Search

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., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: The authors have declared no competing interests exist., (Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.)

Background: Bivalent mRNA vaccines were recommended since September 2022. However, coverage with a recent vaccine dose has been limited, and there are few robust estimates of bivalent VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). We estimated VE of a bivalent mRNA vaccine dose against COVID-19 among eligible U.S. healthcare personnel who had previously received monovalent mRNA vaccine doses., Methods: We conducted a case-control study in 22 U.S. states, and enrolled healthcare personnel with COVID-19 (case-participants) or without COVID-19 (control-participants) during September 2022-May 2023. Participants were considered eligible for a bivalent mRNA dose if they had received 2-4 monovalent (ancestral-strain) mRNA vaccine doses, and were ≥67 days after the most recent vaccine dose. We estimated VE of a bivalent mRNA dose using conditional logistic regression, accounting for matching by region and four-week calendar period. We adjusted estimates for age group, sex, race and ethnicity, educational level, underlying health conditions, community COVID-19 exposure, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and days since the last monovalent mRNA dose., Results: Among 3,647 healthcare personnel, 1,528 were included as case-participants and 2,119 as control-participants. Participants received their last monovalent mRNA dose a median of 404 days previously; 1,234 (33.8%) also received a bivalent mRNA dose a median of 93 days previously. Overall, VE of a bivalent dose was 34.1% (95% CI, 22.6%-43.9%) against COVID-19 and was similar by product, days since last monovalent dose, number of prior doses, age group, and presence of underlying health conditions. However, VE declined from 54.8% (95% CI, 40.7%-65.6%) after 7-59 days to 21.6% (95% CI 5.6%-34.9%) after ≥60 days., Conclusions: Bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines initially conferred approximately 55% protection against COVID-19 among U.S. healthcare personnel. However, protection waned after two months. These findings indicate moderate initial protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection by remaining up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccines., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: [Monica Brackney owned stock in Moderna from November 2022–April 2023 stock as part of portfolio managed by Parametric Investments Portfolio LLC. All other authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.]., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Importance: Access to COVID-19 testing is critical to reducing transmission and supporting early treatment decisions; when made accessible, the timeliness of testing may also be an important metric in mitigating community spread of the infection. While disparities in transmission and outcomes of COVID-19 have been well documented, the extent of timeliness of testing and the association with demographic factors is unclear., Objectives: To evaluate demographic factors associated with delayed COVID-19 testing among health care personnel (HCP) during the COVID-19 pandemic., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the Preventing Emerging Infections Through Vaccine Effectiveness Testing study, a multicenter, test-negative, case-control vaccine effectiveness study that enrolled HCP who had COVID-19 symptoms and testing between December 2020 and April 2022. Data analysis was conducted from March 2022 to Junne 2023., Exposure: Displaying COVID-19-like symptoms and polymerase chain reaction testing occurring from the first day symptoms occurred up to 14 days after symptoms occurred., Main Outcomes and Measures: Variables of interest included patient demographics (sex, age, and clinical comorbidities) and COVID-19 characteristics (vaccination status and COVID-19 wave). The primary outcome was time from symptom onset to COVID-19 testing, which was defined as early testing (≤2 days) or delayed testing (≥3 days). Associations of demographic characteristics with delayed testing were measured while adjusting for clinical comorbidities, COVID-19 characteristics, and test site using multivariable modeling to estimate relative risks and 95% CIs., Results: A total of 5551 HCP (4859 female [82.9%]; 1954 aged 25-34 years [35.2%]; 4233 non-Hispanic White [76.3%], 370 non-Hispanic Black [6.7%], and 324 non-Hispanic Asian [5.8%]) were included in the final analysis. Overall, 2060 participants (37.1%) reported delayed testing and 3491 (62.9%) reported early testing. Compared with non-Hispanic White HCP, delayed testing was higher among non-Hispanic Black HCP (adjusted risk ratio, 1.18; 95%CI, 1.10-1.27) and for non-Hispanic HCP of other races (adjusted risk ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.33). Sex and age were not associated with delayed testing. Compared with clinical HCP with graduate degrees, all other professional and educational groups had significantly delayed testing., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of HCP, compared with non-Hispanic White HCP and clinical HCP with graduate degrees, non-Hispanic Black HCP, non-Hispanic HCP of other races, and HCP all other professional and education backgrounds were more likely to have delayed COVID-19 testing. These findings suggest that time to testing may serve as a valuable metric in evaluating sociodemographic disparities in the response to COVID-19 and future health mitigation strategies.

COVID-19 vaccination is effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 complications, but uptake has been low. Our objective in this study was to compare the importance of factors reported to influence the decision to receive a bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccine among health care personnel (HCP) tested for SARS-CoV-2 between October 2022 and April 2023 in a 20-hospital vaccine effectiveness study in the United States ( n  = 1656). Compared with those who had not received the booster, the factors most likely to be reported to be important were concerns about contracting COVID-19 (84.0% of those who had received the bivalent booster vs. 47.5% of those who had not, difference 36.6% points (PP), 95% confidence interval [CI] 32.1 to 41.1%), spreading infection to family members (89.2% vs. 62.8%, difference 26.3 PP, 95% CI 22.3 to 30.4%), and spreading infection to colleagues at work (85.5% vs. 59.4%, difference 26.1 PP, 95% CI 21.7 to 30.5%). HCP who had received the booster more frequently cited the primary literature (61.7% vs. 31.8%, difference 29.9 PP, 95% CI 24.6 to 35.2%) and employer recommendations (48.3% vs. 29.8%, difference 18.5 PP, 95% CI 13.2 to 23.9%) as influencing their decision. This analysis provides insight into factors for targeting future vaccine messaging.

Objectives: Although COVID-19 vaccines offer protection against infection and severe disease, there is limited information on the effect of vaccination on prolonged symptoms following COVID-19. Our objective was to determine differences in prevalence of prolonged symptoms 6 weeks after onset of COVID-19 among healthcare personnel (HCP) by vaccination status, and to assess differences in timing of return to work., Design: Cohort analysis of HCP with COVID-19 enrolled in a multicentre vaccine effectiveness study. HCP with COVID-19 between December 2020 and August 2021 were followed up 6 weeks after illness onset., Setting: Health systems in 12 US states., Participants: HCP participating in a vaccine effectiveness study were eligible for inclusion if they had laboratory-confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 with mRNA vaccination (symptom onset ≥14 days after two doses) or no prior vaccination. Among 681 eligible participants, 419 (61%) completed a follow-up survey to assess symptoms reported 6 weeks after illness onset., Exposures: Two doses of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine compared with no COVID-19 vaccine., Main Outcome Measures: Prevalence of symptoms 6 weeks after onset of COVID-19 illness and days to return to work., Results: Among 419 HCP with COVID-19, 298 (71%) reported one or more COVID-like symptoms 6 weeks after illness onset, with a lower prevalence among vaccinated participants compared with unvaccinated participants (60.6% vs 79.1%; adjusted risk ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.84). Following their illness, vaccinated HCP returned to work a median 2.0 days (95% CI 1.0 to 3.0) sooner than unvaccinated HCP (adjusted HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.79)., Conclusions: Receipt of two doses of a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine among HCP with COVID-19 illness was associated with decreased prevalence of COVID-like symptoms at 6 weeks and earlier return to work., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Emergency department (ED) health care personnel (HCP) are at risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2. The objective of this study was to determine the attributable risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from providing ED care, describe personal protective equipment use, and identify modifiable ED risk factors. We hypothesized that providing ED patient care increases the probability of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection., Methods: We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of 1,673 ED physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), nurses, and nonclinical staff at 20 U.S. centers over 20 weeks (May to December 2020; before vaccine availability) to detect a four-percentage point increased SARS-CoV-2 incidence among HCP related to direct patient care. Participants provided monthly nasal and serology specimens and weekly exposure and procedure information. We used multivariable regression and recursive partitioning to identify risk factors., Results: Over 29,825 person-weeks, 75 participants (4.5%) acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection (31 were asymptomatic). Physicians/APPs (aOR 1.07; 95% CI 0.56-2.03) did not have higher risk of becoming infected compared to nonclinical staff, but nurses had a marginally increased risk (aOR 1.91; 95% CI 0.99-3.68). Over 99% of participants used CDC-recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), but PPE lapses occurred in 22.1% of person-weeks and 32.1% of SARS-CoV-2-infected patient intubations. The following factors were associated with infection: household SARS-CoV-2 exposure; hospital and community SARS-CoV-2 burden; community exposure; and mask non-use in public. SARS-CoV-2 intubation was not associated with infection (attributable risk fraction 13.8%; 95% CI -2.0-38.2%), and nor were PPE lapses., Conclusions: Among unvaccinated U.S. ED HCP during the height of the pandemic, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was similar in nonclinical staff and HCP engaged in direct patient care. Many identified risk factors were related to community exposures., Competing Interests: The authors have declared no competing interests exist.

Background: The prioritization of U.S. health care personnel for early receipt of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), allowed for the evaluation of the effectiveness of these new vaccines in a real-world setting., Methods: We conducted a test-negative case-control study involving health care personnel across 25 U.S. states. Cases were defined on the basis of a positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) or antigen-based test for SARS-CoV-2 and at least one Covid-19-like symptom. Controls were defined on the basis of a negative PCR test for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms, and were matched to cases according to the week of the test date and site. Using conditional logistic regression with adjustment for age, race and ethnic group, underlying conditions, and exposures to persons with Covid-19, we estimated vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination (assessed 14 days after receipt of the first dose through 6 days after receipt of the second dose) and complete vaccination (assessed ≥7 days after receipt of the second dose)., Results: The study included 1482 case participants and 3449 control participants. Vaccine effectiveness for partial vaccination was 77.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.9 to 82.7) with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) and 88.9% (95% CI, 78.7 to 94.2) with the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna); for complete vaccination, vaccine effectiveness was 88.8% (95% CI, 84.6 to 91.8) and 96.3% (95% CI, 91.3 to 98.4), respectively. Vaccine effectiveness was similar in subgroups defined according to age (<50 years or ≥50 years), race and ethnic group, presence of underlying conditions, and level of patient contact. Estimates of vaccine effectiveness were lower during weeks 9 through 14 than during weeks 3 through 8 after receipt of the second dose, but confidence intervals overlapped widely., Conclusions: The BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines were highly effective under real-world conditions in preventing symptomatic Covid-19 in health care personnel, including those at risk for severe Covid-19 and those in racial and ethnic groups that have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Study Objective: We determine the percentage of diagnosed and undiagnosed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among a sample of US emergency department (ED) health care personnel before July 2020., Methods: This was a cross-sectional analysis of ED health care personnel in 20 geographically diverse university-affiliated EDs from May 13, to July 8, 2020, including case counts of prior laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnoses among all ED health care personnel, and then point-in-time serology (with confirmatory testing) and reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction testing in a sample of volunteers without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis. Health care staff were categorized as clinical (physicians, advanced practice providers, and nurses) and nonclinical (clerks, social workers, and case managers). Previously undiagnosed infection was based on positive SARS-CoV-2 serology or reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction result among health care personnel without prior diagnosis., Results: Diagnosed COVID-19 occurred in 2.8% of health care personnel (193/6,788), and the prevalence was similar for nonclinical and clinical staff (3.8% versus 2.7%; odds ratio 1.5; 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.2). Among 1,606 health care personnel without previously diagnosed COVID-19, 29 (1.8%) had evidence of current or past SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most (62%; 18/29) who were seropositive did not think they had been infected, 76% (19/25) recalled COVID-19-compatible symptoms, and 89% (17/19) continued to work while symptomatic. Accounting for both diagnosed and undiagnosed infections, 4.6% (95% confidence interval 2.8% to 7.5%) of ED health care personnel were estimated to have been infected with SARS-CoV-2, with 38% of those infections undiagnosed., Conclusion: In late spring and early summer 2020, the estimated prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection was 4.6%, and greater than one third of infections were undiagnosed. Undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection may pose substantial risk for transmission to other staff and patients., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Study Objective: Among a comprehensive range of frontline emergency department health care personnel, we assessed symptoms of anxiety and burnout, specific coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) work-related stressors, and risk for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We also determined whether COVID-19 serologic testing of HCP decreased their self-reported anxiety., Methods: In a prospective cohort study from May 13, 2020, to July 8, 2020, we used electronic surveys to capture participant self-reported symptoms before and after serologic testing for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G antibodies. Participants were physicians, nurses, advanced practice providers, and nonclinical ED personnel at 20 geographically diverse United States EDs. We evaluated these domains: 1) the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on overall stress and anxiety; 2) COVID-19-related work stressors; 3) burnout; and 4) PTSD risk (measured using the Primary Care-PTSD Screen for DSM-5, a 5-item screening instrument in which a score of ≥3 signifies high risk for PTSD). We also assessed perceptions of whether results of COVID-19 antibody testing decreased participants' self-reported anxiety., Results: Of 1,606 participants, 100% and 88% responded to the baseline and follow-up surveys, respectively. At baseline, approximately half (46%) reported symptoms of emotional exhaustion and burnout from their work, and 308 (19.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 17.3% to 21.1%) respondents screened positive for increased PTSD risk. Female respondents were more likely than males to screen positive (odds ratio [OR] 2.03, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.78). Common concerns included exposing their family and the health of coworkers diagnosed with COVID-19. After receiving antibody test results, 54% (95% CI 51.8 to 56.7) somewhat agreed, agreed, or strongly agreed that knowledge of their immune status had decreased their anxiety. A positive serology result indicating prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a higher likelihood of reporting decreased anxiety (2.83, 95% CI 1.37 to 5.83)., Conclusion: Symptoms of anxiety and burnout were prevalent across the spectrum of ED staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. One-fifth of ED personnel appeared to be at risk for PTSD. Increased provision of serologic testing may help to mitigate anxiety., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, health care personnel (HCP) have been at high risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, through patient interactions and community exposure (1). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended prioritization of HCP for COVID-19 vaccination to maintain provision of critical services and reduce spread of infection in health care settings (2). Early distribution of two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) to HCP allowed assessment of the effectiveness of these vaccines in a real-world setting. A test-negative case-control study is underway to evaluate mRNA COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic illness among HCP at 33 U.S. sites across 25 U.S. states. Interim analyses indicated that the VE of a single dose (measured 14 days after the first dose through 6 days after the second dose) was 82% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 74%-87%), adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, and underlying medical conditions. The adjusted VE of 2 doses (measured ≥7 days after the second dose) was 94% (95% CI = 87%-97%). VE of partial (1-dose) and complete (2-dose) vaccination in this population is comparable to that reported from clinical trials and recent observational studies, supporting the effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines against symptomatic disease in adults, with strong 2-dose protection., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Deverick Anderson is the owner of Infection Control Education for Major Sports, LLC, and reports grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and personal fees from UpToDate, outside the submitted work. Ghinwa Dumyati reports grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Roche Diagnostics. Gregory Moran reports grants from I-Mab Biopharma and BeiGene and personal fees from Light AI. Mark Steele reports personal fees from Light AI, during the conduct of the study. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.