Literature DB >> 32596817

Employee presenteeism and occupational acquisition of COVID-19.

Damon Eisen1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Keywords:  COVID-19; Hospital medicine; Infectious diseases; Occupational health; Respiratory tract infections

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32596817      PMCID: PMC7361533          DOI: 10.5694/mja2.50688

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med J Aust        ISSN: 0025-729X            Impact factor:   12.776


× No keyword cloud information.
to the editor: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has focused whole‐of‐government efforts on protecting Australia's health. Border closures, case quarantine, public health interventions and social distancing have controlled COVID‐19 case numbers, limiting community acquisition. Workplaces at particular risk of occupational exposure to COVID‐19 — hospitals, aged care facilities and, interestingly, abattoirs — require effective infection control. Presenteeism in this context refers to the occupational transmission risk that employees infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pose by continuing to work despite being symptomatic. Such presenteeism may be an issue common to a number of industries.1 Occupational infection has occurred among Australian hospital staff, notably in North West Tasmania.2 Delayed recognition of COVID‐19 cases leading to infection control breaches, presenteeism with infected health care staff working for up to 7 days with respiratory symptoms, along with other factors all contributed to this hospital outbreak.2 In total, 73 of the 114 outbreak cases were hospital staff.2 Meat processing facility workers have been a notable at‐risk group in the United States, with over 4000 COVID‐19 cases reported, representing up to 3% of affected facility workforces and resulting in 20 COVID‐19 related deaths.3 In Australia, a COVID‐19 cluster was reported among abattoir workers in Melbourne.4 There are meat processing industry work practices that enhance COVID‐19 acquisition risks.4 Commonly, the layout of meat processing facilities challenges implementation of appropriate distancing between workers, who may be spaced as little as 30 cm from colleagues during routine operations. Compliance with wearing face masks is difficult given the pace and physical demands of work. Financial imperatives appear to motivate food processing employees to work even if unwell.3 Australian aged care workers and airline baggage handlers have also experienced COVID‐19 outbreaks. Despite concerns expressed by teachers and early childhood educators, as of 16 June 2020, no major outbreaks had occurred in schools and only one cluster had been reported in a NSW childcare centre.5 A NSW investigation of possible transmission in schools showed only two secondary cases in students.6 Some schools have been closed for deep cleaning after detection of community acquired cases of COVID‐19. Design and implementation of effective, industry specific, infection prevention policies are crucial for employer compliance with the Australian Work Health and Safety Strategy principle that “all workers, regardless of their occupation or how they are engaged, have the right to a healthy and safe working environment”.7 This requires strong, industry group, leadership. Recognition of workplace specific infection risks, provision of reliable personal protective equipment, redesign of work practices, discouragement of presenteeism, and improved access to sick leave must all be attended to for the sake of Australia's workforce.

Competing interests

No relevant disclosures.
  2 in total

1.  COVID-19 Among Workers in Meat and Poultry Processing Facilities - 19 States, April 2020.

Authors:  Jonathan W Dyal; Michael P Grant; Kendra Broadwater; Adam Bjork; Michelle A Waltenburg; John D Gibbins; Christa Hale; Maggie Silver; Marc Fischer; Jonathan Steinberg; Colin A Basler; Jesica R Jacobs; Erin D Kennedy; Suzanne Tomasi; Douglas Trout; Jennifer Hornsby-Myers; Nadia L Oussayef; Lisa J Delaney; Ketki Patel; Varun Shetty; Kelly E Kline; Betsy Schroeder; Rachel K Herlihy; Jennifer House; Rachel Jervis; Joshua L Clayton; Dustin Ortbahn; Connie Austin; Erica Berl; Zack Moore; Bryan F Buss; Derry Stover; Ryan Westergaard; Ian Pray; Meghan DeBolt; Amy Person; Julie Gabel; Theresa S Kittle; Pamela Hendren; Charles Rhea; Caroline Holsinger; John Dunn; George Turabelidze; Farah S Ahmed; Siestke deFijter; Caitlin S Pedati; Karyl Rattay; Erica E Smith; Carolina Luna-Pinto; Laura A Cooley; Sharon Saydah; Nykiconia D Preacely; Ryan A Maddox; Elizabeth Lundeen; Bradley Goodwin; Sandor E Karpathy; Sean Griffing; Mary M Jenkins; Garry Lowry; Rachel D Schwarz; Jonathan Yoder; Georgina Peacock; Henry T Walke; Dale A Rose; Margaret A Honein
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2020-05-08       Impact factor: 17.586

2.  A systematic review of infectious illness Presenteeism: prevalence, reasons and risk factors.

Authors:  R K Webster; R Liu; K Karimullina; I Hall; R Amlôt; G J Rubin
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 3.295

  2 in total
  3 in total

1.  Healthcare Professional Presenteeism during a COVID-19 Outbreak in an Australian Rural Healthcare Environment: A Case Analysis.

Authors:  Kathleen Tori; Thi Thuy Ha Dinh; Carey Mather
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-08-06       Impact factor: 3.390

2.  Presenteeism Among Nurses in Switzerland and Portugal and Its Impact on Patient Safety and Quality of Care: Protocol for a Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Filipa Pereira; Ana Isabel Querido; Marion Bieri; Henk Verloo; Carlos António Laranjeira
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2021-05-13

3.  Work and Non-Work Sickness Presenteeism: The Role of Workplace COVID-19 Climate.

Authors:  Tahira M Probst; Hyun Jung Lee; Andrea Bazzoli; Melissa R Jenkins; Erica L Bettac
Journal:  J Occup Environ Med       Date:  2021-08-01       Impact factor: 2.306

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.