Multisociety statement on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination as a condition of employment for healthcare personnel.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Weber DJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8376851 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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:ObjectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine may hold the key to ending the pandemic, but vaccine hesitancy is hindering the vaccination of healthcare personnel (HCP). We examined their perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine and implemented an intervention to increase vaccination uptake.DesignBefore-and-after trial.Participants and settingHealthcare personnel at a 790-bed tertiary-care center in Tokyo, Japan.InterventionsA prevaccination questionnaire was administered to HCP to examine their perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine. A multifaceted intervention was then implemented involving (1) distribution of informational leaflets to all HCP, (2) hospital-wide announcements encouraging vaccination, (3) a mandatory lecture, (4) an educational session about the vaccine for pregnant or breastfeeding HCP, and (5) allergy testing for HCP at risk of allergic reactions to the vaccine. A postvaccination survey was also performed.ResultsOf 1,575 HCP eligible for enrollment, 1,224 (77.7%) responded to the questionnaire, 533 (43.5%) expressed willingness to be vaccinated, 593 (48.4%) were uncertain, and 98 (8.0%) expressed unwillingness to be vaccinated. The latter 2 groups were concerned about the vaccine's safety rather than its efficacy. After the intervention, the overall vaccination rate reached 89.7% (1,413 of 1,575), and 88.9% (614 of 691) of the prevaccination survey respondents answered "unwilling" to or "unsure" about eventually receiving a vaccination. In the postvaccination questionnaire, factors contributing to increased COVID-19 vaccination included information and endorsement of vaccination at the medical center (274 of 1,037, 26.4%).ConclusionsThis multifaceted intervention increased COVID-19 vaccinations among HCP at a Japanese hospital. Frequent support and provision of information were crucial for increasing the vaccination rate and may be applicable to the general population as well.
| S-EPMC8319672 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify characteristics associated with positive severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests in healthcare personnel.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingA multihospital healthcare system.ParticipantsEmployees who reported SARS-CoV-2 exposures and/or symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) between March 30, 2020, and September 20, 2020, and were subsequently referred for SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing.MethodsData from exposure and/or symptom reports were linked to the corresponding SARS-CoV-2 PCR test result. Employee demographic characteristics, occupational characteristics, SARS-CoV-2 exposure history, and symptoms were evaluated as potential risk factors for having a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test.ResultsAmong 6,289 employees who received SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing, 873 (14%) had a positive test. Independent risk factors for a positive PCR included: working in a patient care area (relative risk [RR], 1.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-2.40), having a known SARS-CoV-2 exposure (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.37), reporting a community versus an occupational exposure (RR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.49-2.34), and having an infected household contact (RR, 2.47; 95% CI, 2.11-2.89). Nearly all HCP (99%) reported symptoms. Symptoms associated with a positive PCR in a multivariable analysis included loss of sense of smell (RR, 2.60; 95% CI, 2.09-3.24) or taste (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.40-2.20), cough (RR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.40-2.20), fever, and muscle aches.ConclusionsIn this cohort of >6,000 healthcare system and academic medical center employees early in the pandemic, community exposures, and particularly household exposures, were associated with greater risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection than occupational exposures. This work highlights the importance of COVID-19 prevention in the community and in healthcare settings to prevent COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9727206 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivePrior studies of universal masking have not measured face-mask compliance. We performed a quality improvement study to monitor and improve face-mask compliance among healthcare personnel (HCP) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.DesignMixed-methods study.SettingTertiary-care center in West Haven, Connecticut.PatientsHCP including physicians, nurses, and ancillary staff.MethodsFace-mask compliance was measured through direct observations during a 4-week baseline period after universal masking was mandated. Frontline and management HCP completed semistructured interviews from which a multimodal intervention was developed. Direct observations were repeated during a 14-week period following implementation of the multimodal intervention. Differences between units were evaluated with χ2 testing using the Bonferroni correction. Face-mask compliance between baseline and intervention periods was compared using time-series regression.ResultsAmong 1,561 observations during the baseline period, median weekly face-mask compliance was 82.2% (range, 80.8%-84.4%). Semistructured interviews were performed with 16 HCP. Qualitative analysis informed the development of a multimodal intervention consisting of audit and passive feedback, active discussion, and increased communication from leadership. Among 2,651 observations during the intervention period, median weekly face-mask compliance was 92.6% (range, 84.6%-97.9%). There was no difference in weekly face-mask compliance between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 units. The multimodal intervention was associated with an increase in face-mask compliance (β = 0.023; P = .002).ConclusionsFace-mask compliance remained suboptimal among HCP despite a facility-wide mandate for universal masking. A multimodal intervention consisting of audit and passive feedback, active discussion, and increased communication from leadership was effective in increasing face-mask compliance among HCP.
| S-EPMC8144836 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We describe the association between job roles and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among healthcare personnel. A wide range of hazard ratios were observed across job roles. Medical assistants had higher hazard ratios than nurses, while attending physicians, food service workers, laboratory technicians, pharmacists, residents and fellows, and temporary workers had lower hazard ratios.
| S-EPMC9726628 | biostudies-literature
Project description:With the increasing spread and mortality of the COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, it is essential for the healthcare community to be prepared per the international standards. This study is focused on assessing the preparedness of healthcare personnel and the effectiveness of an educational intervention to improve this preparedness in those dealing with the COVID-19 infection. A prospective, multicenter audit cycle was conducted on 400 healthcare professionals (271 junior doctors, 90 nurses, 39 non-clinical hospital workers) sampled through stratified random sampling. A questionnaire that was based on “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC's) checklist for healthcare personnel's preparedness for transport and arrival of patients with confirmed or possible COVID-19” was sent to the participants after which an informative document, framed on the information provided by World Health Organization (WHO), CDC, and local guidelines from the Government of Pakistan's website, was distributed through social media platforms. The questionnaire was repeated after 2 weeks to close the audit loop. Chi-Square test and paired sample t-test were used to test significance. In the pre-intervention portion of the study, it was found out that the doctors and nurses had higher knowledge scores compared to the non-clinical hospital staff (p ? 0.05). A statistically significant improvement was seen after the educational intervention was deployed (p ? 0.05). The study concludes that the non-clinical staff, being a vital part of the healthcare framework, need to be educated and effective approaches for official inclusion of relevant information need to be incorporated into clinical practice to limit the transmission of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7517286 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo characterize associations between exposures within and outside the medical workplace with healthcare personnel (HCP) SARS-CoV-2 infection, including the effect of various forms of respiratory protection.DesignCase-control study.SettingWe collected data from international participants via an online survey.ParticipantsIn total, 1,130 HCP (244 cases with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, and 886 controls healthy throughout the pandemic) from 67 countries not meeting prespecified exclusion (ie, healthy but not working, missing workplace exposure data, COVID symptoms without lab confirmation) were included in this study.MethodsRespondents were queried regarding workplace exposures, respiratory protection, and extra-occupational activities. Odds ratios for HCP infection were calculated using multivariable logistic regression and sensitivity analyses controlling for confounders and known biases.ResultsHCP infection was associated with non-aerosol-generating contact with COVID-19 patients (adjusted OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.04-1.9; P = .03) and extra-occupational exposures including gatherings of ?10 people, patronizing restaurants or bars, and public transportation (adjusted OR range, 3.1-16.2). Respirator use during aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) was associated with lower odds of HCP infection (adjusted OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.8, P = .005), as was exposure to intensive care and dedicated COVID units, negative pressure rooms, and personal protective equipment (PPE) observers (adjusted OR range, 0.4-0.7).ConclusionsCOVID-19 transmission to HCP was associated with medical exposures currently considered lower-risk and multiple extra-occupational exposures, and exposures associated with proper use of appropriate PPE were protective. Closer scrutiny of infection control measures surrounding healthcare activities and medical settings considered lower risk, and continued awareness of the risks of public congregation, may reduce the incidence of HCP infection.
| S-EPMC7542323 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Among 283 symptomatic healthcare personnel (HCP) tested for SARS-CoV-2, 51 (18%) were positive. Among those 51 HCP, self reported loss of smell and taste were present in 51% and 52.9%, respectively, with either present in 60.8%. These symptoms had high specificity (93% each, 96% for either) for a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.
| S-EPMC7454440 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In a large, system-wide, healthcare personnel (HCP) testing experience using severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and serologic testing early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we did not find increased infection risk related to COVID-19 patient contact. Our findings support workplace policies for HCP protection and underscore the role of community exposure and asymptomatic infection.
| S-EPMC8438415 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose of Review:We reviewed the benefit of influenza vaccination in healthcare personnel (HCP), rates of vaccine coverage, and practices used to try to boost vaccine coverage among HCP. Recent Findings:Influenza vaccination in HCP provides benefits to both HCP and patients, including reductions in patient morbidity and mortality and decreases in HCP absenteeism. Despite these benefits, influenza vaccine coverage among HCP still falls short of the Healthy People 2020 goal of 90%. As a result, healthcare institutions have used various practices to boost vaccination, including mandatory vaccine policies and requiring non-immunized HCP to wear masks during the influenza season. All of these efforts have been successful at increasing vaccination rates, and employer vaccination requirements have led to rates that meet the Healthy People 2020 goal. Rates of mandatory vaccine policies have increased over time, and several states now have influenza vaccine requirements. However, additional study into how these policies improve patient outcomes is needed. Summary:Continued effort is needed to boost influenza vaccination rates among HCP, and mandatory vaccine policies may be used if other methods have not been effective in adequately raising vaccination rates. Future research should focus on how mandatory vaccine policies can improve patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC7223640 | biostudies-literature