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.
Residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) were disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We assessed the extent to which hospital-associated infections contributed to COVID-19 LTCF outbreaks in England. We matched addresses of cases between March 2020 and June 2021 to reference databases to identify LTCF residents. Linkage to health service records identified hospital-associated infections, with the number of days spent in hospital before positive specimen date used to classify these as definite or probable. Of 149,129 cases in LTCF residents during the study period, 3,748 (2.5%) were definite or probable hospital-associated and discharged to an LTCF. Overall, 431 (0.3%) were identified as index cases of potentially nosocomial-seeded outbreaks (2.7% (431/15,797) of all identified LTCF outbreaks). These outbreaks involved 4,521 resident cases and 1,335 deaths, representing 3.0% and 3.6% of all cases and deaths in LTCF residents, respectively. The proportion of outbreaks that were potentially nosocomial-seeded peaked in late June 2020, early December 2020, mid-January 2021, and mid-April 2021. Nosocomial seeding contributed to COVID-19 LTCF outbreaks but is unlikely to have accounted for a substantial proportion. The continued identification of such outbreaks after the implementation of preventative policies highlights the challenges of preventing their occurrence.
Community-based harm reduction for alcohol use disorder (AUD) entails a compassionate stance and pragmatic strategies that minimize alcohol-related harm and enhance quality of life. Community-based harm reduction approaches aim to meet people where they are both in their communities and with respect to their motivation for change. Harm reduction approaches do not require or prioritize abstinence or alcohol use reduction as the sole or most desirable recovery pathway. To date, community-based harm reduction approaches have been applied and investigated primarily within marginalized populations, particularly people experiencing homelessness and AUD. Randomized controlled trials have established efficacy for the low-barrier, non-abstinence-based Housing First approach and for community-based harm-reduction treatment. Managed alcohol programs and meaningful activities programming have shown promising findings in nonrandomized trials and warrant further study. The chapter concludes with reflections on key themes undergirding work in community-based harm reduction and how it has positively affected individuals and communities.
To describe the cumulative seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic among employees of a large pediatric healthcare system.
Design, setting, and participants:
Prospective observational cohort study open to adult employees at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, conducted April 20–December 17, 2020.
Methods:
Employees were recruited starting with high-risk exposure groups, utilizing e-mails, flyers, and announcements at virtual town hall meetings. At baseline, 1 month, 2 months, and 6 months, participants reported occupational and community exposures and gave a blood sample for SARS-CoV-2 antibody measurement by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs). A post hoc Cox proportional hazards regression model was performed to identify factors associated with increased risk for seropositivity.
Results:
In total, 1,740 employees were enrolled. At 6 months, the cumulative seroprevalence was 5.3%, which was below estimated community point seroprevalence. Seroprevalence was 5.8% among employees who provided direct care and was 3.4% among employees who did not perform direct patient care. Most participants who were seropositive at baseline remained positive at follow-up assessments. In a post hoc analysis, direct patient care (hazard ratio [HR], 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–3.68), Black race (HR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.24–5.87), and exposure to a confirmed case in a nonhealthcare setting (HR, 4.32; 95% CI, 2.71–6.88) were associated with statistically significant increased risk for seropositivity.
Conclusions:
Employee SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rates remained below the point-prevalence rates of the surrounding community. Provision of direct patient care, Black race, and exposure to a confirmed case in a nonhealthcare setting conferred increased risk. These data can inform occupational protection measures to maximize protection of employees within the workplace during future COVID-19 waves or other epidemics.