5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares

      To submit to this journal, please click here

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Inferences from COVID-19 post-exposure risk assessment of health care workers in the pre-vaccination era at a major COVID sentinel center, Sri Lanka

      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

          Despite the hospital triage system trying to prevent COVID-19 patients from getting admitted to wards other than isolation/quarantine units, COVID-19 patients were accidentally being discovered time to time from non-COVID-19 wards due to atypical or asymptomatic presentations. Consequently, post-exposure risk assessment was carried out for the relevant health care workers (HCW) and the other patients to assess their risk level of acquiring COVID-19, and to quarantine them if concluded as high risk. Hence, the objective of the study was to assess the outcome and the adequacy of COVID-19 post-exposure risk assessment of health care workers which would be useful in future outbreaks. We studied all events of accidental detection of COVID-19 patients happened in non-COVID-19 wards which were leading to subsequent risk assessment using the 5-questions based tool adapted from the WHO recommendations. The 5 questions discussed the protective measures during face to face meetings or in physical contacts, protective measures during aerosol generating procedures, splashes onto the face, and hand hygiene measures. A retrospective cross-sectional study carried out in the Teaching Hospital Karapitiya, Galle, Sri Lanka, for 4 months covering the second wave of the pandemic. Hospital data base of risk assessments was accessed anonymously and the “yes” or “no” responses to the 5-questions assessment tool were analysed. There were 62 events involving 891 health care workers who underwent post-exposure risk assessment. From the responses the highest score of “yes” was recorded against question 3 (25.7% of total “yes” answers for all questions and 5.8% of total answers for the question number 3) revealing inadequate precautions taken by HCWs in aerosol generating procedures. Hundred and sixty two (18.2%) HCWs were quarantined as high risk and only one became positive for COVID-19 during the quarantine period. Though the 5-question based risk assessment tool effectively helps to identify breaches in infection control during an exposure to a positive COVID-19 patient, it may not be adequate at times as the only tool in deciding the assessee’s risk level.

          Related collections

          Most cited references3

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Risk Assessment of Healthcare Workers at the Frontline against COVID-19

          The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are on the frontline of treating patients infected with COVID-19. However, data related to its infection rate among HCWs are limited. The aim was to present evidence associated with the number of HCWs being infected with COVID-19 from most viral affected countries (Italy, China, United States, Spain, and France). Furthermore, we looked into the reasons for HCWs COVID 19 infections and strategies to overcome this problem. Early available evidence suggested that HCWs are being increasingly infected with the novel infection ranging from 15% to 18% and in some cases up to 20% of the infected population. Major factors for infection among HCWs include lack of understanding of the disease, inadequate use and availability of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), uncertain diagnostic criteria, unavailability of diagnostic tests and psychological stress. Therefore the protection of HCWs by authorities should be prioritized through education and training, the readiness of staff, incentives, availability of PPEs, and psychological support.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Burden, risk assessment, surveillance and management of SARS-CoV-2 infection in health workers: a scoping review

            Background Health workers (HWs) are at increased risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and a possible source of nosocomial transmission clusters. Despite the increased risk, the best surveillance strategy and management of exposed HWs are not yet well known. The aim of this review was to summarize and critically analyze the existing evidence related to this topic in order to support public health strategies aimed at protecting HWs in the hospital setting. Main text A comprehensive computerized literature research from 1 January 2020 up to 22 May 2020 was made to identify studies analyzing the burden of infection, risk assessment, surveillance and management of HWs exposed to SARS-CoV-2. Among 1623 citation identified using MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar and manual search, we included 43 studies, 14 webpages and 5 ongoing trials. Health workers have a high risk of acquiring infection while caring for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. In particular, some types exposures and their duration, as well as the inadequate or non-use of personal protective equipment (PPE) are associated with increased infection risk. Strict infection prevention and control procedures (IPC), adequate training programs on the appropriate use of PPE and close monitoring of HWs with symptom surveillance and testing are essential to significantly reduce the risk. At the moment there is not enough evidence to provide precise indications regarding pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Conclusions During the spread of COVID-19 outbreak, numerous published papers investigated the epidemiology, risk assessment and prevention and control of SARS-CoV-2. However, more high-quality studies are needed to provide valid recommendations for better management and for the clinical and microbiological surveillance of healthcare personnel.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              An approach to lifting self-isolation for health care workers with prolonged shedding of SARS-CoV-2 RNA

              Purpose According to the European Public Health Authority guidance for ending isolation in the context of COVID-19, a convalescent healthcare worker (HCW) can end their isolation at home and resume work upon clinical improvement and two negative RT-PCR tests from respiratory specimens obtained at 24-h intervals at least 8 days after the onset of symptoms. However, convalescent HCWs may shed SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA for prolonged periods. Methods 40 healthy HCWs off work because of ongoing positive RT-PCR results in combined nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swabs following SARS-CoV-2 infection were invited to participate in this study. These HCWs had been in self-isolation because of a PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. NP and OP swabs as well as a blood sample were collected from each participant. RT-PCR and virus isolation was performed with each swab sample and serum neutralization test as well as two different ELISA tests were performed on all serum samples. Results No viable virions could be detected in any of 29 nasopharyngeal and 29 oropharyngeal swabs taken from 15 long-time carriers. We found SARSCoV- 2 RNA in 14/29 nasopharyngeal and 10/29 oropharyngeal swabs obtained from screening 15 HCWs with previous COVID-19 up to 55 days after symptom onset. Six (40%) of the 15 initially positive HCWs converted to negative and later reverted to positive again according to their medical records. All but one HCW, a healthy volunteer banned from work, showed the presence of neutralizing antibodies in concomitantly taken blood samples. Late threshold cycle (Ct) values in RT-PCR [mean 37.4; median 37.3; range 30.8–41.7] and the lack of virus growth in cell culture indicate that despite the positive PCR results no infectivity remained. Conclusion We recommend lifting isolation if the RT-PCR Ct-value of a naso- or oropharyngeal swab sample is over 30. Positive results obtained from genes targeted with Ct-values > 30 correspond to non-viable/noninfectious particles that are still detected by RT-PCR. In case of Ct-values lower than 30, a blood sample from the patient should be tested for the presence of neutralizing antibodies. If positive, non-infectiousness can also be assumed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: Resources
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: Methodology
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLOS Glob Public Health
                PLOS Glob Public Health
                plos
                PLOS Global Public Health
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                2767-3375
                15 February 2023
                2023
                : 3
                : 2
                : e0001161
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Microbiology, Teaching Hospital Karapitiya, Galle, Sri Lanka
                [2 ] Medicine, Teaching Hospital Karapitiya, Galle, Sri Lanka
                [3 ] Virology, Teaching Hospital Karapitiya, Galle, Sri Lanka
                [4 ] Administration, Teaching Hospital Karapitiya,Galle, Sri Lanka
                PLOS: Public Library of Science, UNITED STATES
                Author notes

                The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4660-311X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6720-0950
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1917-6845
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0023-8161
                Article
                PGPH-D-22-00237
                10.1371/journal.pgph.0001161
                10021685
                36963032
                c658dfde-b116-44f9-a49e-f9a9c54a4948
                © 2023 Piyasiri et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 25 March 2022
                : 13 January 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 1, Pages: 11
                Funding
                The authors received no specific funding for this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Medical Risk Factors
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Viral Diseases
                Covid 19
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Medical Personnel
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Quarantines
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Nosocomial Infections
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Pandemics
                Engineering and Technology
                Equipment
                Safety Equipment
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Safety
                Safety Equipment
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Hygiene
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
                COVID-19

                Comments

                Comment on this article