Safely Returning America to Work: Part I: General Guidance for Employers

Culture, conditions and care support mental health of healthcare workers during crises

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has presented immense challenges to health systems worldwide and significantly impacted the mental health of frontline healthcare workers.

AIMS

This study drew on the experiences of frontline healthcare workers to examine organizational strategies needed to support the mental health and well-being of healthcare workers during times of crisis.

METHODS

Semi-structured focus groups or individual interviews were conducted with healthcare workers to examine their perspectives on organizational strategies for enhancing staff mental health and well-being during crises. Data were analysed thematically. Following this, evidence for the identified strategies was reviewed to assess alignment with participant views and recommendations.

RESULTS

Thirty-two healthcare workers from diverse disciplines (10 allied health, 11 nursing, 11 medical) participated in the study. Data analysis identified three broad themes contributing to supporting mental health and well-being. These themes can be encapsulated as the 'Three Cs'-culture (building an organizational culture that prioritizes mental health); conditions (implementing proactive organizational strategies during crises) and care (ensuring fit-for-purpose strategies to support mental health and well-being).

CONCLUSIONS

Study findings underscore the necessity of an integrated and systemic organizational approach to address mental health and well-being in the healthcare workplace. This approach must be long term with the components of the 'Three Cs', particularly cultural change and conditions, viewed as a part of a suite of strategies to ensure crisis preparedness. It is imperative that organizations collaborate with their staff, providing support and fostering a safe and inclusive work environment that ultimately benefits patients, their care and staff well-being.

Post-COVID Symptoms in Occupational Cohorts: Effects on Health and Work Ability

Post-acute COVID-19 syndrome is frequently observed in workers and has a substantial impact on work ability. We conducted a health promotion program to identify cases of post-COVID syndrome, analyze the distribution of symptoms and their association with work ability. Of the 1422 workers who underwent routine medical examination in 2021, 1378 agreed to participate. Among the latter, 164 had contracted SARS-CoV-2 and 115 (70% of those who were infected) had persistent symptoms. A cluster analysis showed that most of the post-COVID syndrome cases were characterized by sensory disturbances (anosmia and dysgeusia) and fatigue (weakness, fatigability, tiredness). In one-fifth of these cases, additional symptoms included dyspnea, tachycardia, headache, sleep disturbances, anxiety, and muscle aches. Workers with post-COVID were found to have poorer quality sleep, increased fatigue, anxiety, depression, and decreased work ability compared with workers whose symptoms had rapidly disappeared. It is important for the occupational physician to diagnose post-COVID syndrome in the workplace since this condition may require a temporary reduction in work tasks and supportive treatment.

Work readiness and barriers to employment during COVID-19 for individuals with Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1)

BACKGROUND

The global COVID-19 pandemic has directly impacted individuals with rare diseases who are attempting to maintain or obtain employment. Individuals with Neurofibromatosis Type 1 are especially at risk due to their disease.

OBJECTIVE

The current study compared the impact that generalized anxiety and quality of life had on work readiness and potential barriers that individuals with NF1 had in gaining and maintaining employment during the COVID-19 pandemic to a sample of healthy individuals using a moderating mediation analysis.

METHODS

A total of 213 individuals (105 NF1; 108 Healthy individuals) were recruited to complete a cross-sectional study in which a series of work-related assessments were completed.

RESULTS

Generalized anxiety had an indirect effect on work readiness, fully mediated by barriers, with higher anxiety associated with more barriers, in turn negatively correlating with work readiness; quality of life partially mediated the effect of barriers on work readiness and was negatively associated with the former and positively with the latter.

CONCLUSION

Quality of life was a mediator of the relationship between perceived employment barriers and work readiness for the healthy individuals group only. The results imply that anxiety and quality of life are significant mediators and require consideration in terms of evaluation and facilitation of employment maintenance and acquisition.

Experience of rehabilitation management in public hospital after it was identified as designated rehabilitation hospital for COVID-19 patients: A qualitative study

Objective

It is essential to focus on the rehabilitation of COVID-19 patients after discharge to prevent their long-term sequelae, but there is less research on healthcare organizations enhancing rehabilitation services for patients discharged from COVID-19. Therefore, this study aimed to describe how a public hospital provides better rehabilitation services for patients after being identified as a designated rehabilitation hospital for patients with COVID-19 and attempted to combine the theory of organizational change to analyze how the hospital finally successfully transformed.

Methods

A tertiary public hospital located in the center of Xi'an was selected for the study. It was identified as a designated hospital for the rehabilitation of patients discharged from the hospital with COVID-19. Nine hospital leaders and group leaders closely related to the rehabilitation management work were invited to participate in interviews to explore the fact about the hospital's rehabilitation work. The semi-structured interview with the hospital director and the focus group interview with group leaders were used for data collection. Two researchers independently conducted a thematic analysis of these responses.

Results

One hundred and seventy-eight primary codes, 22 subcategories, six main categories, and one core theme were obtained from data analysis. The main categories include organization and coordination (overall deployment, transfer patient, and external coordination), hospital infection prevention and control (process transformation, ward disinfection, hospital infection training, inspection, and supervision), staff management (staff classification, closed-loop management, and staff health screening), individual services for patients (create an individual scheme, humanistic care, organize special activities, and strengthen communication and guidance), comprehensive supporting (basic medical guarantee, daily necessities guarantee, health and nutrition guarantee, and assistance fund guarantee) and positive transformation (strategic thinking, benchmarking, strengthen cohesion, and expand influence).

Conclusion

The hospital had to transform its operations in the face of a complex environment during the pandemic. After deciding to transform, the hospital effectively prevented nosocomial infections and provided rehabilitation services to 583 patients through systematic management measures such as organizational coordination, staff classification, and personalized services. In the end, it has been successfully transformed and has grown rapidly. To ensure that it can continue to grow sustainably, the hospital enhanced the new ways that have emerged from this transformation.

Returning to Work after the COVID-19 Pandemic Earthquake: A Systematic Review

Background: The ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has disrupted life and work habits and has produced landmark changes worldwide. This systematic review aimed to analyse the management of Return to Work (RTW) by work organisations following the virus spread. Methods: A selection of 2477 papers, using string research on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus from January 2020 to October 2021, were analysed. Results: Fifty-one articles were finally included, and the results obtained were discussed from three different points of view. Twenty articles concerning ‘Remodelling of Work Organization’ proposed some model strategies for resumption to work. Twenty-one papers, including ‘Clinical Evaluation of Workers’, mostly explored the psychosocial impact of returned workers. Finally, twelve articles explored the best ‘Testing Strategies related to RTW’. Despite the heterogeneity of included articles, several interesting approaches have emerged in managing RTW. Conclusions: The reported experiences could help to develop an RTW model for COVID-19 and future pandemics.

COVID-19 infection and the broader impacts of the pandemic on healthcare workers

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) disease or COVID-19 pandemic is associated with more than 230 million cases and has challenged healthcare systems globally. Many healthcare workers (HCWs) have acquired the infection, often through their workplace, with a significant number dying. The epidemiology of COVID-19 infection in HCWs continues to be explored, with manifold exposure risks identified, leading to COVID-19 being recognised as an occupational disease for HCWs. The physical illness due to COVID-19 in HCWs is similar to the general population, with some HCWs experiencing a long-term illness, which may impact their ability to return to work. HCWs have also been affected by the immense workplace and psychosocial disruption caused by the pandemic. The impacts on the psychological well-being of HCWs globally have been profound, with high prevalence estimates for mental health symptoms, including emotional exhaustion. Globally, governments, healthcare organisations and employers have key responsibilities, including: to be better prepared for crises with comprehensive disaster response management plans, and to protect and preserve the health workforce from the physical and psychological impacts of the pandemic. While prioritising HCWs in vaccine rollouts globally has been critical, managing exposures and outbreaks occurring in healthcare settings remains challenging and continues to lead to substantial disruption to the health workforce. Safeguarding healthcare workforces during crises is critical as we move forward on the new path of 'COVID normal'.

Balancing safety on the road with risk from COVID-19: A content analysis of policy adaptations by Divisions of Motor Vehicles

PURPOSE

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly altered people's daily lives, including driving. However, how state Divisions of Motor Vehicles (DMV) adapted their operation policies in response to COVID-19 remains unknown. This study analyzed adaptations to the content of state DMV operation policies during the COVID-19 pandemic across 50 US states and assessed the relationships between these policy adoptions and their state-level COVID-19 restriction orders.

METHODS

We merged data on policy adaptations due to COVID-19 obtained from DMV websites for all 50 states with data on state-level restrictions obtained from the National Academy for State Health Policy (NASHP). We created a codebook and analyzed the DMV policy adaptations in the following three areas: (1) road testing, (2) licensure extension and renewals, and (3) facility reopening. Two trained coders independently reviewed and coded the adaptations of policy content related to precaution to spread of COVID-19 and ease of obtaining licensure. We calculated summary scores for policy adaptations and ease of licensure and compared these scores across three categories of state-level COVID-19 restrictions using ANOVA.

RESULTS

DMVs in all 50 states adapted their policies to slow the spread of COVID-19. The ease of licensure summary scores increased in some states but decreased in others. Extensions for licensure renewals was the most common change. Adoption of COVID-19 precautions during the road test was the most common road test adaptation, while road test waivers were the most controversial. Requiring appointments, social distancing, and/or face coverings/personal protective equipment [PPE] were common adaptations during facility reopening. However, variations in level of policy adaptations and ease of licensure were not associated with the state's COVID-19 restrictions.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide insight into policy adaptations made by state DMVs to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and may inform future policy adaptations in DMVs and other government agencies during public health emergencies.

Return-to-work, disabilities and occupational health in the age of COVID-19

We have read with great interest the two editorials by Burdorf et al: "The COVID-19 pandemic: one year later - an occupational perspective" (1) and "The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health" (2). The authors highlight the importance of the societal consequences of the outbreak and changes in the world of work to manage occupational health. The key points identified - such as individual socio-economic factors, psychological effects and occupations with highest risk of contamination - modify return-to-work approaches. It is estimated that around 800 million people of working age worldwide were living with disabilities before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In early January 2021, the cumulative COVID-19 hospitalisation rate reached 207.4/100 000 (18-49-year-olds) and 505.7/100 000 (50-64-year-olds), respectively, in the United States (3). In France, the hospitalisation rate was 411.5/100 000 across all ages (4). A recent cohort study of working-age men who were hospitalised for COVID-19 highlighted the long-term health consequences of such a disease (5). The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic creates new challenges for occupational health, shifting attention away from return-to-work after health problems to resuming work during an outbreak, dealing with lockdown, and taking special account of workers with vulnerabilities (6, 7). We recommend considering three different aspects of occupational medicine during a pandemic. Firstly, for most workers at high-risk of severe COVID-19, the issues of work disability and resuming work had never occurred before the epidemic. Recommendations such as physical and social distancing and wearing a facemask are highly advisable to protect against infection but may not be enough to enable some individuals to resume work. Therefore, decision-making requires individual comprehensive assessments of the underlying medical condition, the SARS-CoV-2 contamination risk associated with either regular work or teleworking, and vaccination opportunities. The second situation concerns workers who have suffered from COVID-19. Preliminary studies suggest that long recovery duration is related to high severity (7), but this is still a matter of debate for patients suffering from "long COVID-19" (5, 8, 9), a condition for which the long-term effects remain unknown. Any long-running recovery must be considered to be a potential sign of long COVID-19. These long-lasting syndromes occur among patients with severe symptoms but have also been reported independently of acute phase severity, hospitalisation and receiving medical oxygen (8, 9). Researchers worldwide are currently investigating such syndromes. Strategies promoting return to work for these workers will need to be implemented and could be similar to programmes developed for other chronic conditions. Moreover, numerous more serious sequelae following critical illness suggest the need for enhanced support by rehabilitation and occupational health specialists. Finally, the consequences of the epidemic must be evaluated over time for people who suffered from functional limitations before COVID-19 as their physical and mental condition may be modified by the epidemic and, specifically, the consequences of lockdown (10). In all of these situations, medical, social, financial and working contexts are key elements. In addition to a medical assessment, the use of scales such as the Work Ability Index (WAI) (11) or the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) (12) can help perform long-term follow-up and provide information about work capacity and workload. It also gives a "back to basics" perspective, urging politicians to move towards a `decent-work-for-all` policy, as advocated by the United Nation`s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 8, which the WHO has endorsed (13). References 1. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. The COVID-19 pandemic: one year later - an occupational perspective. Scand J Work Environ Health - online first. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3956 2. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2020;46(3):229-230. https://doi:org/10.5271/sjweh.3893. 3. COVID-19 Hospitalizations [Internet]. Available from: https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_3.html 4. COVID-19 in France, vaccine and allergy management in occupational setting. Descatha A et al. Arch Mal Prof Environ 2021. Accepted for publication. 5. Huang C, Huang L, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Gu X, et al. 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study. Lancet 2021;397(10270):220-32 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32656-8 6. Shaw WS, Main CJ, Findley PA, Collie A, Kristman VL, Gross DP. Opening the Workplace After COVID-19: What Lessons Can be Learned from Return-to-Work Research? J Occup Rehabil. 2020;30(3):299-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09908-9 7. Taylor T, Das R, Mueller K, Pransky G, Christian J, Orford R, et al. Safely Returning America to Work: Part I: General Guidance for Employers. J Occup Environ Med. 2020;62(9):771-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001984 8. Carfì A, Bernabei R, Landi F, Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Study Group. Persistent Symptoms in Patients After Acute COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;324(6):603-5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12603 9. Tenforde MW, Kim SS, Lindsell CJ, Billig Rose E, Shapiro NI, Files DC, et al. Symptom Duration and Risk Factors for Delayed Return to Usual Health Among Outpatients with COVID-19 in a Multistate Health Care Systems Network - United States, March-June 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly. 2020;69(30):993-8. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6930e1 10. Chudasama YV, Gillies CL, Zaccardi F, Coles B, Davies MJ, Seidu S, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on routine care for chronic diseases: A global survey of views from healthcare professionals. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020;14(5):965-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2020.06.042 11. Tuomi K. Eleven-year follow-up of aging workers. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1997;23(1):1-71. 12. Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. PharmacoEconomics. 1993;4(5):353-65. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199304050-00006 13. Organization WH. Health in the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Sixty-Ninth World Health Assembly. Document A. 2016, p69.

Return-to-work, disabilities and occupational health in the age of COVID-19

We have read with great interest the two editorials by Burdorf et al: "The COVID-19 pandemic: one year later - an occupational perspective" (1) and "The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health" (2). The authors highlight the importance of the societal consequences of the outbreak and changes in the world of work to manage occupational health. The key points identified - such as individual socio-economic factors, psychological effects and occupations with highest risk of contamination - modify return-to-work approaches. It is estimated that around 800 million people of working age worldwide were living with disabilities before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In early January 2021, the cumulative COVID-19 hospitalisation rate reached 207.4/100 000 (18-49-year-olds) and 505.7/100 000 (50-64-year-olds), respectively, in the United States (3). In France, the hospitalisation rate was 411.5/100 000 across all ages (4). A recent cohort study of working-age men who were hospitalised for COVID-19 highlighted the long-term health consequences of such a disease (5). The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic creates new challenges for occupational health, shifting attention away from return-to-work after health problems to resuming work during an outbreak, dealing with lockdown, and taking special account of workers with vulnerabilities (6, 7). We recommend considering three different aspects of occupational medicine during a pandemic. Firstly, for most workers at high-risk of severe COVID-19, the issues of work disability and resuming work had never occurred before the epidemic. Recommendations such as physical and social distancing and wearing a facemask are highly advisable to protect against infection but may not be enough to enable some individuals to resume work. Therefore, decision-making requires individual comprehensive assessments of the underlying medical condition, the SARS-CoV-2 contamination risk associated with either regular work or teleworking, and vaccination opportunities. The second situation concerns workers who have suffered from COVID-19. Preliminary studies suggest that long recovery duration is related to high severity (7), but this is still a matter of debate for patients suffering from "long COVID-19" (5, 8, 9), a condition for which the long-term effects remain unknown. Any long-running recovery must be considered to be a potential sign of long COVID-19. These long-lasting syndromes occur among patients with severe symptoms but have also been reported independently of acute phase severity, hospitalisation and receiving medical oxygen (8, 9). Researchers worldwide are currently investigating such syndromes. Strategies promoting return to work for these workers will need to be implemented and could be similar to programmes developed for other chronic conditions. Moreover, numerous more serious sequelae following critical illness suggest the need for enhanced support by rehabilitation and occupational health specialists. Finally, the consequences of the epidemic must be evaluated over time for people who suffered from functional limitations before COVID-19 as their physical and mental condition may be modified by the epidemic and, specifically, the consequences of lockdown (10). In all of these situations, medical, social, financial and working contexts are key elements. In addition to a medical assessment, the use of scales such as the Work Ability Index (WAI) (11) or the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) (12) can help perform long-term follow-up and provide information about work capacity and workload. It also gives a "back to basics" perspective, urging politicians to move towards a `decent-work-for-all` policy, as advocated by the United Nation`s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 8, which the WHO has endorsed (13). References 1. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. The COVID-19 pandemic: one year later - an occupational perspective. Scand J Work Environ Health - online first. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3956 2. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2020;46(3):229-230. https://doi:org/10.5271/sjweh.3893. 3. COVID-19 Hospitalizations [Internet]. Available from: https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_3.html 4. COVID-19 in France, vaccine and allergy management in occupational setting. Descatha A et al. Arch Mal Prof Environ 2021. Accepted for publication. 5. Huang C, Huang L, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Gu X, et al. 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study. Lancet 2021;397(10270):220-32 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32656-8 6. Shaw WS, Main CJ, Findley PA, Collie A, Kristman VL, Gross DP. Opening the Workplace After COVID-19: What Lessons Can be Learned from Return-to-Work Research? J Occup Rehabil. 2020;30(3):299-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09908-9 7. Taylor T, Das R, Mueller K, Pransky G, Christian J, Orford R, et al. Safely Returning America to Work: Part I: General Guidance for Employers. J Occup Environ Med. 2020;62(9):771-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001984 8. Carfì A, Bernabei R, Landi F, Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Study Group. Persistent Symptoms in Patients After Acute COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;324(6):603-5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12603 9. Tenforde MW, Kim SS, Lindsell CJ, Billig Rose E, Shapiro NI, Files DC, et al. Symptom Duration and Risk Factors for Delayed Return to Usual Health Among Outpatients with COVID-19 in a Multistate Health Care Systems Network - United States, March-June 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly. 2020;69(30):993-8. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6930e1 10. Chudasama YV, Gillies CL, Zaccardi F, Coles B, Davies MJ, Seidu S, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on routine care for chronic diseases: A global survey of views from healthcare professionals. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020;14(5):965-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2020.06.042 11. Tuomi K. Eleven-year follow-up of aging workers. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1997;23(1):1-71. 12. Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. PharmacoEconomics. 1993;4(5):353-65. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199304050-00006 13. Organization WH. Health in the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Sixty-Ninth World Health Assembly. Document A. 2016, p69.

Return-to-work, disabilities and occupational health in the age of COVID-19

We have read with great interest the two editorials by Burdorf et al: "The COVID-19 pandemic: one year later - an occupational perspective" (1) and "The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health" (2). The authors highlight the importance of the societal consequences of the outbreak and changes in the world of work to manage occupational health. The key points identified - such as individual socio-economic factors, psychological effects and occupations with highest risk of contamination - modify return-to-work approaches. It is estimated that around 800 million people of working age worldwide were living with disabilities before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In early January 2021, the cumulative COVID-19 hospitalisation rate reached 207.4/100 000 (18-49-year-olds) and 505.7/100 000 (50-64-year-olds), respectively, in the United States (3). In France, the hospitalisation rate was 411.5/100 000 across all ages (4). A recent cohort study of working-age men who were hospitalised for COVID-19 highlighted the long-term health consequences of such a disease (5). The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic creates new challenges for occupational health, shifting attention away from return-to-work after health problems to resuming work during an outbreak, dealing with lockdown, and taking special account of workers with vulnerabilities (6, 7). We recommend considering three different aspects of occupational medicine during a pandemic. Firstly, for most workers at high-risk of severe COVID-19, the issues of work disability and resuming work had never occurred before the epidemic. Recommendations such as physical and social distancing and wearing a facemask are highly advisable to protect against infection but may not be enough to enable some individuals to resume work. Therefore, decision-making requires individual comprehensive assessments of the underlying medical condition, the SARS-CoV-2 contamination risk associated with either regular work or teleworking, and vaccination opportunities. The second situation concerns workers who have suffered from COVID-19. Preliminary studies suggest that long recovery duration is related to high severity (7), but this is still a matter of debate for patients suffering from "long COVID-19" (5, 8, 9), a condition for which the long-term effects remain unknown. Any long-running recovery must be considered to be a potential sign of long COVID-19. These long-lasting syndromes occur among patients with severe symptoms but have also been reported independently of acute phase severity, hospitalisation and receiving medical oxygen (8, 9). Researchers worldwide are currently investigating such syndromes. Strategies promoting return to work for these workers will need to be implemented and could be similar to programmes developed for other chronic conditions. Moreover, numerous more serious sequelae following critical illness suggest the need for enhanced support by rehabilitation and occupational health specialists. Finally, the consequences of the epidemic must be evaluated over time for people who suffered from functional limitations before COVID-19 as their physical and mental condition may be modified by the epidemic and, specifically, the consequences of lockdown (10). In all of these situations, medical, social, financial and working contexts are key elements. In addition to a medical assessment, the use of scales such as the Work Ability Index (WAI) (11) or the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) (12) can help perform long-term follow-up and provide information about work capacity and workload. It also gives a "back to basics" perspective, urging politicians to move towards a `decent-work-for-all` policy, as advocated by the United Nation`s Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 8, which the WHO has endorsed (13). References 1. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. The COVID-19 pandemic: one year later - an occupational perspective. Scand J Work Environ Health - online first. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3956 2. Burdorf A, Porru F, Rugulies R. The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic: consequences for occupational health. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2020;46(3):229-230. https://doi:org/10.5271/sjweh.3893. 3. COVID-19 Hospitalizations [Internet]. Available from: https://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/COVIDNet/COVID19_3.html 4. COVID-19 in France, vaccine and allergy management in occupational setting. Descatha A et al. Arch Mal Prof Environ 2021. Accepted for publication. 5. Huang C, Huang L, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Gu X, et al. 6-month consequences of COVID-19 in patients discharged from hospital: a cohort study. Lancet 2021;397(10270):220-32 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32656-8 6. Shaw WS, Main CJ, Findley PA, Collie A, Kristman VL, Gross DP. Opening the Workplace After COVID-19: What Lessons Can be Learned from Return-to-Work Research? J Occup Rehabil. 2020;30(3):299-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09908-9 7. Taylor T, Das R, Mueller K, Pransky G, Christian J, Orford R, et al. Safely Returning America to Work: Part I: General Guidance for Employers. J Occup Environ Med. 2020;62(9):771-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001984 8. Carfì A, Bernabei R, Landi F, Gemelli Against COVID-19 Post-Acute Care Study Group. Persistent Symptoms in Patients After Acute COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;324(6):603-5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12603 9. Tenforde MW, Kim SS, Lindsell CJ, Billig Rose E, Shapiro NI, Files DC, et al. Symptom Duration and Risk Factors for Delayed Return to Usual Health Among Outpatients with COVID-19 in a Multistate Health Care Systems Network - United States, March-June 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly. 2020;69(30):993-8. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6930e1 10. Chudasama YV, Gillies CL, Zaccardi F, Coles B, Davies MJ, Seidu S, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on routine care for chronic diseases: A global survey of views from healthcare professionals. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2020;14(5):965-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2020.06.042 11. Tuomi K. Eleven-year follow-up of aging workers. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1997;23(1):1-71. 12. Reilly MC, Zbrozek AS, Dukes EM. The validity and reproducibility of a work productivity and activity impairment instrument. PharmacoEconomics. 1993;4(5):353-65. https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199304050-00006 13. Organization WH. Health in the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Sixty-Ninth World Health Assembly. Document A. 2016, p69.

Reducing travel-related SARS-CoV-2 transmission with layered mitigation measures: symptom monitoring, quarantine, and testing

BACKGROUND

Balancing the control of SARS-CoV-2 transmission with the resumption of travel is a global priority. Current recommendations include mitigation measures before, during, and after travel. Pre- and post-travel strategies including symptom monitoring, antigen or nucleic acid amplification testing, and quarantine can be combined in multiple ways considering different trade-offs in feasibility, adherence, effectiveness, cost, and adverse consequences.

METHODS

We used a mathematical model to analyze the expected effectiveness of symptom monitoring, testing, and quarantine under different estimates of the infectious period, test-positivity relative to time of infection, and test sensitivity to reduce the risk of transmission from infected travelers during and after travel.

RESULTS

If infection occurs 0-7 days prior to travel, immediate isolation following symptom onset prior to or during travel reduces risk of transmission while traveling by 30-35%. Pre-departure testing can further reduce risk, with testing closer to the time of travel being optimal even if test sensitivity is lower than an earlier test. For example, testing on the day of departure can reduce risk while traveling by 44-72%. For transmission risk after travel with infection time up to 7 days prior to arrival at the destination, isolation based on symptom monitoring reduced introduction risk at the destination by 42-56%. A 14-day quarantine after arrival, without symptom monitoring or testing, can reduce post-travel risk by 96-100% on its own. However, a shorter quarantine of 7 days combined with symptom monitoring and a test on day 5-6 after arrival is also effective (97--100%) at reducing introduction risk and is less burdensome, which may improve adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Quarantine is an effective measure to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk from travelers and can be enhanced by the addition of symptom monitoring and testing. Optimal test timing depends on the effectiveness of quarantine: with low adherence or no quarantine, optimal test timing is close to the time of arrival; with effective quarantine, testing a few days later optimizes sensitivity to detect those infected immediately before or while traveling. These measures can complement recommendations such as social distancing, using masks, and hand hygiene, to further reduce risk during and after travel.

A Physician's Guide for Workers' Return to Work During COVID-19 Pandemic

OBJECTIVE

Higher probability of developing severe COVID-19 has been associated with health risk factors and medical conditions which are common among workers globally. For at risk workers, return to work may require additional protective policies and procedures.

METHODS

A review of the medical literature was conducted on health risk factors and medical conditions associated with increased COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, standardized measures for community COVID transmission, and occupation-specific risk.

RESULTS

The relative risk of acquiring and the severity of COVID-19 for workers is associated with three pillars: individual risk, workplace risk, and community risk. Matrices were developed to determine a worker's individual risk based on these three pillars.

CONCLUSIONS

A practical decision tool is proposed for physicians evaluating and managing individual worker COVID-19 risk in the context of returning to work.