Estimating the risk of incident SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers in quarantine hospitals: the Egyptian example

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare settings have faced multiple challenges related to the currently ongoing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. They have notably had to deal with influxes of infected patients across successive epidemic waves while controlling the risk of nosocomial spread to other patients and staff. As a result, healthcare workers (HCWs) have been a population of interest in terms of risk assessment and control measure implementation [1].

At early stages of the pandemic, Egypt was identified as one of the African countries most vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 importation [2]. On February 14, 2020, Egypt reported the first confirmed case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Africa and remained among the five African countries most assigned by the COVID-19 epidemic up to the end of 2020 [3]. From February 14 to August 31, 2020 (the period to which we refer to as the first wave), the COVID-19 epidemic in Egypt resulted in about 9,700 confirmed infections and 5,500 deaths reported nationally [4]. These numbers most certainly reflect underreporting of the real number of infections, due to the high proportion of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection [5,6] and limited testing.

To mitigate the high risk of SARS-CoV-2 spreading, Egypt established a unique care model under supervision from the World Health Organization, whereby specific hospitals were assigned as quarantine hospitals for patients with COVID-19, and where dedicated medical teams stayed in the hospital days and nights during working shifts of various durations [7].

While the quarantine-hospital strategy has the potential to be highly efficient in terms of patient care, as well as in limiting the potential spread of the virus from hospitals into the community, its impact on infection risk for HCWs remains understudied. One theoretical modelling study assessing healthcare working force organization found that alternating HCW teams by 1-week periods may reduce the overall number of infected HCWs [8]. On the other hand, to the best of our knowledge, previous epidemiological studies focusing on the infection risk faced by Egyptian HCWs have been conducted in non-quarantine settings exclusively [9– 11]. Yet, the quarantine strategy was adopted again to face the second wave of the COVID-19 epidemic at the national level, and could be adopted for future epidemic waves in Egypt and/or in other countries [12].

Here, we used mathematical modelling to estimate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs participating in quarantine-hospital interventions, relying on detailed longitudinal data collected in three Egyptian healthcare facilities during the first wave of the COVID-19 epidemic.

METHODS

RESULTS

The study period covered ten 2-week shifts in Hosp1, nine ∼2-week shifts in Hosp2 and five 1-week shifts in Hosp3. The mean (min–max) number of HCWs per shift was 46 (34–63) in Hosp1, 15 (5–26) in Hosp2 and 19 (16–20) in Hosp3 (Table 1). Over a total follow-up of 8,733 person-days (PD), 54 SARS-CoV-2 infections were observed (ie., diagnosed by RT-PCR) among 722 HCWs showing no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at the beginning of their shifts, across the three hospitals. This represented an overall incidence rate of 0.62 (95% CI: 0.45–0.78) diagnosed SARS-Cov-2 infections per 100 PD (Table 2). A significantly higher incidence rate was observed for HCWs working at Hosp3 as compared to the other two hospitals; and HCWs working in non-ICU units tended to be more at risk than HCWs working in ICU, though this difference was not statistically significant (Table 2).

Healthcare-associated outbreaks among HCWs (observed attack rates of) represented ∼70% (38/54) of all SARS-CoV-2 infections observed over the study period (Figure 1). Two of these outbreaks occurred in Hosp2 with 30% (3/10) and 24% (5/21) of HCWs being infected over two different working shifts. An outbreak where 36% of HCWs were infected (16/44) occurred in Hosp1 around the same time period. Two outbreaks took place later on in Hosp3, leading to, respectively, 30% (6/20) and 40% (8/20) of susceptible HCWs being infected over two different shifts. Of note, each outbreak resulted in infections in both ICU and non-ICU. For the last shift in Hosp3, staff recruitment relied exclusively on HCWs who had been infected during the first or the second shifts. This likely prevented HCWs in Hosp3 from becoming infected during the last shift (cf. Figure 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Per-week number of infections by hospital unit.

For a given working shift, healthcare workers were assigned to either the intensive care unit (ICU, yellow) or a non-ICU (blue). Dates are given in weeks, denoted by the prefix W followed by the week number of year 2020. Hosp1 was established as a quarantine hospital from March 14th to August 1st (W11 to W31), Hosp2 from April 1st to July 31th (W14 to W31) and Hosp3 from June 6th to July 11th (W23 to W28). In Hosp1 and Hosp2, most infections occurred in non-ICU units. Per-shift attack rates are shown above the bars. Of note, only previously infected HCWs worked during the last two shifts (W27 and W28) in Hosp3.

To estimate the mean incidence rate of both observed and unobserved infections in each hospital, we ran our model considering a constant risk,, over the whole study period, in each hospital unit. The chains for λ, for the three hospitals, are depicted in the Supplementary Figure 1. We estimated significantly different risk levels between the three hospitals (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; p-value), with an incidence rate of 1.05 (95% CrI: 0.58–1.65) per 100 PD in Hosp1, 1.92 (95% CrI: 0.93–3.28) per 100 PD in Hosp2 and 7.62 (95% CrI: 3.47–13.70) per 100 PD in Hosp3.

The probability for a HCW to be infected at the end of a working shift was estimated at 13.7% (95% CrI: 7.8%–20.8%) and 23.8% (95% CrI: 12.2%–37.3%) for 2-week shifts at Hosp1 and Hosp2, respectively, whereas a much higher probability of 42.6% (95% CrI: 21.9%–64.4%) was found for a 7-day shift at Hosp3 (see Table 3). These probabilities become 7.1% (95% CrI: 4.0%–11.0%) and 12.7% (95% CrI: 6.3%–20.8%), for Hosp1 and Hosp2, respectively, if 7-day shifts are considered as well, for easier comparison (Table 3). Given the notable differences between hospitals (Figure 1), we did not assess infection risk by care unit across hospitals, but within each hospital.

The posterior distributions for the incidence rate λ yield the following model-based median numbers of total SARS-CoV-2 infections: 59 (95% CrI: 45–74) at Hosp1, 31 (95% CrI: 14– 52) at Hosp2 and 41 (95% CrI: 19–63) at Hosp3 (Table 3), which unveils a proportion of undiagnosed infections among HCWs of 46.4% (95% CrI: 18.8%–66.7%), 45.0% (95% CrI: 5.6%–70.8%) and 59.2% (95% CrI: 34.8%–78.8%), respectively.

We further ran our model on each hospital unit, on each hospital, which confirmed a notable difference between Hosp1–2 and Hosp3: our results suggest that HCWs working in Hosp1 and Hosp2 face a higher risk when assigned to non-ICU, as compared to those assigned to the ICU; whereas HCWs in the ICU of Hosp3 face higher risk (see Fig. 1 and Table 3).

DISCUSSION

Here, we studied the risk of incident SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs residing days and nights in quarantine hospitals, relying on detailed longitudinal data collected during the first wave of COVID-19 in Egypt. We found that most diagnosed infections (70%) occurred during what we defined as healthcare-associated outbreaks (as compared to isolated infections). We observed high variability in nosocomial incidence, ranging from 0.45 to 2.25 infections per 100 PD across the three hospitals. Using a model-based approach, we estimated the risk of both diagnosed and undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infections among HCWs, by hospital and by hospital unit (ICU and non-ICU). We further estimated that a substantial proportion of infections may have remained undetected, ranging from 45.0% to 59.2% across the three hospitals.

Our study design has several limitations. First, screening HCWs using serological tests before starting their working shifts may not detect active infections at the time of testing. Indeed, antibodies may be detected by serological tests in less than 40% of infected individuals within 7 days since symptoms onset, reaching higher detection levels at day 16 after symptom onset [17]. Hence, serological screening may allow recently infected HCWs –who are probably infectious– to start a working shift. However, the Egyptian public health authorities’ choice of a protocol relying on serological tests before working shifts was mainly driven by material constraints. Indeed, the use of rapid serological tests as a diagnostic tool was and remains of particular interest in limited-resource contexts due to their lower cost, the minimal equipment required, and faster results, as compared with RT-PCR tests [18]. Second, the assumption of a constant overall risk of infection among HCWs disregards dynamic fluctuations in risk driven by variation in the number of HCWs and/or patients in the hospitals, as well as the frequency and nature of HCWs’ contacts during their working shifts. This simplification was made in order to estimate average transmission rate first; fine reproduction of transmission dynamics were left for future work. Third, despite the quarantine strategy being adopted nationally, the differences between the organizations of each of the three hospitals (working shifts lengths, quarantine-organization period) resulted in some difficulties in comparing the risk estimations across the three hospitals. Data from other hospitals that have adopted a quarantine strategy will be beneficial to better understand occupational risks and eventually study the performance of such a strategy in comparison to standard care settings.

We found a ∼5-fold higher observed risk for Hosp3 as compared with the risk found in Hosp1; whereas the risk of infection at Hosp2 was just slightly higher. The higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection we report for Hosp3 and the higher risk faced by HCWs assigned to the ICU of Hosp3 may be partly explained by the short period over which this hospital adopted the quarantine organization, which coincided with the country’s highest epidemic activity of the first wave [4]. This may have led to a high proportion of severe and thus highly contagious COVID-19 patients referred to quarantine hospitals together with a higher workload for HCWs. Contrarily, Hosp1 adopted the quarantine organization in mid-March 2020, and thus experienced several weeks of lower epidemic intensity that may have improved preparedness for intense COVID-19 activity and implementation of infection control measures for invasive procedures (e.g., intubation in the ICU).

Our model-based approach, accounting for false-negativity rates of testing, as well as the right-truncation of our data, allowed us to estimate the risk of both diagnosed and undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs, by hospital and by hospital care unit. We estimated that a rigorous quarantine organization with systematic testing of HCWs at the end of their working shifts captures only about half of all HCW infections (depending on the length of the working shift). Of note, the higher proportion of infections that remained undetected in Hosp3 (59.2%, versus 46.4% and 45.0% in Hosp1 and Hosp2, respectively) may be explained by the shorter duration of the working shifts (7 days), which may result in false-negative tests for HCWs infected a short time before the end of their shift. Moreover, these results suggest that, in the absence of the quarantine-hospital organization and, more specifically, in the absence of systematic testing at the end of quarantine working shifts, an even larger proportion of infections among HCWs may remain undetected, thus putting HCWs’ close contacts at risk of infection [19] and, consequently, putting themselves at risk for adverse psychological symptoms [20].

The model-based estimates we found for the SARS-CoV-2 infection risk in Hosp1 and Hosp2 are consistent with infection point-prevalence reported in earlier studies performed in non-quarantine Egyptian hospitals (varying from 4.2% to 14.3%) and with incidence estimates reported among front-line HCWs in the UK (13% infection rate after one month) [10,11,21]. For comparison, a summary of previous results obtained early in the Covid-19 pandemic and/or specifically in the Egyptian context is presented in Table 4. Moreover, our results suggest that HCWs assigned to non-ICU face a higher risk than those assigned to the ICU, in Hosp1 and Hosp2, which is in line with what was observed in previous studies addressing the occupational risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection for HCWs in non-quarantine settings [22]. Overall, our findings on Hosp1 and Hosp2 suggest that, providing sufficient preparedness, HCWs working in quarantine hospitals may not face a higher infection risk, and thus highlight the benefits of implementing a quarantine-hospital strategy.

A notable strength of our study lies in the specific nature of the quarantine hospital set-up: because HCWs resided continuously in the hospitals over their entire working shifts, we were able to exclude risk of infection in the community and specifically quantify the nosocomial risk for HCWs. Conversely, results reported from non-quarantine hospitals worldwide are generally unable to distinguish between the nosocomial vs. community risk of infection. However, as most studies conducted in healthcare settings, we were unable to distinguish between patient-to-HCW and HCW-to-HCW routes of transmission. A previous study on several nosocomial Covid-19 healthcare-associated outbreaks in Germany reported that HCW-to-HCW transmission could represent an outsized risk as compared to the one due to infected patients [24]. Still, assessing the relative contribution between patient-to-HCW versus HCW-to-HCW SARS-Cov-2 transmission was left for future work. However, it is worth noting that during the outbreaks observed in our study, infections occurred in different care units, which may prime HCW-to-HCW transmission, rather than simultaneous independent events of patient-to-HCW transmission. In early stages of the pandemic, personal protective equipment (PPE) placed a focus on the risk induced by patients, but could have contributes to underestimate the risk of infection from –infected and undiagnosed– colleagues. This may be especially true for quarantine hospitals in which HCWs share resting and conviviality rooms for longer times than in standard care settings. Adapting the use of PPE and social distancing between colleagues while ensuring sufficient social interaction and support to maintain HCWs’ mental health thus constitutes a specific challenge for quarantine hospitals [20].

Preventing nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection remains an urgent need, especially in settings where preparedness does not match the risk faced by HCWs. The large variation in infection risk we found between hospitals suggests that HCWs from quarantine hospitals may face a high risk of infection, but that, with sufficient anticipation and infection control measures, this risk can be brought down to levels similar to those observed in standard COVID-19 care settings. A comprehensive assessment of quarantine hospital care models should also include their impact on HCWs’ mental health as well as the potential benefits of earlier infection diagnosis, which is likely to reduce further hospital, household and community transmission [20].

EMAE-MESuRS working group on nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 modeling

Audrey Duval^6,7,8, Kenza Hamzi¹, Niels Hendrickx⁶, Kévin Jean^1,2,5, Sofía Jijón^1,2, Ajmal Oodally^6,7,1, Lulla Opatowski^6,7, George Shirreff^6,7,8, David RM Smith^6,7,1, Cynthia Tamandjou⁷ and Laura Temime^1,2

⁶ Institut Pasteur, Epidemiology and Modelling of Antibiotic Evasion (EMAE), Paris, France

⁷Université Paris-Saclay, UVSQ, Inserm, CESP, Anti-infective evasion and pharmacoepidemiology team, Montigny-Le-Bretonneux, France

⁸IAME, UMR 1137, Université Paris 13, Sorbonne Paris Cité, France

Declaration of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Funding

This study was supported by INSERM-ANRS (France Recherche Nord and Sud Sida-HIV Hépatites, grant number ANRS-COV-19).