Dataset Information

COVID-19 seroprevalence among hospital staff and preprocedural patients in Thai community hospitals: a cross-sectional study

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

We aimed to explore the seroprevalence of hospital staff comparing to preprocedural patients in Thai community hospitals to shed light on the situation of COVID-19 infection of frontline healthcare workers in low infection rate countries where mass screening was not readily available.

Design

Cross-sectional study.

Setting

52 community hospitals in 35 provinces covered all regions of Thailand.

Participants

857 participants consisted of 675 hospital staff and 182 preprocedural patients.

Outcome measure

COVID-19 seroprevalence using a locally developed rapid IgM/IgG test kit

Results

Overall, 5.5% of the participants (47 of 857) had positive IgM, 0.2% (2 of 857) had positive IgG which both of them also had positive IgM. Hospitals located in the central part of Thailand had the highest IgM seroprevalence (11.9%). Preprocedural patients had a higher rate of positive IgM than the hospital staff (12.1% vs 3.7%). Participants with present upper respiratory tract symptoms had a higher rate of positive IgM than those without (9.6% vs 4.5%). Three quarters (80.5%, 690 of 857) of the participants were asymptomatic, of which, 31 had positive IgM (4.5%) which consisted of 20 of 566 healthcare workers (3.5%) and 11 of 124 preprocedural patients (8.9%).

Conclusions

COVID-19 antibody test could detect a substantial number of potential silent spreaders in Thai community hospitals where the nasopharyngeal PCR was not readily available, and the antigen test was prohibited. Antibody testing should be encouraged for mass screening in a limited resource setting, especially in asymptomatic individuals.

Trial registration

TCTR20200426002.

SUBMITTER: Nopsopon T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8559109 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 seroprevalence data, particularly in less developed countries with a relatively low incidence, has been scant. We aimed to explore the seroprevalence of hospital staff in the area with zero confirmed COVID-19 case to shed light on the situation of COVID-19 infection in zero or low infection rate countries where mass screening was not readily available.MethodsA locally developed rapid immunoglobulin M (IgM)/immunoglobulin G (IgG) test kit was used for hospital staff screening of Ranong hospital which is located in a province with zero COVID-19 prevalence in Thailand from 17th April to 17th May 2020. All staff was tested, 100 of which were randomly invited to have a repeating antibody test in one month. (Thai Clinical Trials Registry: TCTR20200426002).ResultsOf 844 hospital staff, 82 were tested twice one month apart (response rate for repeating antibody test 82%). Overall, 0.8% of the participants (7 of 844) had positive IgM, none had positive IgG. Female staff had 1.0% positive IgM (95% CI: 0.5-2.1%) while male had 0.5% positive IgM (95% CI: 0.1-2.6%). No participants with a history of travel to the high-risk area or close contact with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 case developed SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Among 844 staff, 811 had no symptoms and six of them developed IgM seropositive (0.7%) while 33 had minor symptoms and only one of them developed IgM seropositive (3.0%). No association between SARS-CoV-2 IgM status and gender, history of travel to a high-risk area, close contact with PCR-confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case, presence of symptoms within 14 days, or previous PCR status was found. None of the hospital staff developed SARS-CoV-2 IgG.ConclusionsCOVID-19 antibody test could detect a considerable number of hospital staff who could be potential silent spreaders in a province with zero COVID-19 cases. Accurate antibody testing is a valuable screening tool, particularly in asymptomatic healthcare workers. Trial registration: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Chulalongkorn University (IRB No.236/63) and the Institutional Review Board of Ranong Hospital. (Thai Clinical Trials Registry: TCTR20200426002).

Project description:BackgroundEmergency department personnel routinely bear witness to traumatic experiences and critical incidents that can affect their own well-being. Peer support through debriefing has demonstrated positive impacts on clinicians' well-being following critical incidents. This study explored community hospital emergency department staff's perceptions of critical incidents, assessed openness to debriefing and measured baseline well-being. Our analysis provides a baseline of provider well-being immediately prior to the local onset of COVID-19. The potential need for additional resources to support frontline providers during the pandemic can be evaluated.MethodWe conducted a cross-sectional study for 4-weeks prior to the first COVID-19 case in Connecticut using a survey offered to an interprofessional group of emergency department clinical staff. The main outcome measures were the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Professional Quality of Life (ProQOL) scale. Pearson's chi-square test was used to identify significant differences in perceptions of critical incidents and debriefings between professional categories. One-way ANOVA and Tukey's test were used to analyze significant differences in well-being between professional categories.ResultsThirty-nine clinical personnel from St. Vincent's Emergency Department responded to the survey. Events frequently selected as critical incidents were caring for critically ill children (89.7%), mass casualty events (84.6%), and death of a patient (69.2%). Critical incidents were commonly reported (81.6%) as occurring once per week. Additionally, 76.2% of participants reported wanting to discuss a critical incident with their team. Across all respondents, 45.7% scored borderline or abnormal for anxiety, 55.9% scored moderate for burnout, and 55.8% scored moderate to high for secondary traumatic stress.ConclusionsAt baseline, providers reported caring for critically ill children, mass casualty events, and death of a patient as critical incidents, which typically occurred once per week. Death of a patient occurs at increased frequency during the protracted mass casualty experience of COVID-19 and threatens provider well-being. Receptiveness to post-event debriefing is high but the method is still underutilized. With nearly half of staff scoring borderline or abnormal for anxiety, burnout, and secondary traumatic stress at baseline, peer support measures should be implemented to protect frontline providers' well-being during and after the pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundTo ensure patient-centered quality care for all citizens, Quality Improvement (QI) teams have been established across all public hospitals in Tanzania. However, little is known about how hospital staff perceive the performance of hospital QI teams in Tanzania. This study assessed the perceptions of hospital staff of the performance of QI teams in selected regional referral hospitals in Tanzania.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted in four selected regional referral hospitals between April and August 2018. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data from 385 hospital staff in the selected hospitals. Measures of central tendency, proportions and frequencies were used to assess level of perception of hospital staff. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to test the association between the perceptions of hospital staff of the performance of QI teams and their socio-demographic factors.ResultsThe overall mean perception score of the performance of QI teams was 4.84 ± 1.25. Hospital staff aged 35 and over (n = 130; 68%), female hospital staff (n = 144; 64%), staff in clinical units (n = 136; 63%) and staff with post-secondary education (n = 175; 63%) perceived that the performance of QI teams was good. Improved hospital cleanliness was viewed as strength of QI teams, whilst inadequate sharing of information and inadequate reduction in patient waiting time were considered as weaknesses of QI team performance. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that there was no statistical association between the perceptions of hospital staff and their socio-demographic characteristics.ConclusionThe overall perception of hospital staff of the performance of QI teams was good, with the main limitation being sharing of hospital QI plans with hospital staff. Hospital staff should be involved in the development and implementation of hospital QI plans, which would promote a positive perception of staff of the performance of QI teams and enhance sustainability of QI teams.

Project description:BackgroundPharmacists' knowledge about the clinical and legal aspects of antibiotic supply has an impact on appropriate dispensing practice. There are limited studies evaluating community pharmacists' knowledge of antibiotic dispensing in low and middle-income countries, including Sri Lanka. We aimed (i) to evaluate community pharmacy staff's self-reported knowledge about antibiotics and dispensing behaviour of antibiotics without a prescription, and (ii) to identify possible factors impacting their antibiotic dispensing behaviour.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted among a random sample (n = 369) of community pharmacies across all nine provinces in Sri Lanka using a self-administered questionnaire on their antibiotic knowledge and dispensing practice. Data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics including; t-test, one-way ANOVA or chi-square test, and binary and multiple logistic regression.ResultsA total of 265 pharmacy staff (210 (79%) pharmacists and 55 (21%) assistants) responded. Overall mean antibiotic knowledge score was 26.1 (SD 3.9; range 1-33, max possible score 34). The overall mean knowledge score t(263) = 2.41, p = 0.017, specific knowledge about antibiotic resistance (ABR) t(262) = 4.98, p = 0.021 and legal aspects of antibiotic dispensing χ2(1, N = 265) = 8.55, p = 0.003) were significantly higher among pharmacists than assistants. One in every three pharmacy staff reported that they dispensed antibiotics without a prescription on patient request; however the proportion was close to half when the patient was known to them. About 30% of the staff reported to have supplied antibiotics for minor infections in the week prior to the survey. However, there was no significant difference in the supply between pharmacists and assistants except for acute sore throat (12% vs 23%, respectively; p = 0.040). Those pharmacists with higher ABR knowledge were less likely to give out antibiotics without a prescription for viral infections in adults (Adj. OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.55-0.96; p = 0.027) and children (Adj. OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.38-0.80; p = 0.002). Awareness of legal aspects of antibiotic supply reduced overall dispensing (Adj. OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.30-0.75; p = 0.001), and specifically for bacterial infections in adults (Adj. OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.20-0.99; p = 0.047). Knowledge about antibiotic use and misuse reduced the likelihood of illegal dispensing for common cold (Adj. OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.60-0.94; p = 0.011) and acute diarrhoea (Adj. OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.58-0.99; p = 0.048).ConclusionDespite the law prohibiting provision, antibiotic dispensing without a prescription continues in community pharmacies in Sri Lanka. Appropriate antibiotic dispensing was associated with high levels of pharmacists' legal and clinical knowledge about antibiotics. Strategies to change the current practice are urgently needed.

Project description:BackgroundAsymptomatic carriers were positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) without developing symptoms, which might be a potential source of infection outbreak. Here, we aim to clarify the epidemiologic and influencing factors of asymptomatic carriers in the general population.MethodsIn our hospital, all hospital staff have received throat swab RT-PCR test, plasma COVID-19 IgM/IgG antibodies test and chest CT examination. We analyzed the correlation between infection rates and gender, age, job position, work place and COVID-19 knowledge training of the staff. After that, all asymptomatic staff were re-examined weekly for 3 weeks.FindingsA total of 3764 hospital staff were included in this single-center cross-sectional study. Among them, 126 hospital staff had abnormal findings, and the proportion of asymptomatic infection accounted for 0.76% (28/3674). There were 26 staff with IgM+, 73 with IgG+, and 40 with ground glass shadow of chest CT. Of all staff with abnormal findings, the older they are, the more likely they are to be the staff with abnormal results, regardless of their gender. Of 3674 hospital staff, the positive rate of labor staff is obviously higher than that of health care workers (HCWs) and administrative staff (P<0.05). In the course of participating in the treatment of COVID-19, there was no statistically significant difference in positive rates between high-risk departments and low-risk departments (P>0.05). The positive rate of HCWs who participated in the COVID-19 knowledge training was lower than those did not participate in early training (P <0.01). Importantly, it was found that there was no statistical difference between the titers of IgM antibody of asymptomatic infections and confirmed patients with COVID-19 in recovery period (P>0.05). During 3 weeks follow-up, all asymptomatic patients did not present the development of clinical symptoms or radiographic abnormalities after active intervention in isolation point.InterpretationTo ensure the safety of resumption of work, institutions should conduct COVID-19 prevention training for staff and screening for asymptomatic patients, and take quarantine measures as soon as possible in areas with high density of population.FundingThe Key Project for Anti-2019 novel Coronavirus Pneumonia from the Ministry of Science and Technology, China; Wuhan Emergency Technology Project of COVID-19 epidemic, China.

Project description:ObjectivesCardiovascular disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Cardiovascular disease was responsible for over 17.9 million deaths in 2016, accounting for 31% of deaths globally and 37% of deaths in Saudi Arabia. With a lifetime risk exceeding 60% for the general population, healthcare professionals are continuously monitoring the health of others but often do not find time to care for themselves. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors; medical conditions, such as, hypertension and diabetes mellitus; stress; and attitudes and barriers against healthy lifestyle choices among healthcare professionals at King Abdulaziz University Hospital.MethodsA cross-sectional study based on a self-administered questionnaire was conducted among the staff at King Abdulaziz University Hospital over a period of 12 weeks. A validated questionnaire was adopted from a study that had previously been conducted in the United Kingdom.ResultsThe study included 400 healthcare workers, of whom, 78% were clinical staff and 22% were non-clinical staff. Approximately, two-thirds of the clinical staff were aged ⩽25 years, whereas 43.2% of the non-clinical staff were aged 26-35 years. Most of the clinical staff (70.5%) were female, compared to 56.8% of the non-clinical staff. Significantly higher rates of hypertension and smoking were observed among the non-clinical staff than among the clinical staff. However, no other significant differences were observed in the prevalence of diseases between the groups. Overall, poor lifestyle, in terms of low compliance with the recommended dietary and physical activity guidelines, was observed in both groups.ConclusionThe prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors among the clinical staff at King Abdulaziz University Hospital was not markedly different from that among the non-clinical staff, except the prevalence of hypertension and smoking, which was significantly higher among the non-clinical staff. Further studies that include staff from other institutions are recommended.