ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Although recommendations to prevent COVID-19 healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) have been proposed, data on their effectivity are currently limited. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the effectivity of a program of control and prevention of COVID-19 in an academic general hospital in Spain. METHODS: We captured the number of COVID-19 cases and the type of contact that occurred in hospitalized patients and healthcare personnel (HCP). To evaluate the impact of the continuous use of a surgical mask among HCP, the number of patients with COVID-19 HAIs and accumulated incidence of HCP with COVID-19 was compared between the preintervention and intervention periods. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-two patients with COVID-19 have been admitted to the hospital. Seven of them had an HAI origin (6 in the preintervention period and 1 in the intervention period). One hundred forty-two HCP were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Of them, 22 (15.5%) were attributed to healthcare (2 in the emergency department and none in the critical care departments), and 120 (84.5%) were attributed to social relations in the workplace or during their non-work-related personal interactions. The accumulated incidence during the preintervention period was 22.3 for every 1000 HCP and 8.2 for every 1000 HCP during the intervention period. The relative risk was 0.37 (95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.55) and the attributable risk was -0.014 (95% confidence interval, -0.020 to -0.009). CONCLUSIONS: A program of control and prevention of HAIs complemented with the recommendation for the continuous use of a surgical mask in the workplace and social environments of HCP effectively decreased the risk of COVID-19 HAIs in admitted patients and HCP.
Subject(s)
Academic Medical Centers , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Incidence , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/statistics & numerical data , Male , Masks/statistics & numerical data , Middle Aged , Personnel, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Program Evaluation , Risk Assessment/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Spain/epidemiologyABSTRACT
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
El objetivo del trabajo ha sido evaluar el programa de vacunación antigripal en personal sanitario en la temporada 2011-2012. La campaña incluyo actuaciones novedosas (tríptico informativo, recomendación de utilizar mascarilla en no vacunados, cartas de agradecimiento, etc.). Se comparó la cobertura y las características de los profesionales vacunados con la de la temporada previa con la prueba de la Ji cuadrado. La cobertura vacunal en la temporada 2011-2012, fue del 26,5%, frente al 24,5% del 2010-2011 (p=0,052). La mejora encontrada en la cobertura vacunal está en el límite de la significación estadística pero sigue siendo muy baja. Para mejorar las bajas coberturas vacunales, habría que plantearse otro tipo de estrategias, tales como políticas de incentivos o de obligatoriedad
The objective was to evaluate the healthcare personnel seasonal influenza immunization program in the 2011-2012 flu season. The campaign included several innovative actions (informational brochure, recommendations for unvaccinated staff to wear a mask, acknowledgement letters, etc). Coverage and characteristics of the health personnel were compared with the previous season using the chi-square test. Vaccination coverage for the 2011-12 flu season was 26.5%, compared to 24.5% achieved in 2010-2011 (p=0.052). The improvement in vaccination coverage approached statistical significance but remains very low. To improve these low vaccination levels, we recommend developing other strategies, such as incentive policies or making vaccination mandatory
Subject(s)
Humans , Influenza Vaccines/administration & dosage , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Mass Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Motivation , Cross Infection/prevention & controlABSTRACT
The objective was to evaluate the healthcare personnel seasonal influenza immunization program in the 2011-2012 flu season. The campaign included several innovative actions (informational brochure, recommendations for unvaccinated staff to wear a mask, acknowledgement letters, etc). Coverage and characteristics of the health personnel were compared with the previous season using the chi-square test. Vaccination coverage for the 2011-12 flu season was 26.5%, compared to 24.5% achieved in 2010-2011 (p=0.052). The improvement in vaccination coverage approached statistical significance but remains very low. To improve these low vaccination levels, we recommend developing other strategies, such as incentive policies or making vaccination mandatory.
El objetivo del trabajo ha sido evaluar el programa de vacunación antigripal en personal sanitario en la temporada 2011-2012. La campaña incluyo actuaciones novedosas (tríptico informativo, recomendación de utilizar mascarilla en no vacunados, cartas de agradecimiento, etc.). Se comparó la cobertura y las características de los profesionales vacunados con la de la temporada previa con la prueba de la Ji cuadrado. La cobertura vacunal en la temporada 2011-2012, fue del 26,5%, frente al 24,5% del 2010-2011 (p=0,052). La mejora encontrada en la cobertura vacunal está en el límite de la significación estadística pero sigue siendo muy baja. Para mejorar las bajas coberturas vacunales, habría que plantearse otro tipo de estrategias, tales como políticas de incentivos o de obligatoriedad.
Subject(s)
Health Personnel , Health Promotion , Influenza Vaccines/administration & dosage , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Seasons , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Female , Health Promotion/organization & administration , Humans , Male , Middle AgedABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the coverage rates for influenza vaccination among health-care personnel (HCP), and if the reasons for accepting influenza vaccine by HCP and the frequency of vaccine-related adverse events (AEs) in 2010-2011 were different compared to 2009-2010. The AEs were detected by telephoning the worker one week after the vaccination. The coverage for seasonal vaccination in 2009-2010 was 31.0%, whereas that for 2009 pandemic influenza (H1NI) was 22.2% and 24.4% (p<0.05) in 2010-2011. The most frequent reason for being vaccinated during the three campaigns was to "protect my health". Over 80.5% of the HCP reported 2009 pandemic influenza (H1N1) vaccine-related AEs compared to the 25.3% and 25.4% reporting seasonal vaccine-related AEs in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 respectively (p<0.05). None of the AEs were severe. Specific measures should be implemented in our country to recover and improve poor vaccination coverage.
