A qualitative study on safety perception among healthcare workers of a tertiary academic care center during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from exposure to SARS-CoV-2 during patient care is central to managing the current pandemic. Higher levels of trust in personal protective equipment (PPE) and infection prevention and control (IPC) strategies have been previously related to lower levels of emotional exhaustion, yet little is known on how to achieve such a perception of safety. We thus sought to identify institutional actions, strategies and policies related to HCWs' safety perception during the early phase of the pandemic at a tertiary care center in Switzerland by interviewing HCWs from different clinics, professions, and positions. METHODS: For this qualitative study, 36 face-to-face semi-structured interviews were performed. Interviews were based on a guide that addressed the perception of institutional strategies and policies during the first phase of the pandemic in March 2020. The participants included doctors (n = 19) and nurses (n = 17) in senior and non-senior positions from eight clinics in the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland, all involved in patient care. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis and organized using MAXQDA (VERBI Software GmbH, Berlin). FINDINGS: Five recurring themes were identified to affect HCWs' perception of their safety during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: (1) transparency and clarity of information, (2) communication on the availability of PPE (with the provision of information alone increasing the feeling of safety even if supplies of PPE were reported as low), (3) uniformity and consistency of guidelines, (4) digital resources to support face-to-face teaching (although personal information transfer is still being considered superior in terms of strengthening safety perception) and (5) support and appreciation for the work performed. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies institutional policies and actions influencing HCWs' safety perception during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the most important of which is the factor of transparent communication. This knowledge reveals potential areas of action critical to improving preparedness and management in hospitals faced with an infectious disease threat.

The experience of European hospital-based health care workers on following infection prevention and control procedures and their wellbeing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Working under pandemic conditions exposes health care workers (HCWs) to infection risk and psychological strain. A better understanding of HCWs' experiences of following local infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures during COVID-19 is urgently needed to inform strategies for protecting the psychical and psychological health of HCWs. The objective of this study was therefore to capture the perceptions of hospital HCWs on local IPC procedures and the impact on their emotional wellbeing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. METHODS: Participants were recruited in two sampling rounds of an international cross-sectional survey. Sampling took place between 31 March and 17 April 2020 via existing research networks and between 14 May and 31 August 2020 via online convenience sampling. Main outcome measures were behavioural determinants of HCWs' adherence to IPC guidelines and the WHO-5 Well-Being Index, a validated scale of 0-100 reflecting emotional wellbeing. The WHO-5 was interpreted as a score below or above 50 points, a cut-off score used in previous literature to screen for depression. RESULTS: 2289 HCWs from 40 countries in Europe participated. Mean age was 42 (±11) years, 66% were female, 47% and 39% were medical doctors and nurses, respectively. 74% (n = 1699) of HCWs were directly treating patients with COVID-19, of which 32% (n = 527) reported they were fearful of caring for these patients. HCWs reported high levels of concern about COVID-19 infection risk to themselves (71%) and their family (82%) as a result of their job. 40% of HCWs considered that getting infected with COVID-19 was not within their control. This feeling was more common among junior than senior HCWs (46% versus 38%, P value < .01). Sufficient COVID-19-specific IPC training, confidence in PPE use and institutional trust were positively associated with the feeling that becoming infected with COVID-19 was within their control. Female HCWs were more likely than males to report a WHO-5 score below 50 points (aOR 1.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-1.8). CONCLUSIONS: In Europe, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a differential impact on those providing direct COVID-19 patient care, junior staff and women. Health facilities must be aware of these differential impacts, build trust and provide tailored support for this vital workforce during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

Compliance with hand disinfection in the surgical area of an orthopedic university clinic: results of an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene using alcoholic hand rub solution is essential for the prevention of surgical site infections. There are several opportunities for hygienic hand disinfection (termed "hand hygiene" in the following) during immediate pre-, intra- and postoperative orthopedic patient care. However, the level of hand hygiene compliance among surgical and anesthesia staff in this context is unclear. Therefore, we conducted an observational study in operating theatres of an orthopedic university clinic in northern Germany during July and August 2020. METHODS: One trained person directly and comprehensively observed hand hygiene compliance of surgical and anesthesia staff according to the WHO "My 5 moments for hand hygiene" model (WHO-5). In addition to cross-tabulations with Chi2 tests, multiple logistic regression models were used to study associations between occupational group, medical specialty, and compliance (both overall and for each WHO-5 indication). Models were adjusted for hand hygiene opportunities being associated with female or male healthcare workers, being located within or outside the operation room, and occurring in adult or pediatric surgery. RESULTS: In total, 1145 hand hygiene opportunities during 16 surgeries were observed. The overall compliance was 40.8% (95% CI 37.9-43.6%), with a larger difference between surgical versus anesthesia staff (28.4% vs. 46.1%, p < 0.001) than between physicians versus nurses (38.5% vs. 42.9%, p = 0.13). Adjusting for sex, place of observation, and adult versus pediatric operation theatre, logistic regression analyses revealed a significant interaction between medical specialty and occupational group (p < 0.001). In particular, the odds for compliance were higher for anesthesiologists (47.9%) than for surgeons (19.6%) (OR = 4.8, 95% CI 3.0-7.6). In addition, compliance was higher in pediatric surgery (OR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.4-2.6). In general, WHO-5-stratified results were in line with these overall patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Hygienic hand disinfection compliance was approximately 41%. Notably, surgeons performed worse than anesthesiologists did. These results indicate that hand hygiene compliance in orthopedic surgery needs to be improved. Tailored interventions promise to be an appropriate way to address each occupational group's specific needs.

High adherence to national IPC guidelines as key to sustainable VRE control in Swiss hospitals: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Vancomycin resistant enterococci (VRE) are on the rise in many European hospitals. In 2018, Switzerland experienced its largest nosocomial VRE outbreak. The national center for infection prevention (Swissnoso) elaborated recommendations for controlling this outbreak and published guidelines to prevent epidemic and endemic VRE spread. The primary goal of this study was to evaluate adherence to this new guideline and its potential impact on the VRE epidemiology in Swiss acute care hospitals. METHODS: In March 2020, Swissnoso distributed a survey among all Swiss acute care hospitals. The level of adherence as well as changes of infection prevention and control (IPC) strategies in the years 2018 and 2019 after publication of the national guidelines were asked along with an inventory on VRE surveillance and outbreaks. RESULTS: Data of 97/146 (66%) participants were available, representing 81.6% of all acute care beds operated in Switzerland in 2019. The vast majority-72/81 (88%) responding hospitals-have entirely or largely adopted our new national guideline. 38/51 (74.5%) hospitals which experienced VRE cases were significantly more likely to have changed their IPC strategies than those 19/38 (50%) hospitals without VRE cases p = 0.017). The new IPC guidelines included (1) introduction of targeted admission screening in 89.5%, (2) screening of close contacts of VRE cases in 56%, and (3) contact precaution for suspected VRE cases 58% of these hospitals. 52 (54%) hospitals reported 569 new VRE cases in 2018 including 14 bacteremia, and 472 new cases in 2019 with 10 bacteremia. The ten largest outbreaks encountered between 2018 and 2019 included 671 VRE cases, of which most (93.4%) consisted of colonization events, 29 (4.3%) infections and 15 (2.2%) bacteremia. CONCLUSION: Wide adoption of this VRE control guideline seemed to have a positive effect on VRE containment in Swiss acute care hospitals over two years, even if its long-term impact on the VRE epidemiology remains to be evaluated. Broad dissemination and strict implementation of a uniform national guideline may therefore serve as model for other countries to fight VRE epidemics on a national level.

Approaches to multidrug-resistant organism prevention and control in long-term care facilities for older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite clear evidence of benefits in acute-care hospitals, controversy over the effectiveness of IPC measures for MDROs is perceptible and evidence-based practice has not been established. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of IPC interventions on MDRO colonization and infections in LTCFs. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from inception to September 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Original and peer-reviewed articles examining the post-intervention effects on MDRO colonization and infections in LTCFs. INTERVENTIONS: (i) Horizontal interventions: administrative engagement, barrier precautions, education, environmental cleaning, hand hygiene, performance improvement, and source control; and (ii) vertical intervention: active surveillance plus decolonization. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS: We employed a random-effects meta-analysis to estimate the pooled risk ratios (pRRs) for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization by intervention duration; and conducted subgroup analyses on different intervention components. Study quality was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tools. RESULTS: Of 3877 studies identified, 19 were eligible for inclusion (eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs)). Studies reported outcomes associated with MRSA (15 studies), vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE) (four studies), Clostridium difficile (two studies), and Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) (two studies). Eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pRRs were close to unity regardless of intervention duration (long: RR 0.81 [95% CI 0.60-1.10]; medium: RR 0.81 [95% CI 0.25-2.68]; short: RR 0.95 [95% CI 0.53-1.69]). Vertical interventions in studies with a small sample size showed significant reductions in MRSA colonization while horizontal interventions did not. All studies involving active administrative engagement reported reductions. The risk of bias was high in all but two studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis did not show any beneficial effects from IPC interventions on MRSA reductions in LTCFs. Our findings highlight that the effectiveness of interventions in these facilities is likely conditional on resource availability-particularly decolonization and barrier precautions, due to their potential adverse events and uncertain effectiveness. Hence, administrative engagement is crucial for all effective IPC programmes. LTCFs should consider a pragmatic approach to reinforce standard precautions as routine practice and implement barrier precautions and decolonization to outbreak responses only.

Impact of COVID-19 on hospital hand hygiene performance: a multicentre observational study using group electronic monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Reliable reports on hand hygiene performance throughout the COVID-19 pandemic are lacking as most hospitals continue to rely on direct observation to measure this quality indicator. Using group electronic hand hygiene monitoring, we sought to assess the impact of COVID-19 on adherence to hand hygiene. METHODS: Across 12 Ontario hospitals (5 university and 7 community teaching hospitals), a group electronic hand hygiene monitoring system was installed before the pandemic to provide continuous measurement of hand hygiene adherence across 978 ward and 367 critical care beds. We performed an interrupted time-series study of institutional hand hygiene adherence in association with a COVID-19 inpatient census and the Ontario daily count of COVID-19 cases during a baseline period (Nov. 1, 2019, to Feb. 29, 2020), the pre-peak period of the first wave of the pandemic (Mar. 1 to Apr. 24, 2020), and the post-peak period of the first wave (Apr. 25 to July 5, 2020). We used a Poisson regression model to assess the association between the hospital COVID-19 census and institutional hand hygiene adherence while adjusting for the correlation within inpatient units. RESULTS: At baseline, the rate of hand hygiene adherence was 46.0% (6 325 401 of 13 750 968 opportunities) and this improved beginning in March 2020 to a daily peak of 79.3% (66 640 of 84 026 opportunities) on Mar. 30, 2020. Each patient admitted with COVID-19 was associated with improved hand hygiene adherence (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.0621, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0619-1.0623). Increasing Ontario daily case count was similarly associated with improved hand hygiene (IRR 1.0026, 95% CI 1.0021-1.0032). After peak COVID-19 community and inpatient numbers, hand hygiene adherence declined and returned to baseline. INTERPRETATION: The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with significant improvement in hand hygiene adherence, measured using a group electronic monitoring system. Future research should seek to determine whether strategies that focus on health care worker perception of personal risk can achieve sustainable improvements in hand hygiene performance.

Infection control measures to prevent outbreaks of COVID-19 in Quebec hemodialysis units: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Limited space and resources are potential obstacles to infection prevention and control (IPAC) measures in in-centre hemodialysis units. We aimed to assess IPAC measures implemented in Quebec's hemodialysis units during the spring of 2020, describe the characteristics of these units and document the cumulative infection rates during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: For this cross-sectional survey, we invited leaders from 54 hemodialysis units in Quebec to report information on the physical characteristics of the unit and their perceptions of crowdedness, which IPAC measures were implemented from Mar. 1 to June 30, 2020, and adherence to and feasibility of appropriate IPAC measures. Participating units were contacted again in March 2021 to collect information on the number of COVID-19 cases in order to derive the cumulative infection rate of each unit. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 38 of the 54 units contacted (70% response rate), which provided care to 4485 patients at the time of survey completion. Fourteen units (37%) had implemented appropriate IPAC measures by 3 weeks after Mar. 1, and all 38 units had implemented them by 6 weeks after. One-third of units were perceived as crowded. General measures, masks and screening questionnaires were used in more than 80% of units, and various distancing measures in 55%-71%; reduction in dialysis frequency was rare. Data on cumulative infection rates were obtained from 27 units providing care to 4227 patients. The cumulative infection rate varied from 0% to 50% (median 11.3%, interquartile range 5.2%-20.2%) and was higher than the reported cumulative infection rate in the corresponding region in 23 (85%) of the 27 units. INTERPRETATION: Rates of COVID-19 infection among hemodialysis recipients in Quebec were elevated compared to the general population during the first year of the pandemic, and although hemodialysis units throughout the province implemented appropriate IPAC measures rapidly in the spring of 2020, many units were crowded and could not maintain physical distancing. Future hemodialysis units should be designed to minimize airborne and droplet transmission of infection.

A pre-pandemic COVID-19 assessment of the costs of prevention and control interventions for healthcare associated infections in medical and surgical wards in Québec.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) present a major public health problem that significantly affects patients, health care providers and the entire healthcare system. Infection prevention and control programs limit HCAIs and are an indispensable component of patient and healthcare worker safety. The clinical best practices (CBPs) of handwashing, screening, hygiene and sanitation of surfaces and equipment, and basic and additional precautions (e.g., isolation, and donning and removing personal protective equipment) are keystones of infection prevention and control (IPC). There is a lack of rigorous IPC economic evaluations demonstrating the cost-benefit of IPC programs in general, and a lack of assessment of the value of investing in CBPs more specifically. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess overall costs associated with each of the four CBPs. METHODS: Across two Quebec hospitals, 48 healthcare workers were observed for two hours each shift, for two consecutive weeks. A modified time-driven activity-based costing framework method was used to capture all human resources (time) and materials (e.g. masks, cloths, disinfectants) required for each clinical best practice. Using a hospital perspective with a time horizon of one year, median costs per CBP per hour, as well as the cost per action, were calculated and reported in 2018 Canadian dollars ($). Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 1831 actions were recorded. The median cost of hand hygiene (N = 867) was 20 cents per action. For cleaning and disinfection of surfaces (N = 102), the cost was 21 cents per action, while cleaning of small equipment (N = 85) was 25 cents per action. Additional precautions median cost was $4.1 per action. The donning or removing or personal protective equipment (N = 720) cost was 76 cents per action. Finally, the total median costs for the five categories of clinical best practiced assessed were 27 cents per action. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of clinical best practices were low, from 20 cents to $4.1 per action. This study provides evidence based arguments with which to support the allocation of resources to infection prevention and control practices that directly affect the safety of patients, healthcare workers and the public. Further research of costing clinical best care practices is warranted.

Extended Epidemiological Models for Weak Economic Region: Case Studies of the Spreading of COVID-19 in the South Asian Subcontinental Countries.

The ascendancy of coronavirus has become widespread all around the world. For the prevention of viral transmission, the pattern of disease is explored. Epidemiological modeling is a vital component of the research. These models assist in studying various aspects of infectious diseases, such as death, recovery, and infection rates. Coronavirus trends across several countries may analyze sufficiently using SIR, SEIR, and SIQR models. Across this study, we propose two modified versions of the SEIRD method for evaluating the transmission of this infectious disease in the South Asian countries, more precisely, in the south Asian subcontinent. The SEIRD model is updated further by fusing some new factors, namely, isolation for the suspected people and recovery and death of the people who are not under the coverage of healthcare schemes or reluctant to receive treatment for various catastrophes. We will investigate the influences of those ingredients on public health-related issues. Finally, we will predict and display the infection scenario and relevant elements with the concluding remarks through the statistical analysis.

Correlates of protection against symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The global supply of COVID-19 vaccines remains limited. An understanding of the immune response that is predictive of protection could facilitate rapid licensure of new vaccines. Data from a randomized efficacy trial of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in the United Kingdom was analyzed to determine the antibody levels associated with protection against SARS-CoV-2. Binding and neutralizing antibodies at 28 days after the second dose were measured in infected and noninfected vaccine recipients. Higher levels of all immune markers were correlated with a reduced risk of symptomatic infection. A vaccine efficacy of 80% against symptomatic infection with majority Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant of SARS-CoV-2 was achieved with 264 (95% CI: 108, 806) binding antibody units (BAU)/ml: and 506 (95% CI: 135, not computed (beyond data range) (NC)) BAU/ml for anti-spike and anti-RBD antibodies, and 26 (95% CI: NC, NC) international unit (IU)/ml and 247 (95% CI: 101, NC) normalized neutralization titers (NF50) for pseudovirus and live-virus neutralization, respectively. Immune markers were not correlated with asymptomatic infections at the 5% significance level. These data can be used to bridge to new populations using validated assays, and allow extrapolation of efficacy estimates to new COVID-19 vaccines.

Impact of essential workers in the context of social distancing for epidemic control.

New emerging infectious diseases are identified every year, a subset of which become global pandemics like COVID-19. In the case of COVID-19, many governments have responded to the ongoing pandemic by imposing social policies that restrict contacts outside of the home, resulting in a large fraction of the workforce either working from home or not working. To ensure essential services, however, a substantial number of workers are not subject to these limitations, and maintain many of their pre-intervention contacts. To explore how contacts among such "essential" workers, and between essential workers and the rest of the population, impact disease risk and the effectiveness of pandemic control, we evaluated several mathematical models of essential worker contacts within a standard epidemiology framework. The models were designed to correspond to key characteristics of cashiers, factory employees, and healthcare workers. We find in all three models that essential workers are at substantially elevated risk of infection compared to the rest of the population, as has been documented, and that increasing the numbers of essential workers necessitates the imposition of more stringent controls on contacts among the rest of the population to manage the pandemic. Importantly, however, different archetypes of essential workers differ in both their individual probability of infection and impact on the broader pandemic dynamics, highlighting the need to understand and target intervention for the specific risks faced by different groups of essential workers. These findings, especially in light of the massive human costs of the current COVID-19 pandemic, indicate that contingency plans for future epidemics should account for the impacts of essential workers on disease spread.

COVID-19 control in the United States: the case for masking.

As of May 2021, the United States remains the world leader with 33 million of 165 million cases worldwide (20%) and 590,000 of 3.4 million deaths worldwide (17%) from COVID-19. Achieving herd immunity by disease spread and vaccination may result in 2 million to 4 million total US deaths. The future perfect of the vaccine should not be the enemy of the present good, which is masking. Masking, especially when combined with social distancing, crowd avoidance, frequent hand and face washing, increased testing capabilities, and contact tracing, is likely to prevent at least as many premature deaths as the widespread utilization of an effective and safe vaccine. Worldwide, masking is the oldest and simplest engineered control to prevent transmission of respiratory pathogens. Masking has been a cornerstone of infection control in hospitals, operating rooms, and clinics for more than a century. Unfortunately, since the epidemic began in the United States, masking has become politicized. All countries, but especially the United States, must adopt masking as an urgent necessity and a component of coordinated public health strategies to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Any economic advantages of pandemic politics are short-lived and shortsighted in comparison with public health strategies of proven benefit that can prevent needless and mostly avoidable premature deaths from COVID-19. During the worst epidemic in more than 100 years, most Americans (75%) trust their health care providers. As competent and compassionate health care professionals, we recommend that effective strategies, especially masking, and not pandemic politics, should inform all rational clinical and public health decision-making.

A perspective on hospital-acquired (nosocomial) infection control of COVID-19: usefulness of spatial separation between wards and airborne isolation unit.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has imposed a considerable burden on hospitals and healthcare workers (HCWs) worldwide, increasing the risk of outbreaks and nosocomial transmission to 'non-COVID-19' patients, who represent the highest-risk population in terms of mortality, and HCWs. Since HCWs are at the interface between hospitals on the one hand and the community on the other, they are potential reservoirs, carriers, or victims of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 cross-transmission. In addition, there has been a paradigm shift in the management of viral respiratory outbreaks, such as the widespread testing of patients and HCWs, including asymptomatic individuals. In hospitals, there is a risk of aerosol transmission in poorly ventilated spaces, and when performing aerosol-producing procedures, it is imperative to take measures against aerosol transmission. In particular, spatial separation of the inpatient ward for non-COVID-19 patients from that designated for patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 as well as negative-pressure isolation on the floor of the ward, using an airborne infection isolation device could help prevent nosocomial infection.

Effects of dynamic response to coronavirus disease outbreak in a regional emergency medical center: A retrospective study.

ABSTRACT: Emergency departments (EDs) are on the frontline of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. To resolve the abrupt overloading of COVID-19-suspected patients in a community, each ED needs to respond in various ways. In our hospital, we increased the isolation beds through temporary remodeling and by performing in-hospital COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction testing rather than outsourcing them. The aim of this study was to verify the effects of our response to the newly developed viral outbreak.The medical records of patients who presented to an ED were analyzed retrospectively. We divided the study period into 3: pre-COVID-19, transition period of response (the period before fully implementing the response measures), and post-response (the period after complete response). We compared the parameters of the National Emergency Department Information System and information about isolation and COVID-19.The number of daily ED patients was 86.8 ±â€Š15.4 in the pre-COVID-19, 36.3 ±â€Š13.6 in the transition period, and 67.2 ±â€Š10.0 in the post-response period (P < .001). The lengths of stay in the ED were significantly higher in transition period than in the other periods [pre-COVID-19 period, 219.0 (121.0-378.0) min; transition period, 301 (150.0-766.5) min; post-response period, 281.0 (114.0-575.0) min; P < .001]. The ratios of use of an isolation room and fever (≥37.5°C) were highest in the post-response period [use of isolation room: pre-COVID-19 period, 0.6 (0.7%); transition period, 1.2 (3.3%); post-response period, 16.1 (24.0%); P < .001; fever: pre-COVID-19 period, 14.8(17.3%); transition period, 6.8 (19.1%); post-response period, 14.5 (21.9%), P < .001].During an outbreak of a novel infectious disease, increasing the number of isolation rooms in the ED and applying a rapid confirmation test would enable the accommodation of more suspected patients, which could help reduce the risk posed to the community and thus prevent strain on the local emergency medical system.

Infection control, occupational and public health measures including mRNA-based vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infections to protect healthcare workers from variants of concern: A 14-month observational study using surveillance data.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated measures to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) in Vancouver, Canada, where variants of concern (VOC) went from <1% VOC in February 2021 to >92% in mid-May. Canada has amongst the longest periods between vaccine doses worldwide, despite Vancouver having the highest P.1 variant rate outside Brazil. METHODS: With surveillance data since the pandemic began, we tracked laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections, positivity rates, and vaccine uptake in all 25,558 HCWs in Vancouver Coastal Health, by occupation and subsector, and compared to the general population. Cox regression modelling adjusted for age and calendar-time calculated vaccine effectiveness (VE) against SARS-CoV-2 in fully vaccinated (≥ 7 days post-second dose), partially vaccinated infection (after 14 days) and unvaccinated HCWs; we also compared with unvaccinated community members of the same age-range. FINDINGS: Only 3.3% of our HCWs became infected, mirroring community rates, with peak positivity of 9.1%, compared to 11.8% in the community. As vaccine coverage increased, SARS-CoV-2 infections declined significantly in HCWs, despite a surge with predominantly VOC; unvaccinated HCWs had an infection rate of 1.3/10,000 person-days compared to 0.89 for HCWs post first dose, and 0.30 for fully vaccinated HCWs. VE compared to unvaccinated HCWs was 37.2% (95% CI: 16.6-52.7%) 14 days post-first dose, 79.2% (CI: 64.6-87.8%) 7 days post-second dose; one dose provided significant protection against infection until at least day 42. Compared with community infection rates, VE after one dose was 54.7% (CI: 44.8-62.9%); and 84.8% (CI: 75.2-90.7%) when fully vaccinated. INTERPRETATION: Rigorous droplet-contact precautions with N95s for aerosol-generating procedures are effective in preventing occupational infection in HCWs, with one dose of mRNA vaccination further reducing infection risk despite VOC and transmissibility concerns. Delaying second doses to allow more widespread vaccination against severe disease, with strict public health, occupational health and infection control measures, has been effective in protecting the healthcare workforce.

Safety of emergency, elective and day case operating during the winter period at East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust: lessons from the outcomes of 4,254 surgical patients from the first COVID-19 wave.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on perioperative outcomes of surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic to inform continued operating into the winter period. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the rate of 30-day COVID-19 transmission and mortality of all surgical patients in the three hospitals in our trust in the East of England during the first lockdown in March 2020. All patients who underwent a swab were swabbed on or 24 hours prior to admission. RESULTS: There were 4,254 patients and an overall 30-day mortality of 0.99%. The excess surgical mortality in our region was 0.29%. There were 39 patients who were COVID-19 positive within 30 days of admission, 12 of whom died. All 12 were emergency admissions with a length of stay longer than 24 hours. There were three deaths among those who underwent day case surgery, one of whom was COVID-19 negative, and the other two were not swabbed but not suspected to have COVID-19. There were two COVID-19 positive elective cases and none in day case elective or emergency surgery. There were no COVID-19 positive deaths in elective or day case surgery. CONCLUSIONS: There was a low rate of COVID-19 transmission and mortality in elective and day case operations. Our data have allowed us to guide patients in the consent process and provided the evidence base to restart elective and day case operating with precautions and regular review. A number of regions will be similarly affected and should perform a review of their data for the winter period and beyond.

Assessment of a COVID-19 Control Plan on an Urban University Campus During a Second Wave of the Pandemic.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has severely disrupted US educational institutions. Given potential adverse financial and psychosocial effects of campus closures, many institutions developed strategies to reopen campuses in the fall 2020 semester despite the ongoing threat of COVID-19. However, many institutions opted to have limited campus reopening to minimize potential risk of spread of SARS-CoV-2. Objective: To analyze how Boston University (BU) fully reopened its campus in the fall of 2020 and controlled COVID-19 transmission despite worsening transmission in Boston, Massachusetts. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multifaceted intervention case series was conducted at a large urban university campus in Boston, Massachusetts, during the fall 2020 semester. The BU response included a high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction testing facility with capacity to deliver results in less than 24 hours; routine asymptomatic screening for COVID-19; daily health attestations; adherence monitoring and feedback; robust contact tracing, quarantine, and isolation in on-campus facilities; face mask use; enhanced hand hygiene; social distancing recommendations; dedensification of classrooms and public places; and enhancement of all building air systems. Data were analyzed from December 20, 2020, to January 31, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis confirmed by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction of anterior nares specimens and sources of transmission, as determined through contact tracing. Results: Between August and December 2020, BU conducted more than 500 000 COVID-19 tests and identified 719 individuals with COVID-19, including 496 students (69.0%), 11 faculty (1.5%), and 212 staff (29.5%). Overall, 718 individuals, or 1.8% of the BU community, had test results positive for SARS-CoV-2. Of 837 close contacts traced, 86 individuals (10.3%) had test results positive for COVID-19. BU contact tracers identified a source of transmission for 370 individuals (51.5%), with 206 individuals (55.7%) identifying a non-BU source. Among 5 faculty and 84 staff with SARS-CoV-2 with a known source of infection, most reported a transmission source outside of BU (all 5 faculty members [100%] and 67 staff members [79.8%]). A BU source was identified by 108 of 183 undergraduate students with SARS-CoV-2 (59.0%) and 39 of 98 graduate students with SARS-CoV-2 (39.8%); notably, no transmission was traced to a classroom setting. Conclusions and Relevance: In this case series of COVID-19 transmission, BU used a coordinated strategy of testing, contact tracing, isolation, and quarantine, with robust management and oversight, to control COVID-19 transmission in an urban university setting.