Search

AIM: To explore and describe how the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and Individual Early Warning Score (I-EWS) are used and how they support nurses' patient risk assessment practice.DESIGN: A qualitative observational fieldwork study drawing on ethnographical principles was performed in six hospitals in two regions of Denmark in 2019.METHODS: Data were generated from participant observations and informal interviews with 32 nurses across 15 different wards in the hospitals. A total of 180 h of participant observation was performed. The observations lasted between 1.5 and 8 h and were conducted during day or evening shifts.RESULTS: NEWS and I-EWS supported nurses' observations of patients, providing useful knowledge for planning patient care, and prompting critical thinking. However, the risk assessment task was sometimes delegated to less experienced staff members, such as nursing students and healthcare assistants. The Early Warning Score (EWS) systems were often adapted by nurses according to contextual aspects, such as the culture of the speciality in which the nurses worked and their levels of competency. In some situations, I-EWS had the effect of enhancing nurse autonomy and responsibility for decision-making in relation to patient care.CONCLUSIONS: EWS systems support nurses' patient risk assessment practice, providing useful information. I-EWS makes it easier to factor the heterogeneity of patients and the clinical situation into the risk assessments. The delegation of risk assessment to other, less experienced staff members pose a risk to patient safety, which needs to be addressed in the ongoing debate regarding the shortage of nurses.IMPACT: The findings of this study can help ward nurses, hospital managers and policymakers to develop and improve strategies for improved person-centred nursing care.

Objectives: Antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) are a key factor in protecting against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We examined longitudinal changes in seroprevalence in healthcare workers (HCWs) in Copenhagen and the protective effect of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Methods: In this prospective study, screening for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 (ELISA) was offered to HCWs three times over 6 months. HCW characteristics were obtained by questionnaires. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04346186. Results: From April to October 2020 we screened 44 698 HCWs, of whom 2811 were seropositive at least once. The seroprevalence increased from 4.0% (1501/37 452) to 7.4% (2022/27 457) during the period (p < 0.001) and was significantly higher than in non-HCWs. Frontline HCWs had a significantly increased risk of seropositivity compared to non-frontline HCWs, with risk ratios (RRs) at the three rounds of 1.49 (95%CI 1.34–1.65, p < 0.001), 1.52 (1.39–1.68, p < 0.001) and 1.50 (1.38–1.64, p < 0.001). The seroprevalence was 1.42- to 2.25-fold higher (p < 0.001) in HCWs from dedicated COVID-19 wards than in other frontline HCWs. Seropositive HCWs had an RR of 0.35 (0.15–0.85, p 0.012) of reinfection during the following 6 months, and 2115 out of 2248 (95%) of those who were seropositive during rounds one or two remained seropositive after 4–6 months. The 133 of 2248 participants (5.0%) who seroreverted were slightly older and reported fewer symptoms than other seropositive participants. Conclusions: HCWs remained at increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 during the 6-month period. Seropositivity against SARS-CoV-2 persisted for at least 6 months in the vast majority of HCWs and was associated with a significantly lower risk of reinfection.

The clinical benefit of Early Warning Scores (EWSs) is undocumented. Nursing staff's clinical assessment might improve the prediction of outcome and allow more efficient use of resources. We aimed to investigate whether the combination of clinical assessment and EWS would reduce the number of routine measurements without increasing mortality.We did a cluster-randomised, crossover, non-inferiority study at eight hospitals in Denmark. Patients aged 18 years or older, admitted for more than 24 h were included. Admissions to paediatric or obstetric wards were excluded. The participating hospitals were randomly assigned 1:1 to start as either intervention or control with subsequent crossover. Primary outcomes were 30-day all-cause mortality (non-inferiority margin=0·5%) and average number of EWS per day per patient. The intervention was implementation of the Individual EWS (I-EWS), in which nursing staff can adjust the calculated score on the basis of their clinical assessment of the patient. I-EWS was compared with the National Early Warning Score (NEWS). The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03690128 and is complete.Unique admissions longer than 24 h were included from Oct 15, 2018 to Sept 30, 2019. Of 90 964 patients assessed, n=46 470 were assigned to the I-EWS group and n=44 494 to the NEWS group. Mortality within 30 days was 4·6% for the I-EWS group, and 4·3% for the NEWS group (adjusted odds ratio 1·05 [95% CI 0·99-1·12], p=0·12). In subgroup analyses I-EWS showed increased 30-day mortality for hospitals that did I-EWS in fall-winter, which was probably due to seasonality, and within patients admitted in a surgical specialty. Overall risk difference was 0·22% (95% CI -0·04 to 0·48) meaning that the non-inferiority criteria were met. The average number of scorings per patient per day was reduced from 3·14 to 3·10 (ie, a relative reduction of 0·64% [95% CI -0·16 to -1·11], p=0·0084) in the I-EWS group.Including clinical assessment in I-EWS was feasible and overall non-inferior to the widely implemented NEWS in terms of all-cause mortality at 30 days, and the number of routine measurements was minimally reduced. However I-EWS should be used with caution in surgical patients.Capital Region Research Foundation, Gangsted Foundation, Candys Foundation, Herlev-Gentofte Hospital Research Foundation, Laerdal Foundation, and The Foundation of Director Boennelycke and wife.

Most individuals seroconvert after infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but being seronegative is observed in 1 to 9%. We aimed to investigate the risk factors associated with being seronegative following PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a prospective cohort study, we screened health care workers (HCW) in the Capital Region of Denmark for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We performed three rounds of screening from April to October 2020 using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method targeting SARS-CoV-2 total antibodies. Data on all participants’ PCR for SARS-CoV-2 RNA were captured from national registries. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models were applied to investigate the probability of being seronegative and the related risk factors, respectively. Of 36,583 HCW, 866 (2.4%) had a positive PCR before or during the study period. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 866 HCW was 42 (31 to 53) years, and 666 (77%) were female. After a median of 132 (range, 35 to 180) days, 21 (2.4%) of 866 were seronegative. In a multivariable model, independent risk factors for being seronegative were self-reported asymptomatic or mild infection hazard ratio (HR) of 6.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6 to 17; P < 0.001) and body mass index (BMI) of ≥30, HR 3.1 (95% CI, 1.1 to 8.8; P = 0.039). Only a few (2.4%) HCW were not seropositive. Asymptomatic or mild infection as well as a BMI above 30 were associated with being seronegative. Since the presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 reduces the risk of reinfection, efforts to protect HCW with risk factors for being seronegative may be needed in future COVID-19 surges. IMPORTANCE Most individuals seroconvert after infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but negative serology is observed in 1 to 9%. We found that asymptomatic or mild infection as well as a BMI above 30 were associated with being seronegative. Since the presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 reduces the risk of reinfection, efforts to protect HCW with risk factors for being seronegative may be needed in future COVID-19 surges.

BackgroundNational data on the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection and knowledge on associated risk factors are important for understanding the course of the pandemic. “Testing Denmark” is a national large-scale epidemiological surveillance study of SARS-CoV-2 in the Danish population.MethodsBetween September and October 2020, approximately 1.3 million of 5.8 million Danish citizens (age > 15 years) were randomly invited to fill in an electronic questionnaire covering COVID-19 exposures and symptoms. The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was determined by Point-of Care rapid Test (POCT) distributed to participants home addresses.FindingsIn total 318,552 participants (24.5% invitees) completed the questionnaire and provided the result of the POCT. Of these, 2,519 (0.79%) were seropositive (median age 55 years) and women were more often seropositive than men, interquartile range (IQR) 42-64, 40.2% males. Of participants with a prior positive Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test (n=1,828), 29.1% were seropositive in the POCT. Seropositivity increased with age irrespective of sex. Elderly participants (>61 years) reported less symptoms and had less frequently been tested for SARS-CoV-2 compared to younger participants. Seropositivity was associated with physical contact with SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals (Risk ratio (RR) 7.43, 95% CI: 6.57-8.41) and in particular household members (RR 17.70, 95% CI: 15.60-20.10). Home care workers had a higher risk of seropositivity (RR 2.09 (95% CI: 1.58-2.78) as compared to office workers. Geographic population density was not associated to seropositivity. A high degree of compliance with national preventive recommendations was reported (e.g., > 80% use of face masks), but no difference was found between seropositive and seronegative participants.InterpretationThis study provides insight into the immunity of the Danish population seven to eight months after the first COVID-19 case in Denmark. The seroprevalence was lower than expected probably due to a low sensitivity of the POCT used or due to challenges relating to the reading of test results. Occupation or exposure in local communities were major routes of infection. As elderly participants were more often seropositive despite fewer symptoms and less PCR tests performed, more emphasis should be placed on testing this age group.

Background Health care workers are at a higher risk of getting infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) than the general population. Knowledge about medical students’ exposure to SARS-CoV-2 is lacking. Thus, we measured the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a cohort of Danish medical students. Methods We invited all medical students at the University of Copenhagen (UCPH) to participate. Students underwent venous blood sampling and a questionnaire about work-life behaviors possibly associated with SARS-CoV-2 exposure and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms. Samples were analyzed for total immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, and seropositive samples were screened for IgG, immunoglobulin M, and immunoglobulin A antibodies. We determined associations between seropositivity and clinical and social activities and self-reported symptoms. Results Between October 19 and 26, 1120 students participated in the questionnaire and 1096 were included. Of all included, 379 (34.58%) were seropositive. Seropositivity was associated with attendance at 2 parties at UCPH, on February 29 and March 6, 2020 (odds ratio [OR], 5.96; 95% CI, 4.34–8.24; P Conclusions Medical students have the highest reported seropositivity in the Danish health care system. In this cohort of students at UCPH, seropositivity was associated with social behavior markers and, to a lesser extent, with self-reported contact with SARS-CoV-2-infected patients.

BackgroundPeople experiencing homelessness (PEH) and associated shelter workers may be at higher risk of infection with “Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2” (SARS-CoV-2). The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among PEH and shelter workers in Denmark.Design and methodsIn November 2020, we conducted a nationwide cross-sectional seroprevalence study among PEH and shelter workers at 21 recruitment sites in Denmark. The assessment included a point-of-care test for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, followed by a questionnaire. The seroprevalence was compared to that of geographically matched blood donors considered as a proxy for the background population, tested using a total Ig ELISA assay.ResultsWe included 827 participants in the study, of whom 819 provided their SARS-CoV-2 antibody results. Of those, 628 were PEH (median age 50.8 (IQR 40.9-59.1) years, 35.5% female) and 191 were shelter workers (median age 46.6 (IQR 36.1-55.0) years and 74.5% female). The overall seroprevalence was 6.7% and was similar among PEH and shelter workers (6.8% vs 6.3%, p=0.87); and 12.2% among all participants who engaged in sex work. The overall participant seroprevalence was significantly higher than that of the background population (2.9%, p InterpretationsThe prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was more than twice as high among PEH and associated shelter workers, compared to the background population. The subset of the study participants who were also sex workers were at particularly high risk of COVID-19 infection.FundingTrygFonden and HelseFonden.

Serological assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are needed to support clinical diagnosis and epidemiological investigations. Recently, assays for large-scale detection of total antibodies (Ab), immunoglobulin G (IgG), and IgM against SARS-CoV-2 antigens have been developed, but there are limited data on the diagnostic accuracy of these assays., Serological assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are needed to support clinical diagnosis and epidemiological investigations. Recently, assays for large-scale detection of total antibodies (Ab), immunoglobulin G (IgG), and IgM against SARS-CoV-2 antigens have been developed, but there are limited data on the diagnostic accuracy of these assays. This study was a Danish national collaboration and evaluated 15 commercial and one in-house anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays in 16 laboratories. Sensitivity was evaluated using 150 samples from individuals with asymptomatic, mild, or moderate COVID-19, nonhospitalized or hospitalized, confirmed by nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT); samples were collected 13 to 73 days either from symptom onset or from positive NAAT (patients without symptoms). Specificity and cross-reactivity were evaluated in samples collected prior to the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic from >586 blood donors and patients with autoimmune diseases, cytomegalovirus or Epstein-Barr virus infections, and acute viral infections. A specificity of ≥99% was achieved by all total-Ab and IgG assays except one, DiaSorin Liaison XL IgG (97.2%). Sensitivities in descending order were Wantai ELISA total Ab (96.7%), CUH-NOVO in-house ELISA total Ab (96.0%), Ortho Vitros total Ab (95.3%), YHLO iFlash IgG (94.0%), Ortho Vitros IgG (93.3%), Siemens Atellica total Ab (93.2%), Roche Elecsys total Ab (92.7%), Abbott Architect IgG (90.0%), Abbott Alinity IgG (median 88.0%), DiaSorin Liaison XL IgG (median 84.6%), Siemens Vista total Ab (81.0%), Euroimmun/ELISA IgG (78.0%), and Snibe Maglumi IgG (median 78.0%). However, confidence intervals overlapped for several assays. The IgM results were variable, with the Wantai IgM ELISA showing the highest sensitivity (82.7%) and specificity (99%). The rate of seropositivity increased with time from symptom onset and symptom severity.

Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates SARS-CoV-2 transmission. It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective effect), via reduced transmission from infected mask wearers (source control), or both. This randomized controlled trial investigates whether recommending surgical mask use when outside the home reduces wearers' risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures., Visual Abstract. Effectiveness of Mask Recommendation for Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates SARS-CoV-2 transmission. It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective effect), via reduced transmission from infected mask wearers (source control), or both. This randomized controlled trial investigates whether recommending surgical mask use when outside the home reduces wearers' risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures. Visual Abstract. Effectiveness of Mask Recommendation for Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates SARS-CoV-2 transmission. It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective effect), via reduced transmission from infected mask wearers (source control), or both. This randomized controlled trial investigates whether recommending surgical mask use when outside the home reduces wearers' risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures., Background: Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective effect), via reduced transmission from infected mask wearers (source control), or both. Objective: To assess whether recommending surgical mask use outside the home reduces wearers' risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures. Design: Randomized controlled trial (DANMASK-19 [Danish Study to Assess Face Masks for the Protection Against COVID-19 Infection]). (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04337541) Setting: Denmark, April and May 2020. Participants: Adults spending more than 3 hours per day outside the home without occupational mask use. Intervention: Encouragement to follow social distancing measures for coronavirus disease 2019, plus either no mask recommendation or a recommendation to wear a mask when outside the home among other persons together with a supply of 50 surgical masks and instructions for proper use. Measurements: The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 infection in the mask wearer at 1 month by antibody testing, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), or hospital diagnosis. The secondary outcome was PCR positivity for other respiratory viruses. Results: A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was −0.3 percentage point (95% CI, −1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection. Limitation: Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others. Conclusion: The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection. Primary Funding Source: The Salling Foundations.

Serological SARS-CoV-2 assays are needed to support clinical diagnosis and epidemiological investigations. Recently, assays for the large-volume detection of total antibodies (Ab) and immunoglobulin (Ig) G and M against SARS-CoV-2 antigens have been developed, but there are limited data on the diagnostic accuracy of these assays. This study was organized as a Danish national collaboration and included fifteencommercial and one in-house anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays in sixteen laboratories. Sensitivity was evaluated using 150 serum samples from individuals diagnosed with asymptomatic,mild or moderate nonhospitalized (n=129) or hospitalized (n=31) COVID-19, confirmed bynucleic acid amplification tests, collected 13-73 days from symptom onset. Specificity and cross-reactivity were evaluated in samples collected prior to the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic from > 586 blood donors and patients with autoimmune diseases or CMV or EBV infections. Predefined specificity criteria of ≥ 99% were met by all total-Ab and IgG assays except one (Diasorin/LiaisonXL-IgG 97.2%). The sensitivities in descending order were: Wantai/ELISA total-Ab (96.7%), CUH/NOVO in-house ELISA total-Ab (96.0%), Ortho/Vitros total-Ab (95.3%), YHLO/iFlash-IgG (94.0%), Ortho/Vitros-IgG (93.3%), Siemens/Atellica total-Ab (93.2%), Roche-Elecsys total-Ab (92.7%), Abbott-Architect-IgG (90.0%), Abbott/Alinity-IgG (median 88.0%), Diasorin/LiaisonXL-IgG (84.6%),Siemens/Vista total-Ab (81.0%), Euroimmun/ELISA-IgG (78.0%), and Snibe/Maglumi-IgG (median 78.0%). The IgM results were variable, but one assay (Wantai/ELISA-IgM) hadboth high sensitivity (82.7%) and specificity (99%). The rate of seropositivity increased with time from symptom onset and symptom severity. In conclusion, predefined sensitivity and specificity acceptance criteria of 90%/99%, respectively, for diagnostic use were met in five of six total-Ab and three of seven IgG assays.

Aims: To explore Registered Nurses' experiences and perceptions with National Early Warning Score and Individual Early Warning Score to identify patient deterioration. Design: A qualitative exploratory design. Methods: Six focus groups were conducted at six Danish hospitals from February to June 2019. Registered Nurses from both medical, surgical and emergency departments participated. The focus groups were analysed using content analysis. Results: One theme and four categories were identified. Theme: Meaningful in identifying patient deterioration but causing frustration due to lack of flexibility. Categories: (a) Inter-professional collaboration strengthened through the use of Early Warning Score systems, (b) Enhanced professional development and communication among nurses when using Early Warning Score systems, (c) Detecting patient deterioration by integrating nurses' clinical gaze with Early Warning Score systems and (d) Modification and fear of making mistakes when using Early Warning Score systems.

Summary Background Health-care workers are thought to be highly exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in health-care workers and the proportion of seroconverted health-care workers with previous symptoms of COVID-19. Methods In this observational cohort study, screening was offered to health-care workers in the Capital Region of Denmark, including medical, nursing, and other students who were associated with hospitals in the region. Screening included point-of-care tests for IgM and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Test results and participant characteristics were recorded. Results were compared with findings in blood donors in the Capital Region in the study period. Findings Between April 15 and April 23, 2020, we screened 29 295 health-care workers, of whom 28 792 (98·28%) provided their test results. We identified 1163 (4·04% [95% CI 3·82–4·27]) seropositive health-care workers. Seroprevalence was higher in health-care workers than in blood donors (142 [3·04%] of 4672; risk ratio [RR] 1·33 [95% CI 1·12–1·58]; p

IntroductionTrack and trigger systems (TTSs) based on vital signs are implemented in hospitals worldwide to identify patients with clinical deterioration. TTSs may provide prognostic information but do not actively include clinical assessment, and their impact on severe adverse events remain uncertain. The demand for prospective, multicentre studies to demonstrate the effectiveness of TTSs has grown the last decade. Individual Early Warning Score (I-EWS) is a newly developed TTS with an aggregated score based on vital signs that can be adjusted according to the clinical assessment of the patient. The objective is to compare I-EWS with the existing National Early Warning Score (NEWS) algorithm regarding clinical outcomes and use of resources.Method and analysisIn a prospective, multicentre, cluster-randomised, crossover, non-inferiority study. Eight hospitals are randomised to use either NEWS in combination with the Capital Region of Denmark NEWS Override System (CROS) or implement I-EWS for 6.5 months, followed by a crossover. Based on their clinical assessment, the nursing staff can adjust the aggregated score with a maximum of −4 or +6 points. We expect to include 150 000 unique patients. The primary endpoint is all-cause mortality at 30 days. Coprimary endpoint is the average number of times per day a patient is NEWS/I-EWS-scored, and secondary outcomes are all-cause mortality at 48 hours and at 7 days as well as length of stay.Ethics and disseminationThe study was presented for the Regional Ethics committee who decided that no formal approval was needed according to Danish law (J.no. 1701733). The I-EWS study is a large prospective, randomised multicentre study that investigates the effect of integrating a clinical assessment performed by the nursing staff in a TTS, in a head-to-head comparison with the internationally used NEWS with the opportunity to use CROS.Trial registration numberNCT03690128.