scholarly journals Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody in Healthcare Workers in Central Pennsylvania

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (S1) ◽  
pp. s49-s49
Author(s):  
Taesung Kwon ◽  
Stacy Kenyon ◽  
Kimberly Kilheeney ◽  
Stanley Martin ◽  
Mark Shelly
Keyword(s):  
Patient Care ◽  
Work Environment ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Direct Patient Care ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Positive Serology ◽  
Central Pennsylvania ◽  
Job Category ◽  
Prevention Methods

Background: Determining the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers (HCW) is important in assessing the safety of the work environment. Though of limited use in acute illness, serologic testing can detect some infections that occur undetected. We compared the prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 to a place of work, exposure by role and department, and use of various prevention methods. Methods: Healthcare workers (HCWs) working in Geisinger Health System were offered voluntary serology through Employee Health. Before they had blood taken, they completed a brief questionnaire. Testing was conducted from June 15 to September 4, 2020. Blood was analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) (Roche and Diasorin platforms). Results: In total, 2,295 employees and contract workers providing care at Geisinger facilities were tested. Most of this group, 2,037 (88.8%), were involved in direct patient care. In total, 101 tests returned positive, a rate of 4.4% (95% CI, 3.6%–5.3%). Of 54 HCWs with a positive NAAT for SARS-CoV-2, positive serology results were found in 48, a sensitivity of 89% (95% CI, 78%–95%). Those involved in patient care were slightly more likely to become infected, 91 of 2,037 (4.6%) compared to 10 of 258 who were not involved in patient care (3.9%; P = .68). Those with unprotected exposure to a known case of COVID-19 were more likely than those not exposed to be positive for SARS-CoV-2, 51 of 792 (6.4% vs 3.3%; P = .0008). This risk was highest for those exposed outside work (7 of 33; 21%; P = .003). HCWs working in COVID-19 units were positive at a rate of 4.0% (95% CI, 3.8%–5.4%), no more than other inpatient areas, which were 5.0% positive (95% CI, 3.8%–6.4%). HCWs working with outpatients were at slightly lower risk, 2.8% positivity (95% CI, 1.9%–4.1%). The rates of infection ranged between 3.3% and 5.0% by job category. Employees were asked about symptoms experienced since March 2020. Positive serology occurred in 39 (2.8%) of 1,414 employees who did not recall any symptoms. Symptoms related to COVID-19, except sore throat, were strongly correlated with positive serology. Conclusions: When provided a safe work environment, the risk of COVID-19 in employees is comparable to that in the surrounding communities. Persons with patient care responsibilities have an absolute risk that is marginally higher.Funding: NoDisclosures: None

Controlling Varicella in the Healthcare Setting: Barriers to Varicella Vaccination Among Healthcare Workers

1999 ◽  
Vol 20 (7) ◽  
pp. 516-518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahmooda Qureshi ◽  
Steven M. Gordon ◽  
Belinda Yen-Lieberman ◽  
David G. Litaker
Keyword(s):  
Patient Care ◽  
Varicella Zoster Virus ◽  
Virus Vaccine ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Healthcare Setting ◽  
Direct Patient Care ◽  
Varicella Vaccination ◽  
Varicella Zoster ◽  
Varicella Zoster Virus Vaccine

AbstractWe surveyed healthcare workers to determine factors that may influence acceptance of varicella-zoster virus vaccine. Of 2,801 workers tested, 90 were susceptible to varicella; of workers offered vaccination, 68% accepted. Workers providing direct patient care were 3.7-fold more likely than other workers to accept VZV vaccination (P=.04).

scholarly journals Perceived Risk and Distress related to COVID-19: Comparing Healthcare versus non-Healthcare Workers of Pakistan

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adeel Abid ◽  
Hania Shahzad ◽  
Hyder Ali Khan ◽  
Suneel Piryani ◽  
Areeba Raza Khan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psychological Distress ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Risk Perceptions ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Direct Patient Care ◽  
P Value ◽  
Healthcare Students ◽  
Significant Difference

AbstractBackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) find themselves susceptible to contracting COVID-19 or being the source of exposure for their family members. This puts them at a high risk of psychological distress which may compromise patient care. In this study we aim to explore the risk perceptions and psychological distress between HCWs and non-healthcare workers (NHCWs) in Pakistan.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in Pakistan using an online self-administered questionnaire. Respondents were categorized into HCWs (completed or aspiring to complete education in Medicine or allied fields) and NHCWs. HCWs were further categorized into front-line (direct patient care) and back-end HCWs.ResultsData from 1406 respondents (507 HCWs and 899 NHCWs) was analyzed. No significant difference was observed between HCWs and NHCWs’ perception of susceptibility and severity towards COVID-19. Healthcare graduates perceived themselves (66% students vs. 80% graduates, p-value 0.011) and their family (67% students vs. 82% graduates, p-value 0.008) to be more susceptible to COVID-19 than the healthcare students. Frontline HCWs perceived themselves (83% frontline vs. 70% back-end, p-value 0.003) and their family (84% frontline vs. 72% back-end, p-value 0.006) as being more susceptible to COVID-19 than back-end healthcare professionals. Over half of the respondents were anxious (54% HCWs and 55% NHCWs). Female gender, younger age and having COVID-19 related symptoms had a significant effect on the anxiety levels of both HCWs and NHCWs.ConclusionFrontline HCWs, healthcare students, young people, females and individuals with lower income were at a higher risk of psychological distress due to the pandemic. Government policies should thus be directed at ensuring the mental well-being of frontline HCWs, and improving their satisfaction in order to strengthen health care delivery system.

Use of a Pandemic Preparedness Drill to Increase Rates of Influenza Vaccination Among Healthcare Workers

2008 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer L. Kuntz ◽  
Stephanie Holley ◽  
Charles M. Helms ◽  
Joseph E. Cavanaugh ◽  
Jeff Vande Berg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Pandemic Influenza ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Administrative Support ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Vaccination Campaign ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Direct Patient Care ◽  
Vaccination Rates

Objective.To determine the effect of a pandemic influenza preparedness drill on the rate of influenza vaccination among healthcare workers (HCWs).Design.Before-after intervention trial.Setting.The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC), a large, academic medical center, during 2005.Subjects.Staff members at UIHC.Methods.UIHC conducted a pandemic influenza preparedness drill that included a goal of vaccinating a large number of HCWs in 6 days without disrupting patient care. Peer vaccination and mobile vaccination teams were used to vaccinate HCWs, educational tools were distributed to encourage HCWs to be vaccinated, and resources were allocated on the basis of daily vaccination reports. Logit models were used to compare vaccination rates achieved during the 2005 vaccination drill with the vaccination rates achieved during the 2003 vaccination campaign.Results.UIHC vaccinated 54% of HCWs (2,934 of 5,467) who provided direct patient care in 6 days. In 2 additional weeks, this rate increased to 66% (3,625 of 5,467). Overall, 66% of resident physicians (311 of 470) and 63% of nursing staff (1,429 of 2,255) were vaccinated. Vaccination rates in 2005 were significantly higher than the hospitalwide rate of 41% (5,741 of 14, 086) in 2003.Conclusions.UIHC dramatically increased the influenza vaccination rate among HCWs by conducting a pandemic influenza preparedness drill. Additionally, the drill allowed us to conduct a bioemergency drill in a realistic scenario, use innovative methods for vaccine delivery, and secure administrative support for future influenza vaccination campaigns. Our study demonstrates how a drill can be used to improve vaccination rates significantly.

Increased Influenza Vaccination of Healthcare Workers at a Pediatric Cancer Hospital: Results of a Comprehensive Influenza Vaccination Campaign

2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan A. McCullers ◽  
Kathleen M. Speck ◽  
Bonnie F. Williams ◽  
Hua Liang ◽  
Joseph Mirro
Keyword(s):  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Nursing Staff ◽  
Pediatric Cancer ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Influenza Season ◽  
Vaccination Campaign ◽  
Direct Patient Care ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
Vaccination Acceptance

A comprehensive influenza vaccination campaign improved vaccination rates among healthcare workers with direct patient care responsibilities from 45% during the 2003-2004 influenza season to 80% during the 2004-2005 season. A strategy of weekly feedback to unvaccinated employees was the most important factor in enhancing the rate of vaccination acceptance and was particularly effective among the nursing staff.

scholarly journals SARS-CoV-2 Ig G among Healthcare Workers and the General Population

Pathogens ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 465
Author(s):  
Gregorio P. Milani ◽  
Mario G. Bianchetti ◽  
Giuseppe Togni ◽  
Andreas W. Schoenenberger ◽  
Franco Muggli
Keyword(s):  
General Population ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Geographical Area ◽  
Healthcare Personnel ◽  
Protein Subunit ◽  
Positive Serology ◽  
Seroprevalence Data ◽  
And Gender ◽  
Few Data ◽  
Ig G

It is assumed that healthcare workers are at the highest risk to be infected by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, few data from healthcare workers who do not primarily take care of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection support this assumption. We investigated the prevalence of immunoglobulin G (Ig G) against SARS-CoV-2 among healthcare workers who do not primarily take care of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and the general population in a well-defined geographical area. The first part of the study was conducted in May 2020 in Val Mesolcina (Southern Switzerland), a valley with ~8000 inhabitants. All healthcare workers were invited. All participants (n = 488) of the Swiss Longitudinal Cohort Study (SWICOS), a cohort representative of the general population, were also invited. Circulating Ig G against spike protein subunit 1 of SARS-CoV-2 were tested in each subject. Subjects with positive Ig G were tested again after 6 months. The condition of being a healthcare worker, rather than a part of the general population, was tested as a predictor of seroprevalence positivity by both simple and multiple (adjusted for age and sex) logistic regression. Eleven (2.6%) of the 423 SWICOS participants and 46 (16%) out of 289 healthcare workers were positive for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. The seroprevalence OR was 7.01 (95% CI: 3.53–15.47) for healthcare workers as compared to SWICOS participants. After adjusting for age and gender, the seroprevalence OR was 5.13 (95% CI: 2.54–10.40). About three quarters of the subjects in the SWICOS (73%) and in healthcare (79%) group with a previous positive serology still presented positive Ig G against the SARS-CoV-2 after 6 months. The present seroprevalence data point out that the SARS-CoV-2 infection is seven times higher among healthcare workers than in the general population of Val Mesolcina. Efforts to effectively protect all the healthcare personnel are needed.

scholarly journals Contamination of Healthcare Worker Personal Protective Equipment with MRSA Outside the Intensive Care Unit Setting

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s27-s28
Author(s):  
Gita Nadimpalli ◽  
Lisa Pineles ◽  
Karly Lebherz ◽  
J. Kristie Johnson ◽  
David Calfee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Direct Patient Care ◽  
Care Group ◽  
Surveillance Culture ◽  
Care Hospital ◽  
Contact Precautions ◽  
Patient Interactions ◽  
The Right

Background: Estimates of contamination of healthcare personnel (HCP) gloves and gowns with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) following interactions with colonized or infected patients range from 17% to 20%. Most studies were conducted in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting where patients had a recent positive clinical culture. The aim of this study was to determine the rate of MRSA transmission to HCP gloves and gown in non-ICU acute-care hospital units and to identify associated risk factors. Methods: Patients on contact precautions with history of MRSA colonization or infection admitted to non-ICU settings were randomly selected from electronic health records. We observed patient care activities and cultured the gloves and gowns of 10 HCP interactions per patient prior to doffing. Cultures from patients’ anterior nares, chest, antecubital fossa and perianal area were collected to quantify bacterial bioburden. Bacterial counts were log transformed. Results: We observed 55 patients (Fig. 1), and 517 HCP–patient interactions. Of the HCP–patient interactions, 16 (3.1%) led to MRSA contamination of HCP gloves, 18 (3.5%) led to contamination of HCP gown, and 28 (5.4%) led to contamination of either gloves or gown. In addition, 5 (12.8%) patients had a positive clinical or surveillance culture for MRSA in the prior 7 days. Nurses, physicians and technicians were grouped in “direct patient care”, and rest of the HCPs were included in “no direct care group.” Of 404 interactions, 26 (6.4%) of providers in the “direct patient care” group showed transmission of MRSA to gloves or gown in comparison to 2 of 113 (1.8%) interactions involving providers in the “no direct patient care” group (P = .05) (Fig. 2). The median MRSA bioburden was 0 log 10CFU/mL in the nares (range, 0–3.6), perianal region (range, 0–3.5), the arm skin (range, 0-0.3), and the chest skin (range, 0–6.2). Detectable bioburden on patients was negatively correlated with the time since placed on contact precautions (rs= −0.06; P < .001). Of 97 observations with detectable bacterial bioburden at any site, 9 (9.3%) resulted in transmission of MRSA to HCP in comparison to 11 (3.6%) of 310 observations with no detectable bioburden at all sites (P = .03). Conclusions: Transmission of MRSA to gloves or gowns of HCP caring for patients on contact precautions for MRSA in non-ICU settings was lower than in the ICU setting. More evidence is needed to help guide the optimal use of contact precautions for the right patient, in the right setting, for the right type of encounter.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

scholarly journals Physician Workflow in Two Distinctive Emergency Departments: An Observational Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (01) ◽  
pp. 141-152
Author(s):  
Vimla L. Patel ◽  
Courtney A. Denton ◽  
Hiral C. Soni ◽  
Thomas G. Kannampallil ◽  
Stephen J. Traub ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Care ◽  
Emergency Departments ◽  
Direct Patient Care ◽  
Team Communication ◽  
Delivery Of Care ◽  
Physician Practices ◽  
Clinical Observations ◽  
Workflow Pattern ◽  
Open Coding ◽  
Temporal Events

Abstract Objectives We characterize physician workflow in two distinctive emergency departments (ED). Physician practices mediated by electronic health records (EHR) are explored within the context of organizational complexity for the delivery of care. Methods Two urban clinical sites, including an academic teaching ED, were selected. Fourteen physicians were recruited. Overall, 62 hours of direct clinical observations were conducted characterizing clinical activities (EHR use, team communication, and patient care). Data were analyzed using qualitative open-coding techniques and descriptive statistics. Timeline belts were used to represent temporal events. Results At site 1, physicians, engaged in more team communication, followed by direct patient care. Although physicians spent 61% of their clinical time at workstations, only 25% was spent on the EHR, primarily for clinical documentation and review. Site 2 physicians engaged primarily in direct patient care spending 52% of their time at a workstation, and 31% dedicated to EHRs, focused on chart review. At site 1, physicians showed nonlinear complex workflow patterns with a greater frequency of multitasking and interruptions, resulting in workflow fragmentation. In comparison, at site 2, a less complex environment with a unique patient assignment system, resulting in a more linear workflow pattern. Conclusion The nature of the clinical practice and EHR-mediated workflow reflects the ED work practices. Physicians in more complex organizations may be less efficient because of the fragmented workflow. However, these effects can be mitigated by effort distribution through team communication, which affords inherent safety checks.

scholarly journals Hand hygiene and the sequence of patient care

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Nai-Chung Chang ◽  
Michael Jones ◽  
Heather Schacht Reisinger ◽  
Marin L. Schweizer ◽  
Elizabeth Chrischilles ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Hand Hygiene ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Intensive Care Units ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Hand Hygiene Compliance ◽  
Resistant Bacteria ◽  
Surgical Intensive Care ◽  
Hygiene Compliance ◽  
Hand Hygiene Opportunity

Abstract Objective: To determine whether the order in which healthcare workers perform patient care tasks affects hand hygiene compliance. Design: For this retrospective analysis of data collected during the Strategies to Reduce Transmission of Antimicrobial Resistant Bacteria in Intensive Care Units (STAR*ICU) study, we linked consecutive tasks healthcare workers performed into care sequences and identified task transitions: 2 consecutive task sequences and the intervening hand hygiene opportunity. We compared hand hygiene compliance rates and used multiple logistic regression to determine the adjusted odds for healthcare workers (HCWs) transitioning in a direction that increased or decreased the risk to patients if healthcare workers did not perform hand hygiene before the task and for HCWs contaminating their hands. Setting: The study was conducted in 17 adult surgical, medical, and medical-surgical intensive care units. Participants: HCWs in the STAR*ICU study units. Results: HCWs moved from cleaner to dirtier tasks during 5,303 transitions (34.7%) and from dirtier to cleaner tasks during 10,000 transitions (65.4%). Physicians (odds ratio [OR]: 1.50; P < .0001) and other HCWs (OR, 2.15; P < .0001) were more likely than nurses to move from dirtier to cleaner tasks. Glove use was associated with moving from dirtier to cleaner tasks (OR, 1.22; P < .0001). Hand hygiene compliance was lower when HCWs transitioned from dirtier to cleaner tasks than when they transitioned in the opposite direction (adjusted OR, 0.93; P < .0001). Conclusions: HCWs did not organize patient care tasks in a manner that decreased risk to patients, and they were less likely to perform hand hygiene when transitioning from dirtier to cleaner tasks than the reverse. These practices could increase the risk of transmission or infection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document