Cardiac surgery outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): A case-series report.

OBJECTIVE: The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the postoperative course of patients after cardiac surgery is unknown. We experienced a major severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak in our cardiac surgery unit, with several patients who tested positive early after surgery. Here we describe the characteristics, postoperative course, and laboratory findings of these patients, along with the fate of the health care workers. We also discuss how we reorganize and reallocate hospital resources to resume the surgical activity without further positive patients. METHODS: After diagnosis of the first symptomatic patient, surgery was suspended. Nasopharyngeal swabs were performed in all patients and health care workers. Patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 were isolated and monitored throughout the in-hospital stay and followed up after discharged until death or clinical recovery. RESULTS: Twenty patients were found to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 sometime after cardiac surgery (mean age 69 ± 10.4 years; median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II score 3 [interquartile range, 5.1]); the median time from surgery to diagnosis was 15 days (interquartile range, 11). Among the patients, 18 had undergone cardiac surgery and 2 of them transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Overall mortality was 15%. Specific COVID-19-related symptoms were identified in 7 patients (35%). Among the 12 health care workers infected, 1 developed a bilateral mild-grade interstitial pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 infection after cardiac surgery, regardless the time of the onset, is a serious condition. The systemic inflammatory state that follows extracorporeal circulation may mask the typical COVID-19 laboratory findings, making the diagnosis more difficult. A strict reorganization of the hospital resources is necessary to safely resume the cardiac surgical activity.

Assessment of Attentional Functioning in Health Professionals of a Brazilian Tertiary Referral Hospital for COVID-19.

This study is aimed at assessing differences in basic attentional functioning between substantial and minimal work-related exposure to COVID-19 patients in professionals working in a tertiary referral hospital in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Therefore, hospital employees performed a Continuous Visual Attention Test. This test consisted of a 90-second Go/No-Go task with 72 (80%) targets and 18 (20%) nontargets. For each participant, reaction time and intraindividual variability of reaction times of all correct target responses, as well as the number of omission and commission errors, were evaluated. Participants were divided into 2 groups based on their exposure to COVID-19 patients (substantial versus minimal exposure). The substantial exposure group consisted of participants with 24 hours/week or more direct contact with COVID-19 patients. This cut-off was based on the clear division between professionals working and not working with COVID-19 patients and considered that 12-hour and 24-hour daily shifts are common for hospital employees in Brazil. A MANCOVA was performed to examine between-group differences, using age, sleep quality, sex, education level, previous COVID-19 infection, and profession as covariates. Of 124 participants, 80 had substantial exposure and 44 had minimal exposure to COVID-19. The overall MANCOVA reached statistical significance (P = 0.048). Post hoc ANCOVA analysis showed that the substantial exposure group had a statistically significantly higher intraindividual variability of reaction time of all correct target responses (P = 0.017, Cohen's δ = -0.55). This result remained after removing those with a previous COVID-19 infection (P = 0.010, Cohen's δ = -0.64) and after matching groups for sample size (P = 0.004, Cohen's δ = -0.81). No other variables reached statistical significance. Concluding, hospital professionals with a substantial level of exposure to patients with COVID-19 show a significant attention decrement and, thus, may be at a higher risk of accidental SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Healthcare Workers Exposure Risk Assessment: A Survey among Frontline Workers in Designated COVID-19 Treatment Centers in Ghana.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are faced with an elevated risk of exposure to SARS-COV-2 due to the clinical procedures they perform on COVID-19 patients. However, data for frontline HCWs level of exposure and risk of COVID-19 virus infection are limited. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the level of exposure and risk of COVID-19 virus infection among HCWs in COVID-19 treatment centers in Ghana. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was utilized in this study and HCWs were invited by convenience to participate in the study, 408 HCWs in 4 COVID-19 treatment centers participated in the study. Adherence to infection prevention and control (IPC) measures were used to categorized HCWs as low or high risk of COVID-19 virus infection. The WHO COVID-19 risk assessment tool was used to collect quantitative data from the study participants. RESULTS: There was a high (N = 328, 80.4%) level of occupational exposure to the COVID-19 virus. However, only 14.0% of the exposed HCWs were at high risk of COVID-19 virus infection. Healthcare workers who performed or were present during any aerosol-generating procedures (AGP) were 23.8 times more likely to be exposed compared to HCWs who did not perform or were absent during any AGP (AOR 23.83; 95% CI: 18.45, 39.20). High risk of COVID-19 virus infection was less likely among registered nurses (AOR = 0.09; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.60), HCWs who performed or were present during any AGP (AOR = 0.05; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.50) and HCWs with a master's degree qualification (AOR 0.06; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.63). CONCLUSION: Despite the high level of exposure to the COVID-19 virus among HCWs in the treatment centers, only 14.0% were at high risk of COVID-19 virus infection. To protect this group of HCWs, treatment centers and HCWs should continue to adhere to WHO and national IPC protocols in managing of COVID-19 cases.

A multi-institutional assessment of COVID-19-related risk in radiation oncology.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has presented challenges to delivering safe and timely care for cancer patients. The oncology community has undertaken substantial workflow adaptations to reduce transmission risk for patients and providers. While various control measureshave been proposed and implemented, little is known about their impact on safety of the radiation oncology workflow and potential for transmission. The objective of this study was to assess potential safety impacts of control measures employed during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A multi-institutional study was undertaken to assess the risks of pandemic-associated workflow adaptations using failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA). Failure modes were identified and scored using FMEA formalism. FMEA scores were used to identify highest-risk aspects of the radiation therapy process. The impact of control measures on overall risk was quantified. Agreement among institutions was evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty three failure modes and 22 control measures were identified. Control measures resulted in risk score reductions for 22 of the failure modes, with the largest reductions from screening of patients and staff, requiring use of masks, and regular cleaning of patient areas. The median risk score for all failure modes was reduced from 280 to 168. There was high institutional agreement for 90.3% of failure modes but only 47% of control measures. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-related risks are similar across oncology practices in this study. While control measures can reducerisk, their use varied. The effectiveness of control measures on risk may guide selection of the highest-impact workflow adaptions to ensure safe care in oncology.

Effective control of SARS-CoV-2 transmission between healthcare workers during a period of diminished community prevalence of COVID-19.

Previously, we showed that 3% (31/1032)of asymptomatic healthcare workers (HCWs) from a large teaching hospital in Cambridge, UK, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in April 2020. About 15% (26/169) HCWs with symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) also tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (Rivett et al., 2020). Here, we show that the proportion of both asymptomatic and symptomatic HCWs testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 rapidly declined to near-zero between 25th April and 24th May 2020, corresponding to a decline in patient admissions with COVID-19 during the ongoing UK 'lockdown'. These data demonstrate how infection prevention and control measures including staff testing may help prevent hospitals from becoming independent 'hubs' of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and illustrate how, with appropriate precautions, organizations in other sectors may be able to resume on-site work safely.

Preventing COVID-19 Transmission on Labor and Delivery: A Decision Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The health care system has been struggling to find the optimal way to protect patients and staff from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective was to evaluate the impact of two strategies on transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers (HCW) on labor and delivery (L&D). STUDY DESIGN: We developed a decision analytic model comparing universal COVID-19 screening and universal PPE on L&D. Probabilities and costs were derived from the literature. We used individual models to evaluate different scenarios including spontaneous labor, induced labor, and planned cesarean delivery (CD). The primary outcome was the cost to prevent COVID-19 infection in one HCW. A cost-effectiveness threshold was set at $25,000 to prevent a single infection in an HCW. RESULTS: In the base case using a COVID-19 prevalence of 0.36% (the rate in the United States at the time), universal screening is the preferred strategy because while universal PPE is more effective at preventing COVID-19 transmission, it is also more costly, costing $4,175,229 and $3,413,251 to prevent one infection in the setting of spontaneous and induced labor, respectively. For planned CD, universal PPE is cost saving. The model is sensitive to variations in the prevalence of COVID-19 and the cost of PPE. Universal PPE becomes cost-effective at a COVID-19 prevalence of 34.3 and 29.5% and at a PPE cost of $512.62 and $463.20 for spontaneous and induced labor, respectively. At a higher cost-effectiveness threshold, the prevalence of COVID-19 can be lower for universal PPE to become cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Universal COVID-19 screening is generally the preferred option. However, in locations with high COVID-19 prevalence or where the local societal cost of one HCW being unavailable is the highest such as in rural areas, universal PPE may be cost-effective and preferred. This model may help to provide guidance regarding allocation of resources on L&D during these current and future pandemics. KEY POINTS: · Universal screening is the preferred strategy for labor.. · With high prevalence, universal PPE is cost-effective.. · For planned cesarean, universal PPE is cost saving..

A Case Study Evaluating the Risk of Infection from Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in a Hospital Setting Through Bioaerosols.

Middle Eastern respiratory syndrome, an emerging viral infection with a global case fatality rate of 35.5%, caused major outbreaks first in 2012 and 2015, though new cases are continuously reported around the world. Transmission is believed to mainly occur in healthcare settings through aerosolized particles. This study uses Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment to develop a generalizable model that can assist with interpreting reported outbreak data or predict risk of infection with or without the recommended strategies. The exposure scenario includes a single index patient emitting virus-containing aerosols into the air by coughing, leading to short- and long-range airborne exposures for other patients in the same room, nurses, healthcare workers, and family visitors. Aerosol transport modeling was coupled with Monte Carlo simulation to evaluate the risk of MERS illness for the exposed population. Results from a typical scenario show the daily mean risk of infection to be the highest for the nurses and healthcare workers (8.49 × 10-4 and 7.91 × 10-4 , respectively), and the lowest for family visitors and patients staying in the same room (3.12 × 10-4 and 1.29 × 10-4 , respectively). Sensitivity analysis indicates that more than 90% of the uncertainty in the risk characterization is due to the viral concentration in saliva. Assessment of risk interventions showed that respiratory masks were found to have a greater effect in reducing the risks for all the groups evaluated (>90% risk reduction), while increasing the air exchange was effective for the other patients in the same room only (up to 58% risk reduction).

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the direct epidemiological and economic effects of seasonal influenza vaccination on healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination is a commonly used intervention to prevent influenza infection in healthcare workers (HCWs) and onward transmission to other staff and patients. We undertook a systematic review to synthesize the latest evidence of the direct epidemiological and economic effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination among HCW. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1980 through January 2018. All studies comparing vaccinated and non-vaccinated (i.e. placebo or non-intervention) groups of HCWs were included. Research articles that focused on only patient-related outcomes or monovalent A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccines were excluded. Two reviewers independently selected articles and extracted data. Pooled-analyses were conducted on morbidity outcomes including laboratory-confirmed influenza, influenza-like illnesses (ILI), and absenteeism. Economic studies were summarized for the characteristics of methods and findings. RESULTS: Thirteen articles met eligibility criteria: three articles were randomized controlled studies and ten were cohort studies. Pooled results showed a significant effect on laboratory-confirmed influenza incidence but not ILI. While the overall incidence of absenteeism was not changed by vaccine, ILI absenteeism was significantly reduced. The duration of absenteeism was also shortened by vaccination. All published economic evaluations consistently found that the immunization of HCW was cost saving based on crude estimates of avoided absenteeism by vaccination. No studies, however, comprehensively evaluated both health outcomes and costs of vaccination programs to examine cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: Our findings reinforced the influenza vaccine effects in reducing infection incidence and length of absenteeism. A better understanding of the incidence of absenteeism and comprehensive economic program evaluations are required to ensure the best possible management of ill HCWs and the investment in HCW immunization in increasingly constrained financial environments. These steps are fundamental to establish sustainability and cost-effectiveness of vaccination programs and underpin HCW immunization policy.

Needle stick injuries in a tertiary eye-care hospital: Incidence, management, outcomes, and recommendations.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to assess the incidence, management, and outcomes for needle stick injuries (NSIs) in a tertiary eye-care hospital and provide appropriate recommendations for its prevention. METHODS: This was a retrospective database review of NSI recorded between 2010 and 2015 at a tertiary eye care center. All staff members who had NSI were managed with standard treatment protocol. The mode, location, health-care workers affected and/or at risk for NSI were analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred and forty NSI were reported between 2010 and 2015, with ophthalmic fellows under training encountering maximum needle pricks (n = 33; 24%), followed by nursing staff (n = 32; 23%), and consultants (n = 30; 21%). Location wise, the highest incidence of NSI was found in the operating room (n = 94; 67%), followed by the laboratory (n = 17; 12%), and patients' ward (n = 14; 10%). Maximum pricks (n = 10; 20%) occurred while passing sharp instruments, anterior segment surgeons (n = 23; 79%) being affected more than posterior segment surgeons (n = 6; 21%). None of the NSI incidents was attributed to anti-VEGF injections. None of the subjects with NSI had seroconversion to hepatitis B surface antigen, human immunodeficiency virus, or hepatitis C virus in the 5-year study period. CONCLUSIONS: NSI is the most commonly encountered in the operating room among training personnel while passing sharp instruments, especially anterior segment surgeons. A proper needle/sharp disposal mechanism, documentation of adverse event, on-going staff training, and prompt prophylactic treatment are essential components of the protocol for NSI management.

Use of low-dose computed tomography to assess pulmonary tuberculosis among healthcare workers in a tuberculosis hospital.

BACKGROUND: According to the World Health Organization, China is one of 22 countries with serious tuberculosis (TB) infections and one of the 27 countries with serious multidrug-resistant TB strains. Despite the decline of tuberculosis in the overall population, healthcare workers (HCWs) are still at a high risk of infection. Compared with high-income countries, the TB prevalence among HCWs is higher in low- and middle-income countries. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is becoming more popular due to its superior sensitivity and lower radiation dose. However, there have been no reports about active pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) among HCWs as assessed with LDCT. The purposes of this study were to examine PTB statuses in HCWs in hospitals specializing in TB treatment and explore the significance of the application of LDCT to these workers. METHODS: This study retrospectively analysed the physical examination data of healthcare workers in the Beijing Chest Hospital from September 2012 to December 2015. Low-dose lung CT examinations were performed in all cases. The comparisons between active and inactive PTB according to the CT findings were made using the Pearson chi-square test or the Fisher's exact test. Comparisons between the incidences of active PTB in high-risk areas and non-high-risk areas were performed using the Pearson chi-square test. Analyses of active PTB were performed according to different ages, numbers of years on the job, and the risks of the working areas. Active PTB as diagnosed by the LDCT examinations alone was compared with the final comprehensive diagnoses, and the sensitivity and positive predictive value were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 1 012 participants were included in this study. During the 4-year period of medical examinations, active PTB was found in 19 cases, and inactive PTB was found in 109 cases. The prevalence of active PTB in the participants was 1.24%, 0.67%, 0.81%, and 0.53% for years 2012 to 2015. The corresponding incidences of active PTB among the tuberculosis hospital participants were 0.86%, 0.41%, 0.54%, and 0.26%. Most HCWs with active TB (78.9%, 15/19) worked in the high-risk areas of the hospital. There was a significant difference in the incidences of active PTB between the HCWs who worked in the high-risk and non-high-risk areas (odds ratio [OR], 14.415; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.733 - 43.896). Comparisons of the CT signs between the active and inactive groups via chi-square tests revealed that the tree-in-bud, cavity, fibrous shadow, and calcification signs exhibited significant differences (P = 0.000, 0.021, 0.001, and 0.024, respectively). Tree-in-bud and cavity opacities suggest active pulmonary tuberculosis, whereas fibrous shadow and calcification opacities are the main features of inactive pulmonary tuberculosis. Comparison with the final comprehensive diagnoses revealed that the sensitivity and positive predictive value of the diagnoses of active PTB based on LDCT alone were 100% and 86.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare workers in tuberculosis hospitals are a high-risk group for active PTB. Yearly LDCT examinations of such high-risk groups are feasible and necessary.

Occupational Risks of Health Professionals in Turkey as an Emerging Economy.

BACKGROUND: Health services are one of the work areas that contain important risks in terms of the occupational health and safety of the laborer. Professionals in various areas of health services encounter biological, chemical, physical, ergonomic, and psychosocial risks, particularly in hospitals. OBJECTIVES: This study has been performed to evaluate the impacts of the occupational risks on health of health professionals in Turkey. FINDINGS: In Turkey, as an emerging economy, the history of studies on health professionals is not longstanding. There have been various regulations intended for the occupational health and safety of health professionals in line with the Regulation of the Provision on Patient and Staff Safety prepared in 2012. However, applications can differ from region to region, institution to institution, and person to person. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that this review will lead health professionals to be aware of occupational risks and contribute to planning health services for health professionals.

Reflecting on the Ebola Epidemic: What If?

Could a better health care system in West Africa have saved lives?

Sharps injuries amongst healthcare workers: review of incidence, transmissions and costs.

BACKGROUND: Sharps injuries and the related risk of infections such as hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) represent one of the major occupational health risks for healthcare workers (HCWs). LITERATURE REVIEW: An overview of available data on the incidence of sharps injuries and the related HBV, HCV and HIV infections and ensuing costs is provided. RESULTS: Literature reported incidence rates of sharps injuries ranging from 1.4 to 9.5 per 100 HCWs, resulting in a weighted mean of 3.7/100 HCWs per year. Sharps injuries were associated with infective disease transmissions from patients to HCWs resulting in 0.42 HBV infections, 0.05-1.30 HCV infections and 0.04-0.32 HIV infections per 100 sharps injuries per year. The related societal costs had a mean of €272, amounting to a mean of €1,966 if the source patient was HIV positive with HBV and HCV co-infections. CONCLUSION: Sharps injuries remain a frequent threat amongst HCWs. The follow-up and treatment of sharps injuries and the deriving consequences represent a significant cost factor.

Occupational exposures in healthcare workers in University Hospital Dubrava--10 year follow-up study.

Occupational hazardous exposure in healthcare workers is any contact with a material that carries the risk of acquiring an infection during their working activities. Among the most frequent viral occupational infections are those transmitted by blood such as hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Therefore, they represent a significant public health problem related to the majority of documented cases of professionally acquired infections. Reporting of occupational exposures in University Hospital Dubrava has been implemented in connection with the activity of the Committee for Hospital Infections since January 2002. During the period of occupational exposures' monitoring (from January 2002 to December 2011) 451 cases were reported. The majority of occupational exposures were reported by nurses and medical technicians (55.4%). The most common type of exposure was the needlestick injury (77.6%). 27.9% of the accidents occurred during the blood sampling and 23.5% during the surgical procedure. In 59.4% of the exposed workers aHBs-titer status was assessed as satisfactory. Positive serology with respect to HBV was confirmed in 1.6% of patients, HCV in 2.2% of patients and none for HIV. Cases of professionally acquired infections were not recorded in the registry. Consequences of the occupational exposure could include the development of professional infection, ban or inability to work further in health care services and last but not least a threat to healthcare workers life. It is therefore deemed necessary to prevent occupational exposure to blood-borne infections. The most important preventive action in respect to HBV, HCV and HIV infections is nonspecific pre-exposure prophylaxis.

Blood and body fluid exposures: consent for source patient testing.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to blood and body fluids (BBF) remains a major occupational hazard in health care. Routine testing of source patients for blood borne viruses where exposure has occurred is recommended in the UK. Whilst in practice source patient identification may be challenging the reasons why identified individuals are not tested, including issues relating to consent and procedure compliance, are not fully understood. AIMS: To identify the frequency of serological testing in identified source patients and the reasons for not testing, including refusal and absence of consent. METHODS: A review of all BBF exposure incidents reported to the Sheffield Occupational Health Service between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2009. RESULTS: Of 490 reported BBF exposure incidents source patients were identified in 87% of cases and tested in 56% of the incidents. Rates of source patient testing were higher following incidents affecting medical (76%) and nursing staff (69%) than those involving non-clinical (36%) and dental staff (17%). Reasons for not testing source serology among identifiable patients (151) were not recorded in 66% of incidents, in 20% there was incapacity to give consent and in 5% testing was refused. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that despite guidance, routine source testing is not universal. Incapacity to consent is a contributory factor for some source serology not being tested and clarification of the ethical and legal position would be helpful. Larger studies should explore other reasons why identified source patients are not tested in practice and explore the policy implications of those findings.

[Assessment of occupational exposure to HBV, HCV and HIV in gynecologic and obstetric staff]. / Ocena zawodowego narazenia na zakazenie HBV, HCV i HIV u personelu oddzialow ginekologii i poloznictwa.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to assess the occupational risk for hepatitis B, C and HIV in gynecologic and obstetric staff in the context of the number of sharps injuries, HBV immunization coverage, compliance with personal protective equipment (PPE) use and reporting of exposures. METHODS: A voluntary anonymous survey was carried out between January-June 2009 in 15 ran domly selected hospitals in West Pomerania, Poland. RESULTS: There were 110 participants (response rate 72%), 88.2% females, 11.8 males (aged 21-60 years; mean, 42 years); 80.9% nurses, 19.1% doctors. Among those 60.9% reported at least one sharps injury in the preceding year (Me = 1, range 1-12), 43.6% worked at least once a year with a recent abrasion or cut on their hands. The respondents reported the most recent injuries being caused by a hollow-bore needle (54.4%), a suture needle (26.5%), and an instrument (19.1%); 82.5% of such incidents went unreported. Compliance with PPE use was high for glove use (92.7%), much lower for protective eyewear (28.7%). Except one participant who reported acute symptomatic hepatitis B in the past (possibly due to previous surgery), all participants reported being immunized with HBV vaccine: 46.8%--took three doses, 48.6%-- a booster and 4.6% ended the regimen on two doses. CONCLUSIONS: Frequent sharps injuries, mostly unreported, work with unprotected recent abrasion or hands' cuts and lack of compliance with PPE use are important risk factors contributing to occupational HBV, HCV and HIV infections among gynecologic and obstetric staff. The risk of HBV infection has been significantly reduced by a complete immunization coverage observed among participants.