Abstract
Background The COVID-19 pandemic continues to grow at an unprecedented rate. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection than the general population but risk factors for HCW infection are not well described.
Methods We conducted a prospective sero-epidemiological study of HCWs at a UK teaching hospital using a SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay. Risk factors for seropositivity were analysed using multivariate logistic regression.
Findings 410/5,698 (7·2%) staff tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Seroprevalence was higher in those working in designated COVID-19 areas compared with other areas (9·47% versus 6·16%) Healthcare assistants (aOR 2·06 [95%CI 1·14-3·71]; p=0·016) and domestic and portering staff (aOR 3·45 [95% CI 1·07-11·42]; p=0·039) had significantly higher seroprevalence than other staff groups after adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity and COVID-19 working location. Staff working in acute medicine and medical sub-specialities were also at higher risk (aOR 2·07 [95% CI 1·31-3·25]; p<0·002). Staff from Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds had an aOR of 1·65 (95% CI 1·32 – 2·07; p<0·001) compared to white staff; this increased risk was independent of COVID-19 area working. The only symptoms significantly associated with seropositivity in a multivariable model were loss of sense of taste or smell, fever and myalgia; 31% of staff testing positive reported no prior symptoms.
Interpretation Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst HCWs is heterogeneous and influenced by COVID-19 working location, role, age and ethnicity. Increased risk amongst BAME staff cannot be accounted for solely by occupational factors.
Funding Wellcome Trust, Addenbrookes Charitable Trust, National Institute for Health Research, Academy of Medical Sciences, the Health Foundation and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.
Evidence before this study Specific risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers (HCWs) are not well defined. Additionally, it is not clear how population level risk factors influence occupational risk in defined demographic groups. Only by identifying these factors can we mitigate and reduce the risk of occupational SARS-CoV-2 infection. We performed a review of the evidence for HCW-specific risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. We searched PubMed with the terms “SARS-CoV-2” OR “COVID-19” AND “Healthcare worker” OR “Healthcare Personnel” AND “Risk factor” to identify any studies published in any language between December 2019 and September 2020. The search identified 266 studies and included a meta-analysis and two observational studies assessing HCW cohort seroprevalence data. Seroprevalence and risk factors for HCW infections varied between studies, with contradictory findings. In the two serological studies, one identified a significant increased risk of seroprevalence in those working with COVID-19 patients (Eyre et al 2020), as well as associations with job role and department. The other study (Dimcheff et al 2020) found no significant association between seropositivity and any identified demographic or occupational factor. A meta-analysis of HCW (Gomez-Ochoa et al 2020) assessed >230,000 participants as a pooled analysis, including diagnoses by both RT-PCR and seropositivity for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and found great heterogeneity in study design and reported contradictory findings. Of note, they report a seropositivity rate of 7% across all studies reporting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in HCWs. Nurses were the most frequently affected healthcare personnel and staff working in non-emergency inpatient settings were the most frequently affected group. Our search found no prospective studies systematically evaluating HCW specific risk factors based entirely on seroprevalence data.
Added value of this study Our prospective cohort study of almost 6,000 HCWs at a large UK teaching hospital strengthens previous findings from UK-based cohorts in identifying an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure amongst HCWs. Specifically, factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 exposure include caring for confirmed COVID-19 cases and identifying as being within specific ethnic groups (BAME staff). We further delineated the risk amongst BAME staff and demonstrate that occupational factors alone do not account for all of the increased risk amongst this group. We demonstrate for the first time that healthcare assistants represent a key at-risk occupational group, and challenge previous findings of significantly higher risk amongst nursing staff. Seroprevalence in staff not working in areas with confirmed COVID-19 patients was only marginally higher than that of the general population within the same geographical region. This observation could suggest the increased risk amongst HCWs arises through occupational exposure to confirmed cases and could account for the overall higher seroprevalence in HCWs, rather than purely the presence of staff in healthcare facilities. Over 30% of seropositive staff had not reported symptoms consistent with COVID-19, and in those who did report symptoms, differentiating COVID-19 from other causes based on symptom data alone was unreliable.
Implications of all the available evidence International efforts to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst HCWs need to be prioritised. The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst HCWs is heterogenous but also follows demonstrable patterns. Potential mechanisms to reduce the risk for staff working in areas with confirmed COVID-19 patients include improved training in hand hygiene and personal protective equipment (PPE), better access to high quality PPE, and frequent asymptomatic testing. Wider asymptomatic testing in healthcare facilities has the potential to reduce spread of SARS-CoV-2 within hospitals, thereby reducing patient and staff risk and limiting spread between hospitals and into the wider community. The increased risk of COVID-19 amongst BAME staff cannot be explained by purely occupational factors; however, the increased risk amongst minority ethnic groups identified here was stark and necessitates further evaluation.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
SGB, IGG and MPW are funded by Wellcome Senior Fellowships (Grant ID 215515/Z/19/Z, 207498/Z/17/Z, 108070/Z/15/Z). DC and SL received funding for this work from Addenbrookes Charitable Trust (Grant ID 900254). MET is supported by the Academy of Medical Sciences, the Health Foundation and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.
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:
Ethical approval for this study was granted by the East of England - Cambridge Central Research Ethics Committee (IRAS ID: 220277).
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
↵† Senior authors
Data Availability
Requests for de-identified data will be considered upon request.
