Return to normal operations: COVID-19 mitigation strategies for workplaces.

As spikes and resurgences of COVID-19 cases continue to increase in different geographical regions across the United States, more and more companies are left with numerous questions about reopening or restarting their operations. The current pandemic in the United States poses unique challenges unlike any other for businesses and employers as they begin to reopen. Businesses and employers are forced to ensure that they are not only in compliance with federal guidances but also with state and local guidances. In addition to the complex and ever evolving guidances, we are still learning about and adapting best practices during these reopening phases. Therefore, it is crucial for businesses to stay up-to-date not only with the released guidances but also with the latest understanding and information about SARS-CoV-2. As part of reopening, it is crucial for businesses to have comprehensive reopening plans prior to restart of operation. These plans must be clear, concise, and flexible enough to include updated guidances and information. In this publication, we describe reopening frameworks, considerations, and strategies that can be used as a starting point for businesses to further optimize and tailor to their unique operations.

Assessing and managing the risks of COVID-19 in the workplace: Applying industrial hygiene (IH)/occupational and environmental health and safety (OEHS) frameworks.

As businesses attempt to reopen to varying degrees amid the current coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, industrial hygiene (IH) and occupational and environmental health and safety (OEHS) professionals have been challenged with assessing and managing the risks of COVID-19 in the workplace. In general, the available IH/OEHS tools were designed to control hazards originating in the workplace; however, attempts to tailor them specifically to the control of infectious disease outbreaks have been limited. This analysis evaluated the IH decision-making framework (Anticipate, Recognize, Evaluate, Control, and Confirm ("ARECC")) as it relates to biological hazards, in general, and to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), specifically. Available IH/OEHS risk assessment and risk management tools (e.g. control banding and the hierarchy of controls) are important components of the ARECC framework. These conceptual models, however, were primarily developed for controlling chemical hazards and must be adapted to the unique characteristics of highly infectious and virulent pathogens, such as SARS-CoV-2. This assessment provides an overview of the key considerations for developing occupational infection control plans, selecting the best available controls, and applying other emerging tools (e.g. quantitative microbial risk assessment), with the ultimate goal of facilitating risk management decisions during the current global pandemic.

Advancing toward normal operations for arenas and stadiums.

The reopening of arenas and stadiums following closures due to the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic presents unique challenges related to large crowds and close contact between players, vendors, and spectators. While each venue should be assessed individually for development and implementation of reopening plans, the general guidance presented in this document can serve as a minimum baseline for considerations to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission in these venues. The intention of these guidelines is to provide a layered approach to risk mitigation for various aspects of particular concern in arenas and stadiums, including crowd management, tailgating and parking, restrooms, high-contact surfaces, face masks, food and merchandising, communications, athletes and support staff, press and third parties, intermissions/breaks, and downtime. The implementation of these multifaceted approaches in each area of concern, along with the integration of regulations and requirements from local, state, and federal government bodies and agencies, will reduce the risk of a single point of failure and offer some protection to those at arenas and stadiums from COVID-19 transmission. The approaches outlined are dynamic and should be regularly reviewed and revised as new information becomes available regarding the transmission of COVID-19.

Current understanding and future directions for an occupational infectious disease standard.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has demonstrated a need for an infectious disease standard that will promote a safe and healthy work environment and assure business continuity. The current pandemic has revealed gaps in workplace preparedness and employee protections to microbial exposures. Federal and state government agencies have responded by providing interim guidelines and stop-gap measures that continue to evolve and vary in approach and required controls. This interim and inconsistent approach has resulted in confusion on the part of businesses as they work toward reopening during the pandemic and uncertainty as to the efficacy of required or suggested controls. Moving forward, the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration, with guidance from the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, should establish consistent and effective strategies through a nationwide standard to address the potential microbial exposures in the workplace. Such a standard will require effective worker protections from infectious diseases and assure business continuity.

Mountaineering-induced bilateral plantar paresthesia.

CONTEXT: Flat feet (pes planus) have been implicated in multiple musculoskeletal complaints, which are often exacerbated by lack of appropriate arch support or intense exercise. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) on a patient (K.K.H.) with mountaineering-induced bilateral plantar paresthesia and to assess the association of pes planus with paresthesia in members of the mountaineering expedition party that accompanied the patient. METHODS: A patient history and physical examination of the musculoskeletal system were performed. The hindfoot, midfoot, forefoot, big toe, and distal toes were evaluated for neurologic function, specifically pin, vibration, 10-g weight sensitivity, and 2-point discrimination during the 4-month treatment period. To determine if OMT could augment recovery, the patient volunteered to use the contralateral leg as a control, with no OMT performed on the sacrum or lower back. To determine if pes planus was associated with mountaineering-induced paresthesia, a sit-to-stand navicular drop test was performed on members of the expedition party. RESULTS: Osteopathic manipulative treatment improved fibular head motion and muscular flexibility and released fascial restrictions of the soleus, hamstring, popliteus, and gastrocnemius. The patient's perception of stiffness, pain, and overall well-being improved with OMT. However, OMT did not shorten the duration of paresthesia. Of the 9 expedition members, 2 experienced paresthesia. Average navicular drop on standing was 5.1 mm for participants with no paresthesia vs 8.9 mm for participants with paresthesia (t test, P<.01; Mann-Whitney rank sum test, P=.06). CONCLUSION: These preliminary findings suggest that weakened arches may contribute to mountaineering-induced plantar paresthesia. Early diagnosis of pes planus and treatment with orthotics (which may prevent neuropathies)--or, less ideally, OMT after extreme exercise--should be sought to relieve tension and discomfort.

Efficacy of osteopathic manipulative treatment for low back pain in euhydrated and hypohydrated conditions: a randomized crossover trial.

CONTEXT: Low back pain (LBP) affects up to 85% of all persons at some time in life and is a condition for which osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) has been shown to be beneficial. Measures that can improve the efficacy of OMT would further benefit patients; one such measure, hydration status, was explored in this study. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is a relationship between a patient's hydration status before OMT for LBP and the outcome of that treatment. DESIGN: A randomized, single-blind crossover study conducted from March to December 2010. SETTING: Outpatient academic center. PARTICIPANTS: Eight women and 11 men with LBP of 1 to 12 months duration. INTERVENTIONS: Both euhydrated and hypohydrated conditions were achieved in each participant by modifying water consumption for 36 hours before OMT sessions. PARTICIPANTS received 2 sessions of OMT, each in a different hydration condition and with a 1-week washout period in between. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pre- and posttreatment visual analog scale scores for pain, number and severity of somatic dysfunction as scored on the somatic dysfunction severity scale, and number of asymmetric landmarks found on the osteopathic standing structural examination. RESULTS: Improvements in total and severe number of lumbar somatic dysfunction (P=.001 and P=.013, respectively) and number of asymmetric landmarks on standing structural examination (P=.002) were found to be greater in the euhydrated vs the hypohydrated condition. PARTICIPANTS had a mean of 2 fewer areas of posttreatment somatic dysfunction when euhydrated than when hypohydrated, and they had a mean decrease of 2 asymmetric landmarks on the standing structural examination when euhydrated but none when hypohydrated. Osteopathic manipulative treatment improved self-reported pain immediately after treatment regardless of hydration status. CONCLUSION: Outcome measures improved for all participants, with greater improvement observed after participants were treated in the euhydrated condition than when in the hypohydrated condition. It is reasonable for clinicians to recommend that patients increase their hydration to optimize treatment.