Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment. This is the first update of a Cochrane review published 6 May 2022, with one new study added. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces aimed at reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to other interventions or no intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collections, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv to 13 April 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by coworkers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls (i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias, and GRADE methods to evaluate the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 2 studies including a total of 16,014 participants. Elimination-of-exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards, which was an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) working at 86 schools were assigned to the test-based attendance strategy. The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (rate ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 working days) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 working days) in the intervention group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71% in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention. The trial did not measure our other outcomes of SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, or hospitalisation. We found seven ongoing studies using elimination-of-hazard strategies, six RCTs and one non-randomised trial. Administrative control interventions We found one ongoing RCT that aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine in preventing COVID-19 infection and reducing disease severity. Combinations of eligible interventions We included one non-randomised study examining a combination of elimination of hazards, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment. The study was conducted in two large retail companies in Italy in 2020. The study compared a safety operating protocol, measurement of body temperature and oxygen saturation upon entry, and a SARS-CoV-2 test strategy with a minimum activity protocol. Both groups received protective equipment. All employees working at the companies during the study period were included: 1987 in the intervention company and 1798 in the control company. The study did not report an outcome of interest for this systematic review. Other intervention categories We did not find any studies in this category. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. A test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absenteeism rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. The non-randomised study included in our updated search did not report any outcome of interest for this Cochrane review. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective. The included RCT did not report on any of our other primary outcomes (i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events). We identified no completed studies on any other interventions specified in this review; however, eight eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.

Effectiveness and safety of measures to prevent infections and other complications associated with peripheral intravenous catheters: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVCs) contribute substantially to the global burden of infections. This systematic review assessed 24 infection prevention and control (IPC) interventions to prevent PIVC-associated infections and other complications. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, WHO Global Index Medicus, CINAHL and reference lists for controlled studies, from January 1, 1980-March 16, 2023. We dually selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data, and rated the certainty of evidence (COE). For outcomes with three or more trials, we conducted Bayesian random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: 105 studies met our prespecified eligibility criteria, addressing 16 of the 24 research questions; no studies were identified for eight research questions.Based on findings of low to high COE, wearing gloves reduced the risk for overall adverse events related to insertion compared to no gloves (one non-randomised controlled trial [RCT]; adjusted risk ratio [RR]: 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.33-0.85), and catheter removal based on defined schedules potentially resulted in a lower phlebitis/thrombophlebitis incidence (10 RCTs; RR: 0.74, 95% credible interval 0.49-1.01) compared to clinically indicated removal in adults. In neonates, chlorhexidine reduced the phlebitis score compared to non-chlorhexidine-containing disinfection (one RCT; 0.14 versus 0.68, p = 0.003). No statistically significant differences were found for other measures. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their frequent use and concern about PIVC-associated complications, this review underscores the urgent need for more high-quality studies on effective IPC methods regarding safe PIVC management. In the absence of valid evidence, adherence to standard precaution measures and documentation remain the most important principles to curb PIVC complications.

Characteristics of shared decision making in Romania from the patient perspective: A cross-sectional multicentric study.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is very important from patients' perspective. This process has not yet been evaluated in Romania. The study aims to evaluate SDM from the patients' perspective and to evaluate patients' characteristics that associate with SDM. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional multicentric study comprising eight recruitment centres was performed. Inpatients and outpatients who referred to Hospital Units treating autoimmune diseases or atrial fibrillation were included. Another sample consisted of members of the Autoimmune Disease Patient Society, who completed an online anonymous questionnaire. All participants completed the Romanian translated version of the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), as these samples were used for the validation of this questionnaire, too. Patients had to refer to the visit in which the decision concerning the antithrombotic treatment was taken (atrial fibrillation patients), or the immunosuppressive treatment was last time changed (autoimmune disease patients). Ordinal regression having the total SDM score as dependent variable was used. RESULTS: A total of 665 questionnaires were filled in within the hospital setting (n = 324; 48.7%) and online (n = 341; 51.3%). The median score for SDM was 34 of 45, but it differed between hospital completion -39/45 and online completion (anonymous) -20/45 (P < .001). Patients with higher education were influenced most by the setting, giving the best marks in hospital and low marks online, while those with lower education gave lower marks in both settings. In ordinal regression with SDM score as dependent variable, hospital completion of the questionnaire (OR = 9.5, 95% confidence interval, 5.69-16), collagen disease diagnosis (OR = 2.4, 95% confidence interval, 1.39-4.14), and immunosuppressive treatment (OR = 2.16, 95% confidence interval, 1.43-3.26) were independent predictors. CONCLUSION: In our study, full anonymity was associated with significantly lower scores for the SDM process. The patients with higher education were most influenced by this condition, while those with the lowest education were the most critical.

Romanian version of SDM-Q-9 validation in Internal Medicine and Cardiology setting: a multicentric cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is becoming more and more important for the patient-physician interaction. There has not been a study in Romania evaluating patients' point of view in the SDM process yet. Therefore, the present study aims to evaluate the psychometric parameters of the translated Romanian version of SDM-Q-9. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multicentric cross-sectional study was performed comprising eight recruitment centers. The sample consisted of in- and outpatients who referred to Hospital Units for treatment for atrial fibrillation or collagen diseases. Furthermore, patients who were members of Autoimmune Disease Patient Society were able to participate via an online survey. All participants completed the Romanian translated SDM-Q-9. RESULTS: Altogether, 665 questionnaires were filled in within the hospital setting (n = 324; 48.7%) and online (n = 341; 51.3%). The Romanian version had good internal consistency (Cronbach α coefficient of 0.96.) Corrected item correlations were good ranging from 0.64 to 0.89 with low corrected item correlations for item 1 and item 7. PCA found a one-factorial solution (similar with previous reports) but the first item had the lowest loading. CONCLUSION: SDM-Q-9 is a useful tool for evaluation and improvement in health care that was validated in Romania and can be used in clinical setting in this country.