Thea A Andersen, Johan Bjerner, Trygve Tjade, Trond E Ranheim, Eyvind W Axelsen, Michael Sovershaev, Ying Chen, Peter Gaustad
{"title":"The COVID-19 pandemic and critical laboratory functions. Can fast-track molecular testing reduce work absence in the laboratory?","authors":"Thea A Andersen, Johan Bjerner, Trygve Tjade, Trond E Ranheim, Eyvind W Axelsen, Michael Sovershaev, Ying Chen, Peter Gaustad","doi":"10.1177/17571774251330455","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Amid the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, laboratories faced the challenge of maintaining diagnostic operations while adhering to infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines. We investigated the impact of implementing rapid molecular testing of employees of a large medical laboratory to prevent workplace transmission.</p><p><strong>Aim/objective: </strong>To evaluate if fast-track PCR diagnostics, alongside local infection control measures, could reduce internal transmission and workplace sickness absence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Employees with respiratory symptoms, but testing negative for SARS-CoV-2, were allowed to work if clinically healthy. All included employees completed a questionnaire and underwent SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing post-pandemic. Data on sickness absence were retrieved from local human resources systems, and comparative analyses were conducted between the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods.</p><p><strong>Findings/results: </strong>Of 153 participants, 84 (55%) reported having had COVID-19, with 12 (14%) suspecting workplace transmission. Six (4%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG nucleocapsid despite no COVID-19 diagnosis. Among 101 (66%) reporting respiratory symptoms and negative SARS-CoV-2 tests, 80 (79%) were allowed to return to the workplace. Mean workplace sickness absence during the pandemic 2020 (3.74%) and 2021 (4.19%) was significant lower compared with sickness absence in the laboratory before the pandemic in 2019 (4.54%). No larger outbreaks in the laboratory were recorded.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>SARS-CoV-2 infections in the laboratory were mostly symptomatic and acquired outside the workplace. The combination of local IPC and rapid and frequent testing of employees facilitated an effective infection control and minimized workplace absence, maintain diagnostic operations.</p>","PeriodicalId":16094,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Infection Prevention","volume":" ","pages":"17571774251330455"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11969475/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Infection Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17571774251330455","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Amid the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, laboratories faced the challenge of maintaining diagnostic operations while adhering to infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines. We investigated the impact of implementing rapid molecular testing of employees of a large medical laboratory to prevent workplace transmission.
Aim/objective: To evaluate if fast-track PCR diagnostics, alongside local infection control measures, could reduce internal transmission and workplace sickness absence.
Methods: Employees with respiratory symptoms, but testing negative for SARS-CoV-2, were allowed to work if clinically healthy. All included employees completed a questionnaire and underwent SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing post-pandemic. Data on sickness absence were retrieved from local human resources systems, and comparative analyses were conducted between the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods.
Findings/results: Of 153 participants, 84 (55%) reported having had COVID-19, with 12 (14%) suspecting workplace transmission. Six (4%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG nucleocapsid despite no COVID-19 diagnosis. Among 101 (66%) reporting respiratory symptoms and negative SARS-CoV-2 tests, 80 (79%) were allowed to return to the workplace. Mean workplace sickness absence during the pandemic 2020 (3.74%) and 2021 (4.19%) was significant lower compared with sickness absence in the laboratory before the pandemic in 2019 (4.54%). No larger outbreaks in the laboratory were recorded.
Discussion: SARS-CoV-2 infections in the laboratory were mostly symptomatic and acquired outside the workplace. The combination of local IPC and rapid and frequent testing of employees facilitated an effective infection control and minimized workplace absence, maintain diagnostic operations.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Infection Prevention is the professional publication of the Infection Prevention Society. The aim of the journal is to advance the evidence base in infection prevention and control, and to provide a publishing platform for all health professionals interested in this field of practice. Journal of Infection Prevention is a bi-monthly peer-reviewed publication containing a wide range of articles: ·Original primary research studies ·Qualitative and quantitative studies ·Reviews of the evidence on various topics ·Practice development project reports ·Guidelines for practice ·Case studies ·Overviews of infectious diseases and their causative organisms ·Audit and surveillance studies/projects