Dataset Information

SARS-CoV-2 Exposures of Healthcare Workers from Primary Care, Long-Term Care Facilities and Hospitals: A Nationwide Matched Case-Control Study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This study assessed the roles of various exposures and personal protective equipment (PPE) use on healthcare workers'risk (HCWs) of COVID-19 working in primary care, long-term-care facilities or hospitals.

Methods

We conducted a matched case-control (1:1) study (10 April-9 July 2021). Cases (HCWs with confirmed COVID-19) and controls (HCWs without any COVID-19-positive test or symptoms) were invited by email to complete an online questionnaire on their exposures and PPE use over the 10-day period preceding inclusion. Risk factors were analyzed using multivariable conditional logistic regression.

Results

A total of 2076 cases and 2076 matched controls were included. The analysis retained exposure to an infected person outside work (adjusted odd ratio, 19.9 [95% confidence intervaI, 12.4-31.9]), an infected colleague (2.26 [1.53-3.33]) or COVID-19 patients (2.37 [1.66-3.40]), as independent predictors of COVID-19 in HCWs, while partial (0.30 [0.22-0.40]) or complete (0.19 [0.14-0.27]) immunization was protective. Eye protection (0.57 [0.37-0.87]) and wearing a gown (0.58 [0.34-0.97]) for COVID-19 patient care were protective, while wearing an apron slightly increased the risk of infection (1.47 [1.00-2.18]). Protection of N95 respirators and surgical facemasks did not differ. Compared to medical professions, being a nurse (3.79 [2.50-5.76]) or a nurse's aide (9.08 [5.30-15.5]) was associated with COVID-19. Results were consistent across all healthcare settings.

Conclusions

HCWs were more likely to get COVID-19 in their personal sphere than during occupational activities. Our results suggest that eye protection for HCWs during patient care should be actively promoted.

SUBMITTER: Belan M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9239704 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrimary health care (PHC) was a keystone toward achieving universal health coverage and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). China has made efforts to strengthen its PHC institutions. As part of such efforts, regular in-service training is crucial for primary healthcare workers (PHWs) to strengthen their knowledge and keep their skills up to date.ObjectiveTo investigate if and how the existing training arrangements influenced the competence and job satisfaction of PHWs in township hospitals (THs).MethodsA mixed method approach was employed. We analyzed the associations between in-service training and competence, as well as between in-service training and job satisfaction of PHWs using logistic regression. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using NVivo12 to better understand the trainings and the impacts on PHWs.ResultsThe study found that training was associated with competence for all the types of PHWs except nurses. The odds of higher competence for physicians who received long-term training were 3.60 (p < 0.01) and that of those who received both types of training was 2.40 (p < 0.01). PHWs who received short-term training had odds of higher competence significantly (OR = 1.710, p < 0.05). PHWs who received training were more satisfied than their untrained colleagues in general (OR = 1.638, p < 0.01). Specifically, physicians who received short-term training (OR = 1.916, p < 0.01) and who received both types of training (OR = 1.941, p < 0.05) had greater odds of general job satisfaction. The odds ratios (ORs) of general job satisfaction for nurses who received short-term training was 2.697 (p < 0.01), but this association was not significant for public health workers. The interview data supported these results, and revealed how training influenced competence and satisfaction.ConclusionsConsidering existing evidence that competence and satisfaction serve as two major determinants of health workers' performance, to further improve PHWs' performance, it is necessary to provide sufficient training opportunities and improve the quality of training.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Over the last 10 years, appropriate workforce utilisation has been an important discussion among healthcare practitioners and policy-makers. The role of healthcare aides (HCAs) has also expanded to improve their utilisation. This evolving role of HCAs in Canada has prompted calls for standardised training, education and scope of practice for HCAs. The purpose of this research was to examine the differences in HCAs training and utilisation in continuing care facilities. DESIGN:From June 2014 to July 2015, we conducted a mixed-method study on HCA utilisation in continuing care. This paper presents findings gathered solely from the prospective cross-sectional survey of continuing care facilities (long-term care (LTC) and supportive living (SL)) on HCA utilisation. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:We conducted this study in a Western Canadian province. The managers of the continuing care facilities (SL and LTC) were eligible to participate in the survey. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The pattern of HCAs involvement in medication assistance and other care activities in SL and LTC facilities. RESULTS:We received 130 completed surveys (LTC=64?and SL=52). Our findings showed that approximately 81% of HCAs were fully certified. We found variations in how HCAs were used in SL and LTC facilities. Overall, HCAs in SL were more likely to be involved in medication management such as assisting with inhaled medication and oral medication delivery. A significantly larger proportion of survey respondents from SL facilities reported that medication assistance training was mandatory for their HCAs (86%) compared with the LTC facilities (50%) (p value <0.01). CONCLUSION:The utilisation of HCAs varies widely between SL and LTC facilities. HCAs in SL facilities may be considered better used according to their required educational training and competencies. Expanding the role of HCAs in LTC facilities may lead to a cost-effective and more efficient utilisation of workforce in continuing care facilities.

Project description:BackgroundThe elderly bear the highest burden of South Africa's estimated annual > 10 million influenza cases and > 11,000 influenza-related deaths. Unvaccinated healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high occupational risk of contracting influenza, and may transmit influenza to elderly patients in their care. Thus, the South African National Department of Health recommends that HCWs receive annual influenza vaccination. This study aimed to determine influenza vaccination coverage among HCWs; identify reasons for their vaccination status; and investigate if HCWs recommend vaccination to their elderly patients.MethodsA descriptive study was conducted in 18 community health centres and 44 private sector and non-governmental organisation managed old age homes across South Africa, using a self-administered structured questionnaire, which was distributed to 360 HCWs present on the day of data collection. Data were captured using Microsoft Excel® and imported to Epi Info™ 7 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, USA) for descriptive statistical analysis. Ethics approval (SMUREC/P/36/2018: PG) and permission to conduct the study at the facilities were obtained. All participants provided informed consent.ResultsThe response rate was 76.7% (276/360). Most participants were female (90.9% [251/276]), nursing professionals (81.2% [224/276]) with a mean age of 41.1 ± 11.7 years. Although 62.7% of participants indicated having ever received at least one dose of the influenza vaccine, influenza vaccine uptake for 2017 and 2018 was 24.36% (41/276) and 33.3% (92/276) respectively. The main reasons given for never being vaccinated against influenza were related to the unavailability of the vaccine (70.9%) and vaccine hesitancy (27.2%). Most participants (67.8% [187/276]) recommended vaccines to elderly patients in their care.ConclusionThe main reasons behind low influenza vaccine uptake by HCWs in South Africa who care for the elderly were related to unavailability of the vaccine and vaccine hesitancy. Strategies to educate HCWs on the importance of influenza vaccination, while concurrently increasing sustained and easy access to the vaccine by HCWs are needed to preserve public health.