Factors associated with the diagnosis of COVID-19 among Brazilian health professionals COVID-19 and health professionals.

INTRODUCTION: Health professionals are on the front lines against the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and are at high risk for acquiring the infection. Failures in precautionary measures, inadequacy/scarcity of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), and lack of social and family distancing may be associated with increased exposure and contamination by the new coronavirus. This study investigated the prevalence of COVID-19 among Brazilian health professionals and associated factors according to demographic and occupational characteristics. METHODS: A cross-sectional, analytical study was conducted using an online survey with 12,086 health professionals from all regions of Brazil. Data were collected using an adaptation of the respondent-driven sampling method for the virtual environment. The outcome variable was the diagnosis of COVID-19. Bivariate and multiple logistic regression analyzes were used to identify an association between the diagnosis of COVID-19 and demographic and occupational variables. Variables were considered statistically significant based on p<0.05. RESULTS: Most participants were female, from the northeast region, and nursing professionals. A prevalence of 31.95% (95%CI: 31.0%, 32.9%) of COVID-19 was estimated. Following multiple regression analysis, the variables associated with the diagnosis of COVID-19 among health professionals were: male gender, married individuals, professionals who provide care to patients with COVID-19, who work in a field hospital, and those who work in institutions that did not offer enough quality PPE. CONCLUSIONS: The study found a high prevalence of COVID-19 infection, with male professionals being those with greater chances. Inadequate supply or poor quality of PPE offered by health institutions compromises the health of professionals with an increase in positive diagnosis for COVID-19.

Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus: knowledge and factors related to the nursing teams adherence to preventive measures.

This study evaluated the knowledge of a nursing team from a public hospital in the state of São Paulo, Brazil concerning preventive measures recommended in the care delivered to patients colonized with Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) and, through the Health Beliefs Model, identified the factors influencing adherence or non-adherence to preventive measures. A total of 318 professionals from different units participated in the study. According to the analysis, the nursing teams knowledge and perception of MRSA susceptibility was limited, which indicates the need for actions to improve the understanding of preventive measures employed in the care delivered to patients colonized or infected by this microorganism.

Prevalence of methicillin-resistant and methicillin-susceptible s. aureus in the saliva of health professionals.

INTRODUCTION: S. aureus is one of the main agents of nosocomial infection and is sometimes difficult to treat with currently available active antimicrobials. PURPOSE: To analyze the prevalence of methicillin-susceptible S.aureus (MSSA) and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) as well as the MRSA antimicrobial susceptibility profile isolated in the saliva of health professionals at a large public education hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The project was approved by the research and ethics committee of the institution under study. Three samples of saliva from 340 health professionals were collected. The saliva analysis used to identify S. aureus was based on mannitol fermentation tests, catalase production, coagulase, DNAse, and lecithinase. In order to detect MRSA, samples were submitted to the disk diffusion test and the oxacillin agar screening test. In order to identify the minimum inhibitory concentration, the Etest technique was used. RESULTS: The prevalence of MSSA was 43.5% (148/340), and MRSA was 4.1% (14/340). MRSA detected by the diffusion disk test, was 100% resistant to penicillin and oxacillin, 92.9% resistant to erythromycin, 57.1% resistant to clindamycin, 42.9% resistant to ciprofloxacin and 57.1% resistant to cefoxetin. CONCLUSION: This subject is important for both the education of health professionals and for preventative measures. Standard and contact-precautions should be employed in professional practice.