Effects of universal masking on Massachusetts healthcare workers' COVID-19 incidence

Conducting Goals of Care Conversations: Lessons From the COVID-19 Pandemic

Objective: Internal medicine (IM) residents discuss a patient's goals of care (GOC) as part of their initial consultation. Residents have described inexperience, general discomfort, limited formal teaching, and prognostic uncertainty as barriers to effective GOC conversations. The early COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid changes to the healthcare system on the individual, patient, and systemic level that might exacerbate and/or introduce new barriers to IM residents' GOC conversations. This qualitative study examines how the early COVID-19 pandemic challenged IM residents' ability to have effective GOC conversations. Methods: Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, participants (n=11) completed a semi-structured interview. Data collection and analysis occurred simultaneously using an open coding, constant comparison process. Interviews were completed until no new themes were identified. Results: Residents self-described their GOC conversations in 5 steps: normalization of the conversation, introduction of expected clinical course, discussion of possible care plans, exploration of the patient's values, and occasionally providing a recommendation. Residents described limited structured teaching around GOC conversations and instead relied on observed role-modelling and self-practice to hone their skillset. Residents described an increased sense of urgency to have GOC conversations due to the uncertainty of clinical course and potential for rapid deterioration of patients with COVID-19. Residents identified restrictive visitor policies as a significant barrier that contributed to feelings of dehumanization. Residents felt that these limitations affected their GOC conversations and potentially resulted in discordant care plans which contributed to moral distress. Conclusion: The early COVID-19 pandemic resulted in several barriers that challenged residents' ability to conduct effective GOC conversations. This is on the background of previously reported discomfort and limited formal training in conducting GOC conversations. Based on our findings, we present a conceptual model involving teaching validated GOC frameworks, positive role-modelling, and experiential learning to support GOC conversation education in post-graduate medical education.

Efficacy of personal protective equipment to prevent environmental infection of COVID-19 among healthcare workers: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers (HCWs) employed personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic, crucial to protecting themselves from infection. To highlight the efficacy of PPE in preventing environmental infection among HCWs, a systematic review was conducted in line with PRISMA guidance.

METHODS

A search of the PubMed and Web of Science databases was conducted from January 2019 to April 2021 using pre-defined search terms. Articles were screened by three researchers. The approved papers were read in full and included in this review if relevance was mutually agreed upon. Data were extracted by study design and types of PPEs.

RESULTS

47 of 108 identified studies met the inclusion criteria, with seven reviews and meta-analyses, seven cohort, nine case-control, fifteen cross-sectional studies, four before and after, four case series, and one modeling studies. Wearing PPE offered COVID-19 protection in HCWs but required adequate training. Wearing surgical masks provided improved protection over cloth masks, while the benefit of powered air-purifying respirators is less clear, as are individual gowns, gloves, and/or face shields.

CONCLUSIONS

Wearing PPE, especially facial masks, is necessary among HCWs, while training in proper use of PPE is also important to prevent COVID-19 infection.

How Risk Management During COVID-19 Influences Eldercare Personnel's Perceptions of Their Work Environment

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between workplace COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) risk management and eldercare workers' perception of their social environment at work.

METHODS

Cross-sectional questionnaire data from 952 participants were collected by the Danish labor union, FOA, and analyzed using multinomial logistic regression.

RESULTS

Unclear guidelines, insecurity regarding organization of work, lack of attention to vulnerable employees, and lack of instruction in the use of personal protective equipment were associated with perceived negative changes in the social environment at work. Also, higher local incidence rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections were associated with a weaker sense of community (odds ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.36).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that risk management is important not only for prevention of infection but also for individual and workplace resilience toward external demands and health threats.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on Infection Prevention for Healthcare Personnel Caring for Patients with Suspected or Known COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Since its emergence in late 2019, SARS-CoV-2 continues to pose a risk to healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Although all clinical interactions likely carry some risk of transmission, human actions like coughing and care activities like aerosol-generating procedures likely have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 continues to create significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) used by HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care continue to be needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators.

OBJECTIVE

Develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known COVID-19.

METHODS

IDSA formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel including frontline clinicians, infectious disease specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists with representation from the disciplines of public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

The IDSA guideline panel agreed on eight recommendations, including two updated recommendations and one new recommendation added since the first version of the guideline. Narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations are also included.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for eight specific questions on the use of PPE for HCP providing care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. There remain significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence. These recommendations should serve as a minimum for PPE use in healthcare facilities and do not preclude decisions based on local risk assessments or requirements of local health jurisdictions or other regulatory bodies.

Mask use in community settings in the context of COVID-19: A systematic review of ecological data

BACKGROUND

The wearing of medical and non-medical masks by the general public in community settings is one intervention that is important for the reduction of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and has been the subject of considerable research, policy, advocacy and debate. Several observational studies have used ecological (population-level) data to assess the effect of masks on transmission, hospitalization, and mortality at the region or community level.

METHODS

We undertook this systematic review to summarize the study designs, outcomes, and key quality indicators of using ecological data to evaluate the association between mask wearing and COVID-19 outcomes. We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 global literature database up to 5 March 2021 for studies reporting the impact of mask use in community settings on outcomes related to SARS-CoV-2 transmission using ecological data.

FINDINGS

Twenty one articles were identified that analysed ecological data to assess the protective effect of policies mandating community mask wearing. All studies reported SARS-CoV-2 benefits in terms of reductions in either the incidence, hospitalization, or mortality, or a combination of these outcomes. Few studies assessed compliance to mask wearing policies or controlled for the possible influence of other preventive measures such as hand hygiene and physical distancing, and information about compliance to these policies was lacking.

INTERPRETATION

Ecological studies have been cited as evidence to advocate for the adoption of universal masking policies. The studies summarized by this review suggest that community mask policies may reduce the population-level burden of SARS-CoV-2. Methodological limitations, in particular controlling for the actual practice of mask wearing and other preventive policies make it difficult to determine causality. There are several important limitations to consider for improving the validity of ecological data.

Association of social distancing and face mask use with risk of COVID-19

Given the continued burden of COVID-19 worldwide, there is a high unmet need for data on the effect of social distancing and face mask use to mitigate the risk of COVID-19. We examined the association of community-level social distancing measures and individual face mask use with risk of predicted COVID-19 in a large prospective U.S. cohort study of 198,077 participants. Individuals living in communities with the greatest social distancing had a 31% lower risk of predicted COVID-19 compared with those living in communities with poor social distancing. Self-reported 'always' use of face mask was associated with a 62% reduced risk of predicted COVID-19 even among individuals living in a community with poor social distancing. These findings provide support for the efficacy of mask-wearing even in settings of poor social distancing in reducing COVID-19 transmission. Despite mass vaccination campaigns in many parts of the world, continued efforts at social distancing and face mask use remain critically important in reducing the spread of COVID-19.

Association Between Implementation of a Universal Face Mask Policy for Healthcare Workers in a Health Care System and SARS-CoV-2 Positivity Testing Rate in Healthcare Workers

OBJECTIVE

Examine the effect of a universal facemask policy for healthcare workers (HCW) and incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positivity.

METHODS

Daily number of symptomatic HCW tested, SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates, and HCW job-descriptions were collected pre and post Universal HCW facemask policy (March 26, 2020). Multiple change point regression was used to model positive-test-rate data. SARS-CoV-2 testing and positivity rates were compared for pre-intervention, transition, post-intervention, and follow-up periods.

RESULTS

Between March 12 and August 10, 2020, 19.2% of HCW were symptomatic for COVID-19 and underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing. A single change point was identified ∼March 28-30 (95% probability). Before the change point, the odds of a tested HCW having a positive result doubled every 4.5 to 7.5 days. Post-change-point, the odds of a tested HCW having a positive result halved every 10.5 to 13.5 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Universal facemasks were associated with reducing HCW's risk of acquiring COVID-19.

Sensitivity analysis of the infection transmissibility in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic

The coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak started in December 2019 and rapidly spread around the world affecting millions of people. With the growth of infection rate, many countries adopted different policies to control the spread of the disease. The UK implemented strict rules instructing individuals to stay at home except in some special circumstances starting from 23 March 2020. Accordingly, this study focuses on sensitivity analysis of transmissibility of the infection as the effects of removing restrictions, for example by returning different occupational groups to their normal working environment and its effect on the reproduction number in the UK. For this reason, available social contact matrices are adopted for the population of UK to account for the average number of contacts. Different scenarios are then considered to analyse the variability of total contacts on the reproduction number in the UK as a whole and each of its four nations. Our data-driven retrospective analysis shows that if more than 38.5% of UK working-age population return to their normal working environment, the reproduction number in the UK is expected to be higher than 1. However, analysis of each nation, separately, shows that local reproduction number in each nation may be different and requires more adequate analysis. Accordingly, we believe that using statistical methods and historical data can provide good estimation of local transmissibility and reproduction number in any region. As a consequence of this analysis, efforts to reduce the restrictions should be implemented locally via different control policies. It is important that these policies consider the social contacts, population density, and the occupational groups that are specific to each region.

Sociodemographic risk factors for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection among Massachusetts healthcare workers: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To better understand coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmission among healthcare workers (HCWs), we investigated occupational and nonoccupational risk factors associated with cumulative COVID-19 incidence among a Massachusetts HCW cohort.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The retrospective cohort study included adult HCWs in a single healthcare system from March 9 to June 3, 2020.

METHODS

The SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal RT-PCR results and demographics of the study participants were deidentified and extracted from an established occupational health, COVID-19 database at the healthcare system. HCWs from each particular job grouping had been categorized into frontline or nonfrontline workers. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and odds ratios (ORs) were used to compare subgroups after excluding HCWs involved in early infection clusters before universal masking began. A sensitivity analysis was performed comparing jobs with the greatest potential occupational risks with others.

RESULTS

Of 5,177 HCWs, 152 (2.94%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. Affected HCWs resided in areas with higher community attack rates (median, 1,755.2 vs 1,412.4 cases per 100,000; P < .001; multivariate-adjusted IRR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.03-3.44 comparing fifth to first quintile of community rates). After multivariate adjustment, African-American and Hispanic HCWs had higher incidence of COVID-19 than non-Hispanic white HCWs (IRR, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.78-4.33; and IRR, 2.41, 95% CI, 1.42-4.07, respectively). After adjusting for race and residential rates, frontline HCWs had a higher IRR (1.73, 95% CI, 1.16-2.54) than nonfrontline HCWs overall, but not within specific job categories nor when comparing the highest risk jobs to others.

CONCLUSIONS

After universal masking was instituted, the strongest risk factors associated with HCW COVID-19 infection were residential community infection rate and race.

Association of social distancing and masking with risk of COVID-19

Given the continued burden of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) disease (COVID-19) across the U.S., there is a high unmet need for data to inform decision-making regarding social distancing and universal masking. We examined the association of community-level social distancing measures and individual masking with risk of predicted COVID-19 in a large prospective U.S. cohort study of 198,077 participants. Individuals living in communities with the greatest social distancing had a 31% lower risk of predicted COVID-19 compared with those living in communities with poor social distancing. Self-reported masking was associated with a 63% reduced risk of predicted COVID-19 even among individuals living in a community with poor social distancing. These findings provide support for the efficacy of mask-wearing even in settings of poor social distancing in reducing COVID-19 transmission. In the current environment of relaxed social distancing mandates and practices, universal masking may be particularly important in mitigating risk of infection.