Search

AbstractObjective:To evaluate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy among healthcare personnel (HCP) with significant clinical exposure to COVID-19 at 2 large, academic hospitals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Design, setting, and participants:HCP were surveyed in November–December 2020 about their intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.Methods:The survey measured the intent among HCP to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, timing of vaccination, and reasons for or against vaccination. Among patient-facing HCP, multivariate regression evaluated the associations between healthcare positions (medical doctor, nurse practitioner or physician assistant, and registered nurse) and vaccine hesitancy (intending to decline, delay, or were unsure about vaccination), adjusting for demographic characteristics, reasons why or why not to receive the vaccine, and prior receipt of routine vaccines.Results:Among 5,929 HCP (2,253 medical doctors [MDs] and doctors of osteopathy [DOs], 582 nurse practitioners [NPs], 158 physician assistants [PAs], and 2,936 nurses), a higher proportion of nurses (47.3%) were COVID-vaccine hesitant compared with 30.0% of PAs and NPs and 13.1% of MDs and DOs. The most common reasons for vaccine hesitancy included concerns about side effects, the newness of the vaccines, and lack of vaccine knowledge. Regardless of position, Black HCP were more hesitant than White HCP (odds ratio [OR], ∼5) and females were more hesitant than males (OR, ∼2).Conclusions:Although most clinical HCP intended to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, intention varied by healthcare position. Consistent with other studies, hesitancy was also significantly associated with race or ethnicity across all positions. These results highlight the importance of understanding and effectively addressing reasons for hesitancy, especially among frontline HCP who are at increased risk of COVID exposure and play a critical role in recommending vaccines to patients.

The United States continues to battle the addiction and overdose deaths with the opioid epidemic. Prescription opioids are responsible for more than half of these deaths. This before-after study was conducted to assess the effect of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) opioid prescription guidelines. Data were abstracted from electronic health records of adult patients presenting with low back pain seen in the emergency department during the study period. SAS statistical software was used to compare opioid prescription practices before and after the intervention. A total of 1006 patients were included in the analysis. Opioid prescriptions decreased by 11% post-CDC guidelines (45% vs 34%). Of patients receiving opioids (n = 383), there was a 6% reduction in the number of days (<5 days) for which opioids were prescribed post-CDC guidelines (14% vs 8%). CDC guidelines on opioid prescribing were associated with a significant reduction in opioid prescribing in terms of both quantity and length of time prescribed. Public health policies as guidelines may positively influence provider decision making and behaviors.

ABSTRACTBackground Physicians who make a midcareer specialty change may find their options for formal training are limited. Here, we describe a train-in-place program, with measureable outcomes, created to train midcareer physicians who desire formal training in occupational medicine.Objective We evaluated educational outcomes from a novel residency program for midcareer physicians seeking formal training and board certification in occupational medicine.Methods Physicians train in place at selected clinical training sites where they practice, and participate in 18 visits to the primary training site over a 2-year period. Program components include competency-based training structured around rotations, mentored projects, and periodic auditing visits to train-in-site locations by program faculty. Main outcome measures are achievement of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Occupational Medicine Milestones, American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine competencies, performance on the American College of Preventive Medicine examinations, diversity in selection, placement of graduates, and the number of graduates who remain in the field.Results Since inception of this program in 1997, there have been 109 graduates who comprise 7.2 of new American Board of Preventive Medicine diplomates over the past decade. Graduates scored competitively on the certifying examination, achieved all milestones, expressed satisfaction with training, and are geographically dispersed, representing every US region. Most practice outside the 25 largest standard metropolitan statistical areas. More than 95 have remained in the field.Conclusions Training in place is an effective approach to provide midcareer physicians seeking comprehensive skills and board certification in occupational medicine formal training, and may be adaptable to other specialties.

Objective: To describe the use of mandated safety engineered sharps devices (SESDs) and personal protective equipment in healthcare workers (HCWs) with occupational body fluid exposures (BFE) since the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act.Methods: Two questionnaires were administered, over 3 years, to HCWs who reported sharps or splash BFEs. Descriptive statistics and chi-square analysis were used.Results: Of the 498 questionnaires completed, nurses completed 262 (53%), house staff 155 (32 %), technicians 63 (13%) and phlebotomists 11 (2%). Four (1%) completers reported ‘other’ and three (1%) reported unknown. Sharps injuries accounted for 349 (70%) of the BFEs. SESDs were utilised 43% (128/299) of the time with a 54% (70/130) activation rate. Phlebotomists (80%; 8/10) and nurses (59%; 79/267) used SESDs more than doctors (27%; 31/86) and technicians (26%; 10/39) (P<0.0001). Fifty-four percent (185/207) of HCWs reported having had training on SESD use; nurses (64%; 98/154) and phlebotomists (70%; 7/8) significantly more so than house staff (44%; 59/133) and technicians (44%; 21/48) (P<0.05). Most splash BFEs were to the eyes 73% (91/149). Five percent (4/79) of HCWs used protective eyewear.Conclusions: Systematic regular training, appropriate protocols and iteratively providing the safest SESDs based on HCW experience and technological advances will further reduce the physical and emotional toll of BFEs.

Objective.To evaluate the effect of introducing an engineered device for preventing injuries from sharp instruments (engineered sharps injury prevention device [ESIPD]) on the percutaneous injury rate in healthcare workers (HCWs).Methods.We undertook a controlled, interventional, before-after study during a period of 3 years (from January 1998 through December 2000) at a major medical center. The study population was HCWs with potential exposure to bloodborne pathogens. HCWs who sustain a needlestick injury are required by hospital policy to report the exposure. A confidential log of these injuries is maintained that includes information on the date and time of the incident, the type and brand of sharp device involved, and whether an ESIPD was used.Intervention.Introduction of an intravenous (IV) catheter stylet with a safety-engineered feature (a retractable protection shield), which was placed in clinics and hospital wards in lieu of other IV catheter devices that did not have safety features. No protective devices were present on suture needles during any of the periods. The incidence of percutaneous needlestick injury by IV catheter and suture needles was evaluated for 18 months before and 18 months after the intervention.Results.After the intervention, the incidence of percutaneous injuries resulting from IV catheters decreased significantly (P< .01), whereas the incidence of injuries resulting from suture needle injuries increased significantly (P< .008).Conclusion.ESIPDs lead to a reduction in percutaneous injuries in HCWs, helping to decrease HCWs' risk of exposure to bloodborne pathogens.

Objective.To evaluate the effect of introducing an engineered device for preventing injuries from sharp instruments (engineered sharps injury prevention device [ESIPD]) on the percutaneous injury rate in healthcare workers (HCWs).Methods.We undertook a controlled, interventional, before-after study during a period of 3 years (from January 1998 through December 2000) at a major medical center. The study population was HCWs with potential exposure to bloodborne pathogens. HCWs who sustain a needlestick injury are required by hospital policy to report the exposure. A confidential log of these injuries is maintained that includes information on the date and time of the incident, the type and brand of sharp device involved, and whether an ESIPD was used.Intervention.Introduction of an intravenous (IV) catheter stylet with a safety-engineered feature (a retractable protection shield), which was placed in clinics and hospital wards in lieu of other IV catheter devices that did not have safety features. No protective devices were present on suture needles during any of the periods. The incidence of percutaneous needlestick injury by IV catheter and suture needles was evaluated for 18 months before and 18 months after the intervention.Results.After the intervention, the incidence of percutaneous injuries resulting from IV catheters decreased significantly (P< .01), whereas the incidence of injuries resulting from suture needle injuries increased significantly (P< .008).Conclusion.ESIPDs lead to a reduction in percutaneous injuries in HCWs, helping to decrease HCWs' risk of exposure to bloodborne pathogens.

Background.Shift work has been found to be associated with an increased rate of errors and accidents among healthcare workers (HCWs), but the effect of shift work on accidental blood and body fluid exposure sustained by HCWs has not been well characterized.Objectives.To determine the duration of time on shift before accidental blood and body fluid exposure in housestaff, nurses, and technicians and the proportion of housestaff who sustain a blood and body fluid exposure after 12 hours on duty.Methods.This retrospective, descriptive study was conducted during a 24-month period at a large urban teaching hospital. Participants were HCWs who sustained an accidental blood and body fluid exposure.Results.Housestaff were on duty significantly longer than both nursing staff (P= .02) and technicians (P< .0001) before accidental blood and body fluid exposure. Half of the blood and body fluid exposures sustained by housestaff occurred after being on duty 8 hours or more, and 24% were sustained after being on duty 12 hours or more. Of all HCWs, 3% reported an accidental blood and body fluid exposure, with specific rates of 7.9% among nurses, 9.4% among housestaff, and 3% among phlebotomists.Conclusions.Housestaff were significantly more likely to have longer duration of time on shift before blood and body fluid exposure than were the other groups. Almost one-quarter of accidental blood and body fluid exposures to housestaff were incurred after they had been on duty for 12 hours or more. Housestaff sustained a higher rate of accidental blood and body fluid exposures than did nursing staff and technicians.

Background.Shift work has been found to be associated with an increased rate of errors and accidents among healthcare workers (HCWs), but the effect of shift work on accidental blood and body fluid exposure sustained by HCWs has not been well characterized.Objectives.To determine the duration of time on shift before accidental blood and body fluid exposure in housestaff, nurses, and technicians and the proportion of housestaff who sustain a blood and body fluid exposure after 12 hours on duty.Methods.This retrospective, descriptive study was conducted during a 24-month period at a large urban teaching hospital. Participants were HCWs who sustained an accidental blood and body fluid exposure.Results.Housestaff were on duty significantly longer than both nursing staff (P= .02) and technicians (P< .0001) before accidental blood and body fluid exposure. Half of the blood and body fluid exposures sustained by housestaff occurred after being on duty 8 hours or more, and 24% were sustained after being on duty 12 hours or more. Of all HCWs, 3% reported an accidental blood and body fluid exposure, with specific rates of 7.9% among nurses, 9.4% among housestaff, and 3% among phlebotomists.Conclusions.Housestaff were significantly more likely to have longer duration of time on shift before blood and body fluid exposure than were the other groups. Almost one-quarter of accidental blood and body fluid exposures to housestaff were incurred after they had been on duty for 12 hours or more. Housestaff sustained a higher rate of accidental blood and body fluid exposures than did nursing staff and technicians.

AbstractObjectives:To determine the relation of the availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) and engineering controls to infection control (IC) practices in a prison healthcare setting, and to explore the effect on IC practices of a perceived organizational commitment to safety.Design:Cross-sectional survey.Setting:The study population was drawn from the 28 regional Correctional Health Care Workers Facilities in Maryland.Participants:All full-time Maryland correctional healthcare workers (HCWs) were surveyed, and 225 (64%) of the 350 responded.Method:A confidential, self-administered questionnaire was mailed to all correctional HCWs employed in the 28 Maryland Correctional Health Care Facilities. The questionnaire was analyzed psychometrically and validated through extensive pilot testing. It included items on three major constructs: IC practices, safety climate (defined as the perception of organizational commitment to safety), and availability of IC equipment and supplies.Results:A strong correlation was found between the availability of PPE and IC practices. Similarly, a strong correlation was found between IC practices and the presence of engineering controls. In addition, an equally strong association was seen between the adoption of IC practices and employee perception of management commitment to safety. Those employees who perceived a high level of management support for safety were more than twice as likely to adhere to recommended IC practices. IC practices were significantly more likely to be followed if PPE was always readily available. Similarly, IC practices were more likely to be followed if engineering controls were provided.Conclusion:These findings suggest that ready availability of PPE and the presence of engineering controls are crucial to help ensure their use in this high-risk environment. This is especially important because correctional HCWs are potentially at risk of exposure to bloodborne pathogens such as human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis B and C viruses. Commitment to safety was found to be highly associated with the adoption of safe work practices. There is an inherent conflict of “custody versus care” in this setting; hence, it is especially important that we understand and appreciate the relation between safety climate and IC practices. Interventions designed to improve safety climate, as well as availability of necessary IC supplies and equipment, will most likely prove effective in improving employee compliance with IC practices in this healthcare setting.

Occupational health nurses should be cognizant of the myriad exposures that can result in dermal reactions among health care workers.