5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Perfil dos trabalhadores da Atenção Primária à Saúde e proteção de riscos ocupacionais na pandemia da Covid-19 no Brasil Translated title: Profile of Primary Health Care workers and occupational risk protection in the Covid-19 pandemic in Brazil Translated title: Perfil de los trabajadores de la Atención Primaria de Salud y protección de riesgos laborales en la pandemia de Covid-19 en Brasil

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          Resumo Este artigo teve como objetivo caracterizar o perfil dos trabalhadores da Atenção Primária à Saúde e analisar as medidas de proteção de riscos ocupacionais em dois estados brasileiros durante a pandemia da Covid-19. Trata-se de estudo quantitativo do tipo survey, com amostra aleatória de 259 profissionais de saúde da Atenção Primária dos estados de Mato Grosso do Sul e São Paulo no período inicial da pandemia. A maioria dos participantes era do sexo feminino (85,3%), profissionais de enfermagem (40,6%) com idade média de 39,1 anos (dp ± 9,5) e do estado de São Paulo (73%). Utilizaram-se análise descritiva e teste exato de Fisher. Quanto às medidas de proteção de risco ocupacional no trabalho, verificou-se que a imunização antecipada contra influenza teve maior frequência no Mato Grosso do Sul (93,8%), porém 47,7% não tiveram acesso aos testes de Covid-19 neste estado e 24,3% em São Paulo. Os profissionais de nível superior tiveram mais acesso à máscara N95/PFF2 (10,2%) em comparação aos auxiliares e técnicos, com 6,5% e 7,8%, respectivamente. Observaram-se possíveis diferenças nas gestões municipais dos respectivos estados, que parecem não ofertar o acesso equânime de profissionais da Atenção Primária à Saúde a proteção, imunizantes e testes para detecção de SARS-CoV-2.

          Translated abstract

          Abstract This article aimed to characterize the profile of Primary Health Care workers and analyze occupational risk protection measures in two Brazilian states during the Covid-19 pandemic. This is a quantitative survey study, with a random sample of 259 primary care health professionals from the states of Mato Grosso do Sul and São Paulo during the initial period of the pandemic. Most of the participants were female (85.3%), nursing professionals (40.6%) with a mean age of 39.1 years (SD ± 9.5), and from the state of São Paulo (73%). Descriptive analysis and Fisher’s exact test were used. As for occupational risk protection measures at work, it was found that early immunization against influenza had the highest frequency in Mato Grosso do Sul (93.8%), but 47.7% did not have access to Covid-19 testing in this state and 24.3% in São Paulo. Higher-level professionals had more access to the N95/PFF2 mask (10.2%) compared to assistants and technicians, with 6.5% and 7.8%, respectively. Possible differences were observed in the municipal administrations of the respective states, which do not seem to provide equitable access for Primary Health Care workers to protection, immunizers, and testing for SARS-CoV-2.

          Translated abstract

          Resumen Este artículo tuvo como objetivo caracterizar el perfil de los trabajadores de la Atención Primaria de Salud y analizar las medidas de protección contra riesgos laborales en dos estados brasileños durante la pandemia de Covid-19. Se trata de un estudio cuantitativo de tipo survey, con una muestra aleatoria de 259 profesionales de salud de Atención Primaria provenientes de los estados de Mato Grosso do Sul y São Paulo en el período inicial de la pandemia. La mayoría de los participantes eran mujeres (85,3%), profesionales de enfermería (40,6%) con una edad media de 39,1 años (desviación estándar ± 9,5) y del estado de São Paulo (73%). Se utilizaron el análisis descriptivo y la prueba exacta de Fisher. En cuanto a las medidas de protección contra riesgos laborales en el trabajo, se constató que la inmunización temprana contra la influenza fue más frecuente en Mato Grosso do Sul (93,8%), pero el 47,7% no tuvo acceso a las pruebas de Covid-19 en ese estado y el 24,3% en São Paulo. Los profesionales de la educación superior tuvieron más acceso a la mascarilla N95/PFF2 (10,2 %) en comparación con los auxiliares y técnicos, con un 6,5 % y un 7,8%, respectivamente. Se observaron posibles diferencias en las administraciones municipales de los respectivos estados, que parecen no ofrecer un acceso equitativo a los profesionales de la Atención Primaria de Salud a la protección, inmunizaciones y pruebas para detección del SARS-CoV-2.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Reasons for healthcare workers becoming infected with novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China

          Sir, The outbreak of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in mainland China has been declared as a public health emergency (PHE) by the World Health Organization (WHO) [1]. Globally, until February 28th, 2020, there have been reported 83,774 confirmed cases and 2867 deaths [2]. During the periods of outbreak of COVID-19 or other infectious diseases, implementation of infection prevention and control (IPC) is of great importance in healthcare settings, especially regarding personal protection of healthcare workers [3,4]. In order to contain the outbreak of COVID-19 in mainland China, the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (NHCPRC) has so far dispatched medical support teams (41,600 healthcare workers from 30 provinces and municipalities) to assist with medical treatment in Wuhan and Hubei provinces [5]. A survey by the Health Commission of Guangdong Province released information on the distribution of 2431 healthcare workers in the Guangdong medical support teams [6]. Nurses (∼60%) were the predominant healthcare workers in the teams, followed by clinicians (∼30%). Half of clinicians with job titles were deputy chief physician, and 25% specialized in respiratory and critical medicine [6]. It is worth mentioning that 5.8% (140/2431) healthcare workers worked on the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome in 2003 [6]. Recently, Wu et al. have reported the problems relating to COVID-19 IPC in healthcare settings, highlighting the personal protection of healthcare workers [7]. However, at a press conference of the WHO–China Joint Mission on COVID-19, NHCPRC reported that up until February 24th 2055 healthcare workers (community/hospital-acquired not to be defined) had been confirmed infected with COVID-19, with 22 (1.1%) deaths [8]. Ninety percent of infected healthcare workers were from Hubei province, and most cases happened in late January. It is worth mentioning that the proportion of healthcare workers infected by COVID-19 (2.7%, 95% CI: 2.6–2.8) was significantly lower compared with healthcare workers infected by SARS (21.1%, 95% CI: 20.2–22.0). Therefore, the director of the National Hospital Infection Management and Quality Control Centre summarized some reasons for such a high number of infected healthcare workers during the beginning of the emergency outbreak [9]. First, inadequate personal protection of healthcare workers at the beginning of the epidemic was a central issue. In fact, they did not understand the pathogen well; and their awareness of personal protection was not strong enough. Therefore, the front-line healthcare workers did not implement the effective personal protection before conducting the treatment. Second, long-time exposure to large numbers of infected patients directly increased the risk of infection for healthcare workers. Also, pressure of treatment, work intensity, and lack of rest indirectly increased the probability of infection for healthcare workers. Third, shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) was also a serious problem. First-level emergency responses have been initiated in various parts of the country, which has led to a rapid increase in the demand for PPE. This circumstance increased the risk of infection for healthcare workers due to lack of sufficient PPE. Fourth, the front-line healthcare workers (except infectious disease physicians) received inadequate training for IPC, leaving them with a lack of knowledge of IPC for respiratory-borne infectious diseases. After initiation of emergency responses, healthcare workers have not had enough time for systematic training and practice. Professional supervision and guidance, as well as monitoring mechanisms, were lacking. This situation further amplified the risk of infection for healthcare workers. Finally, international communities, especially in other low- and middle-income countries with potential COVID-19 outbreaks, should learn early how to protect their healthcare workers. Furthermore, the COVID-19 confirmed cases have been reported to have surged in South Korea, Japan, Italy, and Iran in the past few days [2]. The increase in awareness of personal protection, sufficient PPE, and proper preparedness and response would play an important role in lowering the risk of infection for healthcare workers. Conflict of interest statement None declared. Funding sources None.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Brazil's unified health system: the first 30 years and prospects for the future

            In 1988, the Brazilian Constitution defined health as a universal right and a state responsibility. Progress towards universal health coverage in Brazil has been achieved through a unified health system (Sistema Único de Saúde [SUS]), created in 1990. With successes and setbacks in the implementation of health programmes and the organisation of its health system, Brazil has achieved nearly universal access to health-care services for the population. The trajectory of the development and expansion of the SUS offers valuable lessons on how to scale universal health coverage in a highly unequal country with relatively low resources allocated to health-care services by the government compared with that in middle-income and high-income countries. Analysis of the past 30 years since the inception of the SUS shows that innovations extend beyond the development of new models of care and highlights the importance of establishing political, legal, organisational, and management-related structures, with clearly defined roles for both the federal and local governments in the governance, planning, financing, and provision of health-care services. The expansion of the SUS has allowed Brazil to rapidly address the changing health needs of the population, with dramatic upscaling of health service coverage in just three decades. However, despite its successes, analysis of future scenarios suggests the urgent need to address lingering geographical inequalities, insufficient funding, and suboptimal private sector-public sector collaboration. Fiscal policies implemented in 2016 ushered in austerity measures that, alongside the new environmental, educational, and health policies of the Brazilian government, could reverse the hard-earned achievements of the SUS and threaten its sustainability and ability to fulfil its constitutional mandate of providing health care for all.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Occupational risks for COVID-19 infection

              David Koh (2020)
              Coronaviruses are enveloped RNA viruses found in mammals, birds and humans. At present, six coronavirus species are known agents for illnesses in humans. Four viruses—229E, OC43, NL63 and HKU1—are prevalent and can cause respiratory symptoms. The other two—severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV)—are zoonotic in origin and can cause fatalities [1]. SARS-CoV originated in Guangdong Province, China and was responsible for the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreaks in 2002 and 2003. It rapidly spread across the globe and resulted in 8098 reported cases and 774 deaths (case-fatality rate, 9.6%) in 37 countries. MERS-CoV originated in the Middle East and caused severe respiratory disease outbreaks in 2012. Since 2012, there have been 2494 reported MERS-CoV cases resulting in 858 deaths (case-fatality rate, 34%) in 27 countries. There were also several rapid outbreaks reported, mainly in hospitals in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and South Korea [2]. On 31 December 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) China office was informed of cases of pneumonia of unknown aetiology detected in Wuhan city in Hubei Province, central China [3]. By 9 January 2020, WHO released a statement on the cluster of cases, which stated that ‘Chinese authorities have made a preliminary determination of a novel (or new) coronavirus, identified in a hospitalized person with pneumonia in Wuhan’ [4]. The virus was initially referred to as 2019-nCoV, but has since been re-named as SARS-CoV-2 by the WHO on 12 February 2020. Early indications are that the overall case-fatality rate is around 2%. An analysis of the first 425 cases provided an estimated mean incubation period of 5.2 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1–7.0) and a basic reproductive number (R o) of 2.2 (95% CI 1.4–3.9) [1]. It is possible that people with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be infectious even before showing significant symptoms [5]. However, based on currently available data, those who have symptoms are causing the majority of virus spread. The WHO declared this disease as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on 30 January 2020 [6]. A significant proportion of cases are related to occupational exposure. As this virus is believed to have originated from wildlife and then crossed the species barrier to infect humans, it is not unexpected that the first documented occupational groups at risk were persons working in seafood and wet animal wholesale markets in Wuhan. At the start of the outbreak, workers and visitors to the market comprised 55% of the 47 cases with onset before 1 January 2020, when the wholesale market was closed. In comparison, only 8.5% of the 378 cases with onset of symptoms after 1 January 2020 had a link with exposure at the market [1]. As cases increased and required health care, health care workers (HCWs) were next recognized as another high-risk group to acquire this infection. In a case series of 138 patients treated in a Wuhan hospital, 40 patients (29% of cases) were HCWs. Among the affected HCWs, 31 (77.5%) worked on general wards, 7 (17.5%) in the emergency department, and 2 (5%) in the intensive care unit (ICU). There was apparently a super-spreader patient encountered in the hospital, who presented with abdominal symptoms and was admitted to the surgical department. This patient infected >10 HCWs in the department [7]. China’s Vice-Minister at the National Health Commission said that 1716 health workers had been infected in the country as of Tuesday 11 February 2020, among whom 6 have died [8]. Outside of China, the first confirmed case of COVID-19 infection in Singapore was announced on 23 January 2020 by the Ministry of Health, Singapore (MOH-Sg). The MOH-Sg issues daily press reports to describe case details of confirmed COVID-19 patients. As of 11 February 2020, a total of 47 cases have been confirmed [9]. Among the first 25 locally transmitted cases, 17 cases (68%) were probably related to occupational exposure (Table 1). They included staff in the tourism, retail and hospitality industry, transport and security workers, and construction workers. Table 1. Probable occupationally acquired COVID-19 among 25 locally transmitted cases in Singapore, 4–11 February 2020 Case description (case no.a) No. of cases Staff working in a retail store selling complementary health products primarily serving Chinese tourists (Cases 19, 20, 34, 40) 4 Domestic worker who worked for Case 19 (Case 21) 1 Tour guide who led tour group from China (Case 24) 1 Jewellery store worker who served Chinese tourists (Case 25) 1 Multinational company staff attending an international business meeting in Singapore (Cases 30, 36, 39) 3 Taxi driver (Case 35) 1 Private hire car driver (Case 37) 1 Resorts World Sentosa employee (Case 43) 1 Security officer who served quarantine order to two persons (Case 44) 1 Casino worker (Case 46) 1 Cluster of two workers at the same construction siteb (Cases 42 and 47) 2 aThe case no. denotes the order of cases according to the time of announcement by the Ministry of Health, Singapore. The first 18 cases were imported cases. bTwo other cases (Cases 52 and 56) were reported from the same worksite 2 days later. An international business meeting for 109 staff was organized by a multinational company from 20–22 January 2020 in Singapore. At this event, healthy company workers interacted with other infected participants, which resulted in the transmission of the virus to three employees based in Singapore. Besides those infected from Singapore, one employee from Malaysia, two participants from South Korea and one staff member from the UK were also infected. They presented as cases after leaving Singapore. Crew on board cruise ships with infected passengers are also at risk. At least 10 cases have been reported among the 1035 crew on the liner Diamond Princess, which is currently docked in Yokohama with around 3600 people quarantined since 3 February 2020. A Hong Kong man boarded the ship on 20 January in Yokohama at the beginning of a 14-day round trip cruise. The passenger sailed from Yokohama to Hong Kong, where he disembarked on 25 January. The ship continued its journey, until news was received that the passenger tested positive on 1 February 2020. The Diamond Princess returned to Yokohama a day early, and has been quarantined since then, with guests isolated in their cabins and screened [10]. The quarantine period will end on 19 February 2020. Another cruise ship, the Dutch liner Westerdam, sailed out of Hong Kong on 1 February 2020. It was turned away by the Philippines, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Thailand and the US territory of Guam, because of fears arising from the COVID-19 outbreak—even though there was apparently no confirmed case on board [11]. The ship was finally allowed to dock in Sihanoukville, Cambodia after 13 days at sea. Besides fears of contagion from people on board cruise ships, which have been likened to ‘floating petri dishes’, fears are also widespread on land. There are increasing reports of HCWs being shunned and harassed by a fearful public because of their occupation. A Member of Parliament in Singapore highlighted what he termed as ‘disgraceful actions’ against HCWs stemming from fear and panic [12]. Some examples of behaviour described were: Taxi drivers reluctant to pick up staff in medical uniform. A healthcare professional’s private-hire vehicle cancelled because she was going to a hospital. A nurse in a lift asked why she was not taking the stairs and that she was spreading the virus to others by taking the lift. A nurse scolded for making the Mass Rapid Transit train “dirty” and spreading the virus. An ambulance driver turned away by food stall workers. However, not all the reactions from the public towards HCWs have been negative. There are probably an equal number of stories of public support and encouragement. Members of the public have showed their appreciation for HCWs and have volunteered to help the more vulnerable in society [13]. For example, a ride-hailing transport operator started a new service offering a dedicated 24-h service for HCWs travelling from work. Volunteers have also stepped forward to distribute hand sanitizers and masks to the elderly and vulnerable in their community, while sharing important public health messages. Such reactions are reminiscent of behaviour during the 2003 SARS outbreak, where not only the general public, but even close family members were afraid of being infected by HCWs exposed to the disease. A survey of over 10 000 HCWs in Singapore during the SARS outbreak of 2003 reported that many respondents experienced social stigmatization. Almost half (49%) thought that ‘people avoid me because of my job’ and 31% felt that ‘people avoid my family members because of my job’. For example, some parents of schoolchildren forbade their children to play or be close to children of HCWs. A large number (69%) of HCWs also felt that ‘people close to me are worried they might get infected through me’ [14]. On the other hand, there was also massive public support for HCWs, who were hailed as heroes in the fight against the disease. Most of the HCWs (77%) felt appreciated by society. COVID-19 is the first new occupational disease to be described in this decade. Our experiences in coping with the previous SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV outbreaks have better prepared us to face this new challenge. While the explosive increase in cases in China has overwhelmed the health care system initially, we know that public health measures such as early detection, quarantine and isolation of cases can be effective in containing the outbreak. All health personnel should be alert to the risk of COVID-19 in a wide variety of occupations, and not only HCWs. These occupational groups can be protected by good infection control practices. These at-risk groups should also be given adequate social and mental health support [15], which are needed but which are sometimes overlooked.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                tes
                Trabalho, Educação e Saúde
                Trab. educ. saúde
                Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Escola Politécnica de Saúde Joaquim Venâncio (Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil )
                1678-1007
                1981-7746
                2022
                : 20
                : e00375195
                Affiliations
                [5] Três Lagoas Mato Grosso do Sul orgnameUniversidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul orgdiv1Programa de Pós-Graduação em Enfermagem Brazil juliana.pessalacia@ 123456ufms.br
                [3] Belo Horizonte Minas Gerais orgnameUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais orgdiv1Escola de Enfermagem orgdiv2Departamento de Enfermagem Básica Brazil lucianarfmata@ 123456gmail.com
                [4] Campo Grande orgnameEscola de Saúde Pública Brazil pereira@ 123456hotmail.com
                [2] Três Lagoas Mato Grosso do Sul orgnameUniversidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul orgdiv1Programa de Pós-Graduação em Enfermagem Brazil baldonado@ 123456gmail.com
                [1] Três Lagoas Mato Grosso do Sul orgnameUniversidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul orgdiv1Programa de Pós-Graduação em Enfermagem Brazil mmaristelammarinho@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                S1981-77462022000100526 S1981-7746(22)02000000526
                10.1590/1981-7746-ojs375
                723f6145-93dd-4a3c-b94e-c679a6cc9450

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 18 January 2022
                : 08 August 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 54, Pages: 0
                Product

                SciELO Brazil

                Categories
                Artigos

                coronavirus,salud del trabajador,personal de la salud,atención primaria de salud,saúde do trabalhador,pessoal da saúde,coronavírus,atenção primária à saúde,occupational health,health care personnel,primary health care

                Comments

                Comment on this article