SARS-CoV-2 Exposures of Healthcare Workers from Primary Care, Long-Term Care Facilities and Hospitals: A Nationwide Matched Case-Control Study

INTRODUCTION

Protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is critical to ensure their own safety, and maintain continuity and quality of care. HCWs are estimated to have a 1.6- to 3.4-fold higher risk of infection compared to the general population [1, 2]. High on-site involvement during the acute phases of the pandemic and lockdown periods, direct interactions with patients and lack of access to personal protective equipment (PPE) likely contributed to higher exposure. The World Health Organization estimated that between 80 000 and 180 000 HCWs could have died from COVID-19 between January 2020 and May 2021 [3]. In France, from March 2020 to September 2021, 87 647 (9%) laboratory-confirmed infections and 19 attributable deaths were reported among 935 732 HCWs from healthcare facilities [4]. The more recent emergence of highly transmissible variants further affected the healthcare-workforce capacity.

As in the general population, younger male HCWs with comorbidities, in contact with an infected household member or who participated in gathering events are at higher risk for contracting COVID-19 [5–8]. Specific occupational exposures were identified: regular patient-facing activities and contacts with infected colleagues [2, 5, 6, 9, 10]. PPE-conferred protection was mainly studied for Influenza, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), but evidence is controversial for COVID-19 [11–13]. Moreover, very few data have been published on HCWs in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) and primary care [14, 15], despite their intense involvement in the pandemic response. Most studies focused on the hospital setting, although exposures, organization of care and access to infection prevention and control (IPC) expertise vary greatly across facilities.

This study aimed to identify occupational and non-occupational exposures, and PPE practices associated with COVID-19 risk for HCWs working in primary care, LTCFs or hospitals.

METHODS

RESULTS

Participants

Among 562 841 individuals with confirmed COVID-19 contacted by the French National Health Insurance (10 April–9 July 2021), 6% completed the questionnaire, including 3510 HCWs, and 1:1 matching paired 2076 cases to 2076 controls for analysis. Overall, data were missing for 126 (6%) cases and 25 (1%) controls. The weekly number of inclusions and confirmed COVID-19 cases reported in France throughout the study period are reported in Figure 2.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Flow chart of study participants. HCWs, healthcare workers; IPSOS, French marketing-research and public-opinion specialist.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Weekly number of inclusions of cases (red bars) and controls (blue bars). The black line shows the weekly number of laboratory-confirmed cases reported in France throughout the study period (source: Santé Publique France).

Table 1 reports study population characteristics. Most participants were female, mostly working in primary care. Overall, 1770/4152 (43%) HCWs were classified as either partially or fully immunized against COVID-19; 678/4152 (16%) declared being posted in a COVID-19-dedicated unit or mostly caring for COVID-19 patients. In the subgroup of HCWs in contact with COVID-19 patients during the preceding 10 days (n = 2086), 1616 (77%) declared systematically wearing a gown, 1608 (77%) gloves, 1490 (71%) a N95 respirator, 1345 (64%) goggles/faceshield and 1146 (55%) an apron for patient care.

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup

Table 1.

Study population and infection determinants: description and results of the univariable and multivariable conditional logistic regression analyses adjusted to the week of inclusion.

DISCUSSION

In this large case-control study, the strongest predictor of HCW COVID-19 infection was exposure to an infected person outside work. Contact with an infected colleague and regular COVID-19 patient-facing activities were also significantly, but to a lesser extent, associated with infection. Eye protection and gowning during patient care decreased the risk, while N95 respirators did not confer better protection than surgical masks. These results were consistent across healthcare settings (hospital, LTCFs and primary care).

As also shown by others, our results suggest that direct contact with infected household members, relatives or, to a lesser degree, colleagues were the main sources of HCW acquisition of COVID-19 [5, 6, 9]. Nevertheless, COVID-19 patient-facing activities seem to further enhance the risk, although previous results were heterogenous [2, 5, 7, 9, 20, 21]. One explanation for this heterogeneity across settings and wards may be the various degrees of HCW education and training to follow IPC protocols and best practices. Correct PPE use by HCWs is essential to avoid contaminations during patient care. Since the start of the pandemic, French guidelines have recommended universal masking with surgical facemasks for general patient care, and N95-respirator use for aerosol-generating procedures [22]. For confirmed COVID-19 patients, additional PPE, such as eye protection, and gowns or aprons must be worn. Gloves are restricted to activities carrying a risk of exposure to body fluids.

Our findings highlighted marked divergence of PPE use from French guidelines, since the large majority of HCWs declared systematically wearing a N95 respirator and gloves when caring for COVID-19 patients. However, our finding that N95 respirators were not superior to surgical facemasks for protecting HCWs during standard care is consistent with the results of a recent meta-analysis of 4 randomized controlled trials on other viral respiratory infections [11]. In a multicenter observational study in Switzerland, an institutional policy of systematic N95-respirator use was not associated with a lower HCWs’ seroconversion rate for COVID-19 [23]. Although additional safety conferred by eye protection was also suggested in a recent meta-analysis [24], most clinical workers find faceshields and goggles uncomfortable, impair vision and interfere with work, probably contributing to poor adherence [25]. Unexpectedly, apron use was associated with a heightened risk of contamination, while gowns were protective. The pandemic led to a widespread use or reuse of homemade aprons during COVID-19-patient care, owed to gown shortage for which donning and doffing might be easier. These observed misuses of aprons and possible lack of personal protection suits may have led to an increased risk of cross contamination during care.

HCWs from different healthcare settings have participated in the COVID-19 response. In France, 72% of nursing homes had at least one COVID-19-infected resident in 2020 [26], and numerous devastating outbreaks were described worldwide [27]. Herein, HCWs from LTCFs and primary care tended to be at higher risk of infection, which probably reflects a lack of extensive training (associated with large-scale staff turnover), and limited access to PPE and diagnostic tests, with a globally lower awareness on the infectious risk and prevention measures. Support from hospitals and regional health authorities should be encouraged to continue staff training and ensure PPE supply. The risk of contracting COVID-19 was also influenced by the professional category: being nurses and nurse’s assistants was more closely associated with COVID-19 than medical staff. Although those associations might be biased by unbalanced case and control populations for professions, they might also reflect that nurses and nurse’s assistants were engaged in more prolonged and closer patient care than other professions. This higher risk of infection was described for domestic cleaners and porters, but not for nurses and nurse’s assistants to our knowledge [5, 10, 21]. The result associated with the “other profession” category must be interpreted with caution because of the heterogeneity of professions, but numbers were too small to fit a statistical model to each individual profession.

The strengths of this study are the large sample size, enabling exact matching of cases and controls for age, sex and residential region, adjustment to the week of inclusion, and the nationwide distribution of study participants. Notably, sources of infection according to healthcare-facility category has not previously been assessed. The main limitations of the study are the low response rate of cases and controls and the use of an online questionnaire, which may have resulted in selection biases towards younger participants, more comfortable with internet and French language. Second, the underrepresentation of some professional categories impaired subgroup analyses, despite specific occupational exposures, e.g., physiotherapists or speech therapists. Third, the data used were relied upon HCW declarations, potentially influenced by social desirability or memorization bias. Fourth, we did not rule out past or current asymptomatic infections among controls [28]. Nevertheless, our population was composed of HCWs, more likely to recognize COVID-19 symptoms and with 3–5-fold higher access to tests than the general population, then lowering the risk of classification bias [1]. Finally, the study took place between April and July 2021, during the third COVID-19 wave in France. HCWs might have been better prepared and protected than during the first wave, especially regarding PPE, and the Delta and Omicron variants emerged in France after the end of the study period. Omicron transmissibility is much higher than previous variants, which may affect the relative weights of transmission sources and appropriate PPE [29].

In conclusion, our study results indicated that, for HCWs, COVID-19 patient-facing activities increased the risk of getting infected, while colleague-related and mostly community exposures appear to represent higher risks. Moreover, they suggest that, when caring for COVID-19 patients, HCWs should wear a surgical facemask (apart from aerosols-generating procedures), eye protection and a gown. The protection conferred by gloving should be further explored.

Supplementary Data

Supplementary materials are available at Clinical Microbiology and Infections online.

Notes