Emergency Department Utilization by In-hospital Healthcare Workers after COVID-19 Vaccination.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
This is an observational study to analyze an emergency department (ED) utilization pattern of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinated in-hospital healthcare workers (HCWs).Methods
We included 4,703 HCWs who were administered the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine between March 4 and April 2, 2021, in a tertiary hospital in Korea where fast-track and post-vaccination cohort zone (PVCZ) were introduced in ED. We analyzed data of participants' age, sex, occupation, date and type of vaccination, and their clinical information using SPSS v25.0.Results
The sample comprised HCWs, who received either the ChAdOx1 (n = 4,458) or the BNT162B2 (n = 245) vaccines; most participants were female (73.5%), and 81.1% were under 50 years old. Further, 153 (3.3%) visited the ED and reported experiencing fever (66.9%) and myalgia (56.1%). Additionally, 91 (59.5%) of them were in their 20s, and 106 (67.5%) were assigned to the PVCZ. Lastly, 107 (68.2%) of the patients received parenteral management. No patient required hospitalization.Conclusion
In conclusion, vaccinated HCWs who visited the ED with adverse events had a high incidence of fever and a low likelihood of developing serious illnesses. As the COVID-19 vaccination program for Korean citizens continues to expand, strategies to minimize unnecessary ED overcrowding should be put into effect.
SUBMITTER: Park MJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8275460 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:RNA was extracted from whole blood of subjects collected in Tempus tubes prior to COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccination. D01 and D21 correspond to samples collected at pre-dose 1 and pre-dose 2 respectively. RNA was also extracted from blood collected at indicated time points post-vaccination. DB1, DB2, DB4 and DB7 correspond to booster day 1 (pre-booster), booster day 2, booster day 4 and booster day 7 respectively. The case subject experienced cardiac complication following mRNA booster vaccination. We performed gene expression analysis of case versus controls over time.
2023-03-20 | E-MTAB-12829 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST563 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8652434 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The coronavirus pneumonia is still spreading around the world. Much progress has been made in vaccine development, and vaccination will become an inevitable trend in the fight against this pandemic. However, the public acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination still remains uncertain. Methods: An anonymous questionnaire was used in Wen Juan Xing survey platform. All the respondents were divided into healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the key sociodemographic, cognitive, and attitude associations among the samples of healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers. Results: A total of 2,580 respondents completed the questionnaire, including 1,329 healthcare workers and 1,251 non-healthcare workers. This study showed that 76.98% of healthcare workers accepted the COVID-19 vaccine, 18.28% workers were hesitant, and 4.74% workers were resistant. Among the non-healthcare workers, 56.19% workers received the COVID-19 vaccine, 37.57% workers were hesitant, and 6.24% workers were resistant. Among the healthcare workers, compared with vaccine recipients, vaccine-hesitant individuals were more likely to be female (AOR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.12-2.07); vaccine-resistant individuals were more likely to live in the suburbs (AOR = 2.81, 95% CI: 1.44-3.99) with an income of 10,000 RMB or greater (AOR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.03-3.90). Among the non-healthcare workers, vaccine-hesitant individuals were more likely to be female (AOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.31-2.11); vaccine-resistant individuals were also more likely to be female (AOR = 1.87, 95% CI: 1.16-3.02) and older than 65 years (AOR = 4.96, 95% CI: 1.40-7.62). There are great differences between healthcare workers and non-healthcare workers in their cognition and attitude toward vaccines. Conclusions: Our study shows that healthcare workers are more willing to be vaccinated than non-healthcare workers. Current vaccine safety issues continue to be a major factor affecting public acceptance, and to expand vaccine coverage in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, appropriate vaccination strategies and immunization programs are essential, especially for non-healthcare workers.
| S-EPMC8364953 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess reasons for noncompliance with COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare workers (HCWs).DesignCohort observational and surveillance study.SettingSheba Medical Center, a 1,600-bed tertiary-care medical center in Israel.ParticipantsThe study included 10,888 HCWs including all employees, students, and volunteers.InterventionThe BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was offered to all HCWs of the hospital. Noncompliance was assessed, and pre-rollout and post-rollout surveys were conducted. Data regarding uptake of the vaccine as well as demographic data and compliance with prior influenza vaccination were collected, and 2 surveys were distributed. The survey before the rollout pertained to the intention to receive the vaccine, and the survey after the rollout pertained to all unvaccinated HCWs regarding causes of hesitancy.ResultsIn the pre-rollout survey, 1,673 (47%) of 3,563 HCWs declared their intent to receive the vaccine. Overall, 8,108 (79%) HCWs received the COVID-19 vaccine within 40 days of rollout. In a multivariate logistic regression model, the factors that were significant predictors of vaccine uptake were male sex, age 40-59 years, occupation (paramedical professionals and doctors), high socioeconomic level, and compliance with flu vaccine. Among 425 unvaccinated HCWs who answered the second survey, the most common cause for hesitancy was the risk during pregnancy (31%).ConclusionsAlthough vaccine uptake among HCWs was higher than expected, relatively low uptake was observed among young women and those from lower socioeconomic levels and educational backgrounds. Concerns regarding vaccine safety during pregnancy were common and more data about vaccine safety, especially during pregnancy, might improve compliance.
| S-EPMC8503070 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A worldwide vaccination programme is the chosen strategy against the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine hesitancy, however, forms a threat to achieving a high degree of vaccination. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are exposed to greater risks, in addition to HCWs who care for people with intellectual disabilities (ID). However, little is still known about these groups’ vaccine hesitancy. This review aims to provide insight into the intentions and attitudes of HCWs on COVID-19 vaccination, including those who care for people with ID. The search included both types and was conducted in nine databases. A total of 26 papers were identified concerning the vaccine intentions of 43,199 HCWs worldwide. The data were gathered both quantitively and qualitatively. The papers were analysed for all of the themes regarding vaccine intentions, which were: (1) percentages of vaccine willingness; (2) predictors of willingness; (3) attitudes of willingness and hesitancy; (4) sources of vaccination information; (5) contextual factors and changes in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance over time; and (6) future strategies for interventions. Concerns about vaccine safety, efficacy and short- and long-term side effects were the most prominent in HCWs and, therefore, should be addressed in future intervention strategies. Furthermore, interactive interventions are recommended to facilitate exchange, and accurate information should be accessible to target groups on social media platforms.
| S-EPMC9407815 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe devastating effects of COVID-19 sparked debates among professionals in the fields of health, law, and bioethics regarding policies on mandatory vaccination for healthcare workers. Suboptimal vaccine uptake among healthcare workers had been implicated in the increased risk of nosocomial spread of COVID infection and absenteeism among healthcare workers, impacting the quality of patient care. However, mandatory vaccine policies were also seen to encroach on the autonomy of healthcare workers.Aims and objectivesTo synthesise the arguments for and against mandatory vaccination for healthcare workers (HCWs) and its long-term impact on the healthcare workforce, through an analysis of texts and opinions of professionals from different fields of study.MethodsThis is a systematic review of opinions published in peer-reviewed journals. After initial search in Cochrane and JBI systematic review databases to ensure no previous review had been done, five databases were searched (PsychInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline and Scopus). Inclusion criteria were: 1) focused on COVID-19; 2) healthcare workers specific; 3) specific to mandatory vaccination; 4) opinion piece with an identified author; and 5) in English.Exclusion1) focus on other vaccine preventable diseases, not COVID-19 and 2) discussion on mandatory vaccination not-specific to healthcare workers. The Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal tool for Text and Opinions was used to assess quality. Data were synthesised in the summary table.ResultsThe review included 28 opinion and viewpoint articles. Of these, 12 (43 %) adopted a pro-mandatory vaccination stance, 13 (46 %) were neutral or had presented arguments from both sides of the debate and only three (11 %) were against. The overall arguments among those who were pro-, neutral and anti-mandatory COVID-19 vaccination were underpinned by ethical, moral and legal principles of such a mandate on a vulnerable healthcare workforce. This review highlighted the polarised opinions concerning choices, human rights, professional responsibilities and personal risks (i.e. health risks, losing a job) with the introduction of vaccination mandate. However, the articles found in this review discussed mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers in the USA, Europe and Australia only.ConclusionThe review underscores the need to balance the rights of the public to safe and quality care with the rights and moral obligations of healthcare workers during a public health emergency. This can be achieved when policies and mandates are guided by reliable scientific evidence which are flexible in considering legal and ethical dilemmas.Tweetable abstractTo mandate or not to mandate COVID-19 vaccination for healthcare workers: A synthesis of published opinions in health, law, and bioethics.
| S-EPMC9709452 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt is known that there has been an increase over the years in attacks by patients admitted to the emergency department (ED) on healthcare workers; it is unclear what effect the COVID-19 pandemic has on these attacks.Aimto verify through a long-term time analysis the effect of COVID-19 on ED attacks on healthcare workers.Mothodsa quasi-experimental interrupted time-series analysis on attacks on healthcare workers was performed from January 2017 to August 2021. The main outcome was the monthly rate of attacks on healthcare workers per 1000 general accesses. The pandemic outbreak was used as an intervention point.Results1002 attacks on healthcare workers in the ED were recorded. The rate of monthly attacks on total accesses increased from an average of 13.5 (SD 6.6) in the pre-COVID-19 era to 27.2 (SD 9.8) in the pandemic months, p < 0.001. The pandemic outbreak led to a significant increase in attacks on healthcare workers from 0.05/1000 attacks per month (p = 0.018), to 4.3/1000 attacks per month (p = 0.005).ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to a significant increase in attacks on healthcare workers in the ED. Trends compared to pre-pandemic months do not seem to indicate a return to normality. Health institutions and policymakers should develop strategies to improve the safety of the working environment in hospitals and EDs.
| S-EPMC9502437 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDuring the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period, the use of emergency services with pediatric non-COVID patients has decreased considerably. We aimed to examine whether there was a change in the demographic data, triage profile, causes, management, and cost of pediatric emergency department (PED) visits of non-COVID patients during the pandemic period.MethodsThis study was a retrospective, single-center, observational comparative study that was conducted at the PED. Patient records were examined during "the pandemic spring" and the same period of the previous year. Patient demographics, waiting time, and outcome of the PED visit were analyzed in the entire population of children admitted to the PED during the study period, whereas more precise data such as the reason for PED use, duration of symptoms, urgency levels according to the Emergency Severity Index (ESI), final diagnosis, management, and cost of patient care were analyzed in a sample of admitted patients. We used the chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and Mann-Whitney U test for statistical analyses.ResultsA total of 62,593 PED visits occurred. During the pandemic period, PED visits showed a decrease of 55.8% compared to the previous year. Patients included in the sampling study group were selected using a systematic random sampling method. The median waiting time during the pandemic period was significantly shorter than the previous year (median 14 min [IQR: 5-32] vs. median 5 min [IQR: 2-16]; p<0.001). The median duration of symptoms was 1 day (1-2) in both groups. Emergency Severity Index (ESI) levels I, II, and III showed a significant increase (27.7% vs. 37.3%) in triage scoring compared to levels IV and V (72.3% vs. 62.7%) during the pandemic period (p<0.001). The median cost per patient during the pandemic period was statistically higher compared to the previous year ($19.57 [19.57-40.50] vs. $25.34 [31.50-52.01]; p<0.001). Overall costs during the pandemic period had a 1.6-fold decline.ConclusionWe highlighted the changes in an ordinary PED profile during an extraordinary period. A shift in ESI levels in a more emergent direction was observed. While the number of nonurgent patients, especially those with infections, decreased, the rates of surgical cases, acute neurological and heart diseases, home accidents, and poisoning increased relative to the pre-pandemic period.
| S-EPMC8492613 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo describe the variation in volumes and types of paediatric presentations to a tertiary emergency department in New Zealand during the national level 4 lockdown for COVID-19.MethodsA retrospective, comparative cohort study in Christchurch Hospital Emergency Department, New Zealand.ResultsThere was a 37% reduction in all emergency presentations during the 33-day lockdown period. Paediatric presentations reduced significantly more than non-paediatric presentations (53% paediatric vs. 34% non-paediatric, P < 0.00001). The decrease in both overall and paediatric presentations was significantly different than similar periods in 2019 and 2018 (P < 0.00001). The proportion of New Zealand European paediatric presentations during lockdown increased by 6.09% (P = 0.01), while Pacific peoples decreased by 3.36% (P = 0.005). The proportion of <1-year-old presentations increased by 5.56% (P = 0.001), while 11-15 years decreased by 7.91% (P = 0.0001). Respiratory-related paediatric presentations decreased by 30% and proportional decreased by 4.92% (P = 0.001).ConclusionThis study has identified a significant reduction in paediatric presentations to a tertiary emergency department in New Zealand during the national Alert Level 4 Lockdown for COVID-19. The proportional increase in the <1-year-old group may suggest a greater need for community-based child health services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mental health support services may also need to adapt and expand to provide adequate psychological support for children during this crisis. Recognising the needs of these vulnerable groups will be critical during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic in addition to informing response plans for similar events in the future.
| S-EPMC8014123 | biostudies-literature