Background Healthcare worker (HCW)-associated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is of global concern due to the potential for nosocomial spread and depletion of staff numbers. However, the literature on transmission routes and risk factors for COVID-19 in HCWs is limited. Aim To examine the characteristics and transmission dynamics of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in HCWs in a university teaching hospital in London, UK. Methods Staff records and virology testing results were combined to identify staff sickness and COVID-19 rates from March to April 2020. Comparisons were made with staff professional groups, department of work, and ethnicity. Findings COVID-19 rates in our HCWs largely rose and declined in parallel with the number of community cases. White and non-White ethnic groups among our HCWs had similar rates of infection. Clinical staff had a higher rate of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 than non-clinical staff, but total sickness rates were similar. Doctors had the highest rate of infection, but took the fewest sickness days. Critical care had lower rates than the emergency department (ED), but rates in the ED declined when all staff were advised to use personal protective equipment (PPE). Conclusion Sustained transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among our hospital staff did not occur, beyond the community outbreak, even in the absence of strict infection control measures in non-clinical areas. Current PPE appears to be effective when used appropriately. Our findings emphasize the importance of testing both clinical and non-clinical staff groups during a pandemic.

Background: Antimicrobial usage and stewardship programmes during COVID-19 have been poorly studied. Prescribing practice varies despite national guidelines, and there is concern that stewardship principles have suffered. Aim: To analyse antibiotic prescriptions during the COVID-19 pandemic at a teaching hospital and to propose improved approaches to stewardship. Methods: We reviewed COVID-19 admissions to medical wards and intensive care units (ICUs) in a London teaching hospital to assess initial antibiotic usage and evidence of bacterial co-infection, and to determine if our current antibiotic guidelines were adhered to. Findings: Data from 130 inpatients (76% medical and 24% ICU) were obtained. On admission, 90% were treated with antibiotics. No microbiological samples taken on admission provided definitive evidence of respiratory co-infection. In 13% of cases, antibiotics were escalated, usually without supporting clinical, radiological or laboratory evidence. In 16% of cases, antibiotics were stopped or de-escalated within 72 h. Blood results and chest radiographs were characteristic of COVID-19 in 20% of ward patients and 42% of ICU patients. Overall mortality was 25% at 14 days – similar to rates described for the UK as a whole. Conclusion: The majority of patients received antibiotics despite limited evidence of co-infection. Most patients received narrower spectrum antibiotics than recommended by NICE. As understanding of the natural history of COVID-19 infections progresses, stewardship programmes will need to evolve; however, at this point, we feel that a more restrictive antibiotic prescribing approach is warranted. We propose strategies for effective stewardship and estimate the effect this may have on antibiotic consumption.

Background Healthcare worker (HCW) associated COVID-19 is of global concern due to the potential for nosocomial spread and depletion of staff numbers. However, the literature on transmission routes and risk factors for COVID-19 in HCWs is limited. Aim To examine the characteristics and transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 in HCWs in a university teaching hospital in London, UK. Methods Staff records and virology testing results were combined to identify staff sickness and COVID-19 rates from March to April 2020. Comparisons were made with staff professional groups, department of work and ethnicity. Analysis was performed using Microsoft ExcelTM. Findings COVID-19 rates in our HCWs largely rose and declined in parallel with the number of community cases. White and non-white ethnic groups among our HCWs had similar rates of infection. Clinical staff had a higher rate of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 than non-clinical staff, but total sickness rates were similar. Doctors had the highest rate of infection, but took the fewest sickness days. Critical Care had lower rates than the Emergency Department (ED), but rates in the ED declined once all staff were advised to use Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Conclusion These findings show that sustained transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among our hospital staff did not occur, beyond the community outbreak, even in the absence of strict infection control measures in non-clinical areas. The results also suggest that current PPE is effective when used appropriately. In addition, our findings emphasise the importance of testing both clinical and non-clinical staff groups during a pandemic. Keywords COVID-19, healthcare workers, testing, outbreak investigation, transmission dynamics

Global travel is increasingly a fact of modern life, and the rapid spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 leading to lockdown across the world has demonstrated the interconnectedness of the world's population. Illness in the returning traveller can range from trivial to life-threatening, and the concept of imported infection can be an intimidating diagnostic and management challenge. An important caveat is that even if your patient has returned from cuddling multimammate rats in Guinea 1 week ago, they could be febrile from a distinctly non-tropical urinary tract infection. That said, antimicrobial resistance is an established concern among returned travellers, which has further infection control implications. And speaking of infection control issues, you should always consider the patient's possible pathogenicity to others – is there a risk of a high-consequence infectious disease, and what isolation/notification measures should you take?

No abstract