Role of Occupational Health Services in Planning and Implementing of Staff COVID-19 Vaccination Clinic: A Tertiary Hospital Experience in Singapore.

CONTEXT: Healthcare workers all over the world were prioritized for vaccination against COVID-19 in view of the high-risk nature of their job scopes when vaccines were first available in late 2020. Vaccine hesitancy was an important problem to tackle in order to achieve a high vaccination rate, especially for vaccines that were developed using mRNA technology. We aimed to use the '3Cs' model to address vaccine hesitancy to ensure maximal uptake of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine among healthcare workers in a tertiary hospital in Singapore. METHODS: Various measures were used to reduce the confidence, complacency, and convenience barriers. The staff vaccination clinic was on-site and centralized, with appointments given in advance to ensure vaccine availability and to reduce wait time, providing convenience to staff. Direct and repeated communications with the staff via multiple channels were used to address vaccine safety and efficacy so as to promote confidence in the vaccines and overcome complacency barriers. To further encourage staff to get vaccinated, staff were allowed time off for vaccination when at work. Staff with a high risk of exposure to COVID-19 or those caring for immunocompromised patients were prioritized to take the vaccines first. The collection of data on adverse events was via on-site monitoring and consultation at Occupational Health Clinic (OHC). RESULTS: Nearly 80% of staff had completed vaccination when the vaccination exercise ended at the end of March 2021. With the loosening of the contraindications to vaccination over time, staff vaccination rates reached 89.3% in early July and nearly 99.9% by the end of the year. No major or serious vaccine-related medication or administration errors were reported. No staff had anaphylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: By using the '3Cs' model to plan out the vaccination exercise, it is possible to achieve a high vaccination rate coupled with effective and customized communications. This multi-disciplinary team approach can be adapted to guide vaccination efforts in various settings in future pandemics.

Safety and side effect profile of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare workers: A tertiary hospital experience in Singapore.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccination remains a key strategy to living endemically with COVID-19. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was first granted interim authorisation for use in Singapore in December 2020. With overseas studies published about the safety and side effect profiles of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines focusing mainly on non-Asian populations, we described the side effects of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination experienced by the healthcare workers (HCWs) in a tertiary hospital in Singapore. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Occupational Health Clinic (OHC) at the National University Hospital in Singapore, which monitored staff for any adverse effects within 30 minutes post vaccination on-site and any adverse effects after that. A cross-sectional study among the vaccinated HCWs was conducted using an online survey, which established basic demographics, histories of allergies or atopic disorders, and adverse events encountered after dose 1 and dose 2 of vaccination. RESULTS: No anaphylaxis was reported. Most common symptom was giddiness (32.7%) experienced by HCWs within 30 minutes. Adverse events attended post-vaccination by OHC were generally mild and self-limiting. From the survey, odds of experiencing an adverse event after dose 2 was significantly higher than after the first dose, especially for fever/chills (odds ratio [OR] 22.5). Fever/chills, injection site reactions, headache, aches and pains, and feeling unwell were significantly more common in HCWs below 60 years compared to those ≥60 years. An allergy to food (adjusted OR 2.7) and a history of eczema/sensitive skin (adjusted OR 2.6) were associated with a skin reaction not at injection site. CONCLUSION: The side effects experienced after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines are generally self-limiting and mild, with no anaphylaxis reported.

Low uptake of isoniazid window prophylaxis in patients exposed to a health-care worker with pulmonary tuberculosis in a paediatric ward.

AIM: A nurse on a paediatric multidisciplinary ward was diagnosed with smear-positive pulmonary tuberculosis. Children <2 years old, immunocompromised, or >40 h of contact (n = 173) were contact-traced. METHODS: Children received clinical review, chest X-ray, tuberculin skin test (TST; <5 years old) and/or an interferon-gamma release assay (Quantiferon TB-Gold, ≥5 years old). Infants <6 months old or children <5 years old screened <2 months from exposure were recommended isoniazid window prophylaxis (WP) until a repeat TST at 6 months old or 8-10 weeks after the last exposure to the index case, respectively. Empiric treatment for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) was individually considered for immunocompromised patients. RESULTS: Of 173 children (135 immunocompetent, 38 immunocompromised), two were uncontactable, seven refused screening and two immunocompromised children excluded. Eight of 126 immunocompetent children were diagnosed with LTBI (initial TST positive n = 7, TST conversion n = 1); seven started isoniazid. Thirty-two of 36 immunocompetent children were recommended WP; 15 accepted (one non-compliant after 1 month). Six of seven immunocompromised children accepted empiric LTBI treatment due to severe immunosuppression/initial indeterminate Quantiferon TB-Gold result. Of 15 immunocompromised children offered WP, only five accepted. CONCLUSIONS: There was high acceptance of screening but low uptake of isoniazid WP in high-risk children exposed to pulmonary tuberculosis. Perception of exposure risk and chemoprophylaxis should be explored further.

Evaluation of a HIV voluntary opt-out screening program in a Singapore hospital.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) allows for appropriately timed interventions with improved outcomes, but HIV screening among asymptomatic persons and the general population in Singapore remains low. In 2008, Singapore's Ministry of Health implemented HIV voluntary opt-out screening (VOS) for hospitalised adults. We evaluated the outcome of VOS and surveyed reasons for its low uptake in our institution. METHODS: We assessed the outcomes of the VOS programme from January 2010 to December 2013 at National University Hospital, a 1081-bed tertiary hospital in Singapore. We also examined reasons for opting-in and opting-out using an interviewer-administered structured questionnaire in a representative sample in January 2013. RESULTS: 107,523 patients fulfilled VOS criteria and were offered HIV screening, of which 5215 (4.9%) agreed to testing. 4850 (93.1%) of those who opted-in had an HIV test done. Three (0.06%) tested positive for HIV. 238 patients (14.2%) were surveyed regarding reasons for opting-in or out of VOS. 21 (8.8%) had opted-in. Patients who opted-in were likely to be younger, more educated and reported having more regular sexual partners. Type of housing, number of casual sexual partners, sexual orientation, intravenous drug use, condom use and previous sexually transmitted infection were not associated with deciding to opt-in/out. Patients' most common reasons for opting-out were: belief that they were at low risk (50.2%), belief that they were too old (26.8%), cost (6.9%) and aversion to venepuncture (6.5%). The most common reason for opting-in was desire to know their HIV status (47.6%). CONCLUSION: The success of an HIV-VOS program is largely determined by test uptake. Our study showed that the majority of eligible VOS patients opted-out of HIV screening. Given the considerable cost and low yield of this programme, more needs to be done to better equip patients in self-risk assessment and opting in to testing.