We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Studies have shown an association between workplace safety climate scores and patient outcomes. This study aimed to investigate (1) performance of the hospital safety climate scale that was adapted to assess acute respiratory illness safety climate, (2) factors associated with safety climate scores, and (3) whether the safety scores were associated with following recommended droplet and contact precautions.
Methods:
A survey of Canadian healthcare personnel participating in a cohort study of influenza during the 2010/2011–2013/2014 winter seasons. Factor analysis and structural equation modeling were used for analyses.
Results:
Of the 1359 participants eligible for inclusion, 88% were female and 52% were nurses. The adapted items loaded to the same factors as the original scale. Personnel working on higher risk wards, nurses, and younger staff rated their hospital’s safety climate lower than other staff. Following guidelines for droplet and contact precautions was positively associated with ratings of management support and absence of job hindrances.
Conclusion:
The adapted tool can be used to assess hospital safety climates regarding respiratory pathogens. Management support and the absence of job hindrances are associated with hospital staff’s propensity and ability to follow precautions against the transmission of respiratory illnesses.
Older adults often have atypical presentation of illness and are particularly vulnerable to influenza and its sequelae, making the validity of influenza case definitions particularly relevant. We sought to assess the performance of influenza-like illness (ILI) and severe acute respiratory illness (SARI) criteria in hospitalized older adults.
Design:
Prospective cohort study.
Setting:
The Serious Outcomes Surveillance Network of the Canadian Immunization Research Network undertakes active surveillance for influenza among hospitalized adults.
Methods:
Data were pooled from 3 influenza seasons: 2011/12, 2012/13, and 2013/14. The ILI and SARI criteria were defined clinically, and influenza was laboratory confirmed. Frailty was measured using a validated frailty index.
Results:
Of 11,379 adult inpatients (7,254 aged ≥65 years), 4,942 (2,948 aged ≥65 years) had laboratory-confirmed influenza. Their median age was 72 years (interquartile range [IQR], 58–82) and 52.6% were women. The sensitivity of ILI criteria was 51.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 49.6–52.6) for younger adults versus 44.6% (95% CI, 43.6–45.8) for older adults. SARI criteria were met by 64.1% (95% CI, 62.7–65.6) of younger adults versus 57.1% (95% CI, 55.9–58.2) of older adults with laboratory-confirmed influenza. Patients with influenza who were prefrail or frail were less likely to meet ILI and SARI case definitions.
Conclusions:
A substantial proportion of older adults, particularly those who are frail, are missed by standard ILI and SARI case definitions. Surveillance using these case definitions is biased toward identifying younger cases, and does not capture the true burden of influenza. Because of the substantial fraction of cases missed, surveillance definitions should not be used to guide diagnosis and clinical management of influenza.
Background: Adults are at risk of being exposed to influenza from many sources. Healthcare personnel (HCP) have the additional risk of being exposed to ill patients.
Objective:
To determine whether HCP were at higher risk than adults working in nonhealthcare roles (non-HCP).
Design:
Prospective cohort study.
Setting:
Acute-care hospitals and other businesses in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Methods:
Adults aged 18–69 years were enrolled for 1 or more of the 2010/2011, 2011/2012, and 2012/2013 influenza seasons. Swabs collected during acute respiratory illnesses were tested for influenza and pre- and postseason blood samples were tested for influenza-specific immune response.
Results:
The adjusted odds of influenza were similar for HCP and non-HCP (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63–2.63). Older adults and those vaccinated against influenza had lower odds, and those who shared their workspace and who used corrective eyewear had higher odds of influenza.
Conclusions:
HCP and other working adults are at similar risk of influenza infection.
Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at risk of acquiring and transmitting respiratory viruses while working in healthcare settings.
Objectives:
To investigate the incidence of and factors associated with HCWs working during an acute respiratory illness (ARI).
Methods:
HCWs from 9 Canadian hospitals were prospectively enrolled in active surveillance for ARI during the 2010–2011 to 2013–2014 influenza seasons. Daily illness diaries during ARI episodes collected information on symptoms and work attendance.
Results:
At least 1 ARI episode was reported by 50.4% of participants each study season. Overall, 94.6% of ill individuals reported working at least 1 day while symptomatic, resulting in an estimated 1.9 days of working while symptomatic and 0.5 days of absence during an ARI per participant season. In multivariable analysis, the adjusted relative risk of working while symptomatic was higher for physicians and lower for nurses relative to other HCWs. Participants were more likely to work if symptoms were less severe and on the illness onset date compared to subsequent days. The most cited reason for working while symptomatic was that symptoms were mild and the HCW felt well enough to work (67%). Participants were more likely to state that they could not afford to stay home if they did not have paid sick leave and were younger.
Conclusions:
HCWs worked during most episodes of ARI, most often because their symptoms were mild. Further data are needed to understand how best to balance the costs and risks of absenteeism versus those associated with working while ill.
To describe the frequency, characteristics, and exposure associated with influenza in hospitalized patients in a Toronto hospital
DESIGN/METHOD
Prospective data collected for consenting patients with laboratory-confirmed influenza and a retrospective review of infection control charts for roommates of cases over 3 influenza seasons
RESULTS
Of the 661 patients with influenza (age range: 1 week–103 years), 557 were placed on additional precautions upon admission. Of 104 with symptoms detected after admission, 57 cases were community onset and 47 were nosocomial (10 nosocomial were part of outbreaks). A total of 78 cases were detected after admission exposing 143 roommates. Among roommates tested for influenza after exposure, no roommates of community-onset cases and 2 of 16 roommates of nosocomial cases were diagnosed with influenza. Of 637 influenza-infected patients, 25% and 57% met influenza-like illness definitions from the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), respectively, and 70.3% met the Provincial Infectious Diseases Advisory Committee (PIDAC) febrile respiratory illness definition. Among the 56 patients with community-onset influenza detected after admission, only 13%, 23%, and 34%, met PHAC, CDC, and PIDAC classifications, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
In a setting with extensive screening and testing for influenza, 1 in 6 patients with influenza was not diagnosed until patients and healthcare workers had been exposed for >24 hours. Only 30% of patients with community-onset influenza detected after admission met the Ontario definition intended to identify cases, hampering efforts to prevent patient and healthcare worker exposures and reinforcing the need for prevention through vaccination.
To examine the impact of introduction of an alcohol-based hand rub on hand hygiene knowledge and compliance and hand colonization of healthcare workers (HCWs) in a long-term-care facility (LTCF).
Methods:
Two floors of an LTCF participated. Ward A used the hand rub as an adjunct to soap and water; ward B was the control. HCWs' hands were cultured using the bag-broth technique for Staphylococcus aureus, gram-negative bacilli (GNB), Candida, and vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE). HCWs completed a questionnaire at baseline and after an educational intervention and introduction of rub.
Results:
Hand hygiene practices, knowledge, and opinions did not change after the educational or rub intervention. Ward A HCWs thought that the rub was faster (P = .002) and less drying (P = .04) than soap. Hand hygiene frequency did not differ at baseline between the two floors, but increased on ward A by the end of the study (P = .04). HCWs were colonized frequently with GNB (66%), Candida (41%), S. aureus (20%), and VRE (9%). Although colonization did not change from baseline on either ward, the rub was more effective in clearing GNB (P = .03) and S. aureus (P = .003). Nosocomial infection rates did not change.
Conclusion:
The alcohol-based hand rub was a faster, more convenient, less drying method of hand hygiene for HCWs in an LTCF, and it improved compliance. Although microbial colonization did not change, the rub was more efficacious in removing pathogens already present on the hands of HCWs.
To determine differences in the identity and quantity of microbial flora from healthcare workers (HCWs) wearing artificial nails compared with control HCWs with native nails.
Design:
Two separate studies were undertaken. In study 1, 12 HCWs who did not normally wear artificial nails wore polished artificial nails on their nondominant hand for 15 days. Identity and quantity of microflora were compared between the artificial nails and the polished native nails of the other hand. In study 2, the microbial flora of the nails of 30 HCWs who wore permanent acrylic artificial nails were compared with that of control HCWs who had native nails. In both studies, nail surfaces were swabbed and subungual debris was collected to obtain material for culture. Staphylococcus aureus, gram-negative bacilli, enterococci, and yeasts were considered to be potential pathogens. All organisms were identified and quantified.
Results:
In study 1, potential pathogens were isolated from more samples obtained from artificial nails than native nails (92% vs 62%; P<.001). Colonization of artificial nails increased over time; by day 15, 71% of cultures yielded a pathogen compared with 21% on day 1 (P=.004). A significantly greater quantity of organisms (expressed as mean log10 colony-forming units ± standard deviation) was isolated from the subungual area than the nail surface; this was noted for both artificial (5.0±1.4 vs 4.1 ±1.0; P<.001) and native nails (4.9±1.3 vs 3.7±0.8; P<.001). More organisms were found on the surface of artificial nails than native nails (P=.008), but there were no differences noted in the quantities of organisms isolated from the subungual areas. In study 2, HCWs wearing artificial nails were more likely to have a pathogen isolated than controls (87% vs 43%; P=.001). More HCWs with artificial nails had gram-negative bacilli (47% vs 17%; P=.03) and yeasts (50% vs 13%; P=.006) than control HCWs. However, the quantities of organisms isolated from HCWs wearing artificial nails and controls did not differ.
Conclusions:
Artificial fingernails were more likely to harbor pathogens, especially gram-negative bacilli and yeasts, than native nails. The longer artificial nails were worn, the more likely that a pathogen was isolated. Current recommendations restricting artificial fingernails in certain healthcare settings appear justified.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.