ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2024
Characterization and assessment of exposure risks of healthcare personnel during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2024. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Healthcare personnel have the right to decent, healthy, and safe working conditions during COVID-19. Despite our best efforts to safeguard them against SARS-CoV-2 infection, a substantially large number of healthcare personnel fell ill and succumbed to COVID-19. This study aimed to characterize the SARS-CoV-2 exposures among healthcare personnel and determine the risk level of those events, thereby identifying and focusing on the key areas that influence workplace safety. Materials and Methods: A pre-tested questionnaire was used to collect data from healthcare personnel on the type of exposure, place, and use of preventive measures, along with demographic and occupational data. Exposure events were categorized into low, moderate, and high-risk by using a risk categorization protocol. Results: Doctors were primarily found to be involved in the aerosol-generating procedure, which had 94 times higher odds (95% CI: 43.9926-201.17) for high-risk exposures than other activities. In contrast, nurses were more likely to experience close-contact exposures (OR: 2.77, 95% CI: 1.44-5.33). Both critical care units and operation theaters were identified to have higher odds (OR: 2.34, 95% CI: 1.33-4.23 and OR: 2.31; 95% CI: 0.99-5.42, respectively) than the wards for high-risk exposures. Use of personal protective equipment was poor, with breaches reported in 10.2% of all exposure events. The lacunae in practice were addressed by repeated training and counseling and by ensuring the adequacy of resources in required areas. Conclusions: The assessment was beneficial for safeguarding healthcare personnel and assuring a safer workplace during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.
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.