COVID-19: West Virginia Essential Workers and the Risks They Face

Rayan Ihle, MD, Syed Kashif Mahmood, MD
{"title":"COVID-19: West Virginia Essential Workers and the Risks They Face","authors":"Rayan Ihle, MD, Syed Kashif Mahmood, MD","doi":"10.21885/wvmj.2023.08","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the need for antibody testing to determine the impact of the disease. This study quantifies the COVID-19 infection risk of healthcare workers (HCW) compared to other community essential workers (CEW) through positive COVID-19 antibody rates. Methods This prospective observational study was conducted September through December 2020 in Charleston, West Virginia. A total of 1,081 essential workers were recruited. Blood samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies and questionnaires were obtained describing symptom history, exposure, prior testing, and employment. Results COVID-19 antibodies were found in 7.8% of participants. There were no significant differences in terms of gender, living alone or with children, month of lab collection, or working on a COVID-19 unit. Risk factors included having a known exposure (p<0.001), living with someone with COVID-19 (p<0.001), being previously tested (p<0.001), and positive polymerase chain reaction tests (p<0.001). Additional risks were county of residence (p=0.02) and working in healthcare (p=0.004). Discussion Essential workers had a nearly 60% increased risk of COVID-19 compared with the public. HCW had a higher risk than other CEW with rates 1.8 times that of CEW. Living in Kanawha County was a risk factor, but the difference was driven by the HCW population with 12.1% positivity. HCW in a COVID-19 unit had similar positive rates versus non-COVID-19 units. Conclusion This study confirms that healthcare workers had a much higher risk of contracting COVID-19 near Charleston, WV. With these findings, despite the use of safety guidelines and use of personal protective equipment, healthcare workers in Kanawha County had higher positivity rates for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. Further evaluation of PPE compliance, hand hygiene habits, sharing work cultures, and roles within hospital would be of value.","PeriodicalId":23032,"journal":{"name":"The West Virginia medical journal","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The West Virginia medical journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21885/wvmj.2023.08","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the need for antibody testing to determine the impact of the disease. This study quantifies the COVID-19 infection risk of healthcare workers (HCW) compared to other community essential workers (CEW) through positive COVID-19 antibody rates. Methods This prospective observational study was conducted September through December 2020 in Charleston, West Virginia. A total of 1,081 essential workers were recruited. Blood samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies and questionnaires were obtained describing symptom history, exposure, prior testing, and employment. Results COVID-19 antibodies were found in 7.8% of participants. There were no significant differences in terms of gender, living alone or with children, month of lab collection, or working on a COVID-19 unit. Risk factors included having a known exposure (p<0.001), living with someone with COVID-19 (p<0.001), being previously tested (p<0.001), and positive polymerase chain reaction tests (p<0.001). Additional risks were county of residence (p=0.02) and working in healthcare (p=0.004). Discussion Essential workers had a nearly 60% increased risk of COVID-19 compared with the public. HCW had a higher risk than other CEW with rates 1.8 times that of CEW. Living in Kanawha County was a risk factor, but the difference was driven by the HCW population with 12.1% positivity. HCW in a COVID-19 unit had similar positive rates versus non-COVID-19 units. Conclusion This study confirms that healthcare workers had a much higher risk of contracting COVID-19 near Charleston, WV. With these findings, despite the use of safety guidelines and use of personal protective equipment, healthcare workers in Kanawha County had higher positivity rates for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. Further evaluation of PPE compliance, hand hygiene habits, sharing work cultures, and roles within hospital would be of value.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2019冠状病毒病:西弗吉尼亚州基本工人及其面临的风险
COVID-19大流行导致需要进行抗体检测以确定该疾病的影响。本研究通过COVID-19抗体阳性率量化了卫生保健工作者(HCW)与其他社区基本工作者(CEW)相比的COVID-19感染风险。该前瞻性观察研究于2020年9月至12月在西弗吉尼亚州查尔斯顿进行。共征聘了1 081名基本工作人员。对血液样本进行SARS-CoV-2 IgG抗体检测,并获得描述症状史、暴露、既往检测和就业情况的问卷。结果新冠病毒抗体阳性率为7.8%。在性别、独居或与孩子一起生活、实验室采集月份或在COVID-19单位工作方面没有显著差异。危险因素包括已知暴露(p<0.001)、与COVID-19患者生活在一起(p<0.001)、以前接受过检测(p<0.001)和聚合酶链反应检测阳性(p<0.001)。其他风险因素为居住县(p=0.02)和在医疗机构工作(p=0.004)。与公众相比,基层工作人员感染COVID-19的风险增加了近60%。HCW的发病风险是其他CEW的1.8倍,高于其他CEW。居住在卡纳瓦县是一个危险因素,但差异是由HCW人群(12.1%)驱动的。COVID-19单位的HCW与非COVID-19单位的阳性率相似。这项研究证实,在西弗吉尼亚州查尔斯顿附近,医护人员感染COVID-19的风险要高得多。根据这些发现,尽管使用了安全指南并使用了个人防护装备,但卡纳瓦县的卫生保健工作者的SARS-CoV-2 IgG抗体阳性率较高。进一步评估个人防护装备合规性、手卫生习惯、共享工作文化和医院内的角色将是有价值的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
COVID-19 Pandemic Effects on Seasonal Influenza Patterns in West Virginia COVID-19: West Virginia Essential Workers and the Risks They Face The Impact of COVID-19 Infection on Concurrent Traumatic Insults: An Analysis from the West Virginia Trauma System Catatonia Associated with Buprenorphine-Induced Toxic Leukoencephalopathy Recurrent Pneumothorax and a Solitary Pulmonary Nodule: A Case Report of a Rare Sequelae of Histoplasmosis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1