Occupational exposure to HIV among nurses at a major tertiary hospital: Reporting and utilization of post-exposure prophylaxis; A cross-sectional study in the Western Cape, South Africa.

BACKGROUND: While treatment for HIV has greatly improved patient outcomes, health care workers, including nurses, remain at high risk of occupational exposure. The risk of exposure is a continuous concern in the South African health system that is overburdened by multiple stressors, including the highest HIV caseload in the world. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of occupational exposure to HIV, reporting and utilization of post-exposure prophylaxis, knowledge, attitudes towards HIV post-exposure prophylaxis and infection control practices amongst nurses at a tertiary hospital in the Western Cape, South Africa.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted at Tygerberg hospital from the 4th to the 16th February 2019. Participants were front line nurses working in randomly selected wards. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data from participants.
RESULTS: Of the 160 participants who took part in the survey, 17 reported occupational exposure to HIV (prevalence 10.6%, 95% CI 6.7-16.6), and of the 17 exposed, 10(58.8%) reported needlestick injuries. From those who were exposed, only 10 (58.8%) reported the incidents and went on post-exposure prophylaxis. However, only 6 out of the 10 completed their treatment. Half (50%) of the participants had inadequate knowledge on HIV post-exposure prophylaxis, 83.3% had adequate attitudes towards HIV post-exposure prophylaxis and 75% had adequate infection control practices.
CONCLUSION: One out of every nine nurses had occupational exposure to HIV at a major tertiary hospital with poor reporting and utilization of post-exposure prophylaxis. The high proportion of needle stick injuries highlights the need for better infection control training. Similarly, the low levels of HIV post-exposure prophylaxis knowledge show the need for structured intervention and in-service training for health care workers.

Background

HIV infections continue to be on the rise worldwide despite different strategies and policies that have been implemented over the years. Recent statistics show that globally, 37.9 million people are currently living with HIV while 1.7 million were recently infected with HIV during the year 2018[1]. Due to the rise in HIV infections, there is increasing contact of healthcare workers (HCW) with people living with HIV. HCWs are at risk of exposure to HIV infected material during their work, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, where the majority of people living with HIV reside. Globally, South Africa has the highest number of people living with HIV, currently estimated at 7.7 million [1]. Those at a higher risk of exposure to HIV, including HCWs must be equipped with knowledge in order to prevent infection [2].

The World Health Organization (WHO) provides recommendations that guide health care workers in the event of exposure to HIV in the workplace [3]. In South Africa, post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is widely available especially for HCWs [4]. Nonetheless, HCWs must have adequate information about HIV PEP as this will inform their action post-exposure. Evidence from several studies has shown that the overall level of knowledge regarding HIV PEP is generally inadequate among healthcare workers [5, 6, 7]. This is despite reported positive perceptions regarding the treatment [8]. Determinates for poor uptake of HIV PEP by those exposed are not well known, although these may include poor knowledge, poor attitudes and lack of clear guidelines and reporting pathways [9].

In South Africa, knowledge and practices to protect HCWs from blood-borne diseases remain inadequate in low resource settings [10]. This may be due to lack of training and inadequate exposure to relevant information on HIV PEP. In Cameroon, 80 nurses were surveyed to assess their knowledge and practices on HIV PEP. In all, 73.7% of the participants had poor knowledge about HIV PEP [11]. Although the majority in the previously mentioned study (83.8%), had heard about PEP, only 10 (12.5%) received formal training on PEP. This shows a gap in HIV PEP training in low-resource facilities.

Reviewed literature has shown that nurses are the most affected by occupational exposure to HIV compared to other cadres in the health sector. In 2016, a study in Ethiopia indicated nurses, apart from medical doctors, were the most affected by exposures with 58.2%, compared to 30.8% laboratory and 23.3% other professions[12]. In another survey in South West Ethiopia, higher rates of percutaneous injuries were observed among midwives and nurses (91.7% and 81%), compared to doctors 77.8% [13].

In 2017, a systematic review and meta-analysis with 65 cross-sectional studies from 21 African countries, reported a high pooled lifetime and 12-month prevalence of occupational exposure to body fluids of 65.7% and 48.0%, respectively [14]. Exposure was largely due to percutaneous injury with an estimated 12-month prevalence of 36.0% (95% CI: 31.2–40.8). In 2016, a study in Botswana revealed that 26% of participants had been exposed to sharps injuries or splashed with fluids 3 months prior to the survey [15]. Of these, only 160 (37%) reported the exposure to the relevant persons and 67% of these went on to take HIV PEP treatment, however, only 71% of them completed their medication.

In South Africa, a few studies have investigated exposure to HIV among HCWs, although data is lacking from the major tertiary hospitals. During 2008, 42 out of 53 (79.2%) intern doctors reported exposure to blood or body fluids of which 64% were percutaneous injuries and 36% mucosal [16]. Similarly, in 2019 at the Far East Rand Hospital in the Gauteng Province, 136 out of 175 (77.7%) reported exposure to blood and body fluids among interning doctors [17]. To our knowledge, data on nurses’ exposure to HIV at the workplace in South Africa are scarce. We found only one study that investigated knowledge and uptake of PEP amongst nurses caring for people living with HIV in Limpopo [18]. Findings from the aforementioned study revealed that approximately 40% of nurses working that the hospital did not know what PEP was, and 22% did not know or were not sure if it was available in the hospital [18]. In the Western Cape, the prevalence of occupational exposure to HIV among HCWs is not known, as there are no recently published studies.

The main objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of occupational HIV exposure, reporting and utilization of PEP in nurses at a major referral hospital in the Western Cape of South Africa. Further, the research aimed to estimate the nurses’ knowledge and attitudes towards HIV PEP as well as assess their practices towards infection control. A secondary aim of the research was to investigate associations between demographic and professional characteristics of the nurses and risk of occupational exposure to HIV.

Methods

Study design and setting

A cross-sectional study was conducted at Tygerberg Hospital. This is the largest hospital in the Western Cape and the second largest hospital in South Africa with an estimated number of eight thousand staff members and about two thousand nurses. Tygerberg hospital has more than 1384 beds and offers 28 specialist services [19].

Study population

The study population consisted of nurses working at the facility, recruited from the 4th to the 16th of February 2019. All consenting nurses who worked directly with patients were included in the study. Nurses in management and administrative positions were excluded from taking part in the study as their work does not usually involve direct contact with patients or possibly infectious material.

Statistical considerations

Sample size determination

The sample size was determined using an acceptable margin of error of 7%, 95% confidence level and a single population proportion formula considering a prevalence of 60%, most studies reported a prevalence between 40–80%. Studies from Ethiopia [12] and Nigeria [20] reported a prevalence rate of 46% and 67.5% respectively, while in South Africa two studies [15, 16] revealed a prevalence of 79.2% and 77.7% respectively.

The total required sample size was calculated using the formula below:             • where p = 0.6, d = 0.07

The overall estimated sample size was therefore 126. To ensure we reached the required sample size while taking into consideration possible 20% non-response (due to declines, absenteeism, and lack of time for participation) a sample size of 152 participants was required.

Sampling technique

A two-stage cluster random sampling using Stata 15 statistical software [21] was used to select participants for the survey. Ten departments were randomly selected out of an overall 24 departments, followed by random selection of 2 wards from each of the 10 departments. All the nurses in the selected wards were invited to participate in the study.

Data collection

A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data (S1 Doc). The questionnaire was developed after reviewing the literature [8, 18]. A pilot study was done to test the procedure and to determine the relevance of questions on 20 interning medical students from the same hospital. For the attitude section, the calculated Cronbach alpha was 0.54.

We made a few amendments to each section of the questionnaire after the pilot study. In section 1 of demographics, we changed the option, “caucasian” to “white” in the question “which race do you identify yourself as?” Section 2 was about occupational exposure to HIV, in question 2a we added the instruction “if the answer is no, please proceed forward to section 3 of the questionnaire” we also added question 2g, “did you start on treatment?”. A few questions were dropped in section 3 (which was about knowledge on HIV PEP) because of their repetitive nature in section 3. The question, “have you attended any training on HIV PEP?” was removed because it appeared in section 1. Question 3f, “under which circumstances would you not take HIV PEP?” was also removed because it was similar to 3d. Some questions were amended to add options from which the participants were to choose their answers, for instance, the option, “I don’t know”, was added to section 3 and 4 (attitudes towards HIV PEP) of the questionnaires for those who did not know the answer to the question. In section 5, which is about HIV infection control practices, we dropped the question, “what would prompt you to take PEP?”, because it was similar to a question asked in section 3.

We obtained written informed consent from the participants, and after this, the questionnaires were distributed to all the nurses in the ward at the time. To minimize response bias due to night staff not participating, questionnaires for the night staff were left with the nurse in charge for them to complete. These questionnaires were collected the next morning.

Data extraction and statistical analysis

Data were captured into Microsoft Office Excel and exported to STATA 2015 for analysis.

Where numerical data were normally distributed, means and standard deviations were used to summarize the data. Where numerical data were not normally distributed, medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) were used to summarize the data. For categorical data, frequencies and percentages were reported.

Determination of occupational HIV exposure

The overall prevalence of occupational HIV exposure was calculated from the number of self- reported incidents relative to the total number of study participants. The 95% confidence interval (95%CI) of the prevalence was also reported.

Determination of knowledge

Four questions were asked to assess the knowledge of the participants on HIV PEP. The overall knowledge score was computed by adding up all the correct knowledge answers and divided by the total number of questions asked, then expressed as a percentage. A median (IQR) knowledge percentage score was reported. The percentage score was categorised as “poor” if a participant scored <50%, “good” if a participant scored between 50–74% and “adequate if a participant scored ≥75%.

Determination of attitudes

Attitudes were determined using a 5-point Likert scale. Responses ranged from strongly agree to strongly disagree. However, there was an option for those who did not know the answer to the question to state so. All the participants who selected “I don’t know” were not included in the analysis therefore, the responses “don’t know” were treated as missing data. To get the overall attitudes mark, all 6 questions were scored individually, for questions where the preferred responses were “strongly agree/agree” or “strongly disagree/disagree” a mark of 1 was given and a zero was given if they chose a different answer from the preferred one. We then added all the individual scores and expressed them as percentages. To summarize the attitude scores, median and IQR were reported. Further, attitude scores were categorised as “poor” if a participant scored <50%, “good” if a participant scored between 50–74% and “adequate if a participant scored ≥75%, as done in previous studies[22]. Frequencies and percentages for each question were also presented.

Determination of practices

Four questions were asked to assess the practices of participants regarding infection control. The overall practice score was computed by adding up all the correct practices per question and divided by the total and then expressed as a percentage. A median (IQR) practice percentage score was reported. The percentage score was categorised as “poor” if a participant scored <50%, “good” if a participant scored between 50–74% and “adequate if a participant scored ≥75% [22].

Comparisons and hypothesis testing

We compared demographic data, and median (IQR) scores for knowledge, attitudes and practices between participants who were exposed to HIV and those not exposed. The chi-squared test or Fisher exact test (where chi-squared was not valid) were used to compare categorical variables between exposed and unexposed participants. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare knowledge, attitude and practice scores between exposed and unexposed participants. A p-value of 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Investigation of factors associated with exposure

A multiple variable logistic regression was used to investigate the determinants of occupational exposure to HIV. Occupational exposure to HIV was treated as a binary outcome while the predictor variables were the practice score, professional training, experience and demographic variables. The 95%CI were reported for odds ratios.

Ethics

The study was carried out according to the principles of the Helsinki Declaration [19]. Ethical clearance was obtained from the medical research ethics committee in Stellenbosch University (reference number 7751) while permission to carry out the study was received from the Tygerberg Hospital research committee and Western Cape Province (reference number WC_201809_012).

Results

Sociodemographic characteristics of participants

A total of 168 nurses were approached to take part in the study and, of these, 160 agreed to participate. Eight participants did not consent to take part in the study, resulting in a 95.24% response rate. One participant did not complete the demographic section of the questionnaire. Most of the participants, 147 (92.45%) were female. The mean age (SD) of the participants was 40.63 years (SD 9.91). Only 40 (25.16%) of the 160 participants had attended formal training on HIV PEP. The departments were categorised into 3 major groups; medical, casualty and OPD. The department that had most respondents was the medical 80(50.31) followed by OPD 39(24.53) and casualty 40(25.16). A summary of the demographics by exposure status is shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Socio-demographics of participants, compared between participants with occupational HIV exposure and those not exposed.

Variable		Overall	Exposed, N = 17	Not exposed, N = 143	P value
Gender	Females, n (%)	147 (92.45)	14 (9.52)	133 (90.48)	0.099
	Males, n (%)	12 (7.55)	3 (25)	9 (75)
Race	Black, n (%)	73 (45.91)	3 (4.11)	70 (95.89)	0.013
	White, n (%)	4 (2.52)	0	4 (100)
	Mixed ancestry, n (%)	81 (50.94)	14 (17.28)	67 (82.72)
Marital status	Single, n (%)	68 (43.40)	7 (10.29)	61 (89.71)	0.902
	Married, n (%)	70 (44.03)	8 (10.43)	62 (88.57)
	Divorced, n (%)	15 (9.43)	1 (6.67)	14 (93.33)
	Widowed, n (%)	5 (3.14)	1 (20)	4 (80)
Age	Mean (SD)	40.63(9.91)	45(34–49)	41 (34–48)	0.563
Years of practice	Years	9 (4–24)	15 (6–25)	8.5(4–24)	0.254
Education, n (%)	diploma	126 (79.25)	12 (9.52)	113 (90.48)	0.433
	bachelor	20 (12.58)	4 (20)	16 (80)
	Masters	1 (0.63)	0	1 (100)
	other	12 (7.55)	1 (8.33)	11 (91.67)
Training attendance on HIV PEP, n (%)	yes	40 (25.16)	3 (7.5)	37(92.5)	0.443
Departments/wards	Medical n (%)	80(50.31)	5(6.25)	75(93.75)	0.199
	Casualty n (%)	39(24.53)	6(15.38)	33(84.62)
	OPD n (%)	40(25.16)	6(15.00)	34(85.00)

Frequency and reporting of occupational exposure to HIV, and PEP utilization

Amongst the 160 participants who took part in the study, 17 of the respondents got occupationally exposed to HIV in the past 12 months of their work, resulting in an overall prevalence of 10.63% (95% CI 6.72–16.60%). From the 17 who were exposed, only 10 (58.82%) reported the incidents and sought treatment (Fig 1). All the 10 participants who reported exposures started on treatment. However, only 6 (60.0%) of the 10 respondents completed treatment resulting in a 40.0% dropout rate. Out of the 17 who were exposed, 10 (58.82%) had needle stick injuries, 1 (5.88%) had a cut by a sharp object while 6 (35.29%) had contact with body fluids as shown in Fig 2. Of the three participants who discontinued treatment, 2 reported that it was due to the side effects of the medication while the other person assumed that it was enough and stopped before the treatment was complete. Out of 160 participants that took part in the study, 22 (13.75%) completed the questionnaires at home or during night duty.

Fig 1

Occupational exposure to HIV, reporting and utilisation of PEP.

Fig 2

Occupational exposure to HIV classification.

Knowledge of participants about HIV PEP

Out of 159 respondents with complete data, 115 (72.33%) of the participants responded that they had heard about HIV PEP. From these 115 respondents, 57 (49.6%) named training as the source of awareness. Out of 115 participants, 70(44.03%) of the participants had knowledge that PEP should not be administered if the patient they were exposed to is HIV negative. In question three, 93 (58.49%) answered correctly about the recommended time to take PEP and in question four 66 (41.51%) answered correctly about the length of time to take PEP (Table 2). The overall median knowledge score was 50% (IQR 25–75). When the knowledge score was categorised, only 46.54% had “adequate” knowledge while 32.08% had “poor” knowledge of HIV PEP. There were no significant differences, between participants who had occupational exposure to HIV and those not exposed, in either the knowledge percent score or categorized knowledge percent score (Table 3).

Table 2

Knowledge regarding HIV PEP.

Question	Response	N (%)
Ever heard about PEP	Yes	115 (72.33)
Situation when PEP should not be administered	When the source is HIV negative?	70 (44.03)
	When the patient is known to be HIV positive	20(12.58)
	When HIV status of source is unknown	16 (10.06)
	I don’t know	52 (32.70)
Recommended time to take PEP	Any time after exposure, does not matter when	36 (22.64)
	Within 72 hours of exposure	93 (58.49)
	I don’t know	30(18.87)
Length of time to take PEP	For 28 days	66 (41.51)
	For six months	28(17.61)
	For a lifetime	6 (3.77)
	I don’t know	59 (37.11)

Table 3

Overall scores and categories of knowledge, attitudes and practices, compared between participants with occupational exposure to HIV and those not exposed.

		Overall	Exposed to HIV, n = 17	Unexposed to HIV, n = 143	p-value
Knowledge score percent	Median (IQR)	50 (25–75)	75 (50–75)	50 (25–75)	0.258
Knowledge score categories, n (%)	Poor	51 (32.08)	3 (17.65)	48 (33.80)	0.258
	Good	34 (21.38)	3 (17.65)	31 (21.83)
	Adequate	74 (46.54)	11 (64.71)	63 (44.37)
Attitude score percent	Median (IQR)	83.33 (66.67–88.33)	83.33 (66.67–88.33)	83.33 (66.67–88.33)	0.373
Attitude score categories, n (%)	Poor	1 (0.67)	1 (0.75)	0	0.928
	Good	49 (32.89)	5(31.25)	88 (66.17)
	Adequate	99 (66.44)	11(68.75)	88 (66.17)
Practice score Percent	Median IQR	75 (75–100)	100 (75–100)	75 (75–100)	0.153
Practice score categories, n (%)	Poor	5 (3.18)	1 (5.88)	4 (2.86)	0.496
	Good	22 (14.01)	1 (5.88)	21 (15.00)
	Adequate	130 (82.80)	15 (88.24)	115 (82.14)

1. Exposed to HIV denotes participants that have been exposed to HIV occupationally

2. The percentage scores for knowledge, attitudes and practices were categorised as <50% poor, 50–74% good and ≥75% as adequate practice

Attitudes of participants towards HIV PEP

For question 1, participants were asked for about the importance of PEP and 95.2% thought it is important. In question 2, all of the participants strongly agreed that training on HIV PEP is important to influence people to comply with PEP guidelines. In the third question, 99.3% of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that that HIV PEP guideline poster should be posted on the walls of their working area. In question four, 85.11% of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that PEP reduces the likelihood of being HIV positive after exposure. In question 5, only 10.14% of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that HIV PEP should be administrated if a patient was HIV negative or of unknown status. In question six, 89.86% agreed or strongly agreed that PEP should be indicated for any type of sharp injuries during contact with patients of unknown HIV status (Table 4). Most participants had adequate attitudes towards HIV PEP, with a median score of 83.33% (IQR 66.67–83.33). There were no significant differences, between participants who had occupational exposure to HIV and those not exposed, in either the attitude percent score or categorized attitude percent score (Table 3).

Table 4

Attitudes of participants towards HIV PEP.

Response	Strongly agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly disagree
Importance of PEP n (%)	115(7.23)	26(17.69)	4(2.72)	1(0.68)	1 (0.68)
Perception of compliance as a result of training n (%)	108(72.48)	41(27.52)	0	0	0
Perception of HIV PEP guideline posters on the walls in the n (%)	113(75.33)	36(24.00)	1(0.67)	0	0
Perception of PEP reducing likelihood of testing HIV positive after n (%)	70(49.65)	51(36.17)	11(7.80)	9 (6.38)	0
Perception of PEP treatment for exposure from HIV negative patients n (%)	64(46.38)	42(31.16)	17(12.32)	14(9.42)	1 (0.72)
Perception of PEP treatment for any sharps injury for patients of unknown HIV status n (%)	79(57.25)	45(32.61)	12(8.70)	0	2(1.45)

Practices of participants regarding infection control

From a total of 159 respondents, 151 (94.97%) reported that they used personal protective equipment (PPE) whenever contact with patient blood and body fluids was anticipated. Out of 156 participants, 154 (98.72%) reported that they always discarded sharps in an appropriate container. One hundred and seventeen out of 153 (76.47%) participants reported that they never recap needles. From 153 participants who responded to question 3 “when do you seal the sharps disposal bin?” 93(60.78%) practice the right exercise (Table 5). The median practice score was 75% (IQR 75–100).

Table 5

Practices towards infection control measures.

Question	Answer	N (%)
Do you use personal protective equipment when anticipating contact with patient blood and body fluid?, n(%)	Yes	151 (94.97)
Under what circumstances do you dispose needled and sharp objects into the dedicated biohazard bins?, n(%)	Every time	154(98.72)
	When used on an HIV positive patient	2 (1.28)
Do you recap needles?, n(%)	Yes, if not used on a patient	36 (23.53)
	Never	117 (76.47)
When do you seal the sharps disposal bin?, n(%)	When ¾ full	93 (60.78)
	When half full	14 (9.15)
	When completely full	46 (30.07)

When the practice score was categorised, 82.8% of the participants had “adequate” while 3.18% had “poor” infection control practices. There were no significant differences, between participants who had occupational exposure to HIV and those not exposed, in either the practice percent score 100% (IQR 75–100) vs 75% (IQR 75–100), p = 0.153 or categorized knowledge percent score (Table 3).

Exploration of factors associated with occupational exposure to HIV

After multiple variable logistic regression (Fig 3), there was a trend towards lower risk of exposure in female nurses, compared to males (OR 0.27, 95%CI 0.05–1.37, p = 0.114) and a trend towards higher risk in nurses untrained in HIV PEP, compared to those who received formal training in PEP (OR 2.97 95% CI 0.64–13.83 p = 0.166), although not statistically significant. There were no significant associations between occupational exposure to HIV and any of the other demographic characteristics as well as infection control practices scores.

Fig 3

Multiple variable logistic regression for factors associated with occupational exposure to HIV.

LCL- lower confidence level (lower 95%CI). UCL- upper confidence level (Upper 95%CI). OR- odds ratio.

Discussion

In this study, we found that one out of every nine nurses at a major tertiary hospital in the Western Cape of South Africa had occupational exposure to HIV, of which almost two-thirds were exposure due to needle stick injuries. We also found inadequate reporting of exposures to occupational health services and poor PEP completion rate. The findings show that half of the participants had inadequate knowledge of HIV PEP, although most of the participants had both adequate attitudes towards PEP and good practices towards infection control.

The current exposure rate (11%) in this study is one of the lowest compared to other literature. A survey amongst HCWs in Ethiopia [12] and Nigeria [20] reported a prevalence rate of 46% and 67.5% respectively, while in South Africa two studies revealed a prevalence of 79.2% and 77.7% respectively [15, 16] in a cohort of medical interns. The prevalence rate close to the one reported in this study is 19.2%, from a study carried out amongst HCWs in Uganda [21]. In this study, 65% of the exposures were attributable to percutaneous injuries with most of them due to needle stick injuries (58.8%). In the year 2015 in Tanzania, a report showed a 62.9% exposure to needle stick injuries [5]. Similarly, an exposure rate of 63.6% was reported from a study done in Nigeria in 2011 [20]. In most studies needle stick injuries account for most of the exposures and our findings follow the same trend.

Only 59% of the participants reported exposure incidents. There were several reasons. A lack of clear knowledge of what to do after the exposure was frequently the case in our study. One participant indicated that after exposure she did not report the case to the relevant authorities as she was told by a fellow colleague that she would have to go on HIV PEP treatment for 6 months. Another participant revealed that a colleague of hers’ told her “not to worry about the exposure” as it was “just a blood splash” so she did not report it. In South-East Ethiopia, 59% of participants did not report injuries due to the following reasons; time constraints, sharps which caused injury were not used on any patient, the source patients did not have the disease of concern, and lack of knowledge that it should be reported [6]. This may have serious implications as undocumented exposure injuries could prevent injured HCWs from receiving PEP therefore potentially resulting in new HIV infections. Another concern is that 40% of participants did not finish PEP. Our findings are comparable to those of a study done Botswana in 2016, where 69% of participants received PEP and only 71% completed their medication [15]. In this study, two participants discontinued treatment due to side effects of medication. Although our study is small, and the exposed numbers were also few, the lack of completion of PEP is a clinical and public health problem which warrants attention. Larger studies may be needed to explore this and to find out the reasons why HCWs are not completing PEP, despite advancement in ARV formulations, which are now less toxic.

In this study, 50% of the participants had inadequate knowledge regarding HIV PEP. These findings are consistent with data from similar studies in Africa. In the year 2015, Cameroon had 74% of the participants with inadequate knowledge about HIV PEP[11] whereas 37% was reported in North-East Ethiopia. The overall attitudes of the participants towards HIV PEP were positive with a median score of 83% similar to findings from Botswana in 2019 [23], where participants had a mean score of 82.2% positive attitudes towards PEP. The participants had adequate practices of 75% overall. However, one of the respondents’ who experienced a needle stick injury reported being pricked by a needle that was wrapped in a small opaque plastic bag as she was cleaning the area. This shows improvement is still required in infection control practice. The finding that 30% of respondents seal the sharps container when full, is a concerning result as a sharps container should never be filled up to the “full” mark. One participant mentioned that often when it’s filled to the top and cannot close, they physically remove the needled or force the bin to close. The potential for injury and HIV infection from these actions cannot be understated. There seems to be a gap in infection control training and more training may be required.

One limitation of the study was that we relied on subjective recall of participants, which may have resulted in either underreporting or over-reporting of exposures. In addition, participants were allowed to take the questionnaire home if they needed more time, we also left questionnaires for night staff to complete and this could have led to participants consulting if they were unsure of the correct answers. However, only a small proportion, 22(13.75%), were given the questionnaires to take home or to do during night duty. The KAP section could have been improved by adding more questions. Only 40 participants received training on PEP while 57 heard about PEP from overall, implying that the 17 heard about PEP from other sources. Another limitation of the study is that clustering was not considered in the analysis plan, as the study was mainly explorative. Due to the relatively small sample size, we did not distinguish between the different levels of nurses, although this may have had an effect on the risk of exposure. The Cronbach alpha for the attitude scores of 0.54 was low but could be partly explained by the fact that the total number of questions for attitudes were only 7. More questions and more rigorous construction of the questions on attitude may help improve the internal consistency of this section. Lastly, our study was not powered up to detect factors associated with risk of exposure as it was a minor objective. Future studies, with larger sample sizes, are needed to further explore our findings.

Conclusion

One out of every nine nurses is exposed to occupational HIV, with a worrisome proportion due to needle stick injuries, amid poor reporting of exposures and poor utilization of PEP. Despite overall acceptable attitudes towards PEP and good practices in infection control, half of the nurses at this tertiary level do not have good knowledge of HIV PEP.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

(CSV)

Click here for additional data file.

27 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-25121

Occupational exposure to HIV among nurses at a major tertiary hospital: Reporting and utilization of post exposure prophylaxis; A cross-sectional study in the Western Cape, South Africa

PLOS ONE

Dear Ms Kabotho,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: The reviews have recommended revisions to your manuscript. Please consider these comments especially regarding further details of the methodology and improvements to the presentation of the results.

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 11 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Tanya Doherty, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. Additionally, please state when participants were recruited for this study.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type of consent you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed).

4. Please remove ‘I would like to thank the Lord, my heavenly Father for the grace, wisdom, strength and courage He has afforded me to complete this thesis’ from the Acknowledgements section of this manuscript.

5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Background. Line 86-87 “To our knowledge, there are no recent studies published on nurses’exposure to HIV at the workplace in South Africa.” Perhaps include the following study done in Limpopo: Makhado, L., Davhana- Maselesele, M. Knowledge and uptake of occupational post-exposure prophylaxis amongst nurses caring for people living with HIV. Curationis. 2016, 39(1), a1593. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ curationis.v39i1.1593

Sampling and analysis: Was clustering considered in the analysis strategy (regression model)?

Questionnaire validity reliability: Describe the questionnaire validity and reliability, for example, was content validity of the questionnaire checked by experts in the field? Was a Cronbach alpha calculated for the attitudes scale?

Data collection: How reliable is the knowledge score if participants did not complete this under supervision? Indicate the date of data collection (months and year).

Results: Education of nurses – did the authors distinguish between the different levels of nurses, for example assistant nurses (auxiliaries), enrolled nurses and professional nurses?

Results: In lines 236 & 250, question numbers are mentioned, but is not clear to which questions they refer. Perhaps the authors could indicate the question numbers in Tables 2 and 4 or perhaps just refer to the table to prevent repetition.

General: The tables should be formatted consistently, for example, the font type. Figures are not very clear on the manuscript draft.

Acknowledgements: Consult the journal guidelines for what is required in the acknowledgements section.

References: Formatting should be attended to. Some references do not appear to be correct, e.g. line 384. Journal names, volumes, issue, pages, date, doi, etc. to be added consistently.

Reviewer #2: In general a well written manuscript. One concern is the validity and reliability of the questionnaire used - suggest that this is added to the manuscript. Additional comments have been made on the attached document for consideration.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Talitha Crowley

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-25121_reviewer.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

17 Feb 2020

1.Background. Line 86-87 “To our knowledge, there are no recent studies published on nurses’ exposure to HIV at the workplace in South Africa.” Perhaps include the following study done in Limpopo: Makhado, L., Davhana- Maselesele, M. Knowledge and uptake of occupational post-exposure prophylaxis amongst nurses caring for people living with HIV. Curationis. 2016, 39(1), a1593. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ curationis.v39i1.1593

Thank you for your feedback. We have cited this study in the Background.

Background line 88-92

2.Sampling and analysis: Was clustering considered in the analysis strategy (regression model)?

Thank you for your feedback. Clustering was not included in the analysis as the study was mainly exploratory. We have included this limitation in the Discussion section

Discussion section line 371 - 372

3.Data collection: How reliable is the knowledge score if participants did not complete this under supervision? Indicate the date of data collection (months and year).

Thank you for your feedback. We have added under the discussion, the limitations due to the fact that some participants were given the questionnaire to complete at home and not under supervision.

The data were collected over a period of two weeks from the 4th to the 16th February 2019. This has been added to the methods

Methods section line 160-161

Discusion section line 372-374

4.Questionnaire validity reliability: Describe the questionnaire validity and reliability, for example, was content validity of the questionnaire checked by experts in the field? Was a Cronbach alpha calculated for the attitudes scale?

Thank you for your feedback. The questionnaire was adopted from existing studies, however some questions that were added and some removed, and a pilot study was done. We did not calculate a Cronbach alpha for the attitudes scale.

After the comment from the reviewer, we calculated the Cronbach alpha, which was 0.54. This has been added to the methods and as a limitation to the discussion.

Methods section line 136-139

Method section line 139

Discussion section, lines 374-377

5.Results: Education of nurses – did the authors distinguish between the different levels of nurses, for example assistant nurses (auxiliaries), enrolled nurses and professional nurses?

Thank you for your feedback. There was no distinguishing between levels of nurses in the study. We have added this as a limitation under the Discussion section.

Discussion section line 371-372

6.Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type of consent you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed).

Thank you for your feedback. We obtained written consent from the participants. This has been added in the methods section and on the online submission system.

Methods section line 153-154

7.Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information. Additionally, please state when participants were recruited for this study.

Thank you for your feedback, we have included the questionnaire as part of additional information. It is in English. We have also stated when participants were recruited into the study.

Methods section lines 109-110

8. Please remove ‘I would like to thank the Lord, my heavenly Father for the grace, wisdom, strength and courage He has afforded me to complete this thesis’ from the Acknowledgements section of this manuscript

Thank you for the feedback, this statement has been removed from the acknowledgements section

Acknowledgements section line 386-389

9. Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Thank you for your feedback. The data set is available and uploaded as a supplementary comma delimited data set

Submitted filename: PLOSONE_Response_to_reviewers 30 Jan.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

21 Feb 2020

Occupational exposure to HIV among nurses at a major tertiary hospital: Reporting and utilization of post exposure prophylaxis; A cross-sectional study in the Western Cape, South Africa

PONE-D-19-25121R1

Dear Dr. Kabotho,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Tanya Doherty, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

6 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-25121R1

Occupational exposure to HIV among nurses at a major tertiary hospital: Reporting and utilization of post-exposure prophylaxis; A cross-sectional study in the Western Cape, South Africa

Dear Dr. Kabotho:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Tanya Doherty

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE