Predictors of Return to Work 12 Months After Solid Organ Transplantation: Results from the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study.

Background Return to work with or after a chronic disease is not a very well understood process, influenced by a variety of personal, professional, societal and medical factors. The aim of this study is to identify predictors for return to work 12 months after a solid organ transplant applying a bio-psycho-social model. Methods This study is based on patients included in the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study, a national prospective multicentre cohort, who underwent a first solid organ transplant (kidney, liver, heart, lung). Bio-psycho-social factors were tested and predictors of return to work identified using logistic regression models. Results Among the 636 patients included in the study, 49.8% (317) were employed 12 months post-transplant. The major predictor for returning to work 12 months posttransplant was pre-transplant employment status (OR 10.8). Accordingly, the population was stratified in employed and not employed pre-transplant groups. Age, self-perceived health (6 months post-transplant) and the transplanted organ were significantly associated with post-transplant employment status in both groups. Return to work was influenced by education, depression (6 month post-transplant) and waiting time in the employed pre-transplant group and by invalidity pension in the not employed pre-transplant group. Conclusion Employment status pre-transplant being highly associated with employment status post-transplant, the process promoting return to work should be started well before surgery. Biomedical, psychological and social factors must be taken into account to promote return to work in transplanted patients.

The longitudinal study of subjective wellbeing and absenteeism of healthcare workers considering post-COVID condition and the COVID-19 pandemic toll.

Experts have warned against the pandemic burden on healthcare workers early on, however little is known about the evolution of this burden with time, in addition to the long-term effects of post-COVID symptoms in healthcare workers. Staff at the Geneva University Hospitals in Switzerland had an online follow-up in July and December 2021, on their physical and mental health, quality of life and functional capacity using validated scales. Descriptive analyses compared the prevalence of symptoms, functional impairment and quality of life in SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative individuals at baseline and at follow-up. Out of the initial n = 3,083 participants that answered at baseline in July 2021, n = 900 (mean age of 46.4 years, 70.1% women) completed the follow-up in December 2021. With time, more individuals reported fatigue (+ 9.4%), headache (+ 9.0%), insomnia (+ 2.3%), cognitive impairment (+ 1.4%), stress/burnout (+ 8.8%), pain (+ 8.3%), digestive symptoms (+ 3.6%), dyspnea (+ 1.0%), and cough (+ 7.7%) compared to baseline, with a differentially larger increase in symptoms in the SARS-CoV-2 negative group. Individuals had more functional impairment (12.7% at baseline and 23.9% at follow-up), with more absenteeism and worsening quality of life. Healthcare workers are potentially suffering from long term consequences of the pandemic burden, calling for urgent action and solutions.

How Can We Help Healthcare Workers during a Catastrophic Event Such as the COVID-19 Pandemic?

Healthcare workers (HCWs) have significantly suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic, reporting a high prevalence of anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We investigated with this survey whether HCWs benefitted from supportive measures put in place by hospitals and how these measures were perceived. This cross-sectional survey, which was conducted during the first wave of COVID-19 at the Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland, between May and July 2021, collected information on the use and perception of practical and mental health support measures provided by the hospital. In total, 3461 HCWs participated in the study. Regarding the practical support measures, 2896 (84%) participants found them useful, and 2650 (76%) used them. Regarding the mental health support measures, 3149 (90%) participants found useful to have the possibility of attending hypnosis sessions, 3163 (91%) to have a psychologist within hospital units, 3202 (93%) to have a medical nursing psychiatric permanence available seven days a week, and 3171 (92%) to have a hotline available seven days a week. In total, 436 (13%) HCWs used at least one of the available mental health support measures. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the support measures were valued by HCWs. Given the high prevalence of psychiatric issues among HCWs, these measures seem necessary and are likely to have alleviated the suffering of HCWs.

How things changed during the COVID-19 pandemic's first year: A longitudinal, mixed-methods study of organisational resilience processes among healthcare workers.

COVID-19 had a huge impact on healthcare systems globally. Institutions, care teams and individuals made considerable efforts to adapt their practices. The present longitudinal, mixed-methods study examined a large sample of healthcare institution employees in Switzerland. Organisational resilience processes were assessed by identifying problematic real-world situations and evaluating how they were managed during three phases of the pandemic's first year. Results highlighted differences between resilience processes across the different types of problematic situations encountered by healthcare workers. Four configurations of organisational resilience were identified depending on teams' performance and ability to adapt over time: "learning from mistakes", "effective development", "new standards" and "hindered resilience". Resilience trajectories differed depending on professional categories, hierarchical status and the problematic situation's perceived severity. Factors promoting or impairing organisational resilience are discussed. Findings highlighted the importance of individuals', teams' and institutions' meso- and micro-level adaptations and macro-level actors' structural actions.

Reconstruction of transmission chains of SARS-CoV-2 amidst multiple outbreaks in a geriatric acute-care hospital: a combined retrospective epidemiological and genomic study.

Background: There is ongoing uncertainty regarding transmission chains and the respective roles of healthcare workers (HCWs) and elderly patients in nosocomial outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in geriatric settings. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study including patients with nosocomial coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in four outbreak-affected wards, and all SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive HCWs from a Swiss university-affiliated geriatric acute-care hospital that admitted both Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 patients during the first pandemic wave in Spring 2020. We combined epidemiological and genetic sequencing data using a Bayesian modelling framework, and reconstructed transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 involving patients and HCWs, to determine who infected whom. We evaluated general transmission patterns according to case type (HCWs working in dedicated Covid-19 cohorting wards: HCWcovid; HCWs working in non-Covid-19 wards where outbreaks occurred: HCWoutbreak; patients with nosocomial Covid-19: patientnoso) by deriving the proportion of infections attributed to each case type across all posterior trees and comparing them to random expectations. Results: During the study period (1 March to 7 May 2020), we included 180 SARS-CoV-2 positive cases: 127 HCWs (91 HCWcovid, 36 HCWoutbreak) and 53 patients. The attack rates ranged from 10% to 19% for patients, and 21% for HCWs. We estimated that 16 importation events occurred with high confidence (4 patients, 12 HCWs) that jointly led to up to 41 secondary cases; in six additional cases (5 HCWs, 1 patient), importation was possible with a posterior probability between 10% and 50%. Most patient-to-patient transmission events involved patients having shared a ward (95.2%, 95% credible interval [CrI] 84.2%-100%), in contrast to those having shared a room (19.7%, 95% CrI 6.7%-33.3%). Transmission events tended to cluster by case type: patientnoso were almost twice as likely to be infected by other patientnoso than expected (observed:expected ratio 2.16, 95% CrI 1.17-4.20, p=0.006); similarly, HCWoutbreak were more than twice as likely to be infected by other HCWoutbreak than expected (2.72, 95% CrI 0.87-9.00, p=0.06). The proportion of infectors being HCWcovid was as expected as random. We found a trend towards a greater proportion of high transmitters (≥2 secondary cases) among HCWoutbreak than patientnoso in the late phases (28.6% vs. 11.8%) of the outbreak, although this was not statistically significant. Conclusions: Most importation events were linked to HCW. Unexpectedly, transmission between HCWcovid was more limited than transmission between patients and HCWoutbreak. This finding highlights gaps in infection control and suggests the possible areas of improvements to limit the extent of nosocomial transmission. Funding: This study was supported by a grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation under the NRP78 funding scheme (Grant no. 4078P0_198363).

Occupational and community risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among employees of a long-term care facility: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the contribution of both occupational and community exposure for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among employees of a university-affiliated long-term care facility (LTCF), during the 1st pandemic wave in Switzerland (March-June 2020). METHODS: We performed a nested analysis of a seroprevalence study among all volunteering LTCF staff to determine community and nosocomial risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity using modified Poison regression. We also combined epidemiological and genetic sequencing data from a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak investigation in a LTCF ward to infer transmission dynamics and acquisition routes of SARS-CoV-2, and evaluated strain relatedness using a maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree. RESULTS: Among 285 LTCF employees, 176 participated in the seroprevalence study, of whom 30 (17%) were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2. Most (141/176, 80%) were healthcare workers (HCWs). Risk factors for seropositivity included exposure to a COVID-19 inpatient (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] 2.6; 95% CI 0.9-8.1) and community contact with a COVID-19 case (aPR 1.7; 95% CI 0.8-3.5). Among 18 employees included in the outbreak investigation, the outbreak reconstruction suggests 4 likely importation events by HCWs with secondary transmissions to other HCWs and patients. CONCLUSIONS: These two complementary epidemiologic and molecular approaches suggest a substantial contribution of both occupational and community exposures to COVID-19 risk among HCWs in LTCFs. These data may help to better assess the importance of occupational health hazards and related legal implications during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The pandemic toll and post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers at a Swiss University Hospital.

Healthcare workers have potentially been among the most exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as the deleterious toll of the pandemic. This study has the objective to differentiate the pandemic toll from post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers compared to the general population. The study was conducted between April and July 2021 at the Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland. Eligible participants were all tested staff, and outpatient individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 at the same hospital. The primary outcome was the prevalence of symptoms in healthcare workers compared to the general population, with measures of COVID-related symptoms and functional impairment, using prevalence estimates and multivariable logistic regression models. Healthcare workers (n = 3083) suffered mostly from fatigue (25.5 %), headache (10.0 %), difficulty concentrating (7.9 %), exhaustion/burnout (7.1 %), insomnia (6.2 %), myalgia (6.7 %) and arthralgia (6.3 %). Regardless of SARS-CoV-2 infection, all symptoms were significantly higher in healthcare workers than the general population (n = 3556). SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers was associated with loss or change in smell, loss or change in taste, palpitations, dyspnea, difficulty concentrating, fatigue, and headache. Functional impairment was more significant in healthcare workers compared to the general population (aOR 2.28; 1.76-2.96), with a positive association with SARS-CoV-2 infection (aOR 3.81; 2.59-5.60). Symptoms and functional impairment in healthcare workers were increased compared to the general population, and potentially related to the pandemic toll as well as post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These findings are of concern, considering the essential role of healthcare workers in caring for all patients including and beyond COVID-19.

Mental health outcomes of ICU and non-ICU healthcare workers during the COVID-19 outbreak: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care workers are known for their stressful work environment and for a high prevalence of mental health outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the mental health, well-being and changes in lifestyle among intensive care unit (ICU) healthcare workers (HCW) during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare these results with those of HCW in other hospital units. Another objective was to understand which associated factors aggravate their mental health during the COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey collected socio-demographic data, lifestyle changes and mental health evaluations as assessed by the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 items (GAD-7), the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 items (PHQ-9), the Peritraumatic Distress Inventory (PDI) and the World Health Organization Well-Being Index (WHO-5) from the 28th May to 7th July 2020. The study was carried out at Geneva University Hospitals, a group of eight public hospitals in Switzerland. ICU HCW were analyzed for mental health outcomes and lifestyles changes and then compared to non-ICU HCW. A series of linear regression analyses were performed to assess factors associated with mental health scores. RESULTS: A total of 3461 HCW were included in the study, with 352 ICU HCW. Among ICU HCW, 145 (41%) showed low well-being, 162 (46%) symptoms of anxiety, 163 (46%) symptoms of depression and 76 (22%) had peritraumatic distress. The mean scores of GAD-7, PHQ-9 and WHO-5 were worse in ICU HCW than in non-ICU HCW (p < 0.01). Working in the ICU rather than in other departments resulted in a change of eating habits, sleeping patterns and alcohol consumption (p < 0.01). Being a woman, the fear of catching and transmitting COVID-19, anxiety of working with COVID-19 patients, work overload, eating and sleeping disorders as well as increased alcohol consumption were associated with worse mental health outcomes. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the suspicion of a high prevalence of anxiety, depression, peritraumatic distress and low well-being during the first COVID-19 wave among HCW, especially among ICU HCW. This allows for the identification of associated risk factors. Long-term psychological follow-up should be considered for HCW.

Adapting to the unexpected: Problematic work situations and resilience strategies in healthcare institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic's first wave.

The COVID-19 pandemic's first wave required considerable adaptation efforts on the part of healthcare workers. The literature on resilient healthcare describes how the collective regulation strategies implemented by frontline employees make essential contributions to institutions' abilities to cope with major crises. The present mixed-methodology study was thus conducted among a large sample of employees in a variety of Swiss healthcare institutions and focused on problematic real-world situations experienced by them and their managers during the pandemic's first wave. It highlighted the anticipatory and adaptive strategies implemented by institutions, teams and individuals. The most frequently cited problematic situations involved organisational changes, interpersonal conflicts and workloads. In addition to the numerous top-down measures implemented by institutions, respondents also identified personal or team regulation strategies such as increasing staff flexibility, prioritising tasks, interprofessional collaboration, peer support or creating new communication channels to families. The present findings underlined the importance of taking greater account of healthcare support staff and strengthening managerial capacity to support interprofessional teams including those support staff.

Clinical, virologic and immunologic features of a mild case of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection.

OBJECTIVES: To report a case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reinfection 6 months after the first infection in a young healthy female physician. Both episodes led to mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: SARS-CoV-2 infections were detected by real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) on nasopharyngeal specimens. Reinfection was confirmed by whole-genome sequencing. Kinetics of total anti-S receptor binding domain immunoglobulins (Ig anti-S RBD), anti-nucleoprotein (anti-N) and neutralizing antibodies were determined in serial serum samples retrieved during both infection episodes. Memory B-cell responses were assessed at day 12 after reinfection. RESULTS: Whole-genome sequencing identified two different SARS-CoV-2 genomes both belonging to clade 20A, with only one nonsynonymous mutation in the spike protein and clustered with viruses circulating in Geneva (Switzerland) at the time of each of the corresponding episodes. Seroconversion was documented with low levels of total Ig anti-S RBD and anti-N antibodies at 1 month after the first infection, whereas neutralizing antibodies quickly declined after the first episode and then were boosted by the reinfection, with high titres detectable 4 days after symptom onset. A strong memory B-cell response was detected at day 12 after onset of symptoms during reinfection, indicating that the first episode elicited cellular memory responses. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid decline of neutralizing antibodies may put medical personnel at risk of reinfection, as shown in this case. However, reinfection leads to a significant boosting of previous immune responses. Larger cohorts of reinfected subjects with detailed descriptions of their immune responses are needed to define correlates of protection and their duration after infection.