COVID-19 in health care workers, Australia 2020.

BACKGROUND: Health care workers are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to potential exposure to patients or staff in health care settings. Australian health care services and health care workers experienced intense pressure to prepare for and respond to SARS-CoV-2 infections. We summarise national data on health care worker infections and associated outbreaks during 2020. METHODS: We collected aggregated data on infected health care workers and outbreaks in health care facilities from all jurisdictions. Health care workers working solely in residential aged care and outbreaks in residential aged care facilities were excluded. Jurisdictions provided data on the number of health care setting outbreaks, confirmed cases, hospitalisation, source of infection, and health care worker role. We analysed data for two periods that aligned with two distinct peaks in the epidemic relative to 1 June 2020, referred to here as the first wave (23 January - 31 May 2020) and the second wave (1 June - 18 September 2020). RESULTS: Jurisdictions reported a total of 2,163 health care worker infections with SARS-CoV-2 during the surveillance period. Source of acquisition was known for 81.0% of cases (1,667/2,059). The majority of cases in the first wave were acquired overseas, shifting to locally-acquired cases in the second wave. The odds of infection in the second wave compared to the first wave were higher for nurses/midwives (odds ratio, OR: 1.61; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.32-2.00), lower for medical practitioners (OR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.28-0.47) and did not differ for 'other' health care workers (OR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0. 87-1.32). The odds of infection in the second wave were higher in a health care setting (OR: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.28-2.41) than in the community. There were 120 outbreaks in health care settings with 1,428 cases, of which 56.7% (809/1,428) were health care workers. The majority (88/120; 73.8%) of outbreaks in health care settings occurred in the second wave of the epidemic, with 90.9% of these (80/88) occurring in Victoria. CONCLUSIONS: In the second wave of the epidemic, when there was heightened community transmission, health care workers were more likely to be infected in the workplace. Throughout the epidemic, nurses were more likely to be infected than staff in other roles.

Application of patient safety indicators internationally: a pilot study among seven countries.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the potential for international comparison of patient safety as part of the Health Care Quality Indicators project of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) by evaluating patient safety indicators originally published by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). DESIGN: A retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: Acute care hospitals in the USA, UK, Sweden, Spain, Germany, Canada and Australia in 2004 and 2005/2006. DATA SOURCES: Routine hospitalization-related administrative data from seven countries were analyzed. Using algorithms adapted to the diagnosis and procedure coding systems in place in each country, authorities in each of the participating countries reported summaries of the distribution of hospital-level and overall (national) rates for each AHRQ Patient Safety Indicator to the OECD project secretariat. RESULTS: Each country's vector of national indicator rates and the vector of American patient safety indicators rates published by AHRQ (and re-estimated as part of this study) were highly correlated (0.821-0.966). However, there was substantial systematic variation in rates across countries. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study reveals that AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators can be applied to international hospital data. However, the analyses suggest that certain indicators (e.g. 'birth trauma', 'complications of anesthesia') may be too unreliable for international comparisons. Data quality varies across countries; undercoding may be a systematic problem in some countries. Efforts at international harmonization of hospital discharge data sets as well as improved accuracy of documentation should facilitate future comparative analyses of routine databases.

Compliance with protocols for prevention of neonatal group B streptococcal sepsis: practicalities and limitations.

OBJECTIVE: To compare two protocols for intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) against neonatal group B streptococcal (GBS) sepsis, with respect to staff compliance, in a prospective cohort study in the obstetric units of a community hospital (A) and a university teaching hospital (B). METHODS: Cohorts comprised about 500 women attending antenatal clinics at each hospital (total 1096). Women identified as GBS carriers at 26-32 weeks' gestation and those who had intrapartum clinical risk factors (CRF) were eligible for IAP. Compliance was defined as the proportion of women eligible for IAP who received it according to protocol - as determined by audit of case records - and compared between hospitals and according to indication. RESULTS: Overall, 39% of women were eligible for IAP. Indications were GBS carriage alone (21%), CRF alone (13%) and both (5%). Compliance was similar for GBS carriers at both hospitals: 78% at Hospital A and 76% at Hospital B. However, because of the poor predictive value of screening before 32 weeks, only 65% of intrapartum GBS carriers actually received IAP. For women with CRF only, compliance was significantly lower at Hospital B than Hospital A (56 vs. 75%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: According to currently recommended protocols, about one-third of healthy women are eligible for intrapartum antibiotics to prevent neonatal GBS sepsis. In practice, antibiotics are often used inefficiently because of poor compliance with protocols and poor predictive values of selection criteria. Better implementation strategies should improve compliance, but GBS vaccines are needed to replace prophylactic antibiotic use, with its associated disadvantages.