Symptom monitoring after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in a large integrated healthcare system: Separating symptoms from severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the incidence of systemic overlap and typical coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms in healthcare personnel (HCP) following COVID-19 vaccination and association of reported symptoms with diagnosis of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the context of public health recommendations regarding work exclusion. DESIGN: This prospective cohort study was conducted between December 16, 2020, and March 14, 2021, with HCP who had received at least 1 dose of either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. SETTING: Large healthcare system in New England. INTERVENTIONS: HCP were prompted to complete a symptom survey for 3 days after each vaccination. Reported symptoms generated automated guidance regarding symptom management, SARS-CoV-2 testing requirements, and work restrictions. Overlap symptoms (ie, fever, fatigue, myalgias, arthralgias, or headache) were categorized as either lower or higher severity. Typical COVID-19 symptoms included sore throat, cough, nasal congestion or rhinorrhea, shortness of breath, ageusia and anosmia. RESULTS: Among 64,187 HCP, a postvaccination electronic survey had response rates of 83% after dose 1 and 77% after dose 2. Report of ≥3 lower-severity overlap symptoms, ≥1 higher-severity overlap symptoms, or at least 1 typical COVID-19 symptom after dose 1 was associated with increased likelihood of testing positive. HCP with prior COVID-19 infection were significantly more likely to report severe overlap symptoms after dose 1. CONCLUSIONS: Reported overlap symptoms were common; however, only report of ≥3 low-severity overlap symptoms, at least 1 higher-severity overlap symptom, or any typical COVID-19 symptom were associated with infection. Work-related restrictions for overlap symptoms should be reconsidered.

Implementing an Integrated Health Protection/Health Promotion Intervention in the Hospital Setting: Lessons Learned From the Be Well, Work Well Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study reports findings from a proof-of-concept trial designed to examine the feasibility and estimates the efficacy of the "Be Well, Work Well" workplace intervention. METHODS: The intervention included consultation for nurse managers to implement changes on patient-care units and educational programming for patient-care staff to facilitate improvements in safety and health behaviors. We used a mixed-methods approach to evaluate feasibility and efficacy. RESULTS: Using findings from process tracking and qualitative research, we observed challenges to implementing the intervention due to the physical demands, time constraints, and psychological strains of patient care. Using survey data, we found no significant intervention effects. CONCLUSIONS: Beyond educating individual workers, systemwide initiatives that respond to conditions of work might be needed to transform the workplace culture and broader milieu in support of worker health and safety.

Pediatric use of complementary therapies: ethical and policy choices.

OBJECTIVE: Many pediatricians and parents are beginning to integrate use of complementary and alternative medical (CAM) therapies with conventional care. This article addresses ethical and policy issues involving parental choices of CAM therapies for their children. METHODS: We conducted a literature search to assess existing law involving parental choice of CAM therapies for their children. We also selected a convenience sample of 18 states of varying sizes and geographic locations. In each state, we inquired within the Department of Health and Human Services whether staff were aware of (1) any internal policies concerning these issues or (2) any cases in the previous 5 years in which either (a) the state initiated proceedings against parents for using CAM therapies for their children or (b) the department received telephone calls or other information reporting abuse and neglect in this domain. We asked the American Academy of Pediatrics and the leading CAM professional organizations concerning any relevant, reported cases. RESULTS: Of the 18 state Departments of Health and Human Services departments surveyed, 6 reported being aware of cases in the previous 5 years. Of 9 reported cases in these 6 states, 3 involved restrictive dietary practices (eg, limiting children variously to a watermelon or raw foods diet), 1 involved dietary supplements, 3 involved children with terminal cancer, and 2 involved religious practices rather than CAM per se. None of the professional organizations surveyed had initiated proceedings or received telephone calls regarding abuse or neglect concerning parental use of CAM therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric use of CAM therapies raises complex issues. Clinicians, hospitals, state agencies, courts, and professional organizations may benefit from a policy framework to help guide decision making.