Clinical and Nonclinical Health Care Workers Faced a Similar Risk of Acquiring 2009 Pandemic H1N1 Infection

[tetano]

Oxford Journals
Medicine
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Volume53, Issue3
Pp. 280-283.



Clinical and Nonclinical Health Care Workers Faced a Similar Risk of Acquiring 2009 Pandemic H1N1 Infection

Wing-Hong Seto1,
Benjamin J. Cowling2,
Hung-Suet Lam1,
Patricia T. Y. Ching1,
Mei-Lam To1, and
Didier Pittet3,4

+ Author Affiliations

1Hospital Authority
2Infectious Disease Epidemiology Group, School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China
3Infection Control Program, University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine
4World Health Organization Collaborating Centre on Patient Safety, University of Geneva Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland

Correspondence: Didier Pittet, MD, MS, Infection Control Program, and WHO Collaborating Centre on Patient Safety, University of Geneva Hospitals and Faculty of Medicine, 4 Rue Gabrielle Perret-Gentil, 1211 Geneva 14, Switzerland (didier.pittet@hcuge.ch).

Abstract

(See the editorial commentary by Drumright and Holmes, on pages 284?286.)

Reporting of confirmed pandemic influenza A virus (pH1N1) 2009 infection was mandatory among health care workers in Hong Kong. Among 1158 confirmed infections, there was no significant difference in incidence among clinical versus nonclinical staff (relative risk, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.78?1.20). Reported community exposure to pH1N1 was common and was similar in both groups.

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/3/280.abstract

 

[tetano]

Re: Clinical and Nonclinical Health Care Workers Faced a Similar Risk of Acquiring 2009 Pandemic H1N1 Infection

Monitoring Major Illness in Health Care Workers and Hospital Staff

Monitoring Major Illness in Health Care Workers and Hospital Staff

Lydia N. Drumright and
Alison H. Holmes

+ Author Affiliations

National Centre for Infection Prevention and Management, Division of Infectious Disease and Immunity, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom

Correspondence: Alison Holmes, MD, MPH, FRCP, Professor of Infectious Diseases, Imperial College London, Second Floor, Hammersmith House, Du Cane Road, London W12 0HS, United Kingdom (alison.holmes@imperial.ac.uk).

(See the brief report by Seto et al, on pages 280?283 .)

During the past 3 decades, our understanding of both the biology and epidemiology of infectious diseases has vastly improved because of methodological and technological developments. However, researchers have yet to take full advantage of the tools available to them, particularly in health care settings. Most studies of nosocomial influenza and other infections focus primarily on patients, but health care workers (HCWs) [ 1? 3] and hospitals [ 4] are likely to be central to disease transmission, prevention, and risk. Unfortunately, most studies of disease transmission within hospitals treat HCWs as ?fixtures? rather than dynamic members of a disease transmission network, and there has been inadequate investment in the study of disease transmission among HCWs. This is a missed opportunity to develop a critical understanding of disease epidemiology, thereby increasing patient safety and supporting and protecting HCWs as one of society?s most important and valued resources.

The study in this month?s Clinical Infectious Diseases by Seto and colleagues highlights the importance of detailed surveillance and research of infectious diseases among HCWs in understanding the roles of HCWs and patients in nosocomial transmission. It demonstrates the value of an organizational ability to adopt and integrate innovative methods into hospital procedures, and also some missed opportunities to gain a more complete understand the observations.
SURVEILLANCE OF ILLNESS IN HEALTH CARE WORKERS POPULATIONS

An area in need of urgent attention is surveillance of infectious diseases among HCWs, which was magnified by the severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic [ 5]. Although the dearth of surveillance in this population persists, recognition of the utility and value of collecting such data is beginning to emerge. Seto et al report on an impressive system of monitoring and surveillance of all hospital and clinic staff in 38 hospitals and 74 outpatient ?


http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/3/284.extract