ArticlePLOS global public health2023
Inferences from COVID-19 post-exposure risk assessment of health care workers in the pre-vaccination era at a major COVID sentinel center, Sri Lanka.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the hospital triage system trying to prevent COVID-19 patients from getting admitted to wards other than isolation/quarantine units, COVID-19 patients were accidentally being discovered time to time from non-COVID-19 wards due to atypical or asymptomatic presentations. Consequently, post-exposure risk assessment was carried out for the relevant health care workers (HCW) and the other patients to assess their risk level of acquiring COVID-19, and to quarantine them if concluded as high risk. Hence, the objective of the study was to assess the outcome and the adequacy of COVID-19 post-exposure risk assessment of health care workers which would be useful in future outbreaks. We studied all events of accidental detection of COVID-19 patients happened in non-COVID-19 wards which were leading to subsequent risk assessment using the 5-questions based tool adapted from the WHO recommendations. The 5 questions discussed the protective measures during face to face meetings or in physical contacts, protective measures during aerosol generating procedures, splashes onto the face, and hand hygiene measures. A retrospective cross-sectional study carried out in the Teaching Hospital Karapitiya, Galle, Sri Lanka, for 4 months covering the second wave of the pandemic. Hospital data base of risk assessments was accessed anonymously and the "yes" or "no" responses to the 5-questions assessment tool were analysed. There were 62 events involving 891 health care workers who underwent post-exposure risk assessment. From the responses the highest score of "yes" was recorded against question 3 (25.7% of total "yes" answers for all questions and 5.8% of total answers for the question number 3) revealing inadequate precautions taken by HCWs in aerosol generating procedures. Hundred and sixty two (18.2%) HCWs were quarantined as high risk and only one became positive for COVID-19 during the quarantine period. Though the 5-question based risk assessment tool effectively helps to identify breaches in infection control during an exposure to a positive COVID-19 patient, it may not be adequate at times as the only tool in deciding the assessee's risk level.
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.