Use of nasal filters for allergen exposure measurements in veterinary practices

Objectives: In this study, we applied novel nasal filters to assess animal allergen exposure of veterinary staff during their normal daily routine. Methods: Rhinix nasal filters were worn during work by 94 employees at different veterinary practices and 18 employees at a research institute, who acted as controls representing an animal-free environment. Contact with animals and the activities performed were documented by the study participants using a short questionnaire. Major allergens of cats (Fel d 1), dogs (Can f 1), and domestic mites (DM) were measured using fluorescence enzyme immunoassays. Results: At the practices, Can f 1 was detected in 98%, Fel d 1 in 82%, and DM allergens in 39% of the samples. Allergens were also detected in some control samples (6% for Can f 1, 39% for Fel d 1, and 17% for DM) but in very low concentrations. There was a highly significant difference between allergen levels in veterinary workers who treated at least one cat or dog during the sampling period and those who did not (2.66 vs. 0.70 ng/filter for Can f 1 and 1.01 vs. 0.20 ng/filter for Fel d 1). The amount of sampled Fel d 1 increased significantly with increasing duration of contact with cats. This effect was not observed for Can f 1. Conclusions: The majority of veterinary workers are exposed to dog and cat allergens, even without direct contact with these animals. Rhinix nasal filters may be considered a simple and easily applicable method for monitoring personal allergen exposure

Prevalence of Adverse Skin Reactions in Nursing Staff Due to Personal Protective Equipment during the COVID-19 Pandemic

In order to prevent the nosocomial transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, it has become necessary for health workers to increase their use of personal protective equipment (PPE). The aim of the study was to investigate the prevalence and influencing factors for adverse skin reactions (ASR) due to occupational PPE use among nursing staff in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study uses a mixed methods design. A focus group was created with experts from the field of healthcare, and an online survey was then carried out among nursing staff. Influencing factors were identified using multivariate logistic regression via odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 2274 nursing staff took part in the survey, with 1967 included in the analysis. The prevalence of ASR was 61%, with 94% affecting at least one area of the face. Statistically significant factors of influence were Filtering Face Peace (FFP) mask wearing duration of ≥4 h, a history of contact allergies, and being female and young. A pre-existing skin disease had a protective effect. The prevalence of PPE-related ASR underlines the necessity for targeted preventive measures for nursing staff during pandemic situation

MRSA Prevalence and Risk Factors among Health Personnel and Residents in Nursing Homes in Hamburg, Germany – A Cross-Sectional Study - Fig 2

<p><i>Spa</i> typing: summary of the confirmed MRSA-positive results (A) and distribution of <i>spa</i> types among staff and residents (B).</p

MRSA prevalence in 19 geriatric nursing homes in Hamburg.

<p>Prevalence is given as a percentage of total staff/residents screened and homes.</p

Description of study population (staff) and MRSA-positive cases (MRSA_staff) among health personnel.

<p>Description of study population (staff) and MRSA-positive cases (MRSA_staff) among health personnel.</p

Description of study population (residents) and MRSA-positive cases (MRSA_residents) among residents in nursing homes.

<p>Description of study population (residents) and MRSA-positive cases (MRSA_residents) among residents in nursing homes.</p

Longitudinal SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence among Employees in Outpatient Care Services in Hamburg

The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection is particularly high for healthcare workers during the pandemic. Home care workers visit many different households per shift. Encounters with mostly elderly patients and their relatives increase the potential for the undetected spread of SARS-CoV-2. In order to gain insight into the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and possible transmission risks in outpatient care, this follow-up study was conducted with nursing services in Hamburg. The aim was to estimate the dynamics of seroprevalence in this occupational group over a 12-month period, to identify occupation-specific risk factors, and to collect information on the vaccination status of the surveyed nursing staff. Antibody testing for SARS-CoV-2 IgG against the S1 domain (EUROIMUN Analyser I® Lübeck, Germany) was performed on participating healthcare workers with patient contact at a total of four time points within one year from July 2020 to October 2021 (baseline, follow-up after three, six and twelve months). The data were mostly analysed descriptively. Differences in IgG titres were analysed using variance analysis methods, particularly Tukey’s range test. The seroprevalence was 1.2% (8/678) at baseline and 1.5% (9/581) at the three-month follow-up (T1). At the second follow-up (T2) after six months, vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 was available from January 2021 onwards. The prevalence rate of positive IgG antibodies relative to the S1 domain of the spike protein test among unvaccinated individuals was 6.5%. At (T3) after twelve months (July to October 2021), 482 participants were enrolled, and 85.7% of the workers were considered fully vaccinated at this time point, while 51 individuals were unvaccinated. The prevalence was 13.7% (7/51). In our study, a low seroprevalence was found among home care workers, which was lower than in our studies conducted in the clinical setting. Therefore, it can be assumed that the occupational risk of infection is rather low for both the nursing staff and the patients/clients cared for in the outpatient setting. The good provision of protective equipment and the high vaccination rate of the staff probably had a positive influence

Upper and lower respiratory airway complaints among female veterinary staff

$\bf Objective$ Working with animals is characterized by exposure to particulate, biological or chemical matter, and respiratory complaints are common. The aim of our cross-sectional study was to assess the prevalence of respiratory symptoms and diagnoses among veterinary staff. $\bf Methods$ Participants working in veterinary practices were examined and a detailed questionnaire was used to collect data. IgE tests to common and animal allergens were performed to specify sensitization. Associations with respiratory outcomes were analysed using logistic regression models while controlling for potential confounders. $\bf Results$ Atopy was seen in 31% of the 109 female participants. Symptoms of rhinoconjunctivitis were the most frequent complaints ($\it n$ = 92; 84%). In 18% the diagnosis was confirmed by physicians. Symptoms of upper and lower airways were highly correlated and an asthma diagnosis was confirmed in 11% of participants. Modelling revealed that sensitization against cats/dogs was a significant risk factor for respiratory symptoms of upper [odds ratio (OR) 4.61; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13–18.81] and lower airways (OR 5.14; 95% CI 1.25–21.13), physician-confirmed rhinoconjunctivitis (OR 13.43; 95% CI 1.69–106.5) and asthma (OR 9.02; 95% CI 1.16–70.39) in assistant staff of small-animal practices. $\bf Conclusions$ In several cases, rhinoconjunctivitis worsened after entering the profession. Atopy and specific sensitization to cats/dogs were risk factors for health impairments. Thus, to implement preventive measures, veterinary practice staff should be educated that upper respiratory tract symptoms are not harmless and should be diagnosed and treated early