Hospital health care workers' use of facial protective equipment before the COVID-19 pandemic, implications for future policy.

BACKGROUND: Prepandemic routine use of facial (respiratory and eye) protective equipment (FPE) by health care workers was suboptimal. Understanding factors affecting routine use would facilitate escalation to high level use during infectious disease emergencies. This study explored health care workers FPE-related knowledge, attitudes and behaviors. METHODS: Mixed methods were used in a respiratory ward and adult and pediatric emergency departments (EDs), prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Study design and thematic analysis were based on the theoretical domains framework. Emergent themes were categorized, using the COM-B behavior model, into capability(C), opportunity(O) and motivation(M), which influence behavior(B). RESULTS: 22 emergent themes, representing factors influencing FPE use, were mapped to theoretical domains framework domains. Personal experience and departmental cultures influenced motivation. Compared with respiratory ward staff, ED clinicians were less knowledgeable about FPE; the unique ED environment and culture inhibited opportunities and motivation for FPE use. Eye protection was infrequently used. DISCUSSION: Optimal FPE use is challenged by ED care models and settings. Changes are needed to translate pandemic-related improvements into routine care of other respiratory infections. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified key determinants of FPE behavior. A review of context-specific FPE guidance for ED by infection prevention and control professionals would help to promote practicable, sustainable compliance.

Why ethical frameworks fail to deliver in a pandemic: Are proposed alternatives an improvement?

In the past decade, numerous ethical frameworks have been developed to support public health decision-making in challenging areas. Before the COVID-19 pandemic began, members of the authorship team were involved in research programmes, in which the development of ethical frameworks was planned, to guide (a) the use of new technologies for emerging infectious disease surveillance; and (b) the allocation of scarce supplies of pandemic influenza vaccine. However, as the pandemic evolved, significant practical challenges emerged that led to our questioning the value of these frameworks. We now believe that a normative instrument, such as a framework, cannot adequately or reliably provide the ethical guidance that needs to be incorporated into public health decision-making during natural disasters or infectious disease emergencies. Recently it has been suggested that there are potentially more dynamic, flexible, and effective ways to navigate decisions involving complex considerations entailed in policies and practices during a public health emergency. In this paper, we first outline the key functions of a public health ethics framework, before describing why we believe it would not be fit for purpose during a crisis. We end by considering whether proposed alternative methods to promote ethical public health decision-making goals have the potential to meet these objectives.

Pneumococcal bacteraemia in adults over a 10-year period (2011-2020): a clinical and serotype analysis.

BACKGROUND: Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus) is a human nasopharyngeal tract coloniser responsible for invasive pneumococcal disease, which is largely vaccine preventable. Vaccination is recommended from birth for all, and through adulthood for those with risk conditions. AIMS: To describe the clinical and serotype analysis of pneumococcus bacteraemia over a 10-year period. METHODS: A 10-year (February 2011-December 2020) retrospective review was performed on all adult (age ≥18 years) pneumococcus bacteraemia presenting to the four public hospitals in Western Sydney, Australia. Comorbidities and risk factors were recorded. RESULTS: Three hundred unique episodes of S. pneumoniae bloodstream infection (SPBI) were identified during the study period. The median age for SPBI was 63 years with 31.7% aged 70 years or older. A 94.7% had one or more risks factors for SPBI. Pneumonia was reported in 80% of all SPBI, whereas meningitis was reported in 6% and infective endocarditis in <1%. Asplenia was noted in 2.4%. Seven- and 30-day mortality was 6.6% and 11.9%, with a higher 30-day mortality in those aged ≥70 years (24.4%). The serotype distribution showed 7-valent conjugate vaccine covered 11.0% of all isolates, whereas 13-valent conjugate vaccine (13vPCV) and a 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine (23vPPV) covered 41.7% and 69.0% respectively. Immunisation details were available for 110 individuals, of whom, only 7.3% had received pneumococcal vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with pneumococcal bacteraemia had age- or comorbidity-related risk factors but were not vaccinated. Two-thirds of cases occurred in people aged <70 years. 13vPCV and 23vPPV covered 41.7% and 69.0% of bacteraemic isolates.

Disagreement among experts about public health decision making: is it polarisation and does it matter?

It is common for aspects of the COVID-19 response-and other public health initiatives before it-to be described as polarised. Public health decisions emerge from an interplay of facts, norms and preferred courses of action. What counts as 'evidence' is diverse and contestable, and disagreements over how it should be interpreted are often the product of differing choices between competing values. We propose a definition of polarisation for the context of public health expertise that acknowledges and accounts for epistemic and social values as part of evidence generation and its application to public health practice. The 'polarised' label should be used judiciously because the descriptor risks generating or exacerbating the problem by oversimplifying complex issues and positions and creating groups that seem dichotomous. 'Independence' as a one-size-fits-all answer to expert polarisation is insufficient; this solution is premised on a scientistic account of the role of evidence in decision making and does not make room for the value difference that is at the heart of both polarisation and evidence-based decision making.

Real world impact of 13vPCV in preventing invasive pneumococcal pneumonia in Australian children: A national study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the direct protective effect of 13 valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (13vPCV) against invasive pneumococcal pneumonia (IPP; including pneumonia and empyema) in children using a nation-wide case-control study across 11 paediatric tertiary hospitals in Australia. METHODS: Children < 18 years old admitted with pneumonia were eligible for enrolment. IPP was defined as Streptococcus pneumoniae (SP) cultured or detected by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) from blood or pleural fluid. Causative SP serotype (ST) was determined from blood or pleural fluid SP isolates by molecular methods in PCR positive specimens or else inferred from nasopharyngeal isolates. For each IPP case, 20 population controls matched by age and socio-economic status were sampled from the Australian Immunisation Register. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of being fully vaccinated with 13vPCV (≥3 doses versus < 3 doses) among IPP cases compared to controls, adjusted for sex and Indigenous status. RESULTS: From February 2015 to September 2018, we enrolled 1,168 children with pneumonia; 779 were 13vPCV-eligible and were individually matched to 15,580 controls. SP was confirmed in 195 IPP cases, 181 of whom had empyema. ST3 and ST19A were identified in 52% (102/195) and 11% (21/195) of IPP cases respectively. The aOR of being fully vaccinated with 13vPCV was 0.8 (95% CI 0.6-1.0) among IPP cases compared to matched controls. CONCLUSION: We failed to identify a strong direct protective effect of 13vPCV against IPP among Australian children, where disease was largely driven by ST3.

'Like building a plane and flying it all in one go': an interview study of infection prevention and control in Australian general practice during the first 2 years of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: General practitioners (GPs) and their staff have been at the frontline of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Australia. However, their experiences of responding to and managing the risks of viral transmission within their facilities are poorly described. The aim of this study was to describe the experiences, and infection prevention and control (IPC) strategies adopted by general practices, including enablers of and challenges to implementation, to contribute to our understanding of the pandemic response in this critical sector. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews were conducted in person, by telephone or online video conferencing software, between November 2020 and August 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty general practice personnel working in New South Wales, Australia, including nine GPs, one general practice registrar, four registered nurses, one nurse practitioner, two practice managers and two receptionists. RESULTS: Participants described implementing wide-ranging repertoires of IPC strategies-including telehealth, screening of patients and staff, altered clinic layouts and portable outdoor shelters, in addition to appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE)-to manage the demands of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Strategies were proactive, influenced by the varied contexts of different practices and the needs and preferences of individual GPs as well as responsive to local, state and national requirements, which changed frequently as the pandemic evolved. CONCLUSIONS: Using the 'hierarchy of controls' as a framework for analysis, we found that the different strategies adopted in general practice often functioned in concert with one another. Most strategies, particularly administrative and PPE controls, were subjected to human variability and so were less reliable from a human factors perspective. However, our findings highlight the creativity, resilience and resourcefulness of general practice staff in developing, implementing and adapting their IPC strategies amidst constantly changing pandemic conditions.

Exploring healthcare workers' perspectives of video feedback for training in the use of powered air purifying respirators (PAPR) at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: With the advent of COVID-19, many healthcare workers (HWs) in Australia requested access to powered air purifying respirators (PAPR) for improved respiratory protection, comfort and visibility. The urgency of the response at our hospital required rapid deployment of innovative training to ensure the safe use of PAPRs, in particular, a video-feedback training option to prepare HWs for PAPR competency. AIM: To explore the feasibility, acceptability, and utility of video-feedback in PAPR training and competency assessment. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 HWs, including clinicians from Intensive Care, Anaesthetics and Respiratory Medicine, at a large teaching hospital in Australia. FINDINGS: Participants believed that the use of video-feedback in PAPR training was feasible, acceptable and useful. They described a variety of benefits to learning and retention, from a variety of ways in which they engaged with the personal video-feedback. Participants also described the impact of reviewing personalised practice footage, compared to generic footage of an ideal performance. CONCLUSION: By conceptualising video-feedback using a pedagogical approach, this study contributes to knowledge around optimising methods for training HWs in PPE use, particularly when introducing a new and complex PPE device during an infectious disease outbreak.

Paradoxes of pandemic infection control: Proximity, pace and care within and beyond SARS-CoV-2.

From the adoption of mask-wearing in public settings to the omnipresence of hand-sanitising, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has brought unprecedented cultural attention to infection prevention and control (IPC) in everyday life. At the same time, the pandemic threat has enlivened and unsettled hospital IPC processes, fracturing confidence, demanding new forms of evidence, and ultimately involving a rapid reassembling of what constitutes safe care. Here, drawing on semi-structured interviews with 63 frontline healthcare workers from two states in Australia, interviewed between September 2020 and March 2021, we illuminate some of the affective dimensions of IPC at a time of rapid change and evolving uncertainty. We track how a collective sense of risk and safety is relationally produced, redefining attitudes and practices around infective risk, and transforming accepted paradigms of care and self-protection. Drawing on Puig de la Bellacasa's formulation, we propose the notion of IPC as a multidimensional matter of care. Highlighting the complex negotiation of space and time in relation to infection control and care illustrates a series of paradoxes, the understanding of which helps illuminate not only how IPC works, in practice, but also what it means to those working on the frontline of the pandemic.

Experiences of risk in Australian hotel quarantine: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In response to the threat of COVID-19 infection, Australia mandated a 14 day quarantine period in a designated facility for all travellers returning from overseas from late March 2020. These facilities were usually hotels, or hotel-like serviced apartments, and also included a repurposed former mining village in the Northern Territory. This paper aimed to investigate the experiences of risk of people quarantined in designated supervised facilities in Australia, which has not been systematically explored before. METHODS: In this qualitative study semi-structured interviews were conducted with 58 participants quarantined between March 2020 and January 2021. Participants were returned Australian citizens and residents who were required to undergo mandatory supervised quarantine for COVID-19. Interviews were conducted using video teleconferencing (via Zoom), transcribed and coded, then analysed thematically. RESULTS: While participants generally supported the concept of quarantine to protect the Australian public, they were critical of elements of it where they felt exposed to risk (COVID-related or not). They also described instances where infection control within the system seemed inadequate. For some, particularly those quarantined with small children, they reported that the facilities were inadequate or inappropriate for health and wellbeing. Using thematic analysis, three major themes were identified that related to problems in the existing system: perception of being subjected to high risk through lax standards of COVID protection in the quarantine process; risks to the community identified in quarantine; and risk in non-hotel managed quarantine facilities. CONCLUSIONS: There are systemic issues with infection control in hotel quarantine, which can be further undermined by individual non-compliance. Risks to safety for those in quarantine can be reduced, both in terms of infection control within hotel quarantine and, in the case of the Northern Territory facility, timely in-person medical care as needed for non-COVID conditions. Systems of infection control need ongoing review to ensure that people entering quarantine are protected from known risks of infection at every stage. Medical services in quarantine facilities should be examined to ensure timely and appropriate non-COVID medical services are available.

What is needed to sustain improvements in hospital practices post-COVID-19? a qualitative study of interprofessional dissonance in hospital infection prevention and control.

BACKGROUND: Hospital infection prevention and control (IPC) depends on consistent practice to achieve its purpose. Standard precautions are embedded in modern healthcare policies, but not uniformly observed by all clinicians. Well-documented differences in attitudes to IPC, between doctors and nurses, contribute to suboptimal IPC practices and persistence of preventable healthcare-associated infections. The COVID-19 pandemic has seriously affected healthcare professionals' work-practices, lives and health and increased awareness and observance of IPC. Successful transition of health services to a 'post-COVID-19' future, will depend on sustainable integration of lessons learnt into routine practice. METHODS: The aim of this pre-COVID-19 qualitative study was to investigate factors influencing doctors' IPC attitudes and practices, whether they differ from those of nurses and, if so, how this affects interprofessional relationships. We hypothesised that better understanding would guide new strategies to achieve more effective IPC. We interviewed 26 senior clinicians (16 doctors and 10 nurses) from a range of specialties, at a large Australian tertiary hospital. Interview transcripts were reviewed iteratively, and themes identified inductively, using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants from both professions painted clichéd portraits of 'typical' doctors and nurses and recounted unflattering anecdotes of their IPC behaviours. Doctors were described as self-directed and often unaware or disdainful of IPC rules; while nurses were portrayed as slavishly following rules, ostensibly to protect patients, irrespective of risk or evidence. Many participants believed that doctors object to being reminded of IPC requirements by nurses, despite many senior doctors having limited knowledge of correct IPC practice. Overall, participants' comments suggested that the 'doctor-nurse game'-described in the 1960s, to exemplify the complex power disparity between professions-is still in play, despite changes in both professions, in the interim. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that interprofessional differences and inconsistencies constrain IPC practice improvement. IPC inconsistencies and failures can be catastrophic, but the common threat of COVID-19 has promoted focus and unity. Appropriate implementation of IPC policies should be context-specific and respect the needs and expertise of all stakeholders. We propose an ethical framework to guide interprofessional collaboration in establishing a path towards sustained improvements in IPC and bio-preparedness.

Should Digital Contact Tracing Technologies be used to Control COVID-19? Perspectives from an Australian Public Deliberation.

Mobile phone-based applications (apps) can promote faster targeted actions to control COVID-19. However, digital contact tracing systems raise concerns about data security, system effectiveness, and their potential to normalise privacy-invasive surveillance technologies. In the absence of mandates, public uptake depends on the acceptability and perceived legitimacy of using technologies that log interactions between individuals to build public health capacity. We report on six online deliberative workshops convened in New South Wales to consider the appropriateness of using the COVIDSafe app to enhance Australian contact tracing systems. All groups took the position (by majority) that the protections enacted in the app design and supporting legislation were appropriate. This support is contingent on several system attributes including: the voluntariness of the COVIDSafe app; that the system relies on proximity rather than location tracking; and, that data access is restricted to local public health practitioners undertaking contact tracing. Despite sustained scepticism in media coverage, there was an underlying willingness to trust Australian governing institutions such that in principle acceptance of the new contact tracing technology was easy to obtain. However, tensions between the need to prove system effectiveness through operational transparency and requirements for privacy protections could be limiting public uptake. Our study shows that informed citizens are willing to trade their privacy for common goods such as COVID-19 suppression. But low case numbers and cautionary public discourses can make trustworthiness difficult to establish because some will only do so when it can be demonstrated that the benefits justify the costs to individuals.

"One minute it's an airborne virus, then it's a droplet virus, and then it's like nobody really knows ": Experiences of pandemic PPE amongst Australian healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has challenged health systems globally. A key controversy has been how to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) using personal protective equipment (PPE). METHODS: Interviews were performed with 63 HCWs across two states in Australia to explore their experiences of PPE during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: Four themes were identified with respect to HCWs' experience of pandemic PPE: 1. Risk, fear and uncertainty: HCWs experienced considerable fear and heightened personal and professional risk, reporting anxiety about the adequacy of PPE and the resultant risk to themselves and their families. 2. Evidence and the ambiguities of evolving guidelines: forms of evidence, its interpretation, and the perception of rapidly changing guidelines heightened distress amongst HCWs. 3. Trust and care: Access to PPE signified organisational support and care, and restrictions on PPE use were considered a breach of trust. 4. Non-compliant practice in the context of social upheaval: despite communication of evidence-based guidelines, an environment of mistrust, personal risk, and organisational uncertainty resulted in variable compliance. CONCLUSION: PPE preferences and usage offer a material signifier of the broader, evolving pandemic context, reflecting HCWs' fear, mistrust, sense of inequity and social solidarity (or breakdown). PPE therefore represents the affective (emotional) demands of professional care, as well as a technical challenge of infection prevention and control. If rationing of PPE is necessary, policymakers need to take account of how HCWs will perceive restrictions or conflicting recommendations and build trust through effective communication (including of uncertainty).

Entanglements of affect, space, and evidence in pandemic healthcare: An analysis of Australian healthcare workers' experiences of COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to highlight both global interconnectedness and schisms across place, context and peoples. While countries such as Australia have securitised their borders in response to the global spread of disease, flows of information and collective affect continue to permeate these boundaries. Drawing on interviews with Australian healthcare workers, we examine how their experiences of the pandemic are shaped by affect and evidence 'traveling' across time and space. Our analysis points to the limitations of global health crisis responses that focus solely on material risk and spatial separation. Institutional responses must, we suggest, also consider the affective and discursive dimensions of health-related risk environments.

Assessing the impact of the 13 valent pneumococcal vaccine on childhood empyema in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Empyema is a serious complication of pneumonia frequently caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae (SP). We assessed the impact of the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (13vPCV) on childhood pneumonia and empyema after inclusion in the Australian National Immunisation Program. METHODS: For bacterial pneumonia and empyema hospitalisations, we ascertained incidence rates (IRs) using the National Hospital Morbidity Database International Statistical Classification of Disease discharge codes and relevant population denominators, and calculated incidence rate ratios (IRR) comparing the 13vPCV period (June 2012-May 2017) with the 7vPCV period (June 2007-May 2011). Blood and pleural fluid (PF) cultures and PF PCR of 401 children with empyema from 11 Australian hospitals during the 13vPCV period were compared with our previous study in the 7vPCV period. FINDINGS: Across 7vPCV and 13vPCV periods, IRs per million children (95% CIs) were 1605 (1588 to 1621) and 1272 (1259 to 1285) for bacterial pneumonia, and 14.23 (12.67 to 15.79) and 17.89 (16.37 to 19.42) for empyema hospitalisations. IRRs were 0.79 (0.78 to 0.80) for bacterial pneumonia and 1.25 (1.09 to 1.44) for empyema. Of 161 empyema cases with SP serotypes, 147 (91.3%) were vaccine types. ST3 accounted for 76.4% of identified serotypes in the 13vPCV period, more than double than the 7vPCV period (p<0.001); ST19A decreased from 36.4% to 12.4%. No cases of ST1 empyema were identified in the 13vPCV period versus 14.5% in the 7vPCV period. INTERPRETATION: 13vPCV resulted in a significant reduction in all-cause hospitalisations for bacterial pneumonia but empyema hospitalisations significantly increased, with emergence of pneumococcal ST3 as the dominant serotype in empyema. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN 12614000354684.

Education and training in infection prevention and control: Exploring support for national standards.

BACKGROUND: Effective infection prevention and control (IPC) programmes comprise a hierarchy of preventive measures, one of which is appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE). A poor understanding of the role of PPE and sub-optimal use may fail to prevent or even increase pathogen transmission during routine care or an infectious disease outbreak. Variability in delivery and content of IPC and PPE education and training across organisations can lead to confusion, unsafe practice, and lack of confidence among clinicians. In a national survey we explored the perspectives of Australian and New Zealand IPC professionals on the value and feasibility of a national IPC training and monitoring programme to improve and standardise PPE practice and raise the profile of IPC. METHODS: A population-based online survey that examined hospital PPE training programmes was distributed to members of three major Australasian organisations representing IPC professionals. Quantitative results of the survey have been reported previously. This paper is a qualitative analysis of responses to two open-ended questions about a national approach to training in IPC and the use of PPE. RESULTS: Most respondents agreed that standardising IPC and PPE training could achieve more consistent practice nationally, supported through the provision of educational resources. Including competency in the use of PPE in mandatory IPC standards would assist in improving the practice and raising the profile of IPC more generally. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that that there is support for national programmes and standards for use of PPE in Australia and New Zealand.

Changes in public preferences for technologically enhanced surveillance following the COVID-19 pandemic: a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVES: As governments attempt to navigate a path out of COVID-19 restrictions, robust evidence is essential to inform requirements for public acceptance of technologically enhanced communicable disease surveillance systems. We examined the value of core surveillance system attributes to the Australian public, before and during the early stages of the current pandemic. DESIGN: A discrete choice experiment was conducted in Australia with a representative group of respondents, before and after the WHO declared COVID-19 a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. We identified and investigated the relative importance of seven attributes associated with technologically enhanced disease surveillance: respect for personal autonomy; privacy/confidentiality; data certainty/confidence; data security; infectious disease mortality prevention; infectious disease morbidity prevention; and attribution of (causal) responsibility. Specifically, we explored how the onset of the COVID-19 outbreak influenced participant responses. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 2008 Australians (general public) completed the experiment: 793 before COVID-19 outbreak onset (mean age 45.9 years, 50.2% male) and 1215 after onset (mean age 47.2 years, 49% male). RESULTS: All seven attributes significantly influenced respondents' preferences for communicable disease surveillance systems. After onset, participants demonstrated greater preference for a surveillance system that could prevent a higher number of illnesses and deaths, and were less concerned about their personal autonomy. However, they also increased their preference for a system with high data security. CONCLUSIONS: Public acceptance of technology-based communicable disease surveillance is situation dependent. During an epidemic, there is likely to be greater tolerance of technologically enhanced disease surveillance systems that result in restrictions on personal activity if such systems can prevent high morbidity and mortality. However, this acceptance of lower personal autonomy comes with an increased requirement to ensure data security. These findings merit further research as the pandemic unfolds and strategies are put in place that enable individuals and societies to live with SARS-CoV-2 endemicity.