The COVID-19 pandemic and critical laboratory functions. Can fast-track molecular testing reduce work absence in the laboratory?

IF 0.9 Q4 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
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.

COVID-19大流行与关键实验室功能。快速分子检测能减少实验室缺勤吗?
背景:在SARS-CoV-2大流行期间,实验室面临着在遵守感染预防和控制(IPC)指南的同时保持诊断操作的挑战。我们调查了对大型医学实验室员工实施快速分子检测以防止工作场所传播的影响。目的/目的:评估快速PCR诊断与当地感染控制措施是否可以减少内部传播和工作场所病假。方法:有呼吸道症状但SARS-CoV-2检测阴性的员工,如果临床健康,允许其工作。所有纳入的员工都完成了一份问卷,并在大流行后接受了SARS-CoV-2抗体检测。从当地人力资源系统中检索了病假数据,并在大流行前和大流行期间进行了比较分析。发现/结果:153名参与者中,84人(55%)报告患有COVID-19, 12人(14%)怀疑工作场所传播。尽管没有诊断为COVID-19,但仍有6人(4%)检测出SARS-CoV-2 IgG核衣壳阳性。在101名(66%)报告呼吸道症状和SARS-CoV-2检测阴性的人中,80名(79%)被允许返回工作场所。与2019年大流行前的实验室缺勤率(4.54%)相比,2020年大流行期间的平均工作场所缺勤率(3.74%)和2021年(4.19%)显著降低。在实验室中没有记录到更大的爆发。讨论:实验室中的SARS-CoV-2感染大多是有症状的,并且是在工作场所以外获得的。本地感染预防和员工快速频繁检测相结合,有助于有效控制感染,并尽量减少工作场所缺勤,维持诊断操作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Infection Prevention
Journal of Infection Prevention Nursing-Advanced and Specialized Nursing
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
46
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
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信