Protection des travailleurs de la santé contre la COVID-19

 

Objective: The aims of this study were to investigate occupational and non-work-related risk factors of coronavirus disease 2019 among health care workers (HCWs) in Vancouver Coastal Health, British Columbia, Canada, and to examine how HCWs described their experiences. Methods: This was a matched case-control study using data from online and phone questionnaires with optional open-ended questions completed by HCWs who sought severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 testing between March 2020 and March 2021. Conditional logistic regression and thematic analysis were utilized. Results: Providing direct care to coronavirus disease 2019 patients during the intermediate cohort period (adjusted odds ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.04 to 3.46) and community exposure to a known case in the late cohort period (adjusted odds ratio, 3.595%; confidence interval, 1.86 to 6.83) were associated with higher infection odds. Suboptimal communication, mental stress, and situations perceived as unsafe were common sources of dissatisfaction. Conclusions: Varying levels of risk between occupational groups call for wider targeting of infection prevention measures. Strategies for mitigating community exposure and supporting HCW resilience are required.

Objectives To assess the extent to which protection of healthcare workers (HCWs) as COVID-19 emerged was associated with economic inequality among and within countries. Design Cross-sectional analysis of associations of perceptions of workplace risk acceptability and mitigation measure adequacy with indicators of respondents’ respective country’s economic income level (World Bank assessment) and degree of within-country inequality (Gini index). Setting A global self-administered online survey. Participants 4977 HCWs and healthcare delivery stakeholders from 161 countries responded to health and safety risk questions and a subset of 4076 (81.2%) answered mitigation measure questions. The majority (65%) of study participants were female. Results While the levels of risk being experienced at the pandemic’s onset were consistently deemed as unacceptable across all groupings, participants from countries with less income inequality were somewhat less likely to report unacceptable levels of risk to HCWs regarding both workplace environment (OR=0.92, p=0.012) and workplace organisational factors (OR=0.93, p=0.017) compared with counterparts in more unequal national settings. In contrast, considerable variation existed in the degree to which mitigation measures were considered adequate. Adjusting for other influences through a logistic regression analysis, respondents from lower middle-income and low-income countries were comparatively much more likely to assess both occupational health and safety (OR=10.91, p≤0.001) and infection prevention and control (IPC) (OR=6.61, p=0.001) protection measures as inadequate, despite much higher COVID-19 rates in wealthier countries at the time of the survey. Greater within-country income inequality was also associated with perceptions of less adequate IPC measures (OR=0.94, p=0.025). These associations remained significant when accounting for country-level differences in occupational and gender composition of respondents, including specifically when only female care providers, our study’s largest and most at-risk subpopulation, were examined. Conclusions Economic inequality threatens resilience of health systems that rely on health workers working safely to provide needed care during emerging pandemics.

While the global COVID-19 pandemic has been widely acknowledged to affect the mental health of health care workers (HCWs), attention to measures that protect those on the front lines of health outbreak response has been limited. In this cross-sectional study, we examine workplace contextual factors associated with how psychological distress was experienced in a South African setting where a severe first wave was being experienced with the objective of identifying factors that can protect against HCWs experiencing negative impacts. Consistent with mounting literature on mental health effects, we found a high degree of psychological distress (57.4% above the General Health Questionnaire cut-off value) and a strong association between perceived risks associated with the presence of COVID-19 in the healthcare workplace and psychological distress (adjusted OR = 2.35, p < 0.01). Our research indicates that both training (adjusted OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21–0.81) and the reported presence of supportive workplace relationships (adjusted OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27–0.97) were associated with positive outcomes. This evidence that workplace resilience can be reinforced to better prepare for the onset of similar outbreaks in the future suggests that pursuit of further research into specific interventions to improve resilience is well merited.

Objectives. To ascertain whether and how working as a partnership of two World Health Organization collaborating centres (WHOCCs), based respectively in the Global North and Global South, can add insights on “what works to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) during a pandemic, in what contexts, using what mechanism, to achieve what outcome”. Methods. A realist synthesis of seven projects in this research program was carried out to characterize context (C) (including researcher positionality), mechanism (M) (including service relationships) and outcome (O) in each project. An assessment was then conducted of the role of the WHOCC partnership in each study and overall. Results. The research found that lower-resourced countries with higher economic disparity, including South Africa, incurred greater occupational health risk and had less acceptable measures to protect HCWs at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic than higher-income more-equal counterpart countries. It showed that rigorously adopting occupational health measures can indeed protect the healthcare workforce; training and preventive initiatives can reduce workplace stress; information systems are valued; and HCWs most at-risk (including care aides in the Canadian setting) can be readily identified to trigger adoption of protective actions. The C-M-O analysis showed that various ways of working through a WHOCC partnership not only enabled knowledge sharing, but allowed for triangulating results and, ultimately, initiatives for worker protection. Conclusions. The value of an international partnership on a North-South axis especially lies in providing contextualized global evidence regarding protecting HCWs as a pandemic emerges, particularly with bi-directional cross-jurisdiction participation by researchers working with practitioners.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of occupational exposure to infectious diseases if not adequately protected, as well‐documented in outbreaks of SARS, MERS, and Ebola and ongoing exposure to tuberculosis in high‐burden settings. The COVID‐19 pandemic has drawn further attention to adequately protecting HCWs worldwide as they care for COVID‐19 patients while also trying to meet ongoing healthcare demands amid chronic global HCW shortages. Significant pressures associated with the increased health system burden faced by HCWs during the pandemic include risk of infection, stigmatization, and anxieties about family transmission, along with fatigue, burnout, stress, and shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE). However, while there is general agreement on many aspects of policy to protect the physical and mental health of HCWs, approaches to implementation diverge widely. Moreover, while it is agreed that cross‐disciplinary efforts need to be well‐integrated and not operate at “cross purposes”, often infection prevention and control (IPC) and public health measures are inconsistent and vary widely across jurisdictions. Differences may be due to variable availability of PPE (e.g. N95 respirators, masks, gloves, gowns); diverse operational needs (e.g. service demands requiring allowing COVID‐exposed HCWs to work rather than self‐isolating); lack of test kits or related reagents (e.g. as return‐to‐work criteria); and availability of trained personnel for exposure monitoring, testing strategy and contact tracing for HCWs may also differ widely.