Emergency department personnel patient care-related COVID-19 risk

Availability and use of institutional support programs for emergency department healthcare personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic placed health care personnel (HCP) at risk for stress, anxiety, burnout, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). To address this, hospitals developed programs to mitigate risk. The objectives of the current study were to measure the availability and use of these programs in a cohort of academic emergency departments (EDs) in the United States early in the pandemic and identify factors associated with program use.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey of ED HCP in 21 academic EDs in 15 states between June and September 2020. Site investigators provided data on the availability of 28 programs grouped into 9 categories. Individual support programs included: financial, workload mitigation, individual COVID-19 testing, emotional (e.g., mental health hotline), and instrumental (e.g., childcare) Clinical work support programs included: COVID-19 team communication (e.g., debriefing critical incident), patient-family communication facilitation, patient services (e.g., social work, ethics consultation), and system-level exposure reduction. Participants provided corresponding data on whether they used the programs. We used generalized linear mixed models clustered on site to measure the association between demographic and facility characteristics and program use.

RESULTS

We received 1,541 survey responses (96% response rate) from emergency physicians or advanced practice providers, nurses, and nonclinical staff. Program availability in each of the 9 categories was high (>95% of hospitals). Program use was variable, with clinical work support programs used more frequently (28-50% of eligible HCP across categories) than individual employee support programs (6-13% of eligible HCP across categories). Fifty-seven percent of respondents reported that the COVID-19 pandemic had affected their stress and anxiety, and 12% were at elevated risk for PTSD. Program use did not significantly differ for HCP who reported symptoms of anxiety and/or stress compared to those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Early in the pandemic, support programs were widely available to ED HCP, but program use was low. Future work will focus on identifying barriers and facilitators to use and specific programs most likely to be effective during periods of highest occupational stress.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infections Among Emergency Health Care Personnel: Impact on Delivery of United States Emergency Medical Care, 2020

STUDY OBJECTIVE

In the early months of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and before vaccine availability, there were concerns that infected emergency department (ED) health care personnel could present a threat to the delivery of emergency medical care. We examined how the pandemic affected staffing levels and whether COVID-19 positive staff were potentially infectious at work in a cohort of US ED health care personnel in 2020.

METHODS

The COVID-19 Evaluation of Risks in Emergency Departments (Project COVERED) project was a multicenter prospective cohort study of US ED health care personnel conducted from May to December 2020. During surveillance, health care personnel completed weekly electronic surveys and underwent periodic serology and nasal reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing for SARS-CoV-2, and investigators captured weekly data on health care facility COVID-19 prevalence and health care personnel staffing. Surveys asked about symptoms, potential exposures, work attendance, personal protective equipment use, and behaviors.

RESULTS

We enrolled 1,673 health care personnel who completed 29,825 person weeks of surveillance. Eighty-nine (5.3%) health care personnel documented 90 (0.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2% to 0.4%) person weeks of missed work related to documented or concerns for COVID-19 infection. Health care personnel experienced symptoms of COVID-19 during 1,256 (4.2%) person weeks and worked at least one shift whereas symptomatic during 1,042 (83.0%) of these periods. Seventy-five (4.5%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the surveillance period, including 43 (57.3%) who indicated they never experienced symptoms; 74 (98.7%; 95% CI 90.7% to 99.9%) infected health care personnel worked at least one shift during the initial period of infection, and 71 (94.7%) continued working until laboratory confirmation of their infection. Physician staffing was not associated with the facility or community COVID-19 levels within any time frame studied (Kendall tau's 0.02, 0.056, and 0.081 for no shift, one-week time shift, and 2-week time shift, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

During the first wave of the pandemic, COVID-19 infections in ED health care personnel were infrequent, and the time lost from the workforce was minimal. Health care personnel frequently reported for work while infected with SARS-CoV-2 before laboratory confirmation. The ED staffing levels were poorly correlated with facility and community COVID-19 burden.

A COVID-19 monitoring process for healthcare workers utilizing occupational health

BACKGROUND

Hospital-based occupational health (HBOH) is uniquely positioned to not only prevent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, but to care for healthcare workers (HCWs) sick with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

AIMS

The primary objective of this study is to describe a system where HBOH services were adapted to provide a monitoring programme whereby HCWs with SARS-CoV-2 received daily evaluations and treatment options in order to improve access to care, and to report the clinical outcomes and predictors of hospitalization in HCWs enrolled in the programme. A secondary objective is to compare clinical outcomes to data on national HCWs with COVID-19.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used survey data collected on HCWs at a university health system with COVID-19 from 1 March 2020 through 1 December 2021. A firth regression model was used to examine the unadjusted and adjusted association between clinical factors and hospitalization.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 4814 HCWs with COVID-19. Overall hospitalizations were 119 (2%), and there were six deaths (0.12%). Predictors of hospitalization include several co-morbidities and symptoms. A total of 1835 HCWs monitored before vaccine or monoclonal antibody availability were compared with data on U.S. HCWs in a similar time period. The monitored HCWs had a lower rate of co-morbidities (19% versus 44%, P < 0.001), a lower hospitalization rate (3% versus 8% P < 0.001) and case-fatality rate (0.11% versus 0.95% P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This monitoring strategy for COVID-19 may be feasible for HBOH systems to implement and improve access to care, but more data are needed to determine if it improves outcomes.

The evolution of workplace risk for Covid-19 in Canadian healthcare workers and its relation to vaccination: A nested case-referent study

BACKGROUND

During the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic, studies demonstrated that healthcare workers (HCWs) were at increased risk of infection. Few modifiable risks were identified. It is largely unknown how these evolved over time.

METHODS

A prospective case-referent study was established and nested within a cohort study of Canadian HCWs. Cases of Covid-19, confirmed by polymerase chain reaction, were matched with up to four referents on job, province, gender, and date of first vaccination. Cases and referents completed a questionnaire reporting exposures and experiences in the 21 days before case date. Participants were recruited from October 2020 to March 2022. Workplace factors were examined by mixed-effects logistic regression allowing for competing exposures. A sensitivity analysis was limited to those for whom family/community transmission seemed unlikely.

RESULTS

533 cases were matched with 1697 referents. Among unvaccinated HCWs, the risk of infection was increased if they worked hands-on with patients with Covid-19, on a ward designated for care of infected patients, or handled objects used by infected patients. Sensitivity analysis identified work in residential institutions and geriatric wards as high risk for unvaccinated HCWs. Later, with almost universal HCW vaccination, risk from working with infected patients was much reduced but cases were more likely than referents to report being unable to access an N95 mask or that decontaminated N95 masks were reused.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that, after a rocky start, the risks of Covid-19 infection from work in health care are now largely contained in Canada but with need for continued vigilance.

Endotracheal Intubation Strategy, Success, and Adverse Events Among Emergency Department Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To describe endotracheal intubation practices in emergency departments by staff intubating patients early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

METHODS

Multicenter prospective cohort study of endotracheal intubations conducted at 20 US academic emergency departments from May to December 2020, stratified by known or suspected COVID-19 status. We used multivariable regression to measure the association between intubation strategy, COVID-19 known or suspected status, first-pass success, and adverse events.

RESULTS

There were 3,435 unique emergency department endotracheal intubations by 586 participating physicians or advanced practice providers; 565 (18%) patients were known or suspected of having COVID-19 at the time of endotracheal intubation. Compared with patients not known or suspected of COVID-19, endotracheal intubations of patients with known or suspected COVID-19 were more often performed using video laryngoscopy (88% versus 82%, difference 6.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0% to 9.6%) and passive nasal oxygenation (44% versus 39%, difference 5.1%; 95% CI, 0.9% to 9.3%). First-pass success was not different between those who were and were not known or suspected of COVID-19 (87% versus 86%, difference 0.6%; 95% CI, -2.4% to 3.6%). Adjusting for patient characteristics and procedure factors in those with low anticipated airway difficulty (n=2,374), adverse events (most commonly hypoxia) occurred more frequently in patients with known or suspected COVID-19 (35% versus 19%, adjusted odds ratio 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.3).

CONCLUSION

Compared with patients not known or suspected of COVID-19, endotracheal intubation of those confirmed or suspected to have COVID-19 was associated with a similar first-pass intubation success rate but higher risk-adjusted adverse events.