Assessment of serological techniques for screening patients for COVID-19 (COVID-SER): a prospective, multicentric study.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 threatens global public health, and there is an urgent public health need to assess acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Serological tests might provide results that can be complementary to or confirm suspected COVID-19 cases and reveal previous infection. The performance of serological assays (sensitivity and specificity) has to be evaluated before their use in the general population. The neutralisation capacity of the produced antibodies also has to be evaluated. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We set up a prospective, multicentric clinical study to evaluate the performance of serological kits among a population of healthcare workers presenting mild symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Four hundred symptomatic healthcare workers will be included in the COVID-SER study. The values obtained from a control cohort included during the prepandemic time will be used as reference. A workflow was set up to study serological response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and to evaluate antibody neutralisation capacity in patients with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The sensitivity and specificity of the tests will be assessed using molecular detection of the virus as a reference. The measurement of IgM and IgG antibodies will be performed once per week for 6 consecutive weeks and then at 6, 12, 18, 24 and 36 months after the diagnosis. The kinetics of IgM and IgG will determine the optimal period to perform serological testing. The proportion of false negative PCR tests in symptomatic subjects will be determined on the basis of subsequent seroconversions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the national review board for biomedical research in April 2020 (Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud Méditerranée I, Marseille, France) (ID RCB 2020-A00932-37). Results will be disseminated through presentations at scientific meetings and publications in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04341142.

Impacts of users' antisocial behaviors in an ophthalmologic emergency department--a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Health-care workers in emergency departments are frequently exposed to risk of antisocial behavior and violence (ABV) by users. Underreporting of ABV by health-care professionals has been identified. In order to understand this phenomenon, we explored the experience of ABV in 30 health workers in an ophthalmology emergency department in the Rhône-Alpes administrative region of France. METHODS: A grounded theory qualitative approach was followed. Data were collected from field observations, 30 semistructured individual interviews, violence report forms, and 364 patient satisfaction questionnaires. Qualitative thematic content analysis of the interviews was performed with qualitative data analysis software. RESULTS: Third-party antisocial behaviors and violence were an everyday occurrence, with varying levels of seriousness: impoliteness, vulgarity, nonrecognition, insults, verbal threats, and aggressive gestures. Health-care workers adopted various strategies to adapt to such violence: proactive and reactive attitudes and avoidance. Several organizational factors concerning the political and economic context, hospital work organization, and health workers' behavior were identified as potentially contributing to ABV. Excessive waiting times, lack of user information, and understaffing emerged as factors contributing to users' ABV. CONCLUSIONS: Antisocial behaviors by hospital users are underreported by professionals and under-recognized. They appear to be like continuous occupational exposure leading to delayed adverse consequences either on workers' health or motivation. However, violence in hospitals is not the result of only the action of users, and it may be related to work organization and workers' own behaviors. Only a grounded analysis of the causes of violence in the local work context can uncover relevant solutions.