Occupational exposure protection and perioperative management of sudden infectious diseases from the perspective of COVID-19.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) SARS-CoV-2 virus epidemic continues to exhibit a sporadic onset trend due to the continuous variation of the novel coronavirus. However, the psychological impact of the pandemic persists. It is crucial to reflect on our experiences to better prepare for future large-scale infectious diseases. During outbreaks of infectious diseases, patients may still require orthopaedic surgery. It is crucial to prioritize the safety of medical staff and establish procedures to ensure their protection. However, with the implementation of a series of standardized operational protection procedures, orthopaedic surgeons can safely perform their duties without the risk of contracting COVID-19. There is no doubt that the orthopaedic occupational exposure protection process and perioperative management plan for global infectious diseases, such as COVID-19, require a standardized summarization process and a narrative review.

Frequency of exposure incidents in hospital workers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic based on the hospital status and the use of personal protective equipment: a descriptive study with a historical comparison group.

BACKGROUND: An occupational exposure, i.e. exposure incident (EI), is contact with potentially contaminated material that may contain bloodborne pathogens and that occurs during occupational activities inside or outside a health care facility, either during direct work with a patient or during contact with a patient's body fluids and tissues. This study aimed to compare the frequency of EIs in a university hospital before and during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: This was a descriptive study with a historical comparison group conducted at the Dubrava University Hospital (DUH) in Zagreb, Croatia. We compared the frequency of EIs among healthcare and non-healthcare workers before (from March 11, 2018, to March 10, 2020) and during (from March 11, 2020, to March 11, 2022) the COVID-19 pandemic, expressed as the number of EIs per number of hospitalized patients and the total number of hospital activities. We analyzed data based on the status of the hospital (a COVID-19 hospital or not) and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) as recommended by the World Health Organization. RESULTS: During the total analyzed period, 241 EIs were reported in DUH. Before the pandemic, 128 EIs were reported, compared to 113 during the pandemic. Before the pandemic, 91% of EIs were recorded in healthcare workers, while during the pandemic, 96% of EIs were recorded in healthcare workers. Slightly more EIs were recorded during the period of mixed work form and de-escalation of PPE. The rate of EIs relative to the total number of hospital patients was significantly higher during the pandemic (3.9/1000) than in the pre-pandemic period (2.5/1000). The rate of EIs relative to the total number of hospital activities was significantly higher during the pandemic (0.4/1000) than in the pre-pandemic period (0.2/1000). CONCLUSION: The rate of EIs relative to the total number of hospitalized patients and the total number of hospital activities in DUH was significantly higher during the pandemic, and the rate of total EIs increased among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of this study show that it is necessary to constantly and effectively work on the prevention of EI.

Comparative study of infection control practices in DOTS/sputum microscopy centre in two different districts of state of Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh of India.

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE: Tuberculosis (TB) is endemic in India. TB is transmitted through droplet infection and the transmission occurs when a person inhales droplet nuclei containing of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Infection control practices play a major role in controlling the TB infection in healthcare settings and further prevents TB infection in the HCWs. The aim of the study is to conduct the cross sectional study for infection control practices in DOTS cum Sputum Microscopy Centre's under NTEP in Ghaziabad (Uttar Pradesh) & Dehradun (Uttarakhand) districts with the objective to assess the compliance of infection control measures by HCWs in DOTS cum Sputum Microscopy Centre's and to suggest the suitable measures and/or model to reduce the transmission of infection to the HCWs and to the community at large. MATERIALS & METHODS: The cross sectional study is conducted for two years in two districts of different state having high burden of TB disease in UP and low burden of disease in UK state. All DOTS cum Sputum Microscopy centres of both selected districts i.e. 100% sample size are covered in the study. RESULTS: Hand washing is the most efficient and cost-effective practice for prevention and control of infection. In Dehradun district 66.66% (12) centers and in Ghaziabad district 57.14% (16) centers have adequate hand washing facility available at DOTS and sputum microscopy lab. Unavailability of adequate PPE will lead to the infection. In Dehradun district, 55.56% (10) centers have adequate PPE available whereas in Ghaziabad District 21.43% (6) centers have adequate PPE available. Training on infection prevention and control for HCWs are provided in 27.78% (5) DOTS/sputum microscopy center in Dehradun whereas none of the DOTS/sputum microscopy center in Ghaziabad district are given training on infection prevention & control for HCWs in last one year. Adequate ventilation plays an important role in transmission of TB/MDR TB or any respiratory infection. HCWs working in DOTS/Sputum microscopy center are at risk to contact the TB/MDR TB infection if there is no proper ventilation in their working places. In 33.33% (6) DOTS/sputum microscopy center in Dehradun & 28.57% (8) in Ghaziabad district have adequate ventilation. Layout of DOTS room and for sputum microscopy center are suggested to reduce the risk of transmission of TB/MDR-TB and other respiratory pathogens amongst HCWs who are working in DOTS cum sputum microscopy center. CONCLUSION: DOTS cum Sputum Microscopy Centers of both districts in different states are having deficient infection control practices. Staff is not adequately trained in infection prevention and control practices.

Infection and the use of personal protective equipment among Primary Health Care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: to analyze the frequency and associated risk factors for COVID-19 infection and the availability of Personal Protective Equipment used by primary healthcare workers. METHOD: a cross-sectional study was conducted over six months in Rio Grande do Sul. Descriptive analysis was performed, with the comparison of independent samples using Pearson's Chi-square test and Fisher's Exact test (p<.05). RESULTS: the study included 206 (27%) healthcare workers who presented COVID-19 symptoms. There was a statistical association for the following variables: availability of surgical masks (p=.003), seeking information on the correct use of personal protective equipment (p=.045), having attended people with flu-like syndrome (p=.024), and believing that the highest risk of contamination is when attending a patient positive for coronavirus disease (p=.001). CONCLUSION: the availability of personal protective equipment is indispensable for COVID-19 prevention, with special emphasis on the use of surgical masks. Furthermore, the study highlighted the importance of providing Personal Protective Equipment in conjunction with guidance on its use. HIGHLIGHTS: (1) Highlighted impacts on the distribution of PPE necessary for worker safety.(2) Emphasized the need for training and education regarding the use of PPE.(3) Found significance regarding the availability of surgical masks.(4) Identified the need for further research on health safety topics.(5) Revealed a high incidence of symptomatic workers and positive cases of COVID-19.

Beliefs, preferences, and acceptance of personal protective equipment for a shock room team in a tertiary care center.

BACKGROUND: During coronavirus disease of 2019 pandemic a standard usage of personal protective equipment (PPE) in healthcare was mandatory, while actually the usage of PPE is currently decreasing. This raises the question about the further use of PPE in the clinical setting because healthcare workers (HCW) are at greater risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 than the general population. The primary objective of this study is to determine the proportion of shock room team members approving the further use of PPE including a FFP2 respirator in simulation training and reality. The secondary objectives are to describe the expertise and difficulties faced while using PPE in the shock room care. METHODS: Fifty-four HCW participated in a shock room simulation training at a large urban tertiary care hospital in Germany, utilizing a PPE comprising an FFP2 mask, gloves, goggles, and gown. Subsequently, participants completed an online questionnaire featuring 15 questions presented on a 5-point Likert scale or as multiple-choice questions with predefined answers. RESULTS: Sixty-eight point five percent of our participants voted for an established standard PPE in shock room care. The largest fraction of our participants (40.7%) favors a standard PPE consisting of FFP2 mask, gown, and gloves. Less HCW (31.5%) want to wear PPE in shock room simulation training. Except for goggles we could not detect relevant difficulties faced while using PPE in the shock room environment. Incorrect use of PPE was observed in 14.8%. CONCLUSION: A majority of our participants favored a standard PPE including a FFP2 respirator in shock room care. In addition, we recommend the use of PPE in shock room simulation training, while further awareness of and training in proper use of PPE seems to be necessary to reduce risk of infectious diseases for HCW.

Virus and viral components transmitted through surgical smoke; a silent danger in operating room: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: During surgical procedures, heat-generating devices are widely used producing surgical smoke (SS). Since the SS can transmit infectious viruses, this systematic review was designed to investigate the potential viruses transmitted through SS. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, and Embase databases, along with Cochran Library, and Google Scholar search engine were searched systematically (by April 21, 2024). No language, place, and time restrictions were considered. All studies evaluating the SS and virus transmission, and whole investigations regarding the viral infections transmitted through SS were totally considered inclusion criteria. Besides, non-original, qualitative, case reports, case series, letters to the editor, editorial, and review studies were excluded from the analysis. This study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 statement. RESULTS: Twenty-six eligible studies were selected and reviewed for data extraction. The results showed that the SS contains virus and associated components. Six types of viruses or viral components were identified in SS including papillomavirus (HPV, BPV), Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), varicella zoster, Hepatitis B (HBV), SARS-CoV-2, and Oral poliovirus (OPV), which are spread to surgical team through smoke-producing devices. CONCLUSIONS: Since the studies confirm the presence of viruses, and viral components in SS, the potential risk to the healthcare workers, especially in operating room (OR), seems possible. Thus, the adoption of protective strategies against SS is critical. Despite the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), these viruses could affect OR personnel in surgical procedures.

Improving Safety and Comfort of Healthcare Workers Caring for Patients With High-Consequence Infectious Diseases in a High-Level Isolation Unit Using Innovative Approaches.

Patients with high-consequence infectious diseases (HCIDs) require high-quality care by specially trained staff in a high-level isolation unit (HLIU) that follows strict infection prevention and control (IPC) measures. Caring for patients with (suspected) HCID is challenging, mainly because of the strict personal protective equipment (PPE) and IPC protocols healthcare workers (HCW) must adhere to for protection. The Radboud University Medical Center, located in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, has been a dedicated HLIU facility since 2008. A newly built HLIU opened in May 2022, and encouraged us to review the existing PPE selection, IPC protocols, and HCID training program to improve safety and comfort for HCWs working in the HLIU. Based on a systematic search through (inter)national HCID PPE guidelines and semistructured interviews with end users, we selected an improved, more comfortable set of PPE. Additionally, we developed a more concise and easier-to-use patient care process flow and implemented a new teaching strategy. The new way of working was tested in October 2022 when the first 2 patients with suspected HCID were admitted to our unit. We used surveys to evaluate the experiences of HCWs involved in this care to further improve the workflow of the unit. When optimizing safety and comfort for HCWs, it is important to consider (inter)national guidelines as well as user preferences. By systematically evaluating recent experiences of patient admission to the HLIU and then adjusting protocols and training, we can ensure that the quality of provided healthcare and the safety of HCWs working in the HLIU remains high.

Prevalence of Covid-19 infection among healthcare workers in Central Hospitals of Covid-19 vs non-Covid-19 hospitals in Khuzestan Province, Iran.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of contracting Covid-19 due to their frontline roles and close interactions with infected patients. Understanding the prevalence of Covid-19 infection among HCWs and the factors contributing to it is crucial for informing mitigation strategies. However, the available data on Covid-19 infection rates among Iranian HCWs is limited. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to compare the prevalence of Covid-19 infection among HCWs working in hospitals dedicated to Covid-19 care versus HCWs in other non-Covid-19 hospitals in Khuzestan province, Iran. Additionally, the study aimed to identify potential risk factors associated with Covid-19 transmission and symptom severity in this population. METHODS: This cohort study recruited 3,012 HCWs from 35 hospitals in Khuzestan province. Covid-19 diagnosis was made using RT-PCR testing, chest CT scans, and clinical examination. RESULTS: Overall, 96% (n=2,918) of the 3,012 HCWs were infected with Covid-19. The prevalence was significantly higher among HCWs from Covid-19 hospitals (59.83%, n=1,746) compared to those from non-Covid-19 hospitals (5.75%, n=168). The capital city of Ahvaz had the highest proportion of Covid-19 cases at 28%. CONCLUSIONS: HCWs, especially those working in hospitals dedicated to Covid-19 care, face a substantial risk of contracting the virus. The high infection rates observed may be attributed to factors like weakened immune systems, non-compliance with precautions, and delayed diagnosis. These findings underscore the critical need to strengthen infection control measures, improve access to personal protective equipment, and enhance surveillance of Covid-19 among frontline HCWs in Iran.

Factors underlying the high occupational risk of healthcare personnel for COVID-19 infection.

Crispim et al. demonstrated the independent risk factors for acquiring COVID-19 among healthcare personnel. They also showed the importance of infection prevention training to avoid acquiring COVID-19 in this population. OBJECTIVE: To verify the rate of COVID-19 infection among healthcare personnel at high and low risk of COVID-19 infection and identify the underlying risk factors. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted between December 1, 2020 and February 28, 2021. Associations were verified between the levels of risk (high or low) of occupational COVID-19 infection and participant characteristics using the World Health Organization risk assessment questionnaire and adjusted using logistic regression models in single and multiple approaches. RESULTS: Of the 486 participants, 57.4% were classified as having a high occupational risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, with a diagnosis rate of 12.1%. The factors identified in the multivariate analysis for high occupational risk were age up to 29 years (odds ratio [OR] = 2.7, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] = 1.63-4.47), monthly family income greater than eight times the basic salary (OR= 1.8, 95%CI= 1.07-3.16), and healthcare personnel who did not participate in initial training to work in the area of patients with COVID-19 infection (OR= 2.39, 95%CI= 1.53-3.75). CONCLUSION: Encouraging training for occupational infection prevention is very important to reduce the impact of infectious diseases on healthcare personnel, especially young health professionals. COVID-19 infection among healthcare personnel has impacted the workforce in hospitals. Knowledge of the risk factors for COVID-19 infection is important for disease prevention measures. Failure to train healthcare personnel is an important risk factor for acquiring COVID-19.

Routes of SARS-Cov2 transmission in the intensive care unit: A multicentric prospective study.

BACKGROUND: The risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to health care workers in intensive care units (ICU) and the contribution of airborne and fomites to SARS-CoV-2 transmission remain unclear. To assess the rate of air and surface contamination and identify risk factors associated with this contamination in patients admitted to the ICU for acute respiratory failure due to SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. METHODS: Prospective multicentric non-interventional study conducted from June 2020 to November 2020 in 3 French ICUs. For each enrolled patient, 3 predefined surfaces were swabbed, 2 air samples at 1 m and 3 m from the patient's mouth and face masks of 3 health care workers (HCW) were collected within the first 48 h of SARS-CoV-2 positive PCR in a respiratory sample. Droplet digital PCR and quantitative PCR were performed on different samples, respectively. RESULTS: Among 150 included patients, 5 (3.6%, 95%CI: 1.2% to 8.2%) had positive ddPCR on air samples at 1 m or 3 m. Seventy-one patients (53.3%, CI95%: 44.5% to 62.0%) had at least one surface positive. Face masks worn by HCW were positive in 6 patients (4.4%, CI: 1.6% to 9.4%). The threshold of RT-qPCR of the respiratory sample performed at inclusion (odds ratio, OR= 0.88, 95%CI: 0.83 to 0.93, p < 0.0001) and the presence of diarrhea (OR= 3.28, 95%CI: 1.09 to 9.88, p = 0.037) were significantly associated with the number of contaminated surfaces. CONCLUSION: In this study, including patients admitted to the ICU for acute respiratory failure " contact route " of transmission, i.e. through fomites, seems dominant. While presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the air is rare in this specific population, the presence of diarrhea is associated to surface contamination around Covid patients.

Personal protective equipment for healthcare workers during COVID-19: Developing and applying a questionnaire and assessing associations between infection rates and shortages across 19 countries.

This study aimed to assess the preparedness of European countries regarding personal protective equipment (PPE) for health and care workers (HCWs), the COVID-19 infection rates of HCWs compared to the general working age population, and the association between these. We developed a PPE-preparedness scale based on responses to a questionnaire from experts in the Health Systems and Policy Monitor network, with a response rate of 19 out of 31 countries. COVID-19 infection data were retrieved form the European center for Disease Prevention and Control. Shortages of PPE were found in most countries, in particular in home care and long-term care. HCW infection rates, compared to the general population, varied strongly between countries, influenced by different testing regimes. We found no relationships between HCW infection rates, PPE preparedness and shortages of PPE. Improved surveillance in the population as well as for HCWS are needed to be able to better assess these relationships.

Postexposure prophylaxis for occupational exposure to selected pathogens for healthcare personnel.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Timely postexposure prophylaxis is important after an occupational exposure. Here we review select organisms, exposure opportunities in the healthcare setting, and postexposure prophylaxis regimens. RECENT FINDINGS: Needlestick injuries pose a risk of exposure to bloodborne pathogens, such as HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C. Risk mitigation strategies should be reexamined in light of newer vaccines and therapeutics. Increased vaccine hesitancy and vaccine denialisms may foster the re-emergence of some infections that have become extremely uncommon because of effective vaccines. With increasing occurrences of zoonotic infections and the ease of global spread as evidenced by COVID-19 and mpox, healthcare exposures must also consider risks related to emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases. SUMMARY: Early recognition and reporting of occupational exposures to pathogens with available postexposure prophylaxis is key to mitigating the risk of transmission. Providers should be able to evaluate the exposure and associated risks to provide prompt and appropriate postexposure prophylaxis.

Under Armour - Use of personal protective equipment for simulated CPR of COVID-19 patients: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Personal protective equipment (PPE) protects healthcare workers and patients. Data on guideline compliance on how to dress (donning) or remove (doffing) PPE and the assistance among multiple participants (buddying) are limited. This study assesses the quality of donning, doffing, and buddying of PPE in a simulated medical emergency. METHOD: Physicians handling a simulated cardiac arrest of a COVID-19 patient. Adjacent to the victim, PPE was available. The appropriateness of PPE choice was assessed by using video recordings, with each individual participant being analyzed from the beginning of the simulation scenario from two perspectives regarding the selection of items during donning and doffing, hygiene aspects, time, and team support (buddying). The primary outcome was the number of participants being appropriately protected, defined as both wearing (a) all PPE items provided, and (b) all PPE items correctly at the time of first patient contact (FPC). Secondary outcomes included the timing of participants being appropriately protected. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 28). Mann-Whitney test, chi-square test, and linear regression analysis were performed as appropriate. RESULTS: At first patient contact 21% (91/437) were correctly protected. One or more incorrect PPE items were found in 4% (19/437), whereas 61% (265/437) wore one or more PPE items incorrectly. In 14% (62/437), one or more PPE items were missing. The time interval between donning start and FPC was 66 (55-78) sec. Time to FPC was longer in correctly than in incorrectly protected participants 77 (66-87) vs. 64 (54-75) sec; p < 0.001) and decreased by 7 ± 2 s per PPE item omitted (P = 0.002). Correct doffing was observed in 192/345 (56%), while buddying occurred in 120 participants (27%), indicating that they either assisted other participants in some manner (verbally or physically) or received assistance themselves. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings imply a need for education in correct and timely PPE donning and doffing. Donning PPE as intended delayed FPC. This and the influence of buddying needs further investigation (German study register number DRKS00023184).

Impact of age on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers : Influence of nonoccupational risk factors.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV­2) infection was highest among older adults early in the COVID-19 pandemic; however, this pattern was later reversed with young adults showing the highest incidence. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors in healthcare workers (HCWs) associated with this evolution. METHODS: We conducted a survey nested within a prospective cohort study of 680 HCWs from a tertiary referral public hospital who received 2 doses of SARS-CoV­2 vaccine in January and February 2021 (VACCICO-VAO cohort). In October 2022 all participants were invited to participate in a survey. Risk factors were tested for association with COVID-19 ever, the number of COVID-19 episodes, and the time to the first episode. RESULTS: Among 350 respondents (51% response rate, 90% female, mean age 48.1 years), 323 COVID-19 episodes were diagnosed during the study period. Multivariable analysis revealed that age < 35 years vs. > 50 years (odds ratio, OR 2.12, 95% confidence interval, CI 1.27-3.51; P = 0.004) and not maintaining social distance at social events (OR: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.16-3.19; P = 0.011) were associated with a higher risk of COVID-19. Age < 35 years (hazard ratio, HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.14-2.54; P = 0.010), and not maintaining social distance (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.05-1.72; P = 0.020) were also associated with the time to the first episode. CONCLUSIONS: The youngest HCWs had the highest incidence rate of COVID-19, which was not explained by occupational risk factors or health conditions. The increase in nonoccupational exposure since the end of the lockdowns in summer 2020 could by a key factor.

Experiences of the National Post-Exposure Prophylaxis Hotline (PEPline): Occupational PEP consultation needs and trends, 2014 to 2022.

BACKGROUND: The National Clinician Consultation Center operates the Post-Exposure Prophylaxis Hotline (PEPline), a federally-funded educational resource providing bloodborne pathogen exposure management teleconsultation to US clinicians. METHODS: Sixty-seven thousand one hundred nine occupational post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) consultations (January 2014 to December 2022) were retrospectively analyzed to describe PEPline utilization and common inquiries addressed by National Clinician Consultation Center consultants. RESULTS: Most calls involved percutaneous incidents (70%); blood was the most common body fluid discussed (60%). Inpatient units were the most common exposure setting (35%) and licensed nursing professionals were the most common category of exposed workers (28%). Of 2,295 calls where workers had already initiated PEP for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention and time to first dose was known, 9% had initiated HIV PEP within 2 hours of exposure; almost 80% had initiated HIV PEP between 2 and 24 hours; 3% after 24 to 36 hours; 5% after 36 to 72 hours; and 2% after 72 hours. Calls from urgent care providers increased by 10% over time. Overall, more than 90% of callers requested support on risk assessment, including source person testing; other common questions involved PEP side effects and follow-up care. CONCLUSIONS: PEPline consultations can help raise awareness about PEP availability and timely initiation, and reduce stigma by addressing common misperceptions about bloodborne pathogen transmission mechanisms and likelihood, particularly regarding HIV.

Awareness of standard precautions, circumstances of occurrence and management of occupational exposures to body fluids among healthcare workers in a regional level referral hospital (Bertoua, Cameroon).

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCW) are exposed to infectious agents within biological materials including blood, tissues, other body fluids and on medical supplies, contaminated surfaces within the care delivery environment. Trends in occupational injuries are influenced by the level of awareness and observance of standard precautions (SP) among HCWs. This study aimed to assess the level of awareness of SP, exposure to body fluids, reporting pattern and management among HCWs in a Referral Hospital. METHODS: The present hospital-based cross-sectional study was carried out from 1st November 2020 to 31st May 2021. The exhaustive sampling method was used and a total of 120 consenting HCWs were invited to participate. A self-administered questionnaire addressed questions related to knowledge, experience, circumstances of exposure, reporting, management of occupational exposure to body fluids, hepatitis B vaccination status. Data were analyzed using R Statistic version 4.3.1. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Out of the 120 participating HCWs, 104 (86.7%) reported at least one accidental exposure to body fluids over the last year. Men (aOR = 4.19; p = 0.277) and HCWs aged 35 and over (aOR = 4.11; p = 0.114) were more at risk for AEB even though the difference was not statistically significant. Nurses/midwives (aOR = 65.9; p-value = 0.0005) and cleaners (aOR = 14.7; p-value = 0.0438) faced the highest risk of exposure. Lack of knowledge (79%) and patient agitation (49%) were the most reported reasons for exposure. Half of the participants (53%) reported that they used a personal protective equipment during care. Face mask (59.2%) and gowns (30.8%) were the most commonly used PPE. Most HCWs (62%) did not report AEB. Half of the affected HCWs (50.8%) received a course of post-exposure antiretroviral therapy. Few HCWs (4.2%) were fully immunized against Hepatitis B. CONCLUSIONS: Most HCWs reported an accidental exposure to body fluids over the last year. Midwives and nurses were disproportionally affected socio-professional groups. Two-thirds of the AEB were undeclared. Only half of the participants reported using PPE systematically. Hepatitis B vaccination coverage was low. There is need to strengthen the observance of standard precautions, including preventive vaccination and the systematic reporting and management of AEB.

[Bad luck or a common reality? Multiple exposures a nurse to potentially infectious material: a case report]. / Pech czy powszechna rzeczywistosc? Liczne ekspozycje pielegniarki na material potencjalnie zakazny: opis przypadku.

Presented is the case of a nurse who had 4 occupational exposures to potentially infectious material between December 2020 and June 2022. In 2 of the cases, the source patient was unknown, so pharmacological HIV post-exposure prophylaxis was implemented (in 1 of these cases, the nurse developed weakness and increased dyspeptic symptoms, necessitating a change in the antiretroviral medications used). During the interview collection, the nurse reported that multiple exposures to potentially infectious material are common in her work environment, but most of these are not reported. This is supported by the results of several studies devoted to the problem of non-reporting of occupational exposures by health care workers. However, there is significant discrepancy in the results of these studies, which may be due to different methods. The authors of this article believe that after 10 years since the entry into force of the regulation of the Minister of Health standardizing procedures for dealing with injuries caused by sharp instruments used in the provision of health care services, a serious problem remains of non-reporting of cases by employees (resulting in a lack of post-exposure prophylaxis). The authors call for the introduction of a nationwide reporting system. There is also a need to increase the importance of prophylaxis of stabbings and to improve the quality of training of medical personnel in post-exposure prophylaxis procedures. Med Pr Work Health Saf. 2024;75(2):173-179.

Reducing airborne transmissible diseases in perioperative environments.

The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed our understanding of aerosol transmissible disease and the measures required to minimise transmission. Anaesthesia providers are often in close proximity to patients and other hospital staff for prolonged periods while working in operating and procedure rooms. Although enhanced ventilation provides some protection from aerosol transmissible disease in these work areas, close proximity and long duration of exposure have the opposite effect. Surgical masks provide only minimal additional protection. Surgical patients are also at risk from viral and bacterial aerosols. Despite having recently experienced the most significant pandemic in 100 yr, we continue to lack adequate understanding of the true risks encountered from aerosol transmissible diseases in the operating room, and the best course of action to protect patients and healthcare workers from them in the future. Nevertheless, hospitals can take specific actions now by providing respirators for routine use, encouraging staff to utilise respirators routinely, establishing triggers for situations that require respirator use, educating staff concerning the prevention of aerosol transmissible diseases, and providing portable air purifiers for perioperative spaces with low levels of ventilation.

Aerosol-generating procedures and associated control/mitigation measures: Position paper from the Canadian Dental Hygienists Association and the American Dental Hygienists' Association.

Background: Since the outbreak of COVID-19, how to reduce the risk of spreading viruses and other microorganisms while performing aerosolgenerating procedures (AGPs) has become a challenging question within the dental and dental hygiene communities. The purpose of this position paper is to summarize the evidence of the effectiveness of various mitigation methods used to reduce the risk of infection transmission during AGPs in dentistry. Methods: The authors searched 6 databases-MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar-for relevant scientific evidence published between January 2012 and December 2022 to answer 6 research questions about the risk of transmission, methods, devices, and personal protective equipment (PPE) used to reduce contact with microbial pathogens and limit the spread of aerosols. Results: A total of 78 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The literature on the risk of infection transmission including SARS-CoV-2 between dental hygienists and their patients is limited. Although several mouthrinses are effective in reducing bacterial contaminations in aerosols, their effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 is also limited. The combined use of eyewear, masks, and face shields is effective in preventing contamination of the facial and nasal region while performing AGPs. High-volume evacuation with or without an intraoral suction, low-volume evacuation, saliva ejector, and rubber dam (when appropriate) have shown effectiveness in reducing aerosol transmission beyond the generation site. Finally, the appropriate combination of ventilation and filtration in dental operatories is effective in limiting the spread of aerosols. Discussion and Conclusion: Aerosols produced during clinical procedures can pose a risk of infection transmission between dental hygienists and their patients. The implementation of practices supported by available evidence will ensure greater patient and provider safety in oral health settings. More studies in oral health clinical environments would shape future practices and protocols, ultimately to ensure the delivery of safe clinical care.

Contexte: Depuis l'éclosion de la COVID-19, la façon de réduire le risque de propagation de virus et d'autres microorganismes tout en effectuant des interventions générant des aérosols (IGA) est devenue un enjeu complexe au sein des communautés de la médecine dentaire et de l'hygiène dentaire. L'objectif de cet exposé de position est de résumer les données probantes de l'efficacité des diverses méthodes d'atténuation utilisées pour réduire le risque de transmission des infections pendant les IGA en médecine dentaire. Méthodes: Les auteurs ont effectué des recherches dans MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library et Google Scholar pour trouver des preuves scientifiques pertinentes publiées entre janvier 2012 et décembre 2022 afin de répondre à 6 questions de recherche sur le risque de transmission, les méthodes, les dispositifs et l'équipement de protection individuelle (EPI) utilisés pour réduire le contact avec les agents pathogènes microbiens et limiter la propagation des aérosols. Résultats: Au total, 78 études ont satisfait aux critères d'admissibilité. La documentation est limitée en ce qui concerne le risque de transmission des infections, y compris le SRAS-CoV-2, entre les hygiénistes dentaires et leurs patients. Bien que plusieurs rince-bouches soient efficaces pour réduire la contamination bactérienne dans les aérosols, leur efficacité contre le SRAS-CoV-2 est limitée. L'utilisation combinée de lunettes, de masques et d'écrans faciaux est efficace pour prévenir la contamination de la région faciale et nasale lors de l'exécution d'IGA. L'évacuation à volume élevé avec ou sans aspiration intraorale, l'évacuation à faible volume, l'aspirateur de salive et la digue dentaire en caoutchouc (le cas échéant) ont démontré une efficacité à réduire la transmission des aérosols au-delà du site de production. Enfin, la combinaison appropriée de ventilation et de filtration dans les salles de traitement dentaire permet de limiter efficacement la propagation des aérosols. Discussion et conclusion: Les aérosols produits lors des interventions cliniques peuvent présenter un risque de transmission des infections entre les hygiénistes dentaires et leurs patients. La mise en oeuvre de pratiques appuyées par les données probantes disponibles assurera une plus grande sécurité des patients et des prestataires dans les milieux de santé buccodentaire. Un plus grand nombre d'études dans les environnements cliniques de santé buccodentaire permettrait de façonner les pratiques et les protocoles futurs dans le but d'assurer la prestation sécuritaire des soins cliniques.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infections Among Emergency Health Care Personnel: Impact on Delivery of United States Emergency Medical Care, 2020.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: In the early months of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and before vaccine availability, there were concerns that infected emergency department (ED) health care personnel could present a threat to the delivery of emergency medical care. We examined how the pandemic affected staffing levels and whether COVID-19 positive staff were potentially infectious at work in a cohort of US ED health care personnel in 2020. METHODS: The COVID-19 Evaluation of Risks in Emergency Departments (Project COVERED) project was a multicenter prospective cohort study of US ED health care personnel conducted from May to December 2020. During surveillance, health care personnel completed weekly electronic surveys and underwent periodic serology and nasal reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing for SARS-CoV-2, and investigators captured weekly data on health care facility COVID-19 prevalence and health care personnel staffing. Surveys asked about symptoms, potential exposures, work attendance, personal protective equipment use, and behaviors. RESULTS: We enrolled 1,673 health care personnel who completed 29,825 person weeks of surveillance. Eighty-nine (5.3%) health care personnel documented 90 (0.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2% to 0.4%) person weeks of missed work related to documented or concerns for COVID-19 infection. Health care personnel experienced symptoms of COVID-19 during 1,256 (4.2%) person weeks and worked at least one shift whereas symptomatic during 1,042 (83.0%) of these periods. Seventy-five (4.5%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the surveillance period, including 43 (57.3%) who indicated they never experienced symptoms; 74 (98.7%; 95% CI 90.7% to 99.9%) infected health care personnel worked at least one shift during the initial period of infection, and 71 (94.7%) continued working until laboratory confirmation of their infection. Physician staffing was not associated with the facility or community COVID-19 levels within any time frame studied (Kendall tau's 0.02, 0.056, and 0.081 for no shift, one-week time shift, and 2-week time shift, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: During the first wave of the pandemic, COVID-19 infections in ED health care personnel were infrequent, and the time lost from the workforce was minimal. Health care personnel frequently reported for work while infected with SARS-CoV-2 before laboratory confirmation. The ED staffing levels were poorly correlated with facility and community COVID-19 burden.