Dataset Information

Prevalence and Clinical Presentation of Health Care Workers With Symptoms of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in 2 Dutch Hospitals During an Early Phase of the Pandemic.

ABSTRACT: Importance:On February 27, 2020, the first patient with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported in the Netherlands. During the following weeks, at 2 Dutch teaching hospitals, 9 health care workers (HCWs) received a diagnosis of COVID-19, 8 of whom had no history of travel to China or northern Italy, raising the question of whether undetected community circulation was occurring. Objective:To determine the prevalence and clinical presentation of COVID-19 among HCWs with self-reported fever or respiratory symptoms. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional study was performed in 2 teaching hospitals in the southern part of the Netherlands in March 2020, during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Health care workers employed in the participating hospitals who experienced fever or respiratory symptoms were asked to voluntarily participate in a screening for infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Data analysis was performed in March 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures:The prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection was determined by semiquantitative real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction on oropharyngeal samples. Structured interviews were conducted to document symptoms for all HCWs with confirmed COVID-19. Results:Of 9705 HCWs employed (1722 male [18%]), 1353 (14%) reported fever or respiratory symptoms and were tested. Of those, 86 HCWs (6%) were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (median age, 49 years [range, 22-66 years]; 15 [17%] male), representing 1% of all HCWs employed. Most HCWs experienced mild disease, and only 46 (53%) reported fever. Eighty HCWs (93%) met a case definition of fever and/or coughing and/or shortness of breath. Only 3 (3%) of the HCWs identified through the screening had a history of travel to China or northern Italy, and 3 (3%) reported having been exposed to an inpatient with a known diagnosis of COVID-19 before the onset of symptoms. Conclusions and Relevance:Within 2 weeks after the first Dutch case was detected, a substantial proportion of HCWs with self-reported fever or respiratory symptoms were infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, likely as a result of acquisition of the virus in the community during the early phase of local spread. The high prevalence of mild clinical presentations, frequently not including fever, suggests that the currently recommended case definition for suspected COVID-19 should be used less stringently.

SUBMITTER: Kluytmans-van den Bergh MFQ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7243090 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prevalence and Clinical Presentation of Health Care Workers With Symptoms of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in 2 Dutch Hospitals During an Early Phase of the Pandemic.

Kluytmans-van den Bergh Marjolein F Q MFQ Buiting Anton G M AGM Pas Suzan D SD Bentvelsen Robbert G RG van den Bijllaardt Wouter W van Oudheusden Anne J G AJG van Rijen Miranda M L MML Verweij Jaco J JJ Koopmans Marion P G MPG Kluytmans Jan A J W JAJW

JAMA network open 20200501 5

<h4>Importance</h4>On February 27, 2020, the first patient with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was reported in the Netherlands. During the following weeks, at 2 Dutch teaching hospitals, 9 health care workers (HCWs) received a diagnosis of COVID-19, 8 of whom had no history of travel to China or northern Italy, raising the question of whether undetected community circulation was occurring.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the prevalence and clinical presentation of COVID-19 among HCWs with sel ...[more]

PMID: 32437576

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Healthcare workers in the front line of diagnosis, treatment, and care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at great risk of both infection and developing mental health symptoms. This study aimed to investigate the following: (1) whether healthcare workers in general hospitals experience higher mental distress than those in psychiatric hospitals; (2) the role played by religion and alexithymic trait in influencing the mental health condition and perceived level of happiness of healthcare workers amidst the stress of the COVID-19 pandemic; and (3) factors that influence the resilience of healthcare workers at 6 weeks' follow-up. Methods: Four-hundred and fifty-eight healthcare workers were recruited from general and psychiatric hospitals, and 419 were followed-up after 6 weeks. All participants filled out the 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale, five-item Brief-Symptom Rating Scale, and the Chinese Oxford Happiness Questionnaire. Results: Under the stress of the COVID-19 pandemic, 12.3% of frontline healthcare workers in general hospitals reported having mental distress and perceived lower social adaptation status compared with those working in psychiatric hospitals. Christians/Catholics perceived better psychological well-being, and Buddhists/Taoists were less likely to experience mental distress. The results at 6 weeks of follow-up showed that the perceived lower social adaptation status of general hospital healthcare workers was temporary and improved with time. Christian/Catholic religion and time had independent positive effects on psychological well-being; however, the interaction of Christian/Catholic religion and time had a negative effect. Conclusions: Collectivism and individualism in the cultural context are discussed with regard to alexithymic trait and Buddhist/Taoist and Christian/Catholic religious faiths. Early identification of mental distress and interventions should be implemented to ensure a healthy and robust clinical workforce for the treatment and control of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a declared global pandemic. There are multiple parameters of the clinical course and management of the COVID-19 that need optimization. A hindrance to this development is the vast amount of misinformation present due to scarcely sourced manuscript preprints and social media. This literature review aims to presents accredited and the most current studies pertaining to the basic sciences of SARS-CoV-2, clinical presentation and disease course of COVID-19, public health interventions, and current epidemiological developments. The review on basic sciences aims to clarify the jargon in virology, describe the virion structure of SARS-CoV-2 and present pertinent details relevant to clinical practice. Another component discussed is the brief history on the series of experiments used to explore the origins and evolution of the phylogeny of the viral genome of SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, the clinical and epidemiological differences between COVID-19 and other infections causing outbreaks (SARS, MERS, H1N1) are elucidated. Emphasis is placed on evidence-based medicine to evaluate the frequency of presentation of various symptoms to create a stratification system of the most important epidemiological risk factors for COVID-19. These can be used to triage and expedite risk assessment. Furthermore, the limitations and statistical strength of the diagnostic tools currently in clinical practice are evaluated. Criteria on rapid screening, discharge from hospital and discontinuation of self-quarantine are clarified. Epidemiological factors influencing the rapid rate of spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus are described. Accurate information pertinent to improving prevention strategies is also discussed. The penultimate portion of the review aims to explain the involvement of micronutrients such as vitamin C and vitamin D in COVID19 treatment and prophylaxis. Furthermore, the biochemistry of the major candidates for novel therapies is briefly reviewed and a summary of their current status in the clinical trials is presented. Lastly, the current scientific data and status of governing bodies such as the Center of Disease Control (CDC) and the WHO on the usage of controversial therapies such as angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (Ibuprofen), and corticosteroids usage in COVID-19 are discussed. The composite collection of accredited studies on each of these subtopics of COVID-19 within this review will enable clarification and focus on the current status and direction in the planning of the management of this global pandemic.

Project description:AimThe aim of the study was to determine levels of depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms and factors associated with psychological burden amongst critical care healthcare workers in the early stages of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.MethodsAn anonymous Web-based survey distributed in April 2020. All healthcare workers employed in a critical care setting were eligible to participate. Invitations to the survey were distributed through Australian and New Zealand critical care societies and social media platforms. The primary outcome was the proportion of healthcare workers who reported moderate to extremely severe scores on the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21).ResultsOf the 3770 complete responses, 3039 (80.6%) were from Australia. A total of 2871 respondents (76.2%) were women; the median age was 41 years. Nurses made up 2269 (60.2%) of respondents, with most (2029 [53.8%]) working in intensive care units. Overall, 813 (21.6%) respondents reported moderate to extremely severe depression, 1078 (28.6%) reported moderate to extremely severe anxiety, and 1057 (28.0%) reported moderate to extremely severe stress scores. Mean ± standard deviation values of DASS-21 depression, anxiety, and stress scores amongst woman vs men was as follows: 8.0 ± 8.2 vs 7.1 ± 8.2 (p = 0.003), 7.2 ± 7.5 vs 5.0 ± 6.7 (p < 0.001), and 14.4 ± 9.6 vs 12.5 ± 9.4 (p < 0.001), respectively. After adjusting for significant confounders, clinical concerns associated with higher DASS-21 scores included not being clinically prepared (? = 4.2, p < 0.001), an inadequate workforce (? = 2.4, p = 0.001), having to triage patients owing to lack of beds and/or equipment (? = 2.6, p = 0.001), virus transmission to friends and family (? = 2.1, p = 0.009), contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (? = 2.8, p = 0.011), being responsible for other staff members (? = 3.1, p < 0.001), and being asked to work in an area that was not in the respondents' expertise (? = 5.7, p < 0.001).ConclusionIn this survey of critical care healthcare workers, between 22 and 29% of respondents reported moderate to extremely severe depression, anxiety, and stress symptoms, with women reporting higher scores than men. Although female gender appears to play a role, modifiable factors also contribute to psychological burden and should be studied further.

Dataset Information

Prevalence and Clinical Presentation of Health Care Workers With Symptoms of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in 2 Dutch Hospitals During an Early Phase of the Pandemic.

Publications

Prevalence and Clinical Presentation of Health Care Workers With Symptoms of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in 2 Dutch Hospitals During an Early Phase of the Pandemic.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets