Suchergebnisse

Abstract

Introduction
Upper respiratory tract infections (URTI) are common and a common cause of sick-leave for healthcare workers, and furthermore pose a threat especially for patients susceptible to other diseases. Sufficient use of respiratory protective equipment (RPE) may protect both the workers and the patients. The COVID-19 pandemic provided a unique opportunity to study the association between use of RPE and URTI in a real-life setting. The aim of this study was to examine if failure of RPE or non-compliance with RPE guidelines increases the risk of non-COVID-19 URTI symptoms among healthcare workers.


Methods
In a longitudinal cohort study, we collected self-reported data daily on work tasks, use of RPE, and URTI symptoms among healthcare workers with patient contact in 2 Danish Regions in 2 time periods during the COVID-19 pandemic. The association between failure of RPE or non-compliance with RPE guidelines and URTI symptoms was analyzed separately by generalized linear models. Persons tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 were censored from the analyses. The 2 waves of data collection were analyzed separately, as there were differences in recommendations of RPE during the 2 waves.


Results
We found that for healthcare workers performing work tasks with a risk of transmission of viruses or bacteria, failure of RPE was associated with an increased risk of URTI symptoms, RR: 1.65[0.53–5.14] in wave 1 and RR: 1.30[0.56–3.03] in wave 2. Also non-compliance with RPE guidelines was associated with an increased risk of URTI symptoms compared to the use of RPE in wave 1, RR: 1.28[0.87–1.87] and wave 2, RR: 1.39[1.01–1.91]. Stratifying on high- versus low-risk tasks showed that the risk related to failure and non-compliance was primarily associated with high-risk tasks, although not statistically significant.


Discussion
The study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic and thus may be affected by other preventive measures in society. However, this gave the opportunity to study the use of RPE in a real-life setting, also in departments that did not previously use RPE. The circumstances in the 2 time periods of data collection differed and were analyzed separately and thus the sample size was limited and affected the precision of the estimates.


Conclusion
Failures of RPE and non-compliance with RPE guidelines may increase the risk of URTI, compared to those who reported use of RPE as recommended. The implications of these findings are that the use of RPE to prevent URTI could be considered, especially while performing high-risk tasks where other prevention strategies are not achievable.

Abstract

Introduction
To treat and properly care for COVID-19 patients it is vital to have healthy healthcare workers to ensure the continued function of the healthcare system and to prevent transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) to patients, co-workers, and the community. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can prevent healthcare workers from being infected with and transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Experience and training are pivotal to ensure optimal protection. This study aims to examine the use and failure of PPE and compliance with PPE guidelines during the first and the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic among Danish healthcare workers.


Methods
Healthcare workers from the Central Denmark Region and the Capital Region of Denmark were invited to participate April–June 2020 during the first wave and November 2020–April 2021 during the second wave. Day-by-day, participants reported work procedures, use and failure of PPE, and compliance with PPE guidelines. Register-based information on sex, age, department, and profession was available for all participants.


Results
In total, 21 684 and 10 097 healthcare workers participated during the first and the second wave, respectively. During the first wave, 1.7% used filtering face piece-2 or -3 (FFP2 or FFP3) respirators and 8.2% used face masks [fluid resistant (type IIR) masks, masks with visor (typically type IIR), and other unspecified face masks] during physical contact with patients. During the second wave, the corresponding figures increased to 17.8% and 80.7%. During respiratory procedures, the use of FFP2 or FFP3 respirators increased from 5.6 to 24.3%, and the use of face masks from 14.7 to 77.8%. The no PPE use decreased from 21.3% during the first wave to 0.4% in the second wave, during respiratory procedures. Total PPE failures decreased from 0.7 to 0.4% from the first to second wave. The proportion not complying with PPE guidelines declined from 3.6 to 2.2% during physical contact with patients and from 6.5 to 4.6% during respiratory procedures. PPE failure and non-compliance varied by age, sex and type of department. Frequent reasons for non-compliance were forgetfulness and lack of time, and during the first but not during the second wave, limited availability of PPE.


Conclusion
We found a substantial increase in the use of PPE and a substantial decrease in PPE failures from the first to the second wave of COVID-19 in Denmark. However, there is still a need for continuous focus on compliance in use of PPE among healthcare workers.

Abstract

Background
There is strong observational evidence that respirators are highly effective in protecting the users from being infected with Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), but the evidence for SARS-CoV-2 during daily work is limited. This study utilized a subset of healthcare workers' temporary use of a new brand respirator with frequent defects when caring for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients to assess the protective effect of regular respirators against SARS-CoV-2 infection.


Methods
We retrospectively followed 463 participants wearing a regular respirator and 168 wearing the new brand respirator day-by-day when caring for COVID-19 patients until testing polymerase chain reaction positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 27th December 2020 and 14th January 2021.


Results
We observed seven and eight incident SARS-CoV-2-infected cases. This corresponded with daily infection rates of 0.2 and 0.5%, an incidence rate ratio of 0.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1; 1.0], and an incidence rate difference of 0.3% (95% CI −0.1; 0.8) when comparing a regular with the new brand respirator.


Discussion
We regard the new brand respirator a sham intervention, and this study thus provides further evidence for the protective effect of respirators when exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Abstract

Objective
Within the scope of the Exposome Project for Health and Occupational Research on applying the exposome concept to working life health, we aimed to provide a broad overview of the status of knowledge on occupational exposures and associated health effects across multiple noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) to help inform research priorities.


Methods
We conducted a narrative review of occupational risk factors that can be considered to have "consistent evidence for an association," or where there is "limited/inadequate evidence for an association" for 6 NCD groups: nonmalignant respiratory diseases; neurodegenerative diseases; cardiovascular/metabolic diseases; mental disorders; musculoskeletal diseases; and cancer. The assessment was done in expert sessions, primarily based on systematic reviews, supplemented with narrative reviews, reports, and original studies. Subsequently, knowledge gaps were identified, e.g. based on missing information on exposure–response relationships, gender differences, critical time-windows, interactions, and inadequate study quality.


Results
We identified over 200 occupational exposures with consistent or limited/inadequate evidence for associations with one or more of 60+ NCDs. Various exposures were identified as possible risk factors for multiple outcomes. Examples are diesel engine exhaust and cadmium, with consistent evidence for lung cancer, but limited/inadequate evidence for other cancer sites, respiratory, neurodegenerative, and cardiovascular diseases. Other examples are physically heavy work, shift work, and decision latitude/job control. For associations with limited/inadequate evidence, new studies are needed to confirm the association. For risk factors with consistent evidence, improvements in study design, exposure assessment, and case definition could lead to a better understanding of the association and help inform health-based threshold levels.


Conclusions
By providing an overview of knowledge gaps in the associations between occupational exposures and their health effects, our narrative review will help setting priorities in occupational health research. Future epidemiological studies should prioritize to include large sample sizes, assess exposures prior to disease onset, and quantify exposures. Potential sources of biases and confounding need to be identified and accounted for in both original studies and systematic reviews.