17 research outputs found

    SARS-CoV-2 in lions, gorillas and zookeepers in the Rotterdam Zoo, the Netherlands, a One Health investigation, November 2021

    Get PDF
    In November 2021, seven western lowland gorillas and four Asiatic lions were diagnosed with COVID-19 at Rotterdam Zoo. An outbreak investigation was undertaken to determine the source and extent of the outbreak and to identify possible transmission routes. Interviews were conducted with staff to identify human and animal contacts and cases, compliance with personal protective equipment (PPE) and potential transmission routes. Human and animal contacts and other animal species suspected to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 were tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Positive samples were subjected to sequencing. All the gorillas and lions that could be tested (3/7 and 2/4, respectively) were RT-PCR positive between 12 November and 10 December 2021. No other animal species were SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive. Forty direct and indirect human contacts were identified. Two direct contacts tested RT-PCR positive 10 days after the first COVID-19 symptoms in animals. The zookeepers' viral genome sequences clustered with those of gorillas and lions. Personal protective equipment compliance was suboptimal at instances. Findings confirm transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among animals and between humans and animals but source and directionality could not be established. Zookeepers were the most likely source and should have periodic PPE training. Sick animals should promptly be tested and isolated/quarantined.</p

    Communication training for general practitioners aimed at improving antibiotic prescribing:A controlled before-after study in multicultural Dutch cities

    Get PDF
    Introduction: Suboptimal doctor-patient communication drives inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics. We evaluated a communication intervention for general practitioners (GPs) in multicultural Dutch cities to improve antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTI).Methods: This was a non-randomized controlled before-after study. The study period was pre-intervention November 2019 – April 2020 and post-intervention November 2021 – April 2022. The intervention consisted of a live training (organized between September and November 2021), an E-learning, and patient material on antibiotics and antibiotic resistance in multiple languages. The primary outcome was the absolute number of prescribed antibiotic courses indicated for RTIs per GP; the secondary outcome was all prescribed antibiotics per GP. We compared the post-intervention differences in the mean number of prescribed antibiotics between the intervention (N = 25) and the control group (N = 110) by using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) test, while adjusting for the pre-intervention number of prescribed antibiotics. Additionally, intervention GPs rated the training and their knowledge and skills before the intervention and 3 months thereafter.Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of prescribed antibiotics for RTI between the intervention and the control group, nor for mean number of overall prescribed antibiotics. The intervention GPs rated the usefulness of the training for daily practice a 7.3 (on a scale from 1–10) and there was a statistically significant difference between pre- and post-intervention on four out of nine items related to knowledge and skills.Discussion:There was no change in GPs prescription behavior between the intervention and control group. However, GPs found the intervention useful and showed some improvement on self-rated knowledge and communication skills

    Communication training for general practitioners aimed at improving antibiotic prescribing:A controlled before-after study in multicultural Dutch cities

    Get PDF
    Introduction: Suboptimal doctor-patient communication drives inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics. We evaluated a communication intervention for general practitioners (GPs) in multicultural Dutch cities to improve antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections (RTI).Methods: This was a non-randomized controlled before-after study. The study period was pre-intervention November 2019 – April 2020 and post-intervention November 2021 – April 2022. The intervention consisted of a live training (organized between September and November 2021), an E-learning, and patient material on antibiotics and antibiotic resistance in multiple languages. The primary outcome was the absolute number of prescribed antibiotic courses indicated for RTIs per GP; the secondary outcome was all prescribed antibiotics per GP. We compared the post-intervention differences in the mean number of prescribed antibiotics between the intervention (N = 25) and the control group (N = 110) by using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) test, while adjusting for the pre-intervention number of prescribed antibiotics. Additionally, intervention GPs rated the training and their knowledge and skills before the intervention and 3 months thereafter.Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of prescribed antibiotics for RTI between the intervention and the control group, nor for mean number of overall prescribed antibiotics. The intervention GPs rated the usefulness of the training for daily practice a 7.3 (on a scale from 1–10) and there was a statistically significant difference between pre- and post-intervention on four out of nine items related to knowledge and skills.Discussion:There was no change in GPs prescription behavior between the intervention and control group. However, GPs found the intervention useful and showed some improvement on self-rated knowledge and communication skills

    Contact investigations for antibiotic-resistant bacteria:a mixed-methods study of patients' comprehension of and compliance with self-sampling requests post-discharge

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Contact investigation is an important tool to identify unrecognized patients who are colonized with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Many Dutch hospitals include already discharged contact patients by sending them a self-sampling request at home, incl. an information letter and sampling materials. Each hospital composes these information letters on their own initiative, however, whether discharged patients comprehend and comply with these requests remains unclear. Therefore, the aim was to provide insight into patients' comprehension of and self-reported compliance with self-sampling requests post-discharge. METHODS: This mixed-methods study was performed in eight Dutch hospitals. First, the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) language level of self-sampling request letters was established. Second, a questionnaire about patients' comprehension of the letter, self-reported compliance, and reasons for compliance or non-compliance were sent to patients that received such a request in 2018/2019. Finally, a random selection of questionnaire respondents was interviewed between January and March 2020 to gain additional insights. RESULTS: CEFR levels of 15 letters were established. Four letters were assigned level B1, four letters B1-B2, and seven letters B2. The majority of patients reported good comprehension of the letter they had received. Conversely, some respondents indicated that information about the bacterium (18.4%), the way in which results would be communicated (18.1%), and the self-sampling instructions (9.7%) were (partially) unclear. Furthermore, self-reported compliance was high (88.8%). Reasons to comply were personal health (84.3%), the health of others (71.9%), and general patient safety (96.1%). Compliant patients appeared to have a need for confirmation, wanted to protect family and/or friends, and felt they were providing the hospital the ability to control the transmission of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Although a limited number of non-compliant patients responded to the questionnaire, it seemed that more patients did not comply with self-sampling requests when they received a letter in a higher CEFR-level (B2) compared to a lower CEFR-level (&lt; B2) (9.8% vs. 2.5%, P = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed an overall good comprehension of and high self-reported compliance with self-sampling requests post-discharge. Providing balanced information in self-sampling request letters has the potential to reduce patient's ambiguity and concerns, and can cause increased compliance with self-sampling requests.</p

    A hand hygiene intervention to decrease infections among children attending day care centers: Design of a cluster randomized controlled trial

    Get PDF
    Background: Day care center attendance has been recognized as a risk factor for acquiring gastrointestinal and respiratory infections, which can be prevented with adequate hand hygiene (HH). Based on previous studies on environmental and sociocognitive determinants of caregivers' compliance with HH guidelines in day care centers (DCCs), an intervention has been developed aiming to improve caregivers' and children's HH compliance and decrease infections among children attending DCCs. The aim of this paper is to describe the design of a cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of this intervention.Methods/design: The intervention will be evaluated in a two-arm cluster randomized controlled trial among 71 DCCs in the Netherlands. In total, 36 DCCs will receive the intervention consisting of four components: 1) HH products (dispensers and refills for paper towels, soap, alcohol-based hand sanitizer, and hand cream); 2) training to educate about the Dutch national HH guidelines; 3) two team training sessions aimed at goal setting and formulating specific HH improvement activities; and 4) reminders and cues to action (posters/stickers). Intervention DCCs will be compared to 35 control DCCs continuing usual practice. The primary outcome measure will be observed HH compliance of caregivers and children, measured at baseline and one, three, and six months after start of the intervention. The secondary outcome measure will be the incidence of gastrointestinal and respiratory infections in 600 children attending DCCs, monitored over six months by parents using a calendar to mark th

    Influenza vaccination of school teachers: A scoping review and an impact estimation.

    No full text
    INTRODUCTION: Influenza vaccination, besides protecting traditional risk groups, can protect employees and reduce illness-related absence, which is especially relevant in sectors with staff shortages. This study describes current knowledge of influenza vaccination in teachers and estimates its potential impact. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the considerations for and impact of influenza vaccination of schoolteachers (grey and scientific literature up to 2020 March, complemented with interviews). We then estimated the potential impact of teacher vaccination in the Netherlands, with different scenarios of vaccine uptake for 3 influenza seasons (2016–2019). Using published data on multiple input parameters, we calculated potentially averted absenteeism notifications, averted absenteeism duration and averted doctor visits for influenza. RESULTS: Only one scientific paper reported on impact; it showed lower absenteeism in vaccinated teachers, whereas more knowledge of vaccination impact was deemed crucial by 50% of interviewed experts. The impact for the Netherlands of a hypothetical 50% vaccine uptake was subsequently estimated: 74–293 potentially averted physician visits and 11,178–28,896 potentially averted days of influenza absenteeism (on ≈200,000 total teacher population). An estimated 12–32 vaccinations were required to prevent one teacher sick-leave notification, or 3.5–9.1 vaccinations to prevent one day of teacher absenteeism (2016–2019). CONCLUSION: Scientific publications on influenza vaccination in teachers are few, while public interest has increased to reduce teacher shortages. However, school boards and public health experts indicate requiring knowledge of impact when considering this vaccination. Estimations of 3.5–9.1 vaccinated teachers preventing one day of influenza-related sick leave suggest a possible substantial vaccination impact on absenteeism. Financial incentives, more accessible on-site vaccinations at workplaces, or both, are expected to increase uptake, but more research is needed on teachers’ views and vaccine uptake potential and its cost-effectiveness. Piloting free on-site influenza vaccination in several schools could provide further information on teacher participation
    corecore