Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of safety guidelines in the workplace, the authors analyzed the work-related exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and the source of COVID-19 infections among healthcare workers (HCWs), together with the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Material and Methods: A cross-sectional prospective study was conducted in tertiary hospitals in the Uusimaa region, Finland, with 1072 volunteers being enrolled in the study from among the HCWs at the Helsinki University Hospital. Overall, 866 (80.8%) HCWs (including 588 nurses, 170 doctors, and 108 laboratory and medical imaging nurses) completed the questionnaire by July 15, 2020, with 52% of the participants taking care of COVID-19 patients. The participants answered a structured questionnaire regarding their use of PPE, the ability to follow safety guidelines, exposure to COVID-19, and the source of potential COVID-19 infections. The participants with COVID-19 symptoms were tested with the SARS-CoV-2 realtime polymerase chain reaction method. All infected participants were contacted, and their answers were confirmed regarding COVID-19 exposure. Results: In total, 41 (4.7%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, with 22 (53.6%) of infections being confirmed or likely occupational, and 12 (29.3%) originating from colleagues. In 14 cases (63.6%), occupational infections occurred while using a surgical mask, and all infections originating from patients occurred while using a surgical mask or no mask at all. No occupational infections were found while using an FFP2/3 respirator and following aerosol precautions. The combined odds ratio for working at an intensive care unit, an emergency department, or a ward was 3.4 (95% CI: 1.2-9.2, p = 0.016). Conclusions: A high infection rate was found among HCWs despite safety guidelines. Based on these findings, the authors recommend the use of FFP2/3 respirators in all patient contacts with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, along with the use of universal masking, also in personnel rooms.

ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has posed several risk factors to healthcare workers' (HCWs') emotional distress. The purpose of the study was to enhance understanding of the experiences and feelings of HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic, with specific reference to infection prevention and control (IPC) practices and guidance, focusing on the quality and availability of personal protective equipment (PPE), guidelines, and management. With a qualitative approach, we aimed to enable a wider narrative; to gain a more detailed understanding related to PPE use and identify experiences that can be overlooked in forced-choice questionnaires.MethodsAn online questionnaire was conducted among HCWs of the City of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital between 12.6.2020 and 5.4.2021. Altogether 1,580 HCWs participated in the study, from whom 579 shared 1,666 free-text responses. These responses were analyzed qualitatively, and the results were combined with statistical data on the participants' working conditions and backgrounds.ResultsWe identified problems in PPE availability and changing guidelines as factors causing the most distress in the participants. Regarding availability, running out of masks and respirators emerged as the most worrying issue, and inadequate PPE was associated with the excessive workload (OR 1.51, CI 95% 1.01–2.25). The results also highlight the importance of transparent and clear communication regarding IPC instructions and guidance, and clear IPC guidance was associated with better levels of reported recovery from work (OR 1.51, CI 95% 1.06–2.14).ConclusionsOur study highlights the importance of adequate PPE provision, transparent communication, clear guidance, and supportive supervisory work in this ongoing pandemic and potential new ones. We suggest more rigorous preparation, with crisis communication planning and emergency storage of PPE.

We examined the usefulness of dried spot blood and saliva samples in SARS-CoV-2 antibody analyses. We analyzed 1231 self-collected dried spot blood and saliva samples from healthcare workers. Participants filled in a questionnaire on their COVID-19 exposures, infections, and vaccinations. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgA, and IgM levels were determined from both samples using the GSP/DELFIA method. The level of exposure was the strongest determinant of all blood antibody classes and saliva IgG, increasing as follows: (1) no exposure (healthy, non-vaccinated), (2) exposed, (3) former COVID-19 infection, (4) one vaccination, (5) two vaccinations, and (6) vaccination and former infection. While the blood IgG assay had a 99.5% sensitivity and 75.3% specificity to distinguish participants with two vaccinations from all other types of exposure, the corresponding percentages for saliva IgG were 85.3% and 65.7%. Both blood and saliva IgG-seropositivity proportions followed similar trends to the exposures reported in the questionnaires. Self-collected dry blood and saliva spot samples combined with the GSP/DELFIA technique comprise a valuable tool to investigate an individual’s immune response to SARS-CoV-2 exposure or vaccination. Saliva IgG has high potential to monitor vaccination response wane, since the sample is non-invasive and easy to collect.