Abstract
Two general practitioners (GPs) a with SARS-CoV-2 infection provided in-person patient care to patients of their joint medical practice before and after symptom onset, up until SARS-CoV-2 laboratory confirmation. In a retrospective cohort study of patient contacts, we assessed the risk (frequency and determinants) of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from the GPs to their patients. Our findings support the use of facemasks for GPs, and short consultation time, to minimize the risk of transmission.
Summary Two general practitioners (GPs) with SARS-CoV-2 infection provided in-person patient care to patients of their joint medical practice before and after symptom onset, up until SARS-CoV-2 laboratory confirmation. Through active contact tracing, the local public health authorities recruited the cohort of patients that had contact with either GP in their putative infectious period. In this cohort of patient contacts, we assess the frequency and determinants of SARS-CoV-2-transmission from GPs to patients. We calculated incidence rate ratios (IRR) to explore the type of contact as explanatory variable for COVID-19 cases. Among the cohort of 83 patient contacts, we identified 22 (27%) COVID-19 cases including 17 (21%) possible, 3 (4%) probable, and 2 (2%) confirmed cases. All 22 cases had contact with a GP when the GP did not wear a mask, and/or when contact was ≥10 minutes. Importantly, patients who had contact <10 minutes with a GP wearing a facemask were at reduced risk (IRR 0.21; 95%CI 0.01-0.99) of COVID-19. This outbreak investigation adds to the body of evidence in supporting current guidelines on measures at preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in an outpatient setting.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
TSB and JB are fellows of the ECDC Fellowship Programme, supported financially by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). The views and opinions expressed herein do not state or reflect those of ECDC. ECDC is not responsible for the data and information collation and analysis and cannot be held liable for conclusions or opinions drawn.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The German Protection against Infection Act and the law on the duties of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) allowed the implementation of this outbreak investigation without seeking further institutional ethical review (Infektionsschutzgesetz, IfSG, BGBl. I S. 1045 https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/IfSG/ifsg_node.html; https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ifsg/index.html). Informed consent was obtained from participants. As head of the Department for Infectious Disease Epidemiology at the RKI, the national Public Health Institute of Germany, certified that: - He is the competent authority for assessing whether outbreak investigations and/or research require review by an institutional ethics committee or if the German Protection against Infection Act (Infektionsschutzgesetz, IfSG, BGBl. I S. 1045) allows investigation and/or research without additional institutional review. - The outbreak investigation presented by Boender & Bender et al. in 'Factors preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission during unintentional exposure in a GP practice, Germany, 2020' was conducted as part of the official tasks of the local public health authorities of the respective district, supported by the RKI upon official request in accordance to paragraph 4 of the German Protection against Infection Act. Therefore, this investigation was exempt from additional institutional review. We are happy to provide a signed letter with this declaration. All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Revision following peer-review; textual clarifications.
Data Availability
Detailed data are confidential and protected by German law. Anonymized data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
