Dataset Information

The prevalence of COVID-19 in healthcare personnel in an adult and pediatric academic medical center.

ABSTRACT:

Background

It is vital to know which healthcare personnel (HCP) have a higher chance of testing positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (COVID-19).

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted at Stanford Children's Health (SCH) and Stanford Health Care (SHC) in Stanford, California. Analysis included all HCP, employed by SCH or SHC, who had a COVID-19 reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test resulted by the SHC Laboratory, between March 1, 2020 and June 15, 2020. The primary outcome was the RT-PCR percent positivity and prevalence of COVID-19 for HCP and these were compared across roles.

Results

SCH and SHC had 24,081 active employees, of which 142 had at least 1 positive COVID-19 test. The overall HCP prevalence of COVID-19 was 0.59% and percent positivity was 1.84%. Patient facing HCPs had a significantly higher prevalence (0.66% vs 0.43%; P = .0331) and percent positivity (1.95% vs 1.43%; P = .0396) than nonpatient facing employees, respectively. Percent positivity was higher in food service workers (9.15%), and environmental services (5.96%) compared to clinicians (1.93%; P < .0001) and nurses (1.46%; P < .0001), respectively.

Discussion and conclusion

HCP in patient-facing roles and in support roles had a greater chance of being positive of COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Shepard J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8062156 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Amidst the therapeutic void at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, a critical mass of scientific and clinical interest coalesced around COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). To date, the CCP literature has focused largely on safety and efficacy outcomes, but little on implementation outcomes or experience. Expert opinion suggests that if CCP has a role in COVID-19 treatment, it is early in the disease course, and it must deliver a sufficiently high titer of neutralizing antibodies (nAb). Missing in the literature are comprehensive evaluations of how local CCP programs were implemented as part of pandemic preparedness and response, including considerations of the core components and personnel required to meet demand with adequately qualified CCP in a timely and sustained manner. To address this gap, we conducted an evaluation of a local CCP program at a large U.S. academic medical center, the University of North Carolina Medical Center (UNCMC), and patterned our evaluation around the dimensions of the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to systematically describe key implementation-relevant metrics. We aligned our evaluation with program goals of reaching the target population with severe or critical COVID-19, integrating into the structure of the hospital-wide pandemic response, adapting to shifting landscapes, and sustaining the program over time during a compassionate use expanded access program (EAP) era and a randomized controlled trial (RCT) era. During the EAP era, the UNCMC CCP program was associated with faster CCP infusion after admission compared with contemporaneous affiliate hospitals without a local program: median 29.6 hours (interquartile range, IQR: 21.2-48.1) for the UNCMC CCP program versus 47.6 hours (IQR 32.6-71.6) for affiliate hospitals; (P<0.0001). Sixty-eight of 87 CCP recipients in the EAP (78.2%) received CCP containing the FDA recommended minimum nAb titer of ≥1:160. CCP delivery to hospitalized patients operated with equal efficiency regardless of receiving treatment via a RCT or a compassionate-use mechanism. It was found that in a highly resourced academic medical center, rapid implementation of a local CCP collection, treatment, and clinical trial program could be achieved through re-deployment of highly trained laboratory and clinical personnel. These data provide important pragmatic considerations critical for health systems considering the use of CCP as part of an integrated pandemic response.

Project description:BackgroundLarge scale implementation of new strategies and healthcare delivery standards in academic medical centers (AMCs) requires training of healthcare workforce at different stages of their medical career. The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model for healthcare delivery involves adoption by all members of the healthcare workforce, including seasoned professionals and trainees. Though widely known, the PCMH model has been implemented sporadically at large AMCs and methods to implement the model across healthcare workforce have not been well-documented.MethodsTo meet all PCMH standards and achieve sustainable level 3 recognition, the authors implemented in 2014-2015 a multi-pronged approach that capitalized on existing educational infrastructure among faculty, residents, and medical students. Within 18 months, the authors applied new interdisciplinary practices and policies, redesigned residency training in continuity practices and extensively modified medical school curricula.ResultsThese innovative transformational education efforts addressed the six PCMH standards for faculty, residents, and undergraduate medical students. Faculty played a major role as system change agents and facilitators of learning. Residents learned to better understand patients' cultural needs, identify 'at-risk' patients, ensure continuity of care, and assess and improve quality of care. Medical students were exposed to PCMH core standards throughout their training via simulations, training in the community and with patients, and evaluation tasks. By implementing these changes across the healthcare workforce, the AMC achieved PCMH status in a short time, changed practice culture and improved care for patients and the community. Since then, the AMC has been able to maintain PCMH recognition annually with minimal effort.ConclusionsSuccessful strategies that capitalize on existing strengths in infrastructure complemented by innovative educational offerings and inter-professional partnerships can be adapted by other organizations pursuing similar transformation efforts. This widespread transformation across the healthcare workforce facilitate a deep-rooted change that enabled our academic medical center to sustain PCMH recognition.

Project description:Academic Medical Centers ("AMCs") have served as a hub of the United States ("US") health system and represented the state-of-the art in American health care for well over a century. Currently, the global healthcare market is both massive and expanding and is being altered by the unprecedented impact of technological advances and globalization. This provides AMCs a platform to enter into trans-national collaborative partnerships with healthcare organizations around the world, thus providing a means to deliver on its promise globally while also expanding and diversifying its resources. A number of leading US AMCs have engaged in global collaborative healthcare, employing different models based on services offered, global distribution, and inclination to assume risk. Engaging in these collaborations requires significant effort from across the health system, and an understanding of the resources required is paramount for effective delivery and to avoid overextension and diversion from the primary mission of these organizations. The goal of this paper is to discuss the role of US AMCs in this current global healthcare landscape and to also investigate our institutional faculty and staff resource requirements to support the operating model.We extracted and retrospectively analyzed data from the JHI Global Services database for a 3-year period (Jan, 2013-Dec, 2015) to determine total utilization (hours and full time equivalent (FTE)), utilization by profession, and clinical and non-clinical areas of expertise.JHI utilized on average 21,940 h annually, or 10.55 FTEs of faculty and staff subject matter experts. The majority of the hours are for work performed by physician faculty members from 23 departments within the School of Medicine, representing 77% percent or on average 16,894 h annually. Clinical and allied health departments had an average annual utilization of 17,642 h or 7.8 FTEs, while non-clinical departments, schools and institutes averaged 4298 h or 1.9 FTEs, representing 80.4% and 19.6% respectively.We found that significant human resources are required within a broad range of AMC subject matter expertise across multiple disciplines, and that with adequate forecasting AMCs can successfully engage in these collaborations while continuing to fulfill their core mission.

Project description:ImportanceSome patients are avoiding essential care for fear of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in hospitals. There are few data, however, on the risk of acquiring COVID-19 in US hospitals.ObjectiveTo assess the incidence of COVID-19 among patients hospitalized at a large US academic medical center in the 12 weeks after the first inpatient case was identified.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included all patients admitted to Brigham and Women's Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts) between March 7 and May 30, 2020. Follow-up occurred through June 17, 2020. Medical records for all patients who first tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on hospital day 3 or later or within 14 days of discharge were reviewed.ExposuresA comprehensive infection control program was implemented that included dedicated COVID-19 units with airborne infection isolation rooms, personal protective equipment in accordance with US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations, personal protective equipment donning and doffing monitors, universal masking, restriction of visitors, and liberal RT-PCR testing of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.Main outcomes and measuresWhether infection was community or hospital acquired based on timing of tests, clinical course, and exposures.ResultsOver the 12-week period, 9149 patients (mean [SD] age, 46.1 [26.4] years; median [IQR] age, 51 years [30-67 years]; 5243 female [57.3%]) were admitted to the hospital, for whom 7394 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests were performed; 697 COVID-19 cases were confirmed, translating into 8656 days of COVID-19-related care. Twelve of the 697 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (1.7%) first tested positive on hospital day 3 or later (median, 4 days; range, 3-15 days). Of these, only 1 case was deemed to be hospital acquired, most likely from a presymptomatic spouse who was visiting daily and diagnosed with COVID-19 before visitor restrictions and masking were implemented. Among 8370 patients with non-COVID-19-related hospitalizations discharged through June 17, 11 (0.1%) tested positive within 14 days (median time to diagnosis, 6 days; range, 1-14 days). Only 1 case was deemed likely to be hospital acquired, albeit with no known exposures.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of patients in a large academic medical center with rigorous infection control measures, nosocomial COVID-19 was rare during the height of the pandemic in the region. These findings may inform practices in other institutions and provide reassurance to patients concerned about contracting COVID-19 in hospitals.