Cargando…
Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody in Healthcare Workers in Central Pennsylvania
Background: Determining the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers (HCW) is important in assessing the safety of the work environment. Though of limited use in acute illness, serologic testing can detect some infections that occur undetected. We compared the prevalence of antibodies to SARS-C...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Cambridge University Press
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9551471/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ash.2021.93 |
_version_ | 1784806107900805120 |
---|---|
author | Kwon, Taesung Kenyon, Stacy Kilheeney, Kimberly Martin, Stanley Shelly, Mark |
author_facet | Kwon, Taesung Kenyon, Stacy Kilheeney, Kimberly Martin, Stanley Shelly, Mark |
author_sort | Kwon, Taesung |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: Determining the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers (HCW) is important in assessing the safety of the work environment. Though of limited use in acute illness, serologic testing can detect some infections that occur undetected. We compared the prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 to a place of work, exposure by role and department, and use of various prevention methods. Methods: Healthcare workers (HCWs) working in Geisinger Health System were offered voluntary serology through Employee Health. Before they had blood taken, they completed a brief questionnaire. Testing was conducted from June 15 to September 4, 2020. Blood was analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) (Roche and Diasorin platforms). Results: In total, 2,295 employees and contract workers providing care at Geisinger facilities were tested. Most of this group, 2,037 (88.8%), were involved in direct patient care. In total, 101 tests returned positive, a rate of 4.4% (95% CI, 3.6%–5.3%). Of 54 HCWs with a positive NAAT for SARS-CoV-2, positive serology results were found in 48, a sensitivity of 89% (95% CI, 78%–95%). Those involved in patient care were slightly more likely to become infected, 91 of 2,037 (4.6%) compared to 10 of 258 who were not involved in patient care (3.9%; P = .68). Those with unprotected exposure to a known case of COVID-19 were more likely than those not exposed to be positive for SARS-CoV-2, 51 of 792 (6.4% vs 3.3%; P = .0008). This risk was highest for those exposed outside work (7 of 33; 21%; P = .003). HCWs working in COVID-19 units were positive at a rate of 4.0% (95% CI, 3.8%–5.4%), no more than other inpatient areas, which were 5.0% positive (95% CI, 3.8%–6.4%). HCWs working with outpatients were at slightly lower risk, 2.8% positivity (95% CI, 1.9%–4.1%). The rates of infection ranged between 3.3% and 5.0% by job category. Employees were asked about symptoms experienced since March 2020. Positive serology occurred in 39 (2.8%) of 1,414 employees who did not recall any symptoms. Symptoms related to COVID-19, except sore throat, were strongly correlated with positive serology. Conclusions: When provided a safe work environment, the risk of COVID-19 in employees is comparable to that in the surrounding communities. Persons with patient care responsibilities have an absolute risk that is marginally higher. Funding: No Disclosures: None |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9551471 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Cambridge University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95514712022-10-12 Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody in Healthcare Workers in Central Pennsylvania Kwon, Taesung Kenyon, Stacy Kilheeney, Kimberly Martin, Stanley Shelly, Mark Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol Covid-19 Background: Determining the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers (HCW) is important in assessing the safety of the work environment. Though of limited use in acute illness, serologic testing can detect some infections that occur undetected. We compared the prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 to a place of work, exposure by role and department, and use of various prevention methods. Methods: Healthcare workers (HCWs) working in Geisinger Health System were offered voluntary serology through Employee Health. Before they had blood taken, they completed a brief questionnaire. Testing was conducted from June 15 to September 4, 2020. Blood was analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) (Roche and Diasorin platforms). Results: In total, 2,295 employees and contract workers providing care at Geisinger facilities were tested. Most of this group, 2,037 (88.8%), were involved in direct patient care. In total, 101 tests returned positive, a rate of 4.4% (95% CI, 3.6%–5.3%). Of 54 HCWs with a positive NAAT for SARS-CoV-2, positive serology results were found in 48, a sensitivity of 89% (95% CI, 78%–95%). Those involved in patient care were slightly more likely to become infected, 91 of 2,037 (4.6%) compared to 10 of 258 who were not involved in patient care (3.9%; P = .68). Those with unprotected exposure to a known case of COVID-19 were more likely than those not exposed to be positive for SARS-CoV-2, 51 of 792 (6.4% vs 3.3%; P = .0008). This risk was highest for those exposed outside work (7 of 33; 21%; P = .003). HCWs working in COVID-19 units were positive at a rate of 4.0% (95% CI, 3.8%–5.4%), no more than other inpatient areas, which were 5.0% positive (95% CI, 3.8%–6.4%). HCWs working with outpatients were at slightly lower risk, 2.8% positivity (95% CI, 1.9%–4.1%). The rates of infection ranged between 3.3% and 5.0% by job category. Employees were asked about symptoms experienced since March 2020. Positive serology occurred in 39 (2.8%) of 1,414 employees who did not recall any symptoms. Symptoms related to COVID-19, except sore throat, were strongly correlated with positive serology. Conclusions: When provided a safe work environment, the risk of COVID-19 in employees is comparable to that in the surrounding communities. Persons with patient care responsibilities have an absolute risk that is marginally higher. Funding: No Disclosures: None Cambridge University Press 2021-07-29 /pmc/articles/PMC9551471/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ash.2021.93 Text en © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Covid-19 Kwon, Taesung Kenyon, Stacy Kilheeney, Kimberly Martin, Stanley Shelly, Mark Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody in Healthcare Workers in Central Pennsylvania |
title | Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody in Healthcare Workers in Central Pennsylvania |
title_full | Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody in Healthcare Workers in Central Pennsylvania |
title_fullStr | Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody in Healthcare Workers in Central Pennsylvania |
title_full_unstemmed | Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody in Healthcare Workers in Central Pennsylvania |
title_short | Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody in Healthcare Workers in Central Pennsylvania |
title_sort | prevalence of sars-cov-2 antibody in healthcare workers in central pennsylvania |
topic | Covid-19 |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9551471/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ash.2021.93 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kwontaesung prevalenceofsarscov2antibodyinhealthcareworkersincentralpennsylvania AT kenyonstacy prevalenceofsarscov2antibodyinhealthcareworkersincentralpennsylvania AT kilheeneykimberly prevalenceofsarscov2antibodyinhealthcareworkersincentralpennsylvania AT martinstanley prevalenceofsarscov2antibodyinhealthcareworkersincentralpennsylvania AT shellymark prevalenceofsarscov2antibodyinhealthcareworkersincentralpennsylvania |