Search

Background Although recommendations to prevent COVID-19 healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) have been proposed, data on their effectivity are currently limited. Objective The aim was to evaluate the effectivity of a program of control and prevention of COVID-19 in an academic general hospital in Spain. Methods We captured the number of COVID-19 cases and the type of contact that occurred in hospitalized patients and healthcare personnel (HCP). To evaluate the impact of the continuous use of a surgical mask among HCP, the number of patients with COVID-19 HAIs and accumulated incidence of HCP with COVID-19 was compared between the preintervention and intervention periods. Results Two hundred fifty-two patients with COVID-19 have been admitted to the hospital. Seven of them had an HAI origin (6 in the preintervention period and 1 in the intervention period). One hundred forty-two HCP were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Of them, 22 (15.5%) were attributed to healthcare (2 in the emergency department and none in the critical care departments), and 120 (84.5%) were attributed to social relations in the workplace or during their non-work-related personal interactions. The accumulated incidence during the preintervention period was 22.3 for every 1000 HCP and 8.2 for every 1000 HCP during the intervention period. The relative risk was 0.37 (95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.55) and the attributable risk was -0.014 (95% confidence interval, -0.020 to -0.009). Conclusions A program of control and prevention of HAIs complemented with the recommendation for the continuous use of a surgical mask in the workplace and social environments of HCP effectively decreased the risk of COVID-19 HAIs in admitted patients and HCP.

Introduction: This study examines the frequency, associated factors, and characteristics of health-care personnel coronavirus disease 2019 cases in a healthcare department that comprises a tertiary hospital and its associated 12 primary healthcare centers. Methods: This study included healthcare personnel that showed symptoms or were in contact with a coronavirus disease 2019 case patient from March 2, 2020 to April 19, 2020. Their evolution and characteristics (age, sex, professional category, type of contact) were recorded. Correlations between the different characteristics and risk of developing coronavirus disease 2019 and severe coronavirus disease 2019 were analyzed using chi-square tests. Their magnitudes were quantified with ORs, AORs, and their 95% CIs using a logistic regression model. Results: Of the 3,900 healthcare professionals in the department, 1,791 (45.9%) showed symptoms or were part of a contact tracing study. The prevalence of those with symptoms was 20.1% (784/3,900; 95% CI=18.8, 21.4), with coronavirus disease 2019 was 4.0% (156/3,900; 95% CI=3.4, 4.6), and with severe coronavirus disease 2019 was 0.5% (18/3,900; 95% CI=0.2, 0.7). The frequency of corona virus disease 2019 in symptomatic healthcare personnel with a nonprotected exposure was 22.8% (112/491) and 13.7% (40/293) in those with a protected exposure (AOR=2.2, 95% CI=1.2, 3.9). The service in which the healthcare personnel performed their activity was not significantly associated with being diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019. A total of 26.3% (10/38) of male healthcare personnel with coronavirus disease 2019 required hospitalization, compared with 6.8% (8/118) among female healthcare personnel (OR=4.9, 95% CI=1.8, 13.6). Conclusions: A surveillance and monitoring program centred on healthcare personnel enables an understanding of the risk factors that lead to coronavirus disease 2019 among this population. This knowledge allows the refinement of the strategies for disease control and prevention in healthcare personnel during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. (c) 2020 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Objetivos: Determinar las coberturas vacunales frente a la gripe estacional y frente a la nueva gripe A (H1N1) en la temporada 2009-2010 en trabajadores sanitarios y conocer sus factores determinantes. Métodos: Estudio transversal realizado en el Hospital General Universitario de Alicante en trabajadores sanitarios durante las campañas de vacunación antigripal 2008-2009 y 2009-2010. La campaña 2009-2010 se subdividió en dos fases: entre el 1-10-09 y el 13-11-09 se administró la vacuna de la gripe estacional 2009-2010; desde el 16-11-09 hasta el 30-12-09 se administró la vacuna frente al nuevo virus de la gripe A (H1N1). Cada fase estuvo precedida por una campaña promocional específica. En el momento de la vacunación, el trabajador sanitario cumplimentó un cuestionario que incluía un listado de motivos para vacunarse. Se calculó la frecuencia de vacunación y se compararon las coberturas vacunales de cada campaña, de manera global y por estamentos, utilizando la prueba de ji cuadrado. Resultados: La cobertura frente a la gripe estacional 2009-2010 fue del 31%, y frente a la nueva gripe A (H1N1) fue del 22,2% (pObjectives: To determine vaccination coverage against seasonal influenza and the new A (H1N1) influenza virus among healthcare personnel during the 2009-2010 season and to identify its determining factors. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study among healthcare staff at the General University Hospital in Alicante (Spain) during the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 influenza vaccination campaigns. The 2009-2010 vaccination campaign was subdivided into two phases. In the first phase, from 1st October to 19th November, 2009, the seasonal influenza vaccine was administered; in the second phase, from 16th November to 30th December, 2009, vaccination against the new A (H1N1) influenza virus was performed. Each of the vaccine programs was preceded by a specific vaccination promotion campaign. Healthcare staff were asked to complete a brief self-administered questionnaire containing a list of reasons for being vaccinated. Coverage during both vaccination campaigns was calculated, and the results, both overall and for each profession, were then compared using a Chi-square test. Results: Coverage against seasonal influenza was 31% and that against the new A (H1N1) influenza virus was 22.2% (p

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the coverage rates for influenza vaccination among health-care personnel (HCP), and if the reasons for accepting influenza vaccine by HCP and the frequency of vaccine-related adverse events (AEs) in 2010-2011 were different compared to 2009-2010. The AEs were detected by telephoning the worker one week after the vaccination. The coverage for seasonal vaccination in 2009-2010 was 31.0%, whereas that for 2009 pandemic influenza (H1NI) was 22.2% and 24.4% (p0.05) in 2010-2011. The most frequent reason for being vaccinated during the three campaigns was to "protect my health". Over 80.5% of the HCP reported 2009 pandemic influenza (H1N1) vaccine-related AEs compared to the 25.3% and 25.4% reporting seasonal vaccine-related AEs in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 respectively (p0.05). None of the AEs were severe. Specific measures should be implemented in our country to recover and improve poor vaccination coverage.

BACKGRAUND: Fear of adverse effects (AE) represents a frequent reason among healthcare workers (HCW) for not deciding to receive influenza vaccine. This investigation is carried out with the objectives of knowing the frequency of AE and the factors associated with them after the administration of influenza vaccines in the 2009-2010 season in HCW.Cohort study that included the 969 HCW vaccinated against seasonal influenza and the 693 HCW vaccinated against new influenza A (H1N1) virus during the 2009-2010 season in a tertiary hospital. To detect adverse effects, HCW was telephoned one week after vaccination.Frequency of AE ranged between 24.5% of HCW who received only seasonal influenza vaccine and 82.6% of those who received vaccine against new influenza A (H1N1) virus. The most frequent AE were pain and general discomfort. None of the adverse effects was considered serious. Age and presence of an adjuvant in the vaccine were associated with appearance of AE after administration of vaccine against new influenza A (H1N1) virus.Vaccines against seasonal influenza and new influenza A (H1N1) are safe; frequency of AE related to this one was high, especially if it contained an adjuvant. Since none of the AE detected was serious, HCW can not justify his rejection of vaccination because of suffering the above-mentioned AE.

To determine vaccination coverage against seasonal influenza and the new A (H1N1) influenza virus among healthcare personnel during the 2009-2010 season and to identify its determining factors.We performed a cross-sectional study among healthcare staff at the General University Hospital in Alicante (Spain) during the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 influenza vaccination campaigns. The 2009-2010 vaccination campaign was subdivided into two phases. In the first phase, from 1st October to 19th November, 2009, the seasonal influenza vaccine was administered; in the second phase, from 16th November to 30th December, 2009, vaccination against the new A (H1N1) influenza virus was performed. Each of the vaccine programs was preceded by a specific vaccination promotion campaign. Healthcare staff were asked to complete a brief self-administered questionnaire containing a list of reasons for being vaccinated. Coverage during both vaccination campaigns was calculated, and the results, both overall and for each profession, were then compared using a Chi-square test.Coverage against seasonal influenza was 31% and that against the new A (H1N1) influenza virus was 22.2% (p0.05); these percentages were 36% and 34% respectively in medical personnel (NS), 33% and 24% respectively in nursing personnel (p0.001), and 21% and 12% respectively in nursing assistants (p0.001). The main reason given for being vaccinated was self-protection.The low coverage achieved is a public health problem. Specific intervention programs should be implemented.