No abstract

IMPORTANCE It is unclear when, where, and by whom health care workers (HCWs) working in hospitals are infected with SARS-CoV-2. OBJECTIVE To determine how often and in what manner nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection occurs in HCW groups with varying exposure to patients with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study comprised 4 weekly measurements of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies and collection of questionnaires from March 23 to June 25, 2020, combined with phylogenetic and epidemiologic transmission analyses at 2 university hospitals in the Netherlands. Included individuals were HCWs working in patient care for those with COVID-19, HCWs working in patient care for those without COVID-19, and HCWs not working in patient care. Data were analyzed from August through December 2020. EXPOSURES Varying work-related exposure to patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe cumulative incidence of and time to SARS-CoV-2 infection, defined as the presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in blood samples, were measured. RESULTSAmong 801 HCWs, there were 439 HCWs working in patient care for those with COVID-19, 164 HCWs working in patient care for those without COVID-19, and 198 HCWs not working in patient care. There were 580 (72.4%) women, and the median (interquartile range) age was 36 (29-50) years. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 was increased among HCWs working in patient care for those with COVID-19 (54 HCWs [13.2%; 95% CI, 9.9%-16.4%]) compared with HCWs working in patient care for those without COVID-19 (11 HCWs [6.7%; 95% CI, 2.8%-10.5%]; hazard ratio [HR], 2.25; 95% CI, 1.17-4.30) and HCWs not working in patient care (7 HCWs [3.6%; 95% CI, 0.9%-6.1%]; HR, 3.92; 95% CI, 1.79-8.62). Among HCWs caring for patients with COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 cumulative incidence was increased among HCWs working on COVID-19 wards (32 of 134 HCWs [25.7%; 95% CI, 17.6%-33.1%]) compared with HCWs working on intensive care units (13 of 186 HCWs [7.1%; 95% CI, 3.3%-10.7%]; HR, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.91-6.94), and HCWs working in emergency departments (7 of 102 HCWs [8.0%; 95% CI, 2.5%-13.1%]; HR, 3.29; 95% CI, 1.52-7.14). Epidemiologic data combined with phylogenetic analyses on COVID-19 wards identified 3 potential HCW-to-HCW transmission clusters.No patient-to-HCW transmission clusters could be identified in transmission analyses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThis study found that HCWs working on COVID-19 wards were at increased risk for nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection with an important role for HCW-to-HCW (continued) Key Points Question Which hospital health care workers are at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, and by whom are they infected? Findings In this cohort study of 801 hospital health care workers (HCWs), the risk of getting infected with SARS-CoV-2 was nearly 4-fold higher among HCWs on COVID-19 wards compared with HCWs not in patient care. Combined phylogenetic and epidemiological analyses found no patient-to-HCW transmission but several occurrences of HCW-to-HCW transmission. Meaning These findin...

BackgroundInvolving link nurses in infection prevention and control is a strategy to improve clinical practice that has been implemented in hospitals worldwide. However, little is known about the use, the range and benefits of this strategy. We aimed to identify key concepts of infection control link nurses (ICLN) and ICLN programs, to evaluate the effect of such programs, and to identify gaps in the evidence base.MethodsIn a scoping review, we searched PubMed, CINAHL, Google and Google Scholar for manuscripts on ICLN in acute care hospitals. We included research- and opinion-based papers, abstracts, reports and guidelines.ResultsWe included 29 publications and identified three key concepts: the profile of ICLN, strategies to support ICLN, and the implementation of ICLN programs. The majority of included studies delineates the ICLN profile with accompanying roles, tasks and strategies to support ICLN, without a thorough evaluation of the implementation process or effects. Few studies report on the effect of ICLN programs in terms of patient outcomes or guideline adherence, with positive short term effects.ConclusionThis scoping review reveals a lack of robust evidence on the effectiveness of ICLN programs. Current best practice for an ICLN program includes a clear description of the ICLN profile, education on infection prevention topics as well as training in implementation skills, and support from the management at the ward and hospital level. Future research is needed to evaluate the effects of ICLN on clinical practice and to further develop ICLN programs for maximal impact.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13756-019-0476-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.