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.

Objective: To analyse the work-related exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and trace the source of COVID-19 infections in tertiary hospitals healthcare workers in light of the used PPE and their ability to maintain social distances and follow governmental restrictions. Design: Cross-sectional study Setting: Tertiary hospitals in Uusimaa region, Finland Participants: Of 1072 enrolled, 866 HCWs (588 nurses, 170 doctors and 108 laboratory and medical imaging nurses) from the Helsinki University Hospital completed the questionnaire by July 15th, 2020. The average age of participants was 42.4 years and 772 (89.0%) were women. The participants answered a detailed questionnaire of their PPE usage, ability to follow safety restrictions, exposure to COVID-19, the source of potential COVID-19 infection and both mental and physical symptoms during the first wave of COVID-19 in Finland. Main outcome measures: All participants with COVID-19 symptoms were tested with either RT-PCR or antibody tests. The infections were traced and categorised based on the location and source of infection. The possibility to maintain social distance and PPE usage during exposure were analyzed. Results: Of the HCWs that participated, 41 (4.7%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, marking a substantially higher infection rate than that of the general population (0.3%); 22 (53.6%) of infections were confirmed or likely occupational, including 7 (31.8%) from colleagues. Additionally, 5 (26.3%) of other infections were from colleagues outside the working facilities. 14 (63.6%) of occupational infections occurred while using a surgical mask. No occupational infections were found while using an FFP2/3 respirator and aerosol precautions while treating suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. Conclusions: While treating suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients, HCWs should wear an FFP2/3 respirator and recommended PPE. Maintaining safety distances in the workplace and controlling infections between HCWs should be priorities to ensure safe working conditions.

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.

No abstract

Objectives:The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unseen pressure on healthcare systems in many countries, jeopardizing the mental well-being of healthcare workers. The authors aimed to assess the mental well-being of Finnish healthcare workers from 2 hospital districts (Helsinki University Hospital [HUS] and Social and Health Services in Kymenlaakso [Kymsote]) with differing COVID-19 incidence rates during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020. Material and Methods: A total number of 996 healthcare workers (HUS N = 862, Kymsote N = 134) participated in this prospectively conducted survey study during summer 2020. Symptom criteria of self-reported mental health symptoms followed ICD-10 classification, excluding duration criteria. Participants were divided into symptom categories "often/sometimes", and "rarely/never". These groups were compared to sociodemographic factors and factors related to work, workload, and well-being. Results: The degree of mental health symptoms did not differ between the 2 healthcare districts despite differing COVID-19 incidences (p = 1). The authors observed a significant relationship between self-reported diagnostic mental health symptoms and experiences of insufficient instructions for protection against COVID-19 (in HUS cohort p < 0.001), insufficient recovery from work (p < 0.001), and subjective increased workload (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The authors' results show the importance of well-planned and sufficient instructions for protection from SARS-CoV-2 for healthcare workers, indicating their need to feel safe and protected at work. The workload of healthcare workers should be carefully monitored to keep it moderate and ensure sufficient