Results suggest the use of ward closure for containment of hospital-acquired infectious disease outbreaks in Canadian acute care health settings is mixed, with outbreak control methods varying. The successful implementation of ward closure was dependent on overall support for the IPC team within hospital administration.

No abstract

ObjectiveEffective pandemic responses rely on frontline healthcare workers continuing to work despite increased risk to themselves. Our objective was to investigate Alberta family physicians willingness to work during an influenza pandemic. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Setting: Alberta prior to the fall wave of the H1N1 epidemic. Participants: 192 participants from a random sample of 1000 Alberta family physicians stratified by region. Main Outcome Measures: Willingness to work through difficult scenarios created by an influenza epidemic.ResultsThe corrected response rate was 22%. The most physicians who responded were willing to continue working through some scenarios caused by a pandemic, but in other circumstances less than 50% would continue. Men were more willing to continue working than women. In some situations South African and British trained physicians were more willing to continue working than other groups.ConclusionsAlthough many physicians intend to maintain their practices in the event of a pandemic, in some circumstances fewer are willing to work. Pandemic preparation requires ensuring a workforce is available. Healthcare systems must provide frontline healthcare workers with the support and resources they need to enable them to continue providing care.

Wastewater-based SARS-CoV-2 surveillance enables unbiased and comprehensive monitoring of defined sewersheds. We performed real-time monitoring of hospital wastewater that differentiated Delta and Omicron variants within total SARS-CoV-2-RNA, enabling correlation to COVID-19 cases from three tertiary-care facilities with >2100 inpatient beds in Calgary, Canada. RNA was extracted from hospital wastewater between August/2021 and January/2022, and SARS-CoV-2 quantified using RT-qPCR.Assays targeting R203M and R203K/G204R established the proportional abundance of Delta and Omicron, respectively. Total and variant-specific SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater was compared to data for variant specific COVID-19 hospitalizations, hospital-acquired infections, and outbreaks. Ninety-six percent (188/196) of wastewater samples were SARS-CoV-2 positive. Total SARS-CoV-2 RNA levels in wastewater increased in tandem with total prevalent cases (Delta plus Omicron). Variant-specific assessments showed this increase to be mainly driven by Omicron. Hospital-acquired cases of COVID-19 were associated with large spikes in wastewater SARS-CoV-2 and levels were significantly increased during outbreaks relative to nonoutbreak periods for total SARS-CoV2, Delta and Omicron. SARS-CoV-2 in hospital wastewater was significantly higher during the Omicron-wave irrespective of outbreaks. Wastewater-based monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 and its variants represents a novel tool for passive COVID-19 infection surveillance, case identification, containment, and potentially to mitigate viral spread in hospitals.

BackgroundThough often used to control outbreaks, the efficacy of ward closure is unclear. This systematic review sought to identify studies defining and describing ward closure in outbreak control and to determine impact of ward closure as an intervention on outbreak containment.MethodsWe searched these databases with no language restrictions: MEDLINE, 1946 to 7 July 2014; EMBASE, 1974 to 7 July 2014; CINAHL, 1937 to 8 July 2014; and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2005 to May 2014. We also searched the following: IndMED; LILACS; reference lists from retrieved articles; conference proceedings; and websites of the CDCP, the ICID, and the WHO. We included studies of patients hospitalized in acute care facilities; used ward closure as a control measure; used other control measures; and discussed control of the outbreak(s) under investigation. A component approach was used to assess study quality.ResultsWe included 97 English and non-English observational studies. None included a controlled comparison between ward closure and other interventions. We found that ward closure was often used as part of a bundle of interventions but could not determine its direct impact separate from all the other interventions whether used in parallel or in sequence with other interventions. We also found no universal definition of ward closure which was widely accepted.ConclusionsWith no published controlled studies identified, ward closure for control of outbreaks remains an intervention that is not evidence based and healthcare personnel will need to continue to balance the competing risks associated with its use, taking into consideration the nature of the outbreak, the type of pathogen and its virulence, mode of transmission, and the setting in which it occurs. Our review has identified a major research gap in this area.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0131-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.