Dataset Information

Barriers to physical distancing among healthcare workers on an academic hospital unit during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Physical distancing among healthcare workers (HCWs) is an essential strategy in preventing HCW-to-HCWs transmission of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Objective

To understand barriers to physical distancing among HCWs on an inpatient unit and identify strategies for improvement.

Design

Qualitative study including observations and semistructured interviews conducted over 3 months.

Setting

A non-COVID-19 adult general medical unit in an academic tertiary-care hospital.

Participants

HCWs based on the unit.

Methods

We performed a qualitative study in which we (1) observed HCW activities and proximity to each other on the unit during weekday shifts July-October 2020 and (2) conducted semi-structured interviews of HCWs to understand their experiences with and perspectives of physical distancing in the hospital. Qualitative data were coded based on a human-factors engineering model.

Results

We completed 25 hours of observations and 20 HCW interviews. High-risk interactions often occurred during handoffs of care at shift changes and patient rounds, when HCWs gathered regularly in close proximity for at least 15 minutes. Identified barriers included spacing and availability of computers, the need to communicate confidential patient information, and the desire to maintain relationships at work.

Conclusions

Physical distancing can be improved in hospitals by restructuring computer workstations, work rooms, and break rooms; applying visible cognitive aids; adapting shift times; and supporting rounds and meetings with virtual conferencing. Additional strategies to promote staff adherence to physical distancing include rewarding positive behaviors, having peer leaders model physical distancing, and encouraging additional safe avenues for social connection at a safe distance.

SUBMITTER: Keller SC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8111196 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the risk of hospital admission for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) among patient facing and non-patient facing healthcare workers and their household members.DesignNationwide linkage cohort study.SettingScotland, UK, 1 March to 6 June 2020.ParticipantsHealthcare workers aged 18-65 years, their households, and other members of the general population.Main outcome measureAdmission to hospital with covid-19.ResultsThe cohort comprised 158 445 healthcare workers, most of them (90 733; 57.3%) being patient facing, and 229 905 household members. Of all hospital admissions for covid-19 in the working age population (18-65 year olds), 17.2% (360/2097) were in healthcare workers or their households. After adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic deprivation, and comorbidity, the risk of admission due to covid-19 in non-patient facing healthcare workers and their households was similar to the risk in the general population (hazard ratio 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.26) and 0.86 (0.49 to 1.51), respectively). In models adjusting for the same covariates, however, patient facing healthcare workers, compared with non-patient facing healthcare workers, were at higher risk (hazard ratio 3.30, 2.13 to 5.13), as were household members of patient facing healthcare workers (1.79, 1.10 to 2.91). After sub-division of patient facing healthcare workers into those who worked in "front door," intensive care, and non-intensive care aerosol generating settings and other, those in front door roles were at higher risk (hazard ratio 2.09, 1.49 to 2.94). For most patient facing healthcare workers and their households, the estimated absolute risk of hospital admission with covid-19 was less than 0.5%, but it was 1% and above in older men with comorbidity.ConclusionsHealthcare workers and their households contributed a sixth of covid-19 cases admitted to hospital. Although the absolute risk of admission was low overall, patient facing healthcare workers and their household members had threefold and twofold increased risks of admission with covid-19.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the association between physical distancing interventions and incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) globally. DESIGN:Natural experiment using interrupted time series analysis, with results synthesised using meta-analysis. SETTING:149 countries or regions, with data on daily reported cases of covid-19 from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and data on the physical distancing policies from the Oxford covid-19 Government Response Tracker. PARTICIPANTS:Individual countries or regions that implemented one of the five physical distancing interventions (closures of schools, workplaces, and public transport, restrictions on mass gatherings and public events, and restrictions on movement (lockdowns)) between 1 January and 30 May 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of covid-19 before and after implementation of physical distancing interventions, estimated using data to 30 May 2020 or 30 days post-intervention, whichever occurred first. IRRs were synthesised across countries using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS:On average, implementation of any physical distancing intervention was associated with an overall reduction in covid-19 incidence of 13% (IRR 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 0.89; n=149 countries). Closure of public transport was not associated with any additional reduction in covid-19 incidence when the other four physical distancing interventions were in place (pooled IRR with and without public transport closure was 0.85, 0.82 to 0.88; n=72, and 0.87, 0.84 to 0.91; n=32, respectively). Data from 11 countries also suggested similar overall effectiveness (pooled IRR 0.85, 0.81 to 0.89) when school closures, workplace closures, and restrictions on mass gatherings were in place. In terms of sequence of interventions, earlier implementation of lockdown was associated with a larger reduction in covid-19 incidence (pooled IRR 0.86, 0.84 to 0.89; n=105) compared with a delayed implementation of lockdown after other physical distancing interventions were in place (pooled IRR 0.90, 0.87 to 0.94; n=41). CONCLUSIONS:Physical distancing interventions were associated with reductions in the incidence of covid-19 globally. No evidence was found of an additional effect of public transport closure when the other four physical distancing measures were in place. Earlier implementation of lockdown was associated with a larger reduction in the incidence of covid-19. These findings might support policy decisions as countries prepare to impose or lift physical distancing measures in current or future epidemic waves.