Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination effectiveness in healthcare personnel (HCP) has been established. However, questions remain regarding its performance in high-risk healthcare occupations and work locations. We describe the effect of a COVID-19 HCP vaccination campaign on SARS-CoV-2 infection by timing of vaccination, job type, and work location.

We conducted a retrospective review of COVID-19 vaccination acceptance, incidence of postvaccination COVID-19, hospitalization, and mortality among 16,156 faculty, students, and staff at a large academic medical center. Data were collected 8 weeks prior to the start of phase 1a vaccination of frontline employees and ended 11 weeks after campaign onset.

The COVID-19 incidence rate among HCP at our institution decreased from 3.2% during the 8 weeks prior to the start of vaccinations to 0.38% by 4 weeks after campaign initiation. COVID-19 risk was reduced among individuals who received a single vaccination (hazard ratio [HR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40–0.68; P < .0001) and was further reduced with 2 doses of vaccine (HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.09–0.32; P < .0001). By 2 weeks after the second dose, the observed case positivity rate was 0.04%. Among phase 1a HCP, we observed a lower risk of COVID-19 among physicians and a trend toward higher risk for respiratory therapists independent of vaccination status. Rates of infection were similar in a subgroup of nurses when examined by work location.

Our findings show the real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in HCP. Despite these encouraging results, unvaccinated HCP remain at an elevated risk of infection, highlighting the need for targeted outreach to combat vaccine hesitancy.

To determine the utility of the Sofia SARS rapid antigen fluorescent immunoassay (FIA) to guide hospital-bed placement of patients being admitted through the emergency department (ED).

Cross-sectional analysis of a clinical quality improvement study.

This study was conducted in 2 community hospitals in Maryland from September 21, 2020, to December 3, 2020. In total, 2,887 patients simultaneously received the Sofia SARS rapid antigen FIA and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays on admission through the ED.

Rapid antigen results and symptom assessment guided initial patient placement while confirmatory RT-PCR was pending. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values of the rapid antigen assay were calculated relative to RT-PCR, overall and separately for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Assay sensitivity was compared to RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values. Assay turnaround times were compared. Clinical characteristics of RT-PCR–positive patients and potential exposures from false-negative antigen assays were evaluated.

For all patients, overall agreement was 97.9%; sensitivity was 76.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 71%–82%), and specificity was 99.7% (95% CI, 99%–100%). We detected no differences in performance between asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals. As RT-PCR Ct increased, the sensitivity of the antigen assay decreased. The mean turnaround time for the antigen assay was 1.2 hours (95% CI, 1.0–1.3) and for RT-PCR it was 20.1 hours (95% CI, 18.9–40.3) (P < .001). No transmission from antigen-negative/RT-PCR–positive patients was identified.

Although not a replacement for RT-PCR for detection of all SARS-CoV-2 infections, the Sofia SARS antigen FIA has clinical utility for potential initial timely patient placement.

Patients admitted to the hospital may unknowingly carry severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and hospitals have implemented SARS-CoV-2 admission screening. However, because SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays may remain positive for months after infection, positive results may represent active or past infection. We determined the prevalence and infectiousness of patients who were admitted for reasons unrelated to COVID-19 but tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 on admission screening.

We conducted an observational study at the University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics from July 7 to October 25, 2020. All patients admitted without suspicion of COVID-19 were included, and medical records of those with a positive admission screening test were reviewed. Infectiousness was determined using patient history, PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, and serology.

In total, 5,913 patients were screened and admitted for reasons unrelated to COVID-19. Of these, 101 had positive admission RT-PCR results; 36 of these patients were excluded because they had respiratory signs/symptoms on admission on chart review. Also, 65 patients (1.1%) did not have respiratory symptoms. Finally, 55 patients had Ct values available and were included in this analysis. The median age of the final cohort was 56 years and 51% were male. Our assessment revealed that 23 patients (42%) were likely infectious. The median duration of in-hospital isolation was 5 days for those likely infectious and 2 days for those deemed noninfectious.

SARS-CoV-2 was infrequent among patients admitted for reasons unrelated to COVID-19. An assessment of the likelihood of infectiousness using clinical history, RT-PCR Ct values, and serology may help in making the determination to discontinue isolation and conserve resources.

Discomfort and device-related pressure injury (DRPI) caused by N95 filtering facepiece respirators (FFRs) are common. The use of prophylactic hydrocolloid dressings is one of the strategies that may improve comfort and reduce DRPI. In this study, we investigated the impact of these dressings on N95 respirator fit.

We performed a repeat quantitative fit testing through the Respiratory Protection Program on 134 healthcare workers (HCWs), who applied hydrocolloid dressings on the bridge of their nose under the N95 FFRs that they passed the initial fit test with, but reported discomfort with the FFR.

With the hydrocolloid dressings in place, the fit-test pass rate for the semirigid cup style (3M 1860) was 94% (108 of 115); for the the vertical flat-fold style (BYD), the pass rate was 85% (44 of 52); for the duckbill style (BSN medical ProShield and Halyard Fluidshield), the pass rate was 81% (87 of 108); and for the 3-panel flat-fold style (3M Aura) N95 FFRs, the pass rate was 100% (3 of 3). There was a statistically significant reduction in the overall fit factors for both the vertical flat-fold and duckbill type N95 respirators after the application of hydrocolloid dressings.

Hydrocolloid dressings are likely to disturb the mask seal for nonrigid-style N95 FFRs, particularly the vertical flat-fold style and the duckbill style N95 FFRs. Given the risk of mask seal disturbance of N95 respirators as shown in this study, we advocate that any HCW requiring the use of prophylactic dressings should undergo repeat quantitative fit testing with the dressing in place prior to using the dressing and mask in combination.