Healthcare workers’ SARS-CoV-2 infection rates during the second wave of the pandemic: prospective follow-up study

Study design and population

This is a dynamic prospective follow-up study with day-by-day self-reported information on COVID-19 contacts. Outcome is incident SARS-CoV-2 infection. Person-day is the unit of analysis. The study population is healthcare workers and technical, administrative and other staff of the Central Denmark Region (hereafter named healthcare workers).

General surveillance and infection control recommendations

PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 was freely accessible at no cost for all Danish citizens independent of symptoms. All hospital workers with any patient contact were urged to be PCR tested bi-weekly until January 26, 2021, thereafter weekly. PCR test results were provided on average 24-36 hours after sample collection. SARS-CoV-2 infection rates in the second wave of the pandemic peaked in Denmark December 16, 2020, with 4387 PCR verified cases in a population of 5,771,877 citizens.

All healthcare workers were instructed to follow general guidelines for infection control and wear surgical masks in all indoor areas with public or patient access and maintain physical distance to other persons whenever possible. All workers with non-critical functions were sent home December 11, 2021, and for the remaining study period.

During care for patients diagnosed with or under suspicion of COVID-19, all staff were instructed to wear a fluid repellent disposable gown with long sleeves, disposable medical gloves, surgical mask and protective glasses or visor. Moreover, during procedures with risk of aerosol generation (e.g. high flow oxygen therapy) the surgical mask should be replaced by a filtering face piece 2 or 3 (FFP2, FFP3) respirator. There was sufficient supply of PPE during the study period.

Following close contact with persons diagnosed with COVID-19 without prescribed PPE for 15 minutes or more, any citizen had to go into self-isolation and be PCR tested at day four and six. Self-isolation could be cancelled following two negative tests or, in case of a positive test, 48 hours after symptom cessation or seven days after the positive test if asymptomatic. Detailed infection control for COVID-19 for employees of the Central Denmark Region during the COVID-19 pandemic can be found in the supplemental material.

Exposure assessment of COVID-19 contacts

Each day during follow-up at 3:30 pm, study participants received a text message linking to a questionnaire. They were asked to report any incident of close contact within a one-meter distance with patients and persons outside work with COVID-19 during the current and the previous 1-2 and 3-4 days. Participants were also asked to report incidents of close contact with co-workers with COVID-19 during the previous 1-2 and 3-4 days, but not the current day, because co-workers with known COVID-19 would not be present at work.

For each day in the follow-up period, we assigned exposure individually based on participants’ own reporting of close COVID-19 contacts in a 5-day time window starting seven days and ending three days before each day of follow-up to account for the expected latent period (13). Days were classified with close contact with COVID-19 patients if the participant reported such contact at least once during the 5-day time window. Otherwise, days were classified with no close contact with COVID-19 patients if participants reported this for three or more days during the 5-day window. Days not fulfilling these criteria were classified with unknown close contact with COVID-19 patients. Days of follow-up were classified in the same way following close contact with co-workers and persons outside work.

SARS-CoV-2 infection, vaccination and COVID-19 symptoms

The main outcome measure was incident SARS-CoV-2 infection defined as the first positive PCR test ever recorded in a regional register with complete coverage of all tests conducted in the population since February 27, 2020. A regional register also provided information about all COVID-19 vaccinations since December 27, 2020. The secondary outcome measure was first report of loss of taste and smell as asked for in the daily questionnaire.

Population characteristics

Information on age, sex, occupation and department of employment was obtained from the personnel records of the Central Denmark Region. Information on smoking, BMI, airways disease (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, rhinitis) was reported by the participants at baseline. Non-compliance with PPE guidelines was reported in the daily questionnaire.

Statistical analyses

Study participants were followed day-by-day from seven days after the first daily questionnaire response, November 25, 2020, at the earliest, until first positive test for SARS-CoV-2, seven days after full vaccination (14) or April 30, 2021. Each day of follow-up was classified according to close contact (yes, no) with patients, co-workers and persons outside work with COVID-19 according to the previously defined criteria. Participants may have experienced all contact forms several times during follow-up and thus move in and out of exposures.

We used generalised linear models with log-link assuming a Poisson distribution with person-days as offset representing the time at risk to derive incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Adjusted IRRs were mutually adjusted for the other types of COVID-19 contact, sex, age (continuous) and month (6 categories, November 2020-April 2021) as decided a priori. We furthermore adjusted for number of PCR tests made before, during and after the 5-day exposure window (≥ 8, 3-7 and 1-2 days previously). However, this only affected IRR estimates marginally, and in the final models, we included the cumulative number of earlier PCR tests as a continuous variable. This and all other variables were treated as time-varying day-by-day.

We excluded person-days with missing information on close contact with patients, co-workers and persons outside work diagnosed with COVID-19. We abstained from imputing the missing values. This was because a high fraction of participants worked part time or irregular shifts with at least two days off work with no close contact with patients or co-workers at unpredictable days during a given week. Information on the covariates of the adjusted models were complete.

Analyses of loss of taste and smell followed a similar setup as SARS-CoV-2 infection, but we did not censor subjects when testing PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2 and did not include number of earlier PCR tests in the adjusted models.

In a sensitivity analysis of possible differential recall of close COVID-19 contacts, we excluded contact information obtained after a given day of follow-up (i.e. based on questionnaire reports for the previous 1-2 and 3-4 days), when PCR test results were available for the participants. This excluded information on close contact with co-workers with COVID-19 because this was only reported for the previous 1-2 and 3-4 days.

Principal findings

This prospective follow-up study was conducted from November 25, 2020 to April 30, 2021 during the second wave of the pandemic in Denmark. The SARS-CoV-2 infection rate following close contact with COVID-19 patients was 153.7 per 100,000 person-days. This corresponded with a three-fold increased adjusted IRR compared with no such contact. Close contact with persons outside work with COVID-19 showed an almost 18-fold increased infection rate. The absolute number of healthcare workers affected were similar following contact with patients and persons outside work with COVID-19. Contact with co-workers was also associated with an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Comparable patterns of increased risks of loss of taste and smell were seen for all three types of COVID-19 contact. Participants reported high but not complete day-by-day compliance with PPE guidelines.

Strengths and limitations

Strengths of this study are the prospective follow-up design with day-by-day information that allowed precise account for latent period and day-by-day change in exposure, the complete follow-up for PCR test results, and information on incident loss of taste and smell that is a signature of SARS-CoV-2 infection (15). During Spring 2020, persistent loss of taste and smell was in this population strongly associated with a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 with an odds ratio of 57.16 (95% CI 16.71 - 195), corresponding with a specificity of 98% and a positive predictive value of 84% (16). Other strengths are the free access to PCR testing and the high testing rate. The decision to be PCR tested was therefore unlikely to be strongly associated with COVID-19 contact and result of the PCR test, and we regard collider bias a minor problem (17).

Participants were tested more often and showed a higher infection rate than the invited population. Otherwise, participants were comparable with the invited population and this neither suggests strong collider bias (17).

Participants reporting one type of close COVID-19 contact (patients, co-workers or persons outside work) more often experienced the other types of contact and the mutually adjusted IRR estimates were substantially reduced and are expected to provide the best estimates of the separate effects. Participants with close COVID-contacts had been PCR tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection more often than those with no such contacts. However, earlier PCR tests (all negative) should not be causally associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection as detected by a positive PCR test on a given day of follow-up but may be indicators of unobserved risk factors of SARS-CoV-2 infection that may confound associations. Our analyses indicated no such confounding.

COVID-19 contact information was partly obtained after the results of the PCR test results were available for the tested participants, which may have introduced recall bias and inflated results. However, sensitivity analyses relying only on contact information obtained before results of the PCR tests were available indicated no substantial recall bias. Knowledge of PCR test results as well as COVID-19 contact may, on the other hand, have inflated results for loss of taste and smell. Being classified with no close COVID-19 contact during the 5-day exposure window allowed missing information for two of the five days. Because there may have been COVID-19 contact during these days, this may have attenuated IRRs.

The low number of SARS-CoV-2 infected participants reduced the statistical strength and thus restricted the number of potential confounders taken into account.

Comparisons with other studies

This study showed an overall SARS-CoV-2 infection rate of 30.9 per 100,000 person-days, which was below the self-reported positive PCR testing rates of 132 per 100,0000 person-days observed in a prospective cohort of frontline healthcare worker of the first wave by Nugyen et al (3). Our observed infection rate of 153.7 per 100,000 person-days following contact with COVID-19 patients was also lower than the 553 per 100,000 person-days reported by Nugyen et al. following such contact among healthcare workers reporting adequate PPE use (3). These findings are, however, not directly comparable with ours because of differences in population compositions and definitions of COVID-19 contact and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Norwegian nurses and physicians showed a tree-fold increased odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first wave (26 February – 17 July 2020) compared with the general working population (18). During the second wave (18 July – 18 December 2020), odds ratios were well below 1.5 for these two occupations (18).

We observed a SARS-CoV-2 infection rate of 728.1 per 100,000 person-days following close contact with persons outside work with COVID-19, which was half the average household infection rate of 1660 per 100,000 person-days reported for the first wave (8). This may partly reflect that we included any close contact with a person outside work with COVID-19 and not only household contacts that are expected to be closer and last longer.

Concluding remarks

During the second wave of the pandemic, this healthcare worker population was at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection when in close contact with COVID-19 patients. Among all healthcare workers, the absolute numbers affected were similar to the absolute numbers affected following COVID-19 contact outside work. Close contact with co-workers also entailed an increased risk. PPE was not in shortage, guidelines for proper PPE use and other infection control measures were implemented and compliance with required PPE was high but not complete. Vaccination will not eliminate risks (19). The current findings thus stress the need for increased focus on use of recommended PPE, correct donning, doffing and other procedures (20-22), training (23) and ventilation (24). The aim is to secure healthcare workers’ health and reduce transmission into the community (25) during ongoing and future waves of SARS-CoV-2 and other infections.