ArticleAmerican journal of infection control2022
COVID-19 infection rates early in the pandemic among full time clinicians in a home health care and hospice organization.
Article in American journal of infection control, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Home Health Care Problem with Synchronization Visits and Considering Samples Transferring Time: A Case Study in Tehran, Iran.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Early versus late COVID-19 Home Health Care patient population: Shifting sociodemographics and comparable outcomes.Research in nursing & health · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-facing health care workers (HCW) experience higher rates of COVID-19 infection, particularly at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, rates of COVID-19 among front-line home health and hospice clinicians are relatively unknown.
methodsVisit data from a home health care and hospice agency in New Jersey early in the pandemic was analyzed to examine COVID-19 infection rates separately for clinicians exposed to COVID-19-contagious patients, and those without exposure to known COVID-19 contagious patients.
resultsBetween March 5 and May 31, 2020, among home health clinicians providing in-person care, clinicians treating at least one COVID-19 contagious patient had a case rate of 0.8% compared to 15.7% for clinicians with no exposure to known COVID-19 contagious patients. Among hospice clinicians providing in-person care, those who treated at least one COVID-19 contagious patient had a case rate of 6.5%, compared to 12.9% for clinicians with no known exposure to COVID-19 contagious patients. Non-White clinicians had a higher COVID-19 case rate than White clinicians (10.9% vs 6.2%). DISCUSSION: Lower rates of COVID-19 infection among clinicians providing care to COVID-19-contagious patients may result from greater attentiveness to infection control protocols and greater precautions in clinicians' personal lives. Greater exposure to COVID-19-contagious patients prior to patient diagnosis ("unknown exposures") may explain differences in infection rates between home health and hospice clinicians with workplace exposures.
conclusionClinicians providing in-person care to COVID-19-contagious patients experience lower rates of COVID-19 infection than clinicians providing face-to-face care with no known exposure to COVID-19 contagious patients. Our findings suggest there was a low incidence of potential workplace infections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.