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

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

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

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

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.

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

Providing antibiotics to immigrants: a qualitative study of general practitioners’ and pharmacists’ experiences

Background: If healthcare professionals perceive that patients strongly expect to be prescribed antibiotics, inappropriate prescriptions may result. As it is unknown whether this happens more often with certain patient groups, we explored whether general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists perceived such expectations when they provided antibiotics to immigrant patients. Methods: Ten GPs and five pharmacists from Rotterdam, the Netherlands, were interviewed on the basis of a semi-structured topic guide. Atlas.ti software was then used to conduct a thematic analysis. Results: GPs felt that immigrant patients, especially those who had arrived recently, were more likely to expect to receive antibiotics than native Dutch patients. However, these expectations had decreased over the last years and did not always lead immigrants to exert pressure on them. Except for language barriers, the factors reported by GPs to influence their antibiotic prescribing behaviour were unrelated to patients’ immigrant background. If there was a language barrier, GPs experienced greater diagnostic uncertainty and needed additional time to obtain and communicate correct information. To overcome language barriers, they often used point-of-care testing to convince patients that antibiotics were unnecessary. Although pharmacists rarely experienced problems dispensing antibiotics to immigrants, they and GPs both struggled to find effective ways of overcoming language barriers, and stressed the need for multi-language support materials. Conclusion: While pharmacists rarely experience any problems providing antibiotics to immigrants, GPs regularly face language barriers with immigrant patients, which complicate the diagnostic process and communicating information in the limited available time. This sometimes leads antibiotics to be prescribed inappropriately

Reducing antibiotic prescribing by enhancing communication of general practitioners with their immigrant patients: Protocol for a randomised controlled trial (PARCA study)

Introduction Although antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance in the Netherlands is comparatively low, inappropriate prescription of antibiotics is substantial, mainly for respiratory tract infections (RTIs). General practitioners (GPs) experience pressure from patients with an immigration background to prescribe antibiotics and have difficulty communicating in a culturally sensitive way. Multifaceted interventions including communication skills training for GPs are shown to be most effective in reducing antibiotic prescription. The PARCA study aims to reduce the number of antibiotic prescriptions for RTIs through implementing a culturally sensitive communication intervention for GPs and evaluate it in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Methods and analysis A non-blinded RCT including 58 GPs (29 for each arm). The intervention consists of: (1) An E-learning with 4 modules of 10-15 min each; (2) A face-to-face training session in (intercultural) communication skills including role plays with a training actor and (3) Availability of informative patient-facing materials that use simple words (A2/B1 level) in multiple languages. The primary outcome measure is the number of dispensed antibiotic courses qualifying for RTIs in primary care, per 1000 registered patients. The secondary outcome measure is the number of all dispensed antibiotic courses, per 1000 registered patients. The intervention arm will receive the training in Autumn 2021, followed by an observation period of 6 winter months for which numbers of antibiotics will be collected for both trial arms. The GPs/practices in the control arm can attend the training after the observation period. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol was approved by the Medical Ethics Review Committee of Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam (MEC-2020-0142). The results of the trial will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals and will be disseminated through national and international congresses. The project is funded by The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). Trial registration number NL9450