Search

ObjectiveAlthough a growing number of healthcare facilities are implementing healthcare personnel (HCP) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination requirements, vaccine exemption request management as a part of such programs is not well described.DesignCross-sectional survey.ParticipantsInfectious disease (ID) physician members of the Emerging Infections Network with infection prevention or hospital epidemiology responsibilities.MethodsEligible persons were sent a web-based survey focused on hospital plans and practices around exemption allowances from HCP COVID-19 vaccine requirements.ResultsOf the 695 ID physicians surveyed, 263 (38%) responded. Overall, 160 respondent institutions (92%) allowed medical exemptions, whereas 132 (76%) allowed religious exemptions. In contrast, only 14% (n = 24) allowed deeply held personal belief exemptions. The types of medical exemptions allowed varied considerably across facilities, with allergic reactions to the vaccine or its components accepted by 145 facilities (84%). For selected scenarios commonly used as the basis for religious and deeply held personal belief exemption requests, 144 institutions (83%) would not approve exemptions focused on concerns regarding right of consent or violations of freedom of personal choice, and 140 institutions (81%) would not approve exemptions focused on introducing foreign substances into one's body or the sanctity of the body. Most respondents noted plans for additional infection prevention interventions for HCP who received an exemption for COVID-19 vaccination.ConclusionsAlthough many respondent institutions allowed exemptions from HCP COVID-19 vaccination requirements, the types of exemptions allowed and how the exemption programs were structured varied widely.

ObjectiveTo characterize associations between exposures within and outside the medical workplace with healthcare personnel (HCP) SARS-CoV-2 infection, including the effect of various forms of respiratory protection.DesignCase-control study.SettingWe collected data from international participants via an online survey.ParticipantsIn total, 1,130 HCP (244 cases with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, and 886 controls healthy throughout the pandemic) from 67 countries not meeting prespecified exclusion (ie, healthy but not working, missing workplace exposure data, COVID symptoms without lab confirmation) were included in this study.MethodsRespondents were queried regarding workplace exposures, respiratory protection, and extra-occupational activities. Odds ratios for HCP infection were calculated using multivariable logistic regression and sensitivity analyses controlling for confounders and known biases.ResultsHCP infection was associated with non-aerosol-generating contact with COVID-19 patients (adjusted OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.04-1.9; P = .03) and extra-occupational exposures including gatherings of ≥10 people, patronizing restaurants or bars, and public transportation (adjusted OR range, 3.1-16.2). Respirator use during aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) was associated with lower odds of HCP infection (adjusted OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.8, P = .005), as was exposure to intensive care and dedicated COVID units, negative pressure rooms, and personal protective equipment (PPE) observers (adjusted OR range, 0.4-0.7).ConclusionsCOVID-19 transmission to HCP was associated with medical exposures currently considered lower-risk and multiple extra-occupational exposures, and exposures associated with proper use of appropriate PPE were protective. Closer scrutiny of infection control measures surrounding healthcare activities and medical settings considered lower risk, and continued awareness of the risks of public congregation, may reduce the incidence of HCP infection.

Health care-associated infection (HAI) rates are used as measures of a health care facility's quality of patient care. Recently, these outcomes have been used to publicly rank quality efforts and determine facility reimbursement. The value of comparing HAI rates among health care facilities is limited by many factors inherent to HAI surveillance, and incentives that reward low HAI rates can lead to unintended consequences that can compromise medical care surveillance efforts, such as the use of clinical adjudication panels to veto events that meet HAI surveillance definitions.The Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, a federal advisory committee that provides advice and guidance to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services about strategies for surveillance, prevention, and control of HAIs, assessed the challenges associated with using HAI surveillance data for external quality reporting, including the unintended consequences of clinician veto and clinical adjudication panels. Discussions with stakeholder liaisons and committee members were then used to formulate recommended standards for the use of HAI surveillance data for external facility assessment to ensure valid comparisons and to provide as level a playing field as possible.The final recommendations advocate for consistent, objective, and independent application of CDC HAI definitions with concomitant validation of HAIs and surveillance processes. The use of clinician veto and adjudication is discouraged.