Prevalence and risk factors of SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses among healthcare workers (June 2020-November 2021).

BACKGROUND: To assess SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in healthcare workers (HCW) with sampling in June and October 2020 and April and November 2021. METHODS: Observational and prospective study in 2455 HCW with serum sampling. Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid and occupational, social and health risk factors were assessed at each time point. RESULTS: Seropositivity for SARS-CoV-2 in HCW increased from 11.8% in June 2020 to 28.4% in November 2021. Of those with a positive test in June 2020, 92.1% remained with a positive test, 6.7% had an indeterminate test and 1.1% had a negative test in November 2021. Non-diagnosed carriers represented 28.6% in June 2020 and 14.6% in November 2021. Nurses and nursing assistants showed the highest prevalence of seropositivity. Close contact (at home or in the hospital) with Covid-19 cases without protection and working in the frontline were the main risk factors. A total of 88.8% HCW were vaccinated, all with a positive serological response in April 2021, but levels of antibodies decreased about 65%, and two vaccinated persons presented a negative serological test against spike protein in November 2021. Levels of spike antibodies were higher in those vaccinated with Moderna compared with Pfizer and the percentage of antibody reduction was higher with Pfizer vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among HCW doubled that of the general population and that protection both at the workplace and in the socio-familial field was associated with a lower risk of infection, which stabilized after vaccination.

[Needlestick injuries in health care workers: analysis of non preventable risk factors through standard precautions]. / Accidentes biológicos percutáneos en el personal sanitario: análisis de factores de riesgo no prevenibles mediante precauciones estándares.

OBJECTIVE: To identify potential risk factors of occupational needlestick injuries that were not prevented despite adherence to standard precautions. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Multicentre case control study. Cases were defined as any workers who reported a needlestick injury despite documented use of standard precautions. Controls were workers of the same hospital who had performed procedures similar to matched cases and who reported a needlestick injury without correct use of standard precautions (control 1) or who did not report a needlestick injury during the previous 6 months (control 2). RESULTS: A total of 512 injuries were included (256 cases and 256 controls 1), and 256 controls 2. Analyses based on controls 1 showed an increased risk for physicians (ORa 2.22; 95% CI: 1.07-4.60) and those working in the operating theatre (ORa 2.87; 95% CI: 1.26-6.55). Regarding controls 2, increased risks were found for those younger than 25 years (ORa 2.58; 95% CI: 1.20-5.58), physicians (ORa 5.24; 95% CI: 1.50-18.28), those working in operating theatres (ORa 6.00; 95% CI: 2.07-17.36), emergency services, intensive and life-support units (ORa 3.48; 95% CI: 1.37-8.85) and those exposed to poor lighting (ORa 1.67; 95% CI: 1.02-2.82). Education in occupational risk prevention was found to be a protecting factor when controls 1 were analyzed (ORa 0.61; 95% CI: 0.39-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Despite adherence to standard precautions, working as a physician, in operating theatres, emergency and life-support units, being younger than 25 years, and being exposed to poor visibility and training in occupational risk prevention appear to be independent risk factors for occupational needlestick injuries.

Accidentes biológicos percutáneos en el personal sanitario: análisis de factores de riesgo no prevenibles mediante precauciones estándares / Needlestick injuries in health care workers: analysis of non preventable risk factors through standard precautions

Fundamento y objetivo: identificar los posibles factores de riesgo (FR) de las exposiciones laborales percutáneas no prevenibles mediante las precauciones estándares. Pacientes y método: estudio multicéntrico de casos y controles. Se definió como caso el trabajador que había experimentado una exposición percutánea a pesar de haber seguido las precauciones estándares. Los controles fueron trabajadores del mismo hospital que hubieran realizado procedimientos similares al caso y que hubieran tenido un accidente biológico sin adoptar de forma correcta las precauciones estándares (control 1) o que no hubieran tenido una exposición accidental en los últimos 6 meses (control 2). Resultados: se incluyeron 512 exposiciones (256 casos y 256 controles 1) y 256 controles 2. Respecto a los controles 1, se observó una asociación entre ser médico (odds ratio ajustada [ORa]: 2,22; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 1,07–4,60) y trabajar en quirófano (ORa: 2,87; IC del 95%: 1,26–6,55). En relación con los controles 2, se observó asociación entre tener una edad inferior a 25 años (ORa: 2,58; IC del 95%: 1,20–5,58), ser médico (ORa: 5,24; IC del 95%: 1,50–18,28), trabajar en quirófanos (ORa: 6; IC del 95%: 2,07–17,36), trabajar en servicios de urgencias, unidades de cuidados intensivos (UCI) y reanimación (ORa: 3,48; IC del 95%: 1,37–8,85) y estar expuesto a iluminación inadecuada (ORa: 1,67; IC del 95%: 1,02–2,82). La formación en prevención de riesgos laborales se mostró como un factor protector en los controles 1 (ORa: 0,61; IC del 95%: 0,39–0,97). Conclusiones: a pesar de seguir de forma correcta las precauciones estándares, ser médico y trabajar en quirófanos, urgencias, UCI o reanimación, la edad inferior a 25 años, la visibilidad inadecuada y la poca formación en prevención son FR independientes de experimentar exposiciones accidentales percutáneas (AU)

Objective: To identify potential risk factors of occupational needlestick injuries that were not prevented despite adherence to standard precautions. Patients and method: Multicentre case control study. Cases were defined as any workers who reported a needlestick injury despite documented use of standard precautions. Controls were workers of the same hospital who had performed procedures similar to matched cases and who reported a needlestick injury without correct use of standard precautions (control 1) or who did not report a needlestick injury during the previous 6 months (control 2).ResultsA total of 512 injuries were included (256 cases and 256 controls 1), and 256 controls 2. Analyses based on controls 1 showed an increased risk for physicians (ORa 2.22; 95% CI: 1.07-4.60) and those working in the operating theatre (ORa 2.87; 95% CI: 1.26-6.55). Regarding controls 2, increased risks were found for those younger than 25 years (ORa 2.58; 95% CI: 1.20-5.58), physicians (ORa 5.24; 95% CI: 1.50-18.28), those working in operating theatres (ORa 6.00; 95% CI: 2.07-17.36), emergency services, intensive and life-support units (ORa 3.48; 95% CI: 1.37-8.85) and those exposed to poor lighting (ORa 1.67; 95% CI: 1.02-2.82). Education in occupational risk prevention was found to be a protecting factor when controls 1 were analyzed (ORa 0.61; 95% CI: 0.39-0.97). Conclusions: Despite adherence to standard precautions, working as a physician, in operating theatres, emergency and life-support units, being younger than 25 years, and being exposed to poor visibility and training in occupational risk prevention appear to be independent risk factors for occupational needlestick injuries (AU)