Katie Munro, Quisha Bustamante, Lucy Findlater, Dominic Sparkes, G James Rubin, Ana Atti, Sarah Foulkes, Susan Hopkins, Victoria Hall, Jasmin Islam
{"title":"在英国,卫生保健工作者对侧流装置检测和流感样疾病病假的态度:一个假设的基于场景的研究。","authors":"Katie Munro, Quisha Bustamante, Lucy Findlater, Dominic Sparkes, G James Rubin, Ana Atti, Sarah Foulkes, Susan Hopkins, Victoria Hall, Jasmin Islam","doi":"10.1016/j.jhin.2025.04.018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Widespread use of lateral flow device (LFD) testing of healthcare workers (HCW) during the COVID-19 pandemic allowed for rapid diagnosis, informing sickness absence.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>In winter 2023-24, we investigated HCW attitudes towards sickness absence based on LFD availability and results.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Within the SIREN (SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation) HCW cohort, participants were randomised into one of four hypothetical scenarios: waking-up with fever, cough, runny nose and: a) LFD unavailable b) LFD negative c) LFD positive for COVID-19 or d) LFD positive for influenza. For each scenario, participants were then asked if they would attend work, their rationale, when they would return to work, and their attitudes toward LFD use. Proportions were calculated to compare scenarios.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>5,357 participants were included, with similar demographics across scenarios. >80% would stay at home if COVID-19 or influenza LFD positive, 54% if testing was unavailable and 39% if LFD negative. The main reason for not taking leave was concern about increasing their colleagues' workload. For each scenario, most participants reported they would return to work only when feeling well enough. However, in the COVID-19 positive scenario, a higher proportion of participants reported they would wait 5 days before returning to work. 84% reported they would use an LFD before work if they had influenza-like illness symptoms, regardless of hospital policy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We demonstrate LFD results are useful in helping HCWs make decisions on whether to attend work if symptomatic. LFDs remain an important consideration in managing HCW infections and may reduce transmission of respiratory infections during winter.</p>","PeriodicalId":54806,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hospital Infection","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Healthcare worker attitudes to lateral flow device testing and sick leave for influenza-like illness in the UK: A hypothetical scenario-based study.\",\"authors\":\"Katie Munro, Quisha Bustamante, Lucy Findlater, Dominic Sparkes, G James Rubin, Ana Atti, Sarah Foulkes, Susan Hopkins, Victoria Hall, Jasmin Islam\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jhin.2025.04.018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Widespread use of lateral flow device (LFD) testing of healthcare workers (HCW) during the COVID-19 pandemic allowed for rapid diagnosis, informing sickness absence.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>In winter 2023-24, we investigated HCW attitudes towards sickness absence based on LFD availability and results.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Within the SIREN (SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation) HCW cohort, participants were randomised into one of four hypothetical scenarios: waking-up with fever, cough, runny nose and: a) LFD unavailable b) LFD negative c) LFD positive for COVID-19 or d) LFD positive for influenza. For each scenario, participants were then asked if they would attend work, their rationale, when they would return to work, and their attitudes toward LFD use. Proportions were calculated to compare scenarios.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>5,357 participants were included, with similar demographics across scenarios. >80% would stay at home if COVID-19 or influenza LFD positive, 54% if testing was unavailable and 39% if LFD negative. The main reason for not taking leave was concern about increasing their colleagues' workload. For each scenario, most participants reported they would return to work only when feeling well enough. However, in the COVID-19 positive scenario, a higher proportion of participants reported they would wait 5 days before returning to work. 84% reported they would use an LFD before work if they had influenza-like illness symptoms, regardless of hospital policy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We demonstrate LFD results are useful in helping HCWs make decisions on whether to attend work if symptomatic. LFDs remain an important consideration in managing HCW infections and may reduce transmission of respiratory infections during winter.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54806,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Hospital Infection\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Hospital Infection\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2025.04.018\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hospital Infection","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2025.04.018","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Healthcare worker attitudes to lateral flow device testing and sick leave for influenza-like illness in the UK: A hypothetical scenario-based study.
Background: Widespread use of lateral flow device (LFD) testing of healthcare workers (HCW) during the COVID-19 pandemic allowed for rapid diagnosis, informing sickness absence.
Aims: In winter 2023-24, we investigated HCW attitudes towards sickness absence based on LFD availability and results.
Methods: Within the SIREN (SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation) HCW cohort, participants were randomised into one of four hypothetical scenarios: waking-up with fever, cough, runny nose and: a) LFD unavailable b) LFD negative c) LFD positive for COVID-19 or d) LFD positive for influenza. For each scenario, participants were then asked if they would attend work, their rationale, when they would return to work, and their attitudes toward LFD use. Proportions were calculated to compare scenarios.
Findings: 5,357 participants were included, with similar demographics across scenarios. >80% would stay at home if COVID-19 or influenza LFD positive, 54% if testing was unavailable and 39% if LFD negative. The main reason for not taking leave was concern about increasing their colleagues' workload. For each scenario, most participants reported they would return to work only when feeling well enough. However, in the COVID-19 positive scenario, a higher proportion of participants reported they would wait 5 days before returning to work. 84% reported they would use an LFD before work if they had influenza-like illness symptoms, regardless of hospital policy.
Conclusion: We demonstrate LFD results are useful in helping HCWs make decisions on whether to attend work if symptomatic. LFDs remain an important consideration in managing HCW infections and may reduce transmission of respiratory infections during winter.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Hospital Infection is the editorially independent scientific publication of the Healthcare Infection Society. The aim of the Journal is to publish high quality research and information relating to infection prevention and control that is relevant to an international audience.
The Journal welcomes submissions that relate to all aspects of infection prevention and control in healthcare settings. This includes submissions that:
provide new insight into the epidemiology, surveillance, or prevention and control of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial resistance in healthcare settings;
provide new insight into cleaning, disinfection and decontamination;
provide new insight into the design of healthcare premises;
describe novel aspects of outbreaks of infection;
throw light on techniques for effective antimicrobial stewardship;
describe novel techniques (laboratory-based or point of care) for the detection of infection or antimicrobial resistance in the healthcare setting, particularly if these can be used to facilitate infection prevention and control;
improve understanding of the motivations of safe healthcare behaviour, or describe techniques for achieving behavioural and cultural change;
improve understanding of the use of IT systems in infection surveillance and prevention and control.