Linked nosocomial COVID-19 outbreak in three facilities for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities due to SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.519 with spike mutation T478K in the Netherlands

Perceived barriers and facilitators to infection prevention and control in Dutch residential care facilities for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Adequate implementation of infection prevention and control (IPC) in residential care facilities (RCFs) for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs) is crucial to safeguarding this vulnerable population. Studies in this field are scarce. This study aimed to identify perceived barriers to and facilitators of IPC among professionals working in these settings, along with recommendations to improve IPC, to inform the development of targeted interventions.

METHODS

We administered an online questionnaire to 319 professionals from 16 Dutch RCFs for people with IDDs (March 2021-March 2022). Perceived multilevel barriers and facilitators (guideline, client, interpersonal, organisational, care sector, and policy level) were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (totally disagree-totally agree). Recommendations were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale (not at all helpful-extremely helpful), supplemented by an open-ended question. Barriers, facilitators, and recommendations were analysed by descriptive statistics. Open answers to recommendations were analysed through thematic coding.

RESULTS

Barriers to IPC implementation included the client group (e.g., lack of hygiene awareness) (63%), competing values between IPC and the home-like environment (42%), high work pressure (39%), and the overwhelming quantity of IPC guidelines/protocols (33%). Facilitators included perceived social support on IPC between professionals and from supervisors (90% and 80%, respectively), procedural clarity of IPC guidelines/protocols (83%), and the sense of urgency for IPC in the organisation (74%). Main recommendations included the implementation of clear IPC policies and regulations (86%), the development of a practical IPC guideline (84%), and the introduction of structural IPC education and training programmes (for new staff members) (85%). Professionals also emphasised the need for IPC improvement efforts to be tailored to the local care context, and to involve clients and their relatives.

CONCLUSIONS

To improve IPC in disability care settings, multifaceted strategies should be adopted. Initial efforts should involve clients (and relatives), develop a practical and context-specific IPC guideline, encourage social support among colleagues through interprofessional coaching, reduce workload, and foster an IPC culture including shared responsibility within the organisation.

Analysis of two sequential SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks on a haematology-oncology ward and the role of infection prevention

Two SARS-CoV-2 nosocomial outbreaks occurred on the haematology ward of our hospital. Patients on the ward were at high risk for severe infection because of their immunocompromised status. Whole Genome Sequencing proved transmission of a particular SARS-CoV-2 variant in each outbreak. The first outbreak (20 patients/31 healthcare workers (HCW)) occurred in November 2020 and was caused by a variant belonging to lineage B.1.221. At that time, there were still uncertainties on mode of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and vaccines nor therapy were available. Despite HCW wearing II-R masks in all patient contacts and FFP-2 masks during aerosol generating procedures (AGP), the outbreak continued. Therefore, extra measures were introduced. Firstly, regular PCR-screening of asymptomatic patients and HCW; positive patients were isolated and positive HCW were excluded from work as a rule and they were only allowed to resume their work if a follow-up PCR CT-value was ≥30 and were asymptomatic or having only mild symptoms. Secondly, the use of FFP-2 masks was expanded to some long-lasting, close-contact, non-AGPs. After implementing these measures, the incidence of new cases declined gradually. Thirty-seven percent of patients died due to COVID-19. The second outbreak (10 patients/2 HCW) was caused by the highly transmissible omicron BA.1 variant and occurred in February 2022, where transmission occurred on shared rooms despite the extra infection control measures. It was controlled much faster, and the clinical impact was low as the majority of patients was vaccinated; no patients died and symptoms were relatively mild in both patients and HCW.

Psychosocial determinants associated with healthcare workers' self-reported compliance with infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study in Dutch residential care facilities for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers' (HCWs) compliance with infection prevention and control (IPC) is crucial to reduce the infection transmission risk. However, HCWs' compliance with IPC in residential care facilities (RCFs) for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs) is known to be suboptimal. Therefore, this study examined sociodemographic and psychosocial determinants associated with IPC non-compliance in this setting, to inform IPC policy and promotion programmes for adequate IPC behaviour.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was administered to 285 HCWs from 16 RCFs between March 2021 and March 2022. Determinants associated with IPC non-compliance were assessed using logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

Being a woman (OR: 3.57; 1.73-7.37), and being a non-medical professional were associated with increased odds of non-compliance (social workers, OR: 2.83; 1.65-4.85; behavioural specialists, OR: 6.09; 1.98-18.72). Perceived inadequate education/training (aOR: 1.62; 1.15-2.27) and perceived time constraints/competing priorities (aOR: 1.43; 1.03-1.98) were also associated with increased odds of non-compliance, independent of sociodemographic variables. In contrast, the belief that the supervisor complies with IPC (descriptive norm supervisor) was associated with decreased odds of non-compliance (aOR: 0.60; 0.41-0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

To improve IPC in disability care settings, the implementation of tailored and structural IPC education and training programmes (e.g., on-the-job training) is recommended to increase HCWs' capabilities and bridge the IPC compliance gap between medical and non-medical professionals. In addition, role models, particularly supervisors, are crucial for promoting IPC behaviour. Facilities should create a culture of IPC compliance by norm setting, acting on, and modelling IPC behaviours at all levels of the organisation (management, medical, and non-medical staff).

Self-reported compliance with infection prevention and control of healthcare workers in Dutch residential care facilities for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Compliance of healthcare workers (HCWs) with infection prevention and control (IPC) is crucial to resident safety. Nevertheless, HCWs' compliance with IPC has not been previously studied in a disability care setting.

OBJECTIVE

To assess levels of self-reported compliance with IPC among HCWs in residential care facilities (RCFs) for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs), and to assess whether IPC compliance varies among different professional groups.

METHODS

A total of 285 HCWs from 16 Dutch RCFs completed an online questionnaire assessing 16 IPC procedures, following national guidelines. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests to assess potential differences in compliance between professional groups.

RESULTS

Overall, HCWs complied on average with 68.7% of IPC. Only 30.1% of HCWs had sufficient compliance (defined as compliance with ≥80% of IPC practices). Compliance varied considerably between individual IPC procedures, in which compliance with wearing short-sleeved clothes (30.9%) and using disposable protective clothing (32.7%) were the lowest. Compliance with jewellery and hair regulations was suboptimal (45.6% and 55.4%, respectively). Non-medical professionals complied with IPC less frequently (social workers, 24.2%; behavioural specialists, 12.9%) than medical professionals (47.4%) (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of HCWs had suboptimal compliance with IPC. As IPC compliance differs between professionals, recommendations are to 1) implement tailored education and training programmes, and 2) pursue a facility-wide minimum required IPC compliance. Implementing and communicating a minimum set of IPC procedures - including hand hygiene, personal hygiene, and clothing requirements - applying to all professionals is important to minimise the infection transmission risk in RCFs for people with IDDs.

Validating a clinical laboratory parameter-based deisolation algorithm for patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit using viability PCR: the CoLaIC multicentre cohort study protocol

INTRODUCTION

To investigate whether biochemical and haematological changes due to the patient's host response (CoLab algorithm) in combination with a SARS-CoV-2 viability PCR (v-PCR) can be used to determine when a patient with COVID-19 is no longer infectious.We hypothesise that the CoLab algorithm in combination with v-PCR can be used to determine whether or not a patient with COVID-19 is infectious to facilitate the safe release of patients with COVID-19 from isolation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study consists of three parts using three different cohorts of patients. All three cohorts contain clinical, vital and laboratory parameters, as well as logistic data related to isolated patients with COVID-19, with a focus on intensive care unit (ICU) stay. The first cohort will be used to develop an algorithm for the course of the biochemical and haematological changes of the host response of the COVID-19 patient. Simultaneously, a second prospective cohort will be used to investigate the algorithm derived in the first cohort, with daily measured laboratory parameters, next to conventional SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcriptase PCRs, as well as v-PCR, to confirm the presence of intact SARS-CoV-2 particles in the patient. Finally, a third multicentre cohort, consisting of retrospectively collected data from patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU, will be used to validate the algorithm.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee from Maastricht University Medical Centre+ (cohort I: 2020-1565/300523) and Zuyderland MC (cohorts II and III: METCZ20200057). All patients will be required to provide informed consent. Results from this study will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals and congress/consortium presentations.

Pattern of SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.519 emergence in Alaska

Alaska has the lowest population density in the United States (US) with a mix of urban centers and isolated rural communities. Alaska's distinct population dynamics compared to the contiguous US may have contributed to unique patterns of SARS-CoV-2 variants observed in early 2021. Here we examined 2323 SARS-CoV-2 genomes from Alaska and 278,635 from the contiguous US collected from December 2020 through June 2021 because of the notable emergence and spread of lineage B.1.1.519 in Alaska. We found that B.1.1.519 was consistently detected from late January through June of 2021 in Alaska with a peak prevalence in April of 77.9% unlike the rest of the US at 4.6%. The earlier emergence of B.1.1.519 coincided with a later peak of Alpha (B.1.1.7) compared to the contiguous US. We also observed differences in variant composition over time between the two most populated regions of Alaska and a modest increase in COVID-19 cases during the peak incidence of B.1.1.519. However, it is difficult to disentangle how social dynamics conflated changes in COVID-19 during this time. We suggest that the viral characteristics, such as amino acid substitutions in the spike protein, likely contributed to the unique spread of B.1.1.519 in Alaska.

Incidence, Hospitalization, Mortality and Risk Factors of COVID-19 in Long-Term Care Residential Homes for Patients with Chronic Mental Illness

Long-term care residential homes (LTCRH) for patients with chronic mental illness have suffered the enormous impact of COVID-19. This study aimed to estimate incidence, hospitalization, mortality, and risk factors of COVID-19 to prevent future epidemics. From March 2020 to January 2021 and before vaccination anti-SARS-CoV-2 begins, cumulate incidence rate (CIR), hospitalization rate (HR), mortality rate (MR), and risk factors of COVID-19 in the 11 LTCRH of two Health Departments of Castellon (Spain) were studied by epidemiological surveillance and an ecological design. Laboratory tests confirmed COVID-19 cases, and multilevel Poisson regression models were employed. All LTCRH participated and comprised 346 residents and 482 staff. Residents had a mean age of 47 years, 40% women, and suffered 75 cases of COVID-19 (CIR = 21.7%), five hospitalizations (HR = 1.4%), and two deaths (MR = 0.6%) with 2.5% fatality-case. Staff suffered 74 cases of the disease (CIR = 15.4%), one hospitalization (HR = 0.2%), and no deaths were reported. Risk factors associated with COVID-19 incidence in residents were private ownership, severe disability, residents be younger, CIR in municipalities where LTCRH was located, CIR in staff, and older age of the facilities. Conclusion: COVID-19 incidence could be prevented by improving infection control in residents and staff and modernizing facilities with increased public ownership.