Screening and Confirmatory Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies: Comparison of Health and Non-Health Workers in a Nationwide Healthcare Organization in Central Europe

Abstract

Despite being located close to the European epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy, Austria has managed to control the first wave. In Austria, the largest health insurance fund covers 7 million people and has 12,000 employees, including 3700 healthcare workers (HCW). For patient and staff safety, transmission control measures were implemented and mass testing of employees for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was conducted. An IgG SARS-CoV-2 rapid test on fingerstick blood was used as a screening test (ST), followed by serologic studies with 3 different immunoassays and confirmatory testing by a neutralization test (NT). Among 7858 employees, 144 had a positive ST and 88 were confirmed by a NT (1.12%, CI: 0.9–1.38%). The positive predictive value (PPV) of the ST was 69.3% (CI: 60.5–77.2). Interestingly, 40% of the NT positive serum samples were tested negative in all 3 immunoassays. Of the total sample, 2242 HCW (28.5%) were identified. Unexpectedly, there was no difference in the prevalence of NT positives in HCW compared to non-HCW (23/2242 vs. 65/5301, p = 0.53). SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence was not increased among HCW. Although HCW are at potentially increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, transmission control measures in healthcare facilities appear sufficient to limit transmission of infection.

Work engagement and sense of coherence as predictors of psychological distress during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Chile

“…Factors associated with the high level of stress found among healthcare workers in four Latin American countries during the pandemic, including Chile, were working in intensive care and fear of infection or of infecting family members [ 48 ]. As might be expected, health professionals appear to have their mental health affected to a greater extent than other professionals [ 49 , 50 ], although the special preventive measures available to health professionals, compared to other workers, may compensate for their special risk of becoming infected, noting in Austria that the prevalence of the virus in health professionals was not higher than in the general population [ 51 ]. It has even been observed that healthcare professionals caring for COVID-19 patients may have also experienced positive changes in coping resources and job satisfaction in addition to adverse psychological effects [ 52 ].…”

Time Analysis of an Emergent Infection Spread Among Healthcare Workers: Lessons Learned from Early Wave of SARS-CoV-2

“…Some confirm our results and some claim that HCWs had the same infection rate as the population during that time. [5][6][7][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] These discrepancies can be attributed to multiple reasons. The first reason is the type of test used to confirm infection; our study is slightly superior as it uses RT-PCR testing instead of serology testing.…”

“…Similar findings were reported from hospitals in Ontario, Canada and Austria, who adopted rapid effective infection control measures. 24 , 36 Whereas partial use of PPE while working in departments with high patient load and turnover (emergency setting) is reported as a significant risk factor for infection. 22 , 37 The 2003 SARS outbreak at Prince of Wales Hospital is particularly edifying in this matter: the index case (the first case) was hospitalized but was not isolated for 15 days.…”