Risk of hospital admission with coronavirus disease 2019 in healthcare workers and their households: nationwide linkage cohort study

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Objective

To assess the risk of hospital admission for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) among patient facing and non-patient facing healthcare workers and their household members.

Design

Nationwide linkage cohort study.

Setting

Scotland, UK, 1 March to 6 June 2020.

Participants

Healthcare workers aged 18-65 years, their households, and other members of the general population.

Main outcome measure

Admission to hospital with covid-19.

Results

The cohort comprised 158 445 healthcare workers, most of them (90 733; 57.3%) being patient facing, and 229 905 household members. Of all hospital admissions for covid-19 in the working age population (18-65 year olds), 17.2% (360/2097) were in healthcare workers or their households. After adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic deprivation, and comorbidity, the risk of admission due to covid-19 in non-patient facing healthcare workers and their households was similar to the risk in the general population (hazard ratio 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.26) and 0.86 (0.49 to 1.51), respectively). In models adjusting for the same covariates, however, patient facing healthcare workers, compared with non-patient facing healthcare workers, were at higher risk (hazard ratio 3.30, 2.13 to 5.13), as were household members of patient facing healthcare workers (1.79, 1.10 to 2.91). After sub-division of patient facing healthcare workers into those who worked in “front door,” intensive care, and non-intensive care aerosol generating settings and other, those in front door roles were at higher risk (hazard ratio 2.09, 1.49 to 2.94). For most patient facing healthcare workers and their households, the estimated absolute risk of hospital admission with covid-19 was less than 0.5%, but it was 1% and above in older men with comorbidity.

Conclusions

Healthcare workers and their households contributed a sixth of covid-19 cases admitted to hospital. Although the absolute risk of admission was low overall, patient facing healthcare workers and their household members had threefold and twofold increased risks of admission with covid-19.

Related collections

Most cited references 21

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients With 2019 Novel Coronavirus–Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan, China

Dawei Wang, Bo Hu, Fangfang Zhu … (2020)

In December 2019, novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)-infected pneumonia (NCIP) occurred in Wuhan, China. The number of cases has increased rapidly but information on the clinical characteristics of affected patients is limited.

0 comments Cited 10919 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Spain (ENE-COVID): a nationwide, population-based seroepidemiological study

Marina Pollán, Beatriz Pérez-Gómez, Roberto Pastor-Barriuso … (2020)

Summary Background Spain is one of the European countries most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Serological surveys are a valuable tool to assess the extent of the epidemic, given the existence of asymptomatic cases and little access to diagnostic tests. This nationwide population-based study aims to estimate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Spain at national and regional level. Methods 35 883 households were selected from municipal rolls using two-stage random sampling stratified by province and municipality size, with all residents invited to participate. From April 27 to May 11, 2020, 61 075 participants (75·1% of all contacted individuals within selected households) answered a questionnaire on history of symptoms compatible with COVID-19 and risk factors, received a point-of-care antibody test, and, if agreed, donated a blood sample for additional testing with a chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay. Prevalences of IgG antibodies were adjusted using sampling weights and post-stratification to allow for differences in non-response rates based on age group, sex, and census-tract income. Using results for both tests, we calculated a seroprevalence range maximising either specificity (positive for both tests) or sensitivity (positive for either test). Findings Seroprevalence was 5·0% (95% CI 4·7–5·4) by the point-of-care test and 4·6% (4·3–5·0) by immunoassay, with a specificity–sensitivity range of 3·7% (3·3–4·0; both tests positive) to 6·2% (5·8–6·6; either test positive), with no differences by sex and lower seroprevalence in children younger than 10 years ( 10%) and lower in coastal areas (<3%). Seroprevalence among 195 participants with positive PCR more than 14 days before the study visit ranged from 87·6% (81·1–92·1; both tests positive) to 91·8% (86·3–95·3; either test positive). In 7273 individuals with anosmia or at least three symptoms, seroprevalence ranged from 15·3% (13·8–16·8) to 19·3% (17·7–21·0). Around a third of seropositive participants were asymptomatic, ranging from 21·9% (19·1–24·9) to 35·8% (33·1–38·5). Only 19·5% (16·3–23·2) of symptomatic participants who were seropositive by both the point-of-care test and immunoassay reported a previous PCR test. Interpretation The majority of the Spanish population is seronegative to SARS-CoV-2 infection, even in hotspot areas. Most PCR-confirmed cases have detectable antibodies, but a substantial proportion of people with symptoms compatible with COVID-19 did not have a PCR test and at least a third of infections determined by serology were asymptomatic. These results emphasise the need for maintaining public health measures to avoid a new epidemic wave. Funding Spanish Ministry of Health, Institute of Health Carlos III, and Spanish National Health System.

0 comments Cited 911 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Association of Public Health Interventions With the Epidemiology of the COVID-19 Outbreak in Wuhan, China

An Lian Pan, Li Liu, Chaolong Wang … (2020)

Was there an association of public health interventions with improved control of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China? In this cohort study that included 32 583 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in Wuhan from December 8, 2019, through March 8, 2020, the institution of interventions including cordons sanitaire , traffic restriction, social distancing, home quarantine, centralized quarantine, and universal symptom survey was temporally associated with reduced effective reproduction number of SARS-CoV-2 (secondary transmission) and the number of confirmed cases per day across age groups, sex, and geographic regions. A series of multifaceted public health interventions was temporally associated with improved control of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan and may inform public health policy in other countries and regions. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic, and it is unknown whether a combination of public health interventions can improve control of the outbreak. To evaluate the association of public health interventions with the epidemiological features of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan by 5 periods according to key events and interventions. In this cohort study, individual-level data on 32 583 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases reported between December 8, 2019, and March 8, 2020, were extracted from the municipal Notifiable Disease Report System, including patients’ age, sex, residential location, occupation, and severity classification. Nonpharmaceutical public health interventions including cordons sanitaire , traffic restriction, social distancing, home confinement, centralized quarantine, and universal symptom survey. Rates of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infections (defined as the number of cases per day per million people), across age, sex, and geographic locations were calculated across 5 periods: December 8 to January 9 (no intervention), January 10 to 22 (massive human movement due to the Chinese New Year holiday), January 23 to February 1 ( cordons sanitaire , traffic restriction and home quarantine), February 2 to 16 (centralized quarantine and treatment), and February 17 to March 8 (universal symptom survey). The effective reproduction number of SARS-CoV-2 (an indicator of secondary transmission) was also calculated over the periods. Among 32 583 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases, the median patient age was 56.7 years (range, 0-103; interquartile range, 43.4-66.8) and 16 817 (51.6%) were women. The daily confirmed case rate peaked in the third period and declined afterward across geographic regions and sex and age groups, except for children and adolescents, whose rate of confirmed cases continued to increase. The daily confirmed case rate over the whole period in local health care workers (130.5 per million people [95% CI, 123.9-137.2]) was higher than that in the general population (41.5 per million people [95% CI, 41.0-41.9]). The proportion of severe and critical cases decreased from 53.1% to 10.3% over the 5 periods. The severity risk increased with age: compared with those aged 20 to 39 years (proportion of severe and critical cases, 12.1%), elderly people (≥80 years) had a higher risk of having severe or critical disease (proportion, 41.3%; risk ratio, 3.61 [95% CI, 3.31-3.95]) while younger people (<20 years) had a lower risk (proportion, 4.1%; risk ratio, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.31-0.70]). The effective reproduction number fluctuated above 3.0 before January 26, decreased to below 1.0 after February 6, and decreased further to less than 0.3 after March 1. A series of multifaceted public health interventions was temporally associated with improved control of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China. These findings may inform public health policy in other countries and regions. This population epidemiology study examines associations between phases of nonpharmaceutical public health interventions (social distancing, centralized quarantine, home confinement, and others) and rates of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection in Wuhan, China, between December 2019 and early March 2020.

0 comments Cited 843 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Anoop S V Shah: Role: BHF intermediate clinical fellow and honorary consultant cardiologist

Rachael Wood: Role: reader and consultant in public health medicine

Ciara Gribben: Role: statistician

David Caldwell: Role: statistician

Jennifer Bishop: Role: statistician

Amanda Weir: Role: statistician

Sharon Kennedy: Role: statistician

Martin Reid: Role: statistician

Alison Smith-Palmer: Role: epidemiologist

David Goldberg: Role: professor and consultant in public health medicine

Jim McMenamin: Role: consultant in public health medicine

Colin Fischbacher: Role: honorary professor and consultant in public health medicine

Chris Robertson: Role: professor of statistics

Sharon Hutchinson: Role: professor of epidemiology and population health

Paul McKeigue: Role: professor of genetic epidemiology and statistical genetics and honorary consultant in public health medicine

Helen Colhoun: Role: AXA chair of medical informatics and life course epidemiology and honorary consultant in public health medicine

David A McAllister:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3550-1764

Role: Wellcome Trust intermediate clinical fellow and Beit fellow and honorary consultant in public health medicine

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMJ

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMJ

Journal ID (publisher-id): BMJ-UK

Journal ID (hwp): bmj

Title: The BMJ

Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

ISSN (Print): 0959-8138

ISSN (Electronic): 1756-1833

Publication date Collection: 2020

Publication date (Electronic): 28 October 2020

Volume: 371

Electronic Location Identifier: m3582

Affiliations

[1 ]Non-communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

[2 ]Department of Cardiology, Imperial College NHS Trust, London, UK

[3 ]Public Health Scotland, Edinburgh, UK

[4 ]Centre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

[5 ]School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK

[6 ]MRC Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

[7 ]Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

[8 ]Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, 1 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, UK

Author notes

Correspondence to: D McAllister David.mcallister@ 123456glasgow.ac.uk

Author information

David A McAllister https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3550-1764

Article

Publisher ID: shaa060836

DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m3582

PMC ID: 7591828

PubMed ID: 33115726

SO-VID: 14e18833-1305-467c-be42-cb7cdc704e9b

License:

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Risk of hospital admission with coronavirus disease 2019 in healthcare workers and their households: nationwide linkage cohort study

Read this article at

Abstract

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Main outcome measure

Results

Conclusions

Related collections

Novel Coronavirus Disease COVID-19

Most cited references 21

Clinical Characteristics of 138 Hospitalized Patients With 2019 Novel Coronavirus–Infected Pneumonia in Wuhan, China

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Spain (ENE-COVID): a nationwide, population-based seroepidemiological study

Association of Public Health Interventions With the Epidemiology of the COVID-19 Outbreak in Wuhan, China

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Author information

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 205

Cited by 159

Most referenced authors 1,229