Search

Background Age-standardized mortality rates for taxi drivers, chauffeurs, bus and coach drivers show that public transport workers were at high risk at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, the public transport sector was required to continue services throughout the pandemic. Objectives This paper aims to develop a better understanding of the experiences of organizational leaders and workers within the UK public transport sector (bus, rail, and tram). Specifically, it aims to explore the perceived balance of risk and mitigation of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, report on their perceptions of safety in public transport during the pandemic and in the future, and consider how these perceptions and changes impact on long-term worker health and wellbeing. Methods This study formed part of a larger stakeholder engagement with the public transport sector. Organizational leaders and workers were recruited (n = 18) and semi-structured interviews carried out between January and May 2021. Data were analysed thematically. Results Overarching and subthemes were identified. Themes relating to perceptions and impacts of risk of COVID-19 for employees included: acceptability of risk for workers, perceptions of risk mitigation effectiveness, changes to working practices and their impact on morale and wellbeing, issues with compliance to mitigations such as social distancing and face coverings in passenger and co-worker groups alongside a lack of power to challenge behaviour effectively, and the roles of leadership and messaging. Themes related to long-lasting impacts of COVID-19 on working practices and effects on health and wellbeing included: continuing mitigations, impact of increasing passenger numbers, impact of vaccination programme, and impact of changes to business structure. Conclusions Most public transport employees reported feeling safe, related to the extent to which their role was public-facing. However, data were collected during a time of very low passenger numbers. Current mitigation measures were thought effective in reducing the risk of viral transmission, although measures may have a detrimental effect on worker morale and wellbeing. Issues relating to non-compliance with guidance and 'in-group' behaviour were identified. Impacts on wider business sustainability and individual wellbeing of staff should be considered when developing responses to any future pandemics. Recommendations are made for prioritizing employee engagement with colleagues, and the importance of strong leadership and clear messaging in promoting adherence to behavioural mitigations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Nearly all workers and industry sectors have been affected by the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in some form since March 2020. However, the pandemic-related stressors experienced in the workplace may vary from industry to industry and may have disproportionally affected some workers. This study investigates increased stress levels, stressor events, and other perceptions of stress from at-risk workers during COVID-19. Methods An in-depth work-related stress survey that incorporated many aspects of work, life, work-life balance, and the health of employer-employee relationships was developed with a focus on COVID-19-related stressors. The cross-sectional survey was distributed online through professional networks from October to November 2021. The survey results were statically analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) after grouping the industry sectors into the four groups to determine trends within these groupings. Results The survey was completed by 670 workers in sectors such as manual labor, business/office service, healthcare, and education. A variety of trends were determined between the occurrence of COVID-19 and work stress which had, in some cases, affected some industry sectors to a larger degree than others. More than 50% of the participants reported experiencing an increased workload since the onset of the pandemic with some sectors, like healthcare, reporting an increased workload more frequently at 80%. Around 55% of respondents believed they could be exposed to COVID-19 in their workplace, ranging from 52% of business/office service workers to 77% of healthcare workers. Conclusions As workplaces navigate past the pandemic, occupational stress should be addressed head-on through workplaces providing expanded resources so as to assure work stress associated with future pandemics are mitigated appropriately. Whether the stressor is associated with irregular shift work or psychosocial aspects (i.e. relying on coworkers), many of these stressors have the possibility to become exacerbated by external factors such as pandemics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To estimate the rate ratio (RR) of reported Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases among governmental employees from seven District of Columbia (D.C.) departments from March 2020 to February 2022. Methods Poisson regression models were used to estimate the RR by department, using D.C. residents as the reference and the person-day as the offset. The COVID-19 surveillance data and the full-time equivalent hours for each department were obtained from the D.C. governmental websites. Results Five of the seven departments had statistically significant higher COVID-19 case rates than D.C. residents. Stratified by four pandemic stages, RR of Fire and Emergency Medical Services (FEMS), Office of Unified Communication (OUC), and Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) were consistently >1: FEMS: 3.34 (95% confidence interval, CI [2.94, 3.77]), 2.39 (95% CI [2.06, 2.75]), 2.48 (95% CI [2.06, 2.95]), and 3.90 (95% CI [3.56, 4.26]), respectively; OUC: 1.47 (95% CI [0.92, 2.18]), 2.72 (95% CI [1.93, 3.69]), 1.85 (95% CI [1.09, 2.92]), and 2.18 (95% CI [1.62, 2.85]), respectively; and MPD: 2.33 (95% CI [2.11, 2.58]), 1.96 (95% CI [1.75, 2.18]), 1.52 (95% CI [1.29, 1.77]), and 1.76 (95% CI [1.60, 1.92]), respectively. Conclusions The results suggested higher case rates for emergency responders and frontline personnel than for general population in D.C. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is an ongoing debate on airborne transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) as a risk factor for infection. In this study, the level of SARS-CoV-2 in air and on surfaces of SARS-CoV-2 infected nursing home residents was assessed to gain insight in potential transmission routes. During outbreaks, air samples were collected using three different active and one passive air sampling technique in rooms of infected patients. Oropharyngeal swabs (OPS) of the residents and dry surface swabs were collected. Additionally, longitudinal passive air samples were collected during a period of 4 months in common areas of the wards. Presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA was determined using RT-qPCR, targeting the RdRp- and E-genes. OPS, samples of two active air samplers and surface swabs with Ct-value ≤35 were tested for the presence of infectious virus by cell culture. In total, 360 air and 319 surface samples from patient rooms and common areas were collected. In rooms of 10 residents with detected SARS-CoV-2 RNA in OPS, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 93 of 184 collected environmental samples (50.5%) (lowest Ct 29.5), substantially more than in the rooms of residents with negative OPS on the day of environmental sampling (n = 2) (3.6%). SARS-CoV-2 RNA was most frequently present in the larger particle size fractions [>4 μm 60% (6/10); 1–4 μm 50% (5/10); <1 μm 20% (2/10)] (Fischer exact test P = 0.076). The highest proportion of RNA-positive air samples on room level was found with a filtration-based sampler 80% (8/10) and the cyclone-based sampler 70% (7/10), and impingement-based sampler 50% (5/10). SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in 10 out of 12 (83%) passive air samples in patient rooms. Both high-touch and low-touch surfaces contained SARS-CoV-2 genome in rooms of residents with positive OPS [high 38% (21/55); low 50% (22/44)]. In one active air sample, infectious virus in vitro was detected. In conclusion, SARS-CoV-2 is frequently detected in air and on surfaces in the immediate surroundings of room-isolated COVID-19 patients, providing evidence of environmental contamination. The environmental contamination of SARS-CoV-2 and infectious aerosols confirm the potential for transmission via air up to several meters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is strong observational evidence that respirators are highly effective in protecting the users from being infected with Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV), but the evidence for SARS-CoV-2 during daily work is limited. This study utilized a subset of healthcare workers' temporary use of a new brand respirator with frequent defects when caring for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients to assess the protective effect of regular respirators against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods We retrospectively followed 463 participants wearing a regular respirator and 168 wearing the new brand respirator day-by-day when caring for COVID-19 patients until testing polymerase chain reaction positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 27th December 2020 and 14th January 2021. Results We observed seven and eight incident SARS-CoV-2-infected cases. This corresponded with daily infection rates of 0.2 and 0.5%, an incidence rate ratio of 0.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1; 1.0], and an incidence rate difference of 0.3% (95% CI −0.1; 0.8) when comparing a regular with the new brand respirator. Discussion We regard the new brand respirator a sham intervention, and this study thus provides further evidence for the protective effect of respirators when exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The spread of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among active workers is poor known. The aim of our study was to evaluate the seroprevalence of immunoglobulin G (IgG) among a convenience sample of workers and to identify high-risk job sectors during the first pandemic way. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study among workers tested for SARS-CoV-2 between 28 March and 7 August 2020, recorded by a private healthcare center located in North-West Italy. Association among seroprevalence and demographic and occupational variables was evaluated using chi square test and the seroprevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Results We collected the results for 23568 serological tests from a sample of 22708 workers from about 1000 companies. Median age was 45 years and about 60% of subjects were male. The overall seroprevalence was 4.97% [95%CI 4.69–5.25]. No statistical difference was found among gender while seroprevalence was associated with subjects' age, geographical location, and occupational sector. Significantly higher values of positivity were observed for the logistics sector (31.3%), weaving factory (12.6%), nursing homes (9.8%), and chemical industry (6.9%) workers. However, we observed some clusters of cases in single companies independently from the sector. Then, a detailed focus on 940 food workers shown a seroprevalence of 5.21% [95%CI 3.79–6.63] and subjects who self-reported COVID-19 symptoms and who worked during lockdown had a higher probability of being infected (p < 0.001). Conclusions Data obtained might be useful for future public health decision; more than occupation sector, it seems that failure on prevention system in single companies increase the SARS-CoV-2 transmission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The British Occupational Hygiene Society (BOHS) COVID-19 Working Group developed a control banding matrix to provide guidance for employers and others to help assess the risks of COVID-19 infection during the pandemic. The matrix was based on occupational hygiene principles and the judgement of the occupational health practitioners involved; since objective data on workers' exposure were unavailable. Users of the matrix identify one of five exposure categories based on generic job descriptions and example occupations, and these categories are linked to generic guidance on interventions at source, on the exposure pathway and for individual workers. The risk matrix was published on the BOHS website and the guidance has been downloaded more than 2000 times. The matrix has had limited evaluation for reliability, but the data suggest that the highest exposure ranked jobs were associated with higher age-standardized mortality in Britain during the pandemic. However, there was considerable variability in exposure assignments between assessors, which underlines the need for the control guidance to be precautionary. The BOHS calls on academic researchers to undertake further work to validate the reliability of the tool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) contagion at work is well studied for healthcare workers, however it is not enough assessed in other working settings. Very little is known, indeed, about the risk of COVID-19 transmission through occupational exposure in non-health working places. This study aims to describe a COVID-19 cluster among workers in an office in Italy. Methods This was a retrospective observational study on a cluster of COVID-19 that occurred from 20 November through 3 December 2020 in a group of six colleagues (A–F) working in the same office full time 5 days a week, 8 h a day. The workers used the following prevention measures: social distancing (desks were >1 m, 1.76–5.01 m range), plexiglas panels, hands disinfection, and use of face mask. However, they did not wear face mask when in static position sitting at their desk and they did not aerate the place frequently. Results The disease spread from one worker (subject A) to four (80%) of the five colleagues (subjects B–F). Only subject D was negative to COVID-19 on 14 days after last contact with subject A (20 November 2020) as confirmed by nasopharyngeal swab testing. Subject D, in particular, did not contact subject A in the 48 h before symptoms onset. COVID-19 positivity of subject A was promptly communicated to the colleagues, who started self-isolation from their relatives and none of their households were infected. COVID-19 transmission was observed only in households of subject A. Conclusions The rapid communication of COVID-19 positivity to the colleagues and the prompt isolation of index case's close contacts allowed to eliminate the secondary transmission to their households. The contagion of index case's colleagues occurred from second day before symptoms onset. Distancing of >1 m, use of plexiglass panels, sanitizing hand gel, and inconstant use of face mask may not be enough for infection prevention in closed places with poor ventilation and high occupancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Health care workers (HCWs) adopted several protective measures, including hand hygiene and wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 outbreak. However, the frequent use of these preventive measures can lead to skin reactions. Our study aimed to determine the frequency of these reactions in Northern Morocco. In addition, we also looked at the risk factors and the consequences of these injuries on work efficiency and performance. Materials and Methods An anonymous online survey was used to collect data, which was sent to 500 health workers in the study region. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data on IBM SPSS software. Results In total, 273/500 responded to the questionnaire (55%). For the participants' profession, 41% were doctors, 32% were nursing staff, and 26% held other jobs. The general prevalence rate of adverse reactions for all health workers was (80%), including skin problems: after wearing goggles (58%), after wearing surgical masks and respirators (57%), after handwashing and wearing gloves (45%), after wearing a face shield (23%), and after wearing protective clothing (11%). Bleach immersion was highly significantly associated with hand reaction (OR: 2.9, 95% CI: 1.77–4.90; P < 0.001). Moreover, we found a statistically significant association between hand cream use more than twice daily and fewer reactions (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 0.98–3.77; P = 0.038). The skin reactions related to goggles use were also significantly associated with use duration (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 0.988–3.12; P = 0.05). Similarly, wearing masks and N95 respirators and their related adverse reactions were significantly associated with use duration (OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.20–0.7; P = 0.02). In addition, adverse reactions of regular use of protective clothing were related to the frequency of its use per shift (OR: 3.5, 95% CI: 1.47–8.54; P = 0.05). Conclusions Our survey-based study showed that the prevalence of these skin reactions in our context should not be neglected. The length of daily wearing time and the frequency of PPE uses were the most implicated factors. More attention must be paid to these reactions for better care of HCWs during these critical times. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]