RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of developing SARS-CoV-2 infection. The aim of this single-centre prospective study was to evaluate the trend of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in HCWs working at the primary referral centre for infectious diseases and bioemergencies (eg, COVID-19) in Northern Italy and investigate the factors associated with seroconversion. METHODS: Six hundred and seventy-nine HCW volunteers were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies three times between 4 March and 27 May 2020 and completed a questionnaire covering COVID-19 exposure, symptoms and personal protective equipment (PPE) training and confidence at each time. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rose from 3/679 to 26/608 (adjusted prevalence: 0.5%, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.7% and 5.4%, 95% CI 3.6 to 7.9, respectively) between the first two time points and then stabilised, in line with the curve of the COVID-19 epidemic in Milan. From the first time point, 61.6% of the HCWs had received training in the use of PPE and 17 (61.5%) of those who proved to be seropositive reported symptoms compatible with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Contacts with ill relatives or friends and self-reported symptoms were independently associated with an increased likelihood of seroconversion (p<0.0001 for both), whereas there was no significant association with professional exposure. CONCLUSION: The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among the HCWs at our COVID-19 referral hospital was low at the time of the peak of the epidemic. The seroconversions were mainly attributable to extrahospital contacts, probably because the hospital readily adopted effective infection control measures. The relatively high number of asymptomatic seropositive HCWs highlights the need to promptly identify and isolate potentially infectious HCWs.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE WORK: Procedural pain during Peripheral Venous Catheterization (PVC) is a significant issue for patients. Reducing procedure-induced pain improves the quality of care and reduces patient discomfort. We aimed to compare a non-pharmacological technique (distraction) to anaesthetic cream (EMLA) for the reduction of procedural pain during PVC, in patients undergoing Computerized Tomography (CT) or Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) with contrast. METHODS: This is a Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial. The study was carried out during the month of October 2015. A total of 72 patients undergoing PVC were randomly assigned to the experimental group (distraction technique, n=36) or control group (EMLA, n=36). After PVC, pain was evaluated by means of the numeric pain-rating scale (NRS). Pain perception was compared by means of Mann-Whitney Test. RESULTS: The average pain in the distraction group was 0.69 (SD±1.26), with a median value of 0. The average pain in the EMLA group was 1.86 (SD±1.73), with a median value of 2. The study showed a significant improvement from the distraction technique (U=347, p<.001, r=.42) with respect to the local anaesthetic in reducing pain perception. Conclusions/Implication for practice: Distraction is more effective than local anaesthetic in reducing of pain-perception during PVC insertion. This study is one of few comparing the distraction technique to an anaesthetic. It confirms that the practitioner-patient relationship is an important point in nursing assistance, allowing the establishment of trust with the patient and increasing compliance during the treatment process.