Literature DB >> 32822884

Proactive screening approach for SARS-CoV-2 among healthcare workers.

Yonatan Oster1, Dana G Wolf2, Karen Olshtain-Pops2, Zeev Rotstein3, Carmela Schwartz2, Shmuel Benenson2.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32822884      PMCID: PMC7434469          DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.08.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Microbiol Infect        ISSN: 1198-743X            Impact factor:   8.067


× No keyword cloud information.
To the Editor As of July 8, 2020, Israel has experienced 32 714 cases of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) (3557 cases/million) and 343 deaths (37 deaths/million) [1]. Most patients have mild symptoms, and at least 30% are asymptomatic [2]. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are standing in the front line of this pandemic, and the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected many HCWs worldwide. There are international and local guidelines to prevent infection of HCWs by using suitable personal protective equipment (PPE). Although the correct use of PPE theoretically prevents infection of HCWs, there still is considerable anxiety and fear amongst many [3]. In order to create a safe hospital environment for staff members and patients, the hospital management established a novel proactive periodic screening programme for SARS-CoV-2 for all personnel. Here we present the first 2 months of this programme. The Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Centre in Jerusalem consists of two hospitals with 1100 inpatient beds; it employs about 6680 personnel. Jerusalem is one of the areas with the highest prevalence of COVID-19 in Israel. Preparations in the hospital included building five dedicated wards for COVID-19 patients, including 44 intensive care beds, and establishing guidelines for the use of PPE in the different settings. Since the end of March, all hospital staff and visitors were required to wear a surgical facemask at all times. The proactive screening procedure, starting March 22, involved summoning staff members by text messages for nasopharyngeal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 PCR. We started with critical teams and later on proceeded to all other HCWs. The specimens were processed and analysed using a fluorescent RT-PCR kit, with primers and probe targeted to the SARS-CoV-2 ORF1ab gene (BGI) in pools [4]. All tested HCWs were summoned for a second screening test after 5 days. HCWs with a high exposure risk (e.g. working in a COVID-19 ward) were asked to periodically repeat screening. An automatic report of all staff members tested was generated twice daily. HCWs were required to adhere to social distancing also outside the hospital. The infection prevention team excluded from work every worker found positive, and initiated an immediate epidemiological investigation in a search for contacts. Personnel exposed to a positive HCW were sent for isolation according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. Between March 22 and May 11, 2020, the lab performed 10 131 PCR tests on hospital personnel (14.7% of all tests). Overall, 4897 out of 6680 employees were tested (73%). Of these, 1428 (29.1%) were screened once, 2463 (50.3%) twice and 1006 (20.5%) three or more times. The number and proportion of staff members tested are presented in Table 1 .
Table 1

Number and proportion of staff members tested in every sector

Total
Screened
Positive
Asymptomatic
Sector:n (%)
Medical2211 (33)1629 (73.7)9 (0.6)1 (0.06)
Nursing2470 (37)2098 (84.9)25 (1.2)2 (0.09)
Paramedicala574 (9)322 (56.1)2 (0.6)0 (0.00)
Administrative1425 (21)848 (59.5)7 (0.8)2 (0.23)
Total6680 (100)4897 (73.3%)43 (0.9)5 (0.10)

Paramedical = medical professions except physicians and nurses.

Number and proportion of staff members tested in every sector Paramedical = medical professions except physicians and nurses. Forty-three employees (0.9%) had a positive PCR; 28 of the 43 (65%) were detected in the proactive screening. In only 5/43 (11.6%) was there a suspicion for in-hospital acquisition (either proven unprotected contact with a positive patient or working in a dedicated COVID-19 ward). Thirty-eight of these 43 HCWs (88%) had some symptoms attributed to COVID-19 infection (58% fever, 39% cough, 14% sore throat, 33% loss of taste and/or smell). Most symptomatic HCWs had mild symptoms and none needed respiratory support. Only 5/43 (11.6%) were asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis. The asymptomatic positivity rate was 5/4897 (0.10%). Our novel screening approach is not routine in other outbreaks, such as influenza pandemics. In a relatively short period, we screened 74% of physicians and 85% of nurses; 70% of them were screened twice or more. This approach allowed early identification and isolation of asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic HCWs, who probably otherwise would not have been tested. This screening approach enabled us to establish a safer hospital environment by lowering cross-transmission between HCWs, thus ensuring the optimal functioning of the hospital during the crisis. Additionally, it contributed to the sense of security of the staff, and allowed staff members to focus on their tasks with minimal concern about being infected from a colleague [5]. This approach has some limitations. First, execution of such a programme requires a large laboratory capability that is not available at every institution. However, it may be applied selectively to high-risk departments. Second, PCR-based screening results are valid only for the day of the test, which may cause a false sense of confidence. In order to overcome this, we repeated the screening after 5 days, and HCWs were obliged to maximize social distancing. One might ask whether the positivity rate of only one asymptomatic HCW per 1000 tests justifies such a vast intervention; however, the additional benefit of staff confidence is of substantial value. Moreover, we also diagnosed several HCWs with minor symptoms who probably would not have been tested without our programme. In summary, we applied a unique personnel-screening approach during the pandemic, which we continue beyond the presented period to the current time. This allows early identification of SARS-CoV-2-positive HCWs and assists in the smooth functioning of the hospital during this outbreak.

Author contributions

All authors have made substantial contributions to this work and have approved the final manuscript. Concept and supervision: ZR and SB. Acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data: YO, DGW, KOP, CS and SB. Writing of the original draft: YO, CS and SB.

Transparency declaration

All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article. No financial support was received.
  3 in total

1.  Asymptomatic Transmission, the Achilles' Heel of Current Strategies to Control Covid-19.

Authors:  Monica Gandhi; Deborah S Yokoe; Diane V Havlir
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2020-04-24       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  COVID-19: the case for health-care worker screening to prevent hospital transmission.

Authors:  James R M Black; Chris Bailey; Joanna Przewrocka; Krijn K Dijkstra; Charles Swanton
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2020-04-16       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Large-scale implementation of pooled RNA extraction and RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection.

Authors:  R Ben-Ami; A Klochendler; M Seidel; T Sido; O Gurel-Gurevich; M Yassour; E Meshorer; G Benedek; I Fogel; E Oiknine-Djian; A Gertler; Z Rotstein; B Lavi; Y Dor; D G Wolf; M Salton; Y Drier
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Infect       Date:  2020-06-23       Impact factor: 13.310

  3 in total
  6 in total

1.  BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Effectiveness among Health Care Workers.

Authors:  Shmuel Benenson; Yonatan Oster; Matan J Cohen; Ran Nir-Paz
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2021-03-23       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  A case with SARS-CoV-2 reinfection from India.

Authors:  Ashok Munivenkatappa; Rima R Sahay; Gururaj R Deshpande; Deepak Y Patil; Anita M Shete; Gajanan N Sapkal; Ravish Kumar; Marappa Narayana; Pragya D Yadav; Vijay Shettar
Journal:  Indian J Med Microbiol       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 0.985

3.  The effect of a third BNT162b2 vaccine on breakthrough infections in health care workers: a cohort analysis.

Authors:  Yonatan Oster; Shmuel Benenson; Ran Nir-Paz; Inon Buda; Matan J Cohen
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Infect       Date:  2022-02-07       Impact factor: 13.310

4.  The role of routine SARS-CoV-2 screening of healthcare-workers in acute care hospitals in 2020: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  J M Jabs; A Schwabe; A D Wollkopf; B Gebel; J Stadelmaier; S Erdmann; F Radicke; H Grundmann; A Kramer; I Monsef; G Rücker; J Rupp; S Scheithauer; C Schmucker; A Simon; Nico T Mutters
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2022-07-02       Impact factor: 3.667

5.  Mass testing of healthcare workers for COVID-19-A single institution experience in Sabah, East Malaysia.

Authors:  Wei Kong Wong; Audrey Shuk Lan Chong; Bing-Ling Kueh; Amirul Mohd Sallehuddin Bin Mannan; Muhammad Ubaidullah Arasy Bin Aziz; Zhi-Yiu Hiang-Weang Lim; Faulzan Bin Abdul Hamid; Marcus Netto; Bee Hwai Tan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-08-25       Impact factor: 3.752

6.  Are Healthcare Workers Infected with SARS-CoV-2 at Home or at Work? A Comparative Prevalence Study.

Authors:  Shadi Zahran; Ran Nir-Paz; Ora Paltiel; Chen Stein-Zamir; Yonatan Oster
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-10-10       Impact factor: 4.614

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.