Analysis of Impact of COVID-19 and Other Occupational Infectious Diseases on Construction of Transportation Projects

Infectious diseases affect those who are employed in many occupations, not just in human and animal healthcare industries and laboratories. Those who work in the construction industry are frequently exposed to infectious diseases caused by harmful pathogens in the air, water, soil, and chemicals at worksites, making it critical to identify the specific causes and effective preventative measures. This study aims to identify the causes and the short- and long-term health effects of these diseases on workers and develop strategies to overcome them. A comprehensive analysis of existing literature revealed 13 infectious diseases that we categorized according to their source. Strategies for controlling and mitigating the effects of the infections were identified and arranged in a hierarchy of effectiveness, from most efficient to least efficient. The study's findings will enhance construction employers' understanding of infectious diseases that put their employees at risk, enabling them to help their employees remain healthy and safe by adhering to workplace safety precautions.

An investigation of methods for protecting human research subjects at medical schools during the COVID-19 pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was a unique time in history to study the protection of human research subjects at medical schools. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an unprecedented disruption on the conduct of human subjects research in the United States. Medical schools around the country had to rapidly pivot and adopt new risk mitigation practices to protect research participants. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the protection of human research subjects at medical schools. Five research medical institutions that are geographically spread across the United States were selected for this two-phase study. All five were among the top 25 NIH research funded institutions in 2021. Phase one included a deductive content analysis of publicly available research guidance documents using the Hierarchy of Controls as the conceptual framework. Based on the findings, a semi-structured interview protocol was developed and a research manager from each study site was interviewed. Guidelines and practices for the protection of human research subjects have changed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic;however, IRB policies have not. Despite universal protective measures that should be taken, for example masking, there are nuances to research study modifications that were left at the study team level for the sites involved in this study. A practical implication from this study was that COVID-19 risk reduction plans are not a one size fits all approach. The medical schools in this study provided study teams with the flexibility to tailor risk mitigation procedures to the study population. A significant implication was the discovery that IRBs were not approving ramp up plans and it was typically done at the department level. The pandemic exposed weaknesses in medical schools' preparedness for the continuation of human subjects research during a public health emergency. It is recommended that their Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) develop an emergency plan to ensure the continuation of research during future pandemic or other public health emergencies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Health and Safety Regulations for COVID-19: A Policy Analysis.

The COVID-19 pandemic spurred some regulators in the USA to require occupational health and safety programs to prevent COVID-19 transmission in workplaces. The objective of this study was to describe such state and federal regulations enacted between January 2020 and January 2022. Regulations, including emergency temporary standards (ETS) and permanent standards, were identified through a search of Nexis Uni and Bloomberg Law and review of US OSHA websites and the Federal Register. Full texts were reviewed for regulatory scope, hazard and exposure definitions, determination of exposure or risk levels, and control strategies. Four state (California, Michigan, Virginia, and Oregon) and two federal regulations were identified. All regulations described respiratory aerosols as the primary source of SARS-CoV-2 and recognized person-to-person transmission by droplet, airborne, and contact routes. Only the US OSHA ETS for healthcare explicitly stated that inhalation of respiratory particles was the most likely method of COVID-19 transmission. The Virginia, Michigan, and Oregon regulations described different categories of risk defined by exposure frequency and duration or specific workplace activities. California described exposure as places and times when employees come into contact or congregate with other people. The US OSHA ETS for healthcare described exposure as involving close contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. While all of the state regulations required strategies from across the hierarchy, only the Virginia regulations specifically incorporated the hierarchy of controls. Only the California and Virginia regulations explicitly linked control strategies to the transmission route, while Virginia demarcated control strategies by risk level. Oregon linked risk level to occupancy levels and physical distancing requirements and referred to the use of a layered approach for transmission control. The US OSHA ETS for healthcare defined droplet and airborne precautions but made no mention of the hierarchy of controls or risk levels. Respirators were discussed in most of the regulations. The first Michigan regulation explicitly required respirators appropriate to exposure risk. The California regulations noted that respirators protect the wearer while face coverings protect people around the wearer. These regulations offer insights for a permanent US OSHA infectious disease regulation, such as the need to consider a range of transmission modes including near- and far-range aerosol inhalation, endemic and novel pathogens, workplaces beyond healthcare settings, factors that contribute to exposure and risk, the hierarchy of controls, the role of vaccination, and the importance of written exposure assessment and infection prevention plans.

Infection Prevention and Control of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Health Care Settings.

The authors describe infection prevention and control approaches to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in the health care setting, including a review of the chain of transmission and the hierarchy of controls, which are cornerstones of infection control and prevention. The authors also discuss lessons learned from nosocomial transmission events.

Frontline healthcare workers' mental distress, top concerns, and assessment on hierarchy of controls in response to COVID-19: a cross-sectional survey study.

BACKGROUND: The existing studies showed that frontline healthcare workers during an epidemic experienced unusual stressors and mental distress which even lasted for years after the crisis. It is important to learn about their concerns early to mitigate the negative impact as well as to evaluate disease control from experiences on the front lines for improving responses to the outbreak. The study aimed to provide insights on how to strengthen public health responses to protect healthcare workers both physically and mentally, and effectively control the disease in light of hierarchy of controls. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was distributed online via Qualtrics to frontline healthcare workers during the COVID-19 through a university's nursing program and received 267 valid responses from 103 certificated nursing assistants, 125 nurses, and 39 other health professionals. A descriptive data analysis with a Chi-square test at a two-sided 0.05 level of significance was performed on factors that potentially affected mental health of healthcare workers and effectiveness of disease control at workplace in five domains. The themes were summarized on open-ended questions. RESULTS: About 30% of the respondents showed the symptom of depression and needed a further investigation. The influencing factors in five domains were examined. Engineering and administrative controls, as well as PPE were widely used in response to COVID-19. The respondents assessed the state and workplace responses to COVID-19 better than the federal government responses. The workplace responses were considered most effective. Multiple factors with a statistically significant correlation with effectiveness of the disease control at workplace were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggested that timely responses at policy level will be more effective than other measures in early prevention and control of the pandemic, mental distress should be addressed in addition to PPE, and nursing programs should consider providing a situation-specific career coaching or counseling for students. A longitudinal study at a larger scale is warranted to capture the variation of time change with the disease control evolvement and across geographic regions.

Applying the Hierarchy of Controls: What Occupational Safety Can Teach us About Safely Navigating the Next Phase of the Global COVID-19 Pandemic.

Eighteen months into the COVID-19 pandemic, and as the world struggles with global vaccine equity, emerging variants, and the reality that eradication is years away at soonest, we add to notion of "layered defenses" proposing a conceptual model for better understanding the differential applicability and effectiveness of precautions against SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The prevailing adaptation of Reason's Swiss cheese model conceives of all defensive layers as equally protective, when in reality some are more effective than others. Adapting the hierarchy of controls framework from occupational safety provides a better framework for understanding the relative benefit of different hazard control strategies to minimize the spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Rapid evidence review to inform safe return to campus in the context of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is transmitted predominantly through the air in crowded and unventilated indoor spaces among unvaccinated people. Universities and colleges are potential settings for its spread. Methods: An interdisciplinary team from public health, virology, and biology used narrative methods to summarise and synthesise evidence on key control measures, taking account of mode of transmission. Results: Evidence from a wide range of primary studies supports six measures.  Vaccinate (aim for > 90% coverage and make it easy to get a jab). Require masks indoors, especially in crowded settings. If everyone wears well-fitting cloth masks, source control will be high, but for maximum self-protection, respirator masks should be worn.  Masks should not be removed for speaking or singing. Space people out by physical distancing (but there is no "safe" distance because transmission risk varies with factors such as ventilation, activity levels and crowding), reducing class size (including offering blended learning), and cohorting (students remain in small groups with no cross-mixing). Clean indoor air using engineering controls-ventilation (while monitoring CO 2 levels), inbuilt filtration systems, or portable air cleaners fitted with high efficiency particulate air [HEPA] filters). Test asymptomatic staff and students using lateral flow tests, with tracing and isolating infectious cases when incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is high. Support clinically vulnerable people to work remotely. There is no direct evidence to support hand sanitising, fomite controls or temperature-taking. There is evidence that freestanding plastic screens, face visors and electronic air-cleaning systems are ineffective. Conclusions: The above six evidence-based measures should be combined into a multi-faceted strategy to maximise both student safety and the continuation of in-person and online education provision. Staff and students seeking to negotiate a safe working and learning environment should collect data (e.g. CO 2 levels, room occupancy) to inform conversations.

Occupational Risk of Airborne Mycobacterium tuberculosis Exposure: A Situational Analysis in a Three-Tier Public Healthcare System in South Africa.

This study aimed to detect airborne Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) at nine public health facilities in three provinces of South Africa and determine possible risk factors that may contribute to airborne transmission. Personal samples (n = 264) and stationary samples (n = 327) were collected from perceived high-risk areas in district, primary health clinics (PHCs) and TB facilities. Quantitative real-time (RT) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used for TB analysis. Walkabout observations and work practices through the infection prevention and control (IPC) questionnaire were documented. Statistical analysis was carried out using Stata version 15.2 software. Airborne MTB was detected in 2.2% of samples (13/572), and 97.8% were negative. District hospitals and Western Cape province had the most TB-positive samples and identified risk areas included medical wards, casualty, and TB wards. MTB-positive samples were not detected in PHCs and during the summer season. All facilities reported training healthcare workers (HCWs) on TB IPC. The risk factors for airborne MTB included province, type of facility, area or section, season, lack of UVGI, and ineffective ventilation. Environmental monitoring, PCR, IPC questionnaire, and walkabout observations can estimate the risk of TB transmission in various settings. These findings can be used to inform management and staff to improve the TB IPC programmes.

Application of bow tie analysis and inherently safer design to the novel coronavirus hazard.

This work involves the application of process safety concepts to other fields, specifically bow tie analysis and inherently safer design (ISD) to COVID-19. An analysis framework was designed for stakeholders to develop COVID-19 risk management plans for specific scenarios and receptor groups. This tool is based on the incorporation of the hierarchy of controls (HOC) within bow tie analysis to identify priority barriers. The analysis framework incorporates inherently safer design (ISD) principles allowing stakeholders to assess the adequacy of controls along with the consideration of degradation factors and controls. A checklist has also been developed to help stakeholders identify opportunities to apply the ISD principles of minimization, substitution, moderation, and simplification. This work also considers barrier effectiveness with respect to human and organization factors (HOF) in degradation factors and controls. This paper includes a collection of bow tie elements to develop bow tie diagrams for specific receptor groups and scenarios in Nova Scotia, Canada. The pandemic stage (At-Peak or Post-Peak) and its influence on different scenarios or settings is also considered in this work. Bow tie diagrams were developed for numerous receptor groups; bow tie diagrams modelling a generally healthy individual, a paramedic and a hair salon patron contracting COVID-19 are presented in this work.

COVID-19 in the Perioperative Setting: Applying a Hierarchy of Controls to Prevent Transmission.

The evolution of SARS-CoV-2 from a zoonotic virus to a novel human pathogen resulted in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic. Health care delivery and infection prevention and control recommendations continue to evolve to protect the safety of health care personnel, patients, and visitors while researchers and policymakers learn more about SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. The perioperative setting is unique in that it exposes clinicians and personnel to increased risks through the invasive nature of surgical care. Using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Hierarchy of Controls as a model, this article presents risk mitigation strategies for preventing the transmission of COVID-19 in the perioperative environment. The goals are to identify and eliminate potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2 when surgery is necessary for patients who are suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19 or who have an unknown infection status.

Selecting Controls for Minimizing SARS-CoV-2 Aerosol Transmission in Workplaces and Conserving Respiratory Protective Equipment Supplies.

With growing evidence of inhalation of small infectious particles as an important mode of transmission for SARS-CoV-2, workplace risk assessments should focus on eliminating or minimizing such exposures by applying the hierarchy of controls. We adapt a control banding model for aerosol-transmissible infectious disease pandemic planning to encourage the use of source and pathway controls before receptor controls (personal protective equipment). Built on the recognition that aerosol-transmissible organisms are likely to exhibit a dose-response function, such that higher exposures result from longer contact times or higher air concentrations, this control banding model offers a systematic method for identifying a set of source and pathway controls that could eliminate or reduce the need for receptor controls. We describe several examples for workers at high risk of exposure in essential or return to work categories. The goal of using control banding for such workers is to develop effective infection and disease prevention programs and conserve personal protective equipment.