Excess risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among in-person nonhealthcare workers in six states, September 2020-June 2021.

BACKGROUND: While the occupational risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection for healthcare personnel in the United States has been relatively well characterized, less information is available on the occupational risk for workers employed in other settings. Even fewer studies have attempted to compare risks across occupations and industries. Using differential proportionate distribution as an approximation, we evaluated excess risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by occupation and industry among non-healthcare workers in six states. METHODS: We analyzed data on occupation and industry of employment from a six-state callback survey of adult non-healthcare workers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and population-based reference data on employment patterns, adjusted for the effect of telework, from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. We estimated the differential proportionate distribution of SARS-CoV-2 infection by occupation and industry using the proportionate morbidity ratio (PMR). RESULTS: Among a sample of 1111 workers with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, significantly higher-than-expected proportions of workers were employed in service occupations (PMR 1.3, 99% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-1.5) and in the transportation and utilities (PMR 1.4, 99% CI 1.1-1.8) and leisure and hospitality industries (PMR 1.5, 99% CI 1.2-1.9). CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of significant differences in the proportionate distribution of SARS-CoV-2 infection by occupation and industry among respondents in a multistate, population-based survey, highlighting the excess risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection borne by some worker populations, particularly those whose jobs require frequent or prolonged close contact with other people.

COVID-19 Outbreaks Linked to Workplaces, 23 US Jurisdictions, August-October 2021.

OBJECTIVES: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, several outbreaks were linked with facilities employing essential workers, such as long-term care facilities and meat and poultry processing facilities. However, timely national data on which workplace settings were experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks were unavailable through routine surveillance systems. We estimated the number of US workplace outbreaks of COVID-19 and identified the types of workplace settings in which they occurred during August-October 2021. METHODS: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention collected data from health departments on workplace COVID-19 outbreaks from August through October 2021: the number of workplace outbreaks, by workplace setting, and the total number of cases among workers linked to these outbreaks. Health departments also reported the number of workplaces they assisted for outbreak response, COVID-19 testing, vaccine distribution, or consultation on mitigation strategies. RESULTS: Twenty-three health departments reported a total of 12 660 workplace COVID-19 outbreaks. Among the 12 470 workplace types that were documented, 35.9% (n = 4474) of outbreaks occurred in health care settings, 33.4% (n = 4170) in educational settings, and 30.7% (n = 3826) in other work settings, including non-food manufacturing, correctional facilities, social services, retail trade, and food and beverage stores. Eleven health departments that reported 3859 workplace outbreaks provided information about workplace assistance: 3090 (80.1%) instances of assistance involved consultation on COVID-19 mitigation strategies, 1912 (49.5%) involved outbreak response, 436 (11.3%) involved COVID-19 testing, and 185 (4.8%) involved COVID-19 vaccine distribution. CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the continued impact of COVID-19 among workers, the potential for work-related transmission, and the need to apply layered prevention strategies recommended by public health officials.

Aide and Client Safety "Should Go Hand-In-Hand": Qualitative Findings From Home Care Aides, Clients, and Agency Leaders.

Retention of the home care (HC) aide workforce is essential to meet the needs of our aging population. Some studies suggest that improving HC safety could increase job retention. This study objective was to explore qualitatively the connection between aide and client safety and factors impacting this care relationship. Data consisted of audio-recorded, verbatim responses to open-ended questions of two focus groups with aides (n = 10), two in-person interviews with HC agency managers, and 37 phone interviews with those working in (aides, n = 16; managers, n = 12) and receiving (clients, n = 9) HC. Clients reported home layout and accessibility as safety concerns. Aides and managers reported that client family members can make the care job more challenging. The aide-client connection was affected by communication style, family and HC agency support, allotted care time, and job task boundaries. Interventions that address the safety of both clients and aides can influence HC job satisfaction and retention.

Reported Exposures Among In-Person Workers With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection in 6 States, September 2020-June 2021.

BACKGROUND: Surveillance systems lack detailed occupational exposure information from workers with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health partnered with 6 states to collect information from adults diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection who worked in person (outside the home) in non-healthcare settings during the 2 weeks prior to illness onset. METHODS: The survey captured demographic, medical, and occupational characteristics and work- and non-work-related risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Reported close contact with a person known or suspected to have SARS-CoV-2 infection was categorized by setting as exposure at work, exposure outside of work only, or no known exposure/did not know. Frequencies and percentages of exposure types are compared by respondent characteristics and risk factors. RESULTS: Of 1111 respondents, 19.4% reported exposure at work, 23.4% reported exposure outside of work only, and 57.2% reported no known exposure/did not know. Workers in protective service occupations (48.8%) and public administration industries (35.6%) reported exposure at work most often. More than one third (33.7%) of respondents who experienced close contact with ≥10 coworkers per day and 28.8% of respondents who experienced close contact with ≥10 customers/clients per day reported exposures at work. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to occupational SARS-CoV-2 was common among respondents. Examining differences in exposures among different worker groups can help identify populations with the greatest need for prevention interventions. The benefits of recording employment characteristics as standard demographic information will remain relevant as new and reemerging public health issues occur.

"That's not my job": A mixed methods study of challenging client behaviors, boundaries, and home care aide occupational safety and health.

INTRODUCTION: Home care (HC) aide is among the fastest-growing jobs. Aides often work in long-term care relationships with elders or people with disabilities in clients' homes, assisting with daily activities. The purpose of this mixed-methods paper is to elucidate aides' experiences around the boundary-challenging behaviors of clients asking for services beyond aides' job duties and to identify possible interventions. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of HC aides in Massachusetts (n = 1249) provided quantitative data. Post-survey qualitative data were collected from nine HC aide focus groups (n = 70) and seven in-depth interviews with HC industry and labor representatives. RESULTS: Quantitatively, aides who reported often being asked to do tasks outside their job duties were more likely to report abuse (prevalence ratio [PR] = 1.93; 95%CI: 1.47-2.52 for verbal, PR = 1.81; 95%CI: 1.13-2.91 for physical/sexual) and pain/injury with lost work time or medical care (PR = 1.58; 95%CI: 1.11-2.25). They were also less likely to want to remain in their job (PR = 0.94; 95%CI: 0.89-1.00) or recommend it to others (PR = 0.94; 95%CI: 0.90-0.98). Qualitative data showed that clients' requests for tasks beyond job duties were frequent and can lead to injuries, abuse, and psychosocial stress. Yet, requests often reflected genuine need. Helping clients stay at home, compassion, and feeling appreciated contributed to job satisfaction; therefore, aides can feel conflicted about refusing requests. CONCLUSION: Client task requests outside HC services are a complex problem. Employer support, training, care plans, and feeling part of a care team can help aides navigate professional boundaries while delivering high quality care.

Home care aides' experiences of verbal abuse: a survey of characteristics and risk factors.

OBJECTIVE: Violence from care recipients and family members, including both verbal and physical abuse, is a serious occupational hazard for healthcare and social assistance workers. Most workplace violence studies in this sector focus on hospitals and other institutional settings. This study examined verbal abuse in a large home care (HC) aide population and evaluated risk factors. METHODS: We used questionnaire survey data collected as part of a larger mixed methods study of a range of working conditions among HC aides. This paper focuses on survey responses of HC aides (n=954) who reported on verbal abuse from non-family clients and their family members. Risk factors were identified in univariate and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-two per cent (n=206) of aides reported at least one incident of verbal abuse in the 12 months before the survey. Three factors were found to be important in multivariable models: clients with dementia (relative risk (RR) 1.38, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.78), homes with too little space for the aide to work (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.97) and predictable work hours (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.94); two additional factors were associated with verbal abuse, although not as strongly: having clients with limited mobility (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.93) and an unclear plan for care delivery (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.69). Aides reporting verbal abuse were 11 times as likely to also report physical abuse (RR 11.53; 95% CI 6.84 to 19.45). CONCLUSIONS: Verbal abuse is common among HC aides. These findings suggest specific changes in work organisation and training that may help reduce verbal abuse.