence of PPE-related ASR underlines the necessity for targeted preventive measures for nursing staff during pandemic situation.

Skin symptoms in veterinary assistant staff and veterinarians: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Veterinary assistants and veterinarians are at an increased risk of developing an occupational skin disease, for example, irritant/allergic contact dermatitis, contact urticaria and hand eczema (HE). OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate the prevalence of skin problems and the influence of predisposing factors especially among veterinary assistants. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study among veterinary assistant staff (n = 103) and veterinarians (n = 19). A questionnaire, specific IgE determination and photographs of hands were evaluated for skin symptoms. Logistic regression models assessed predisposing factors. RESULTS: Over 50% (n = 62/122) of our study population reported hand eczema (HE) in the last 12 months (1-year prevalence). Twenty-seven subjects reported redness and contact urticaria directly after animal contact, 35 had a positive history of allergic contact dermatitis. HE was associated with (i) increased frequency of hand washing (11-15 times per day; OR 4.15, confidence interval [CI] 95% 1.18-14.6, p = 0.027, univariate model) and (ii) unprotected contact to fluids and tensides >5 times per day (OR 4.56, CI 95% 1.53-13.6, multivariate model). CONCLUSIONS: We observed a high prevalence of self-reported HE among staff in veterinary practices. Excessive hand washing, unprotected contact with irritants and long-term glove use should be avoided.

Animal Allergens, Endotoxin, and ß-(1,3)-Glucan in Small Animal Practices: Exposure Levels at Work and in Homes of Veterinary Staff.

OBJECTIVES: In veterinary settings, high exposures to animal allergens and microbial agents can be expected. However, occupational exposure levels are largely unknown. The objective of this study was to estimate the allergen, endotoxin, and ß-(1,3)-glucan concentrations in small animal practices and in the homes of practice employees. METHODS: Dust samples were collected using electrostatic dust fall collectors in diverse rooms of 36 small animal practices, as well as in employees' homes. Major animal allergens (Fel d 1, Can f 1, Ory c 3, Cav p 1, Equ c 1, Bos d 2), domestic mite (DM) allergens, and ß-(1,3)-glucan levels were measured using enzyme immunoassays. Endotoxin was determined using the Limulus amoebocyte lysate assay. Influences on exposure levels were analyzed using multilevel models. RESULTS: The levels of Can f 1, Fel d 1, Ory c 3, and Cav p 1 were up to 30 times higher in practices compared with homes without animals, but significantly lower compared with the homes with the respective pet. Although horses were not treated in the practices, Equ c 1 was found in 87.5% of samples, with the highest concentrations measured in changing rooms. DM levels were significantly lower in practices than in all private homes, and endotoxin levels were similar to those in homes with pets. In the practice itself, exposure levels were significantly influenced by animal presence, type of the room, and area per employee; whereas, room volume and diverse cleaning measures had mostly no effect. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to animal allergens is high in veterinary practices, but it does not reach levels of households with pets. Domestic mite allergen and endotoxin exposure seem to be low for workers in veterinary practices. The high Equ c 1 detection rate strongly indicates dispersal of allergens, most likely through clothing and hair.

Prevalence and risk factors of MRSA colonisations: a cross-sectional study among personnel in outpatient care settings in Hamburg, Germany.

OBJECTIVES: Healthcare workers frequently come into contact with infected individuals and are at a greater risk of infection than the general population due to their occupation. Multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) also pose a significant challenge for personnel and medical facilities. Currently, little is known about the occupational risk of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in outpatient care settings. Therefore, a cross-sectional study was conducted in Hamburg to investigate MRSA colonisation among outpatient nursing staff. METHODS: MRSA screening with nasal swabs was carried out, the known risk factors for colonisation were determined and information on infection control was inquired. Where tests were positive, a control swab was taken; if this confirmed a positive result, decolonisation was offered. A molecular biological examination of the MRSA samples was performed. The occupational MRSA exposure and risk factors were compared with the situation for personnel in inpatient geriatric care. RESULTS: A total of 39 outpatient services participated in the study and 579 employees were tested. The MRSA prevalence was 1.2% in all and 1.7% in nursing staff. Most of the employees that tested positive had close or known contact with MRSA patients. Health personnel frequently reported personal protective measures and their application. Compared with inpatient care staff, outpatient staff were older and had worked in their profession for a longer time. CONCLUSION: This study marks the first time that data has been made available on the occupational MRSA risk of outpatient care personnel in Hamburg. The MRSA prevalence is low and provides a good basis for describing the MRSA risk of occupational exposure by health personnel in outpatient care.

MRSA prevalence among patient transport staff in Hamburg.

Introduction: Patient transport employees frequently come into contact with multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) and therefore are at a greater risk of infection than the general population. These pathogens pose a significant challenge for employees of patient transport services since they can spread over long distances through patient transfers. To date, little is known about the occupational risk of MRSA infection in patient transport settings. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted to investigate the prevalence of MRSA in patient transport personnel, including taxi drivers, as well as the potential risk factors for MRSA colonization. For screening, nasal swabs were taken. When an individual was tested positive, a control swab was taken; if this confirmed a positive result, decolonization measures were offered. A molecular biological examination of the MRSA samples was performed. Results: A total of 222 patient transport employees were screened and 7 employees tested positive, putting the MRSA prevalence at 3.2% (95% CI 1.4-6.5). Significant risk factors among patient transport staff (PTS) for testing positive were the use of antibiotics (OR 11.9; 95% CI 1.8-78.4) and hospital admission (OR 6.9; 95% CI 1.1-45.9). MRSA swabs were also performed on a total of 102 taxi drivers who provide patient transport services. The MRSA prevalence was 0.98 (95% CI <0.01-5.9). Significant group differences between PTS and taxi drivers, with respect to potential risk factors for MRSA colonization, were identified as inpatient treatment (p=0.09), chronic respiratory illnesses (p=0.01), and knowingly transporting patients/passengers with MRSA (p=0.03). Conclusion: This study is the first to make data on the MRSA risk of patient transport employees in Hamburg available. The prevalence data are low in all areas and indicate a somewhat low risk of infection. A good infection control at the facilities is highly recommendable and the employees should acquire in-depth knowledge of infection prevention to improve compliance with personal protective measures.

MRSA Prevalence and Risk Factors among Health Personnel and Residents in Nursing Homes in Hamburg, Germany - A Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: The increase of multidrug-resistant organisms in hospitals causes problems in nursing homes. Staff in geriatric nursing homes are at greater risk of MRSA colonisation. The aim of the study was to describe the occupational exposure to MRSA among health personnel in geriatric nursing. METHODS: A point prevalence survey was conducted among health personnel and residents of geriatric nursing homes within the greater Hamburg district. Nasal swabs and, where relevant, wound swabs were collected for the screening survey. Risk factors for MRSA colonisation were identified by means of a questionnaire and using the files held on the residents. Where tests on nursing staff were positive, a control swab was taken; when the results were confirmed positive, decolonisation was performed. The responsible general practitioners were notified of positive MRSA findings among residents. A molecular biological examination of the MRSA samples was performed. RESULTS: A total of 19 institutions participated in the study. Nasal swabs were taken from 759 nursing staff and 422 residents. Prevalence of MRSA was 1.6% among staff and 5.5% among residents. MRSA colonisation among health personnel indicated a correlation with male gender (OR 4.5, 95% CI 1.4-14.1). Among the residents, chronic skin diseases (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.0-10.3) and indwelling devices (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.2-8.1) were identified as risk factors. No link between MRSA in residents and in health personnel could be established. CONCLUSION: The number of MRSA colonisations among nursing staff and residents of geriatric nursing homes in Hamburg was rather low at 1.6% and 5.5% respectively and equates to the results of other surveys in non-outbreak scenarios.