The Experts below are selected from a list of 360 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Kent Jacob Nielsen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • sars cov 2 seroprevalence survey among 17 971 healthcare and Administrative Personnel at hospitals pre hospital services and specialist practitioners in the central denmark region
    Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2020
    Co-Authors: Sanne Jespersen, Susan Mikkelsen, Thomas Greve, Kathrine Agergard Kaspersen, Martin Tolstrup, Jens Kjaergaard Boldsen, Jacob Dvinge Redder, Kent Jacob Nielsen
    Abstract:

    Background The objective of this study was to perform a seroprevalence survey on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among Danish healthcare workers to identify high risk groups. Methods All healthcare workers and Administrative Personnel at the seven hospitals, pre-hospital services and specialist practitioner clinics in the Central Denmark Region were invited to be tested by a commercial SARS-CoV-2 total antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA, Wantai Biological Pharmacy Enterprise Co., Ltd., Beijing, China). Results A total of 25,950 participants were invited. Of these, 17,971 had samples available for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. After adjustment for assay sensitivity and specificity, the overall seroprevalence was 3.4% (CI: 2.5%-3.8%). The seroprevalence was higher in the western part of the region than in the eastern part (11.9% vs 1.2%, difference: 10.7 percentage points, CI: 9.5-12.2). In the high prevalence area, the emergency departments had the highest seroprevalence (29.7%), while departments without patients or with limited patient contact had the lowest seroprevalence (2.2%). Among the total 668 seropositive participants, 433 (64.8%) had previously been tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and 50.0% had a positive RT-PCR result. Conclusions We found large differences in the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in staff working in the healthcare sector within a small geographical area of Denmark. Half of all seropositive staff had been tested positive by PCR prior to this survey. This study raises awareness of precautions which should be taken to avoid in-hospital transmission. Regular testing of healthcare workers for SARS-CoV-2 should be considered to identify areas with increased transmission.

  • sars cov 2 seroprevalence survey among 18 000 healthcare and Administrative Personnel at hospitals pre hospital services and specialist practitioners in the central denmark region
    medRxiv, 2020
    Co-Authors: Sanne Jespersen, Susan Mikkelsen, Thomas Greve, Kathrine Agergard Kaspersen, Martin Tolstrup, Jens Kjaergaard Boldsen, Jacob Dvinge Redder, Kent Jacob Nielsen
    Abstract:

    Abstract Objectives The objective of this study was to perform a large seroprevalence survey on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among Danish healthcare workers to identify high risk groups. Design Cross-sectional survey. Setting All healthcare workers and Administrative Personnel at the seven hospitals, pre-hospital services and specialist practitioner clinics in the Central Denmark Region were invited by e-mail to be tested for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 by a commercial SARS-CoV-2 total antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA, Wantai Biological Pharmacy Enterprise Co., Ltd., Beijing, China). Participants A total of 25,950 participants were invited. Of these, 17,987 (69%) showed up for blood sampling, and 17,971 had samples available for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. Main outcome measures 1) Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies; 2) Risk factors for seropositivity; 3) Association of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and antibodies. Results After adjustment for assay sensitivity and specificity, the overall seroprevalence was 3.4% (CI: 2.5%-3.8%). The seroprevalence was higher in the western part of the region than in the eastern part (11.9% vs 1.2%, difference: 10.7 percentage points, CI: 9.5-12.2). In the high prevalence area, the emergency departments had the highest seroprevalence (29.7%) while departments without patients or with limited patient contact had the lowest seroprevalence (2.2%). Multivariable logistic regression analysis with age, sex, and profession as the predictors showed that nursing staff, medical doctors, and biomedical laboratory scientists had a higher risk than medical secretaries, who served as reference (OR = 7.3, CI: 3.5–14.9; OR = 4., CI: 1.8–8.9; and OR = 5.0, CI: 2.1–11.6, respectively). Among the total 668 seropositive participants, 433 (64.8%) had previously been tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and 50.0% had a positive RT-PCR result. A total of 98% of individuals who had a previous positive viral RNA test were also found to be seropositive. Conclusions We found large differences in the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in staff working in the healthcare sector within a small geographical area of Denmark and signs of in-hospital transmission. Half of all seropositive staff had been tested positive by PCR prior to this survey. This study raises awareness of precautions which should be taken to avoid in-hospital transmission. Additionally, regular testing of healthcare workers for SARS-CoV-2 should be considered to identify areas with increased transmission. Trial registration The study is approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (1-16-02-207-20).

Dimitrios Hatzigeorgiou - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • sars cov 2 infection in healthcare Personnel with high risk occupational exposure evaluation of 7 day exclusion from work policy
    Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2020
    Co-Authors: Helena C Maltezou, X Dedoukou, Maria Tseroni, Vasileios Raftopoulos, Kalliopi Papadima, Elisavet Mouratidou, Sophia Poufta, George Panagiotakopoulos, Paraskevi Tsonou, Dimitrios Hatzigeorgiou
    Abstract:

    BACKGROUND: Starting in late February 2020, Greece is experiencing a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic. Healthcare Personnel (HCP) were disproportionately affected, accounting for approximately 10% of notified cases. Exclusion from work for 7 days was recommended for HCP with high-risk occupational exposure. Our aim was to evaluate the 7-day exclusion from work policy for HCP with high-risk exposure. METHODS: HCP with a history of occupational exposure to COVID-19 were notified to the Hellenic National Public Health Organization, regardless of their exposure risk category. Exposed HCP were followed for 14 days after last exposure. RESULTS: We prospectively studied 3398 occupationally exposed HCP; nursing Personnel accounted for most exposures (n=1705; 50.2%). Of the 3398 exposed HCP, 1599 (47.1%) were classified as low-risk, 765 (22.5%) as moderate-risk, and 1031 (30.4%) as high-risk exposures. Sixty-six (1.9%) HCP developed COVID-19 at a mean of 3.65 days (range: 0-17 days) post-exposure. Of the 66 HCP with COVID-19, 46, 7, and 13 had a history of high-, moderate- or low-risk exposure (4.5%, 0.9%, and 0.8% of all high-, moderate-, and low-risk exposures, respectively). Hospitalization and absenteeism were more prevalent among HCP with high-risk exposure. A logistic regression analysis showed that the following variables were significantly associated with an increased risk for the onset of COVID-19: male, Administrative Personnel, underlying disease and high-risk exposure. CONCLUSION: HCP with high-risk occupational exposure to COVID-19 had increased probability of serious morbidity, healthcare seeking, hospitalization and absenteeism. Our findings justify the 7-day exclusion from work policy for HCP with high-risk exposure.

  • sars cov 2 infection in healthcare Personnel with high risk occupational exposure evaluation of seven day exclusion from work policy
    Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2020
    Co-Authors: Helena C Maltezou, X Dedoukou, Maria Tseroni, Evi Tsonou, Vasileios Raftopoulos, Kalliopi Papadima, Elisavet Mouratidou, Sophia Poufta, George Panagiotakopoulos, Dimitrios Hatzigeorgiou
    Abstract:

    Background Starting in late February 2020, Greece is experiencing a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic. Healthcare Personnel (HCP) were disproportionately affected, accounting for approximately 10% of notified cases. Exclusion from work for 7 days was recommended for HCP with high-risk occupational exposure. Our aim was to evaluate the 7-day exclusion from work policy for HCP with high-risk exposure. Methods HCP with a history of occupational exposure to COVID-19 were notified to the Hellenic National Public Health Organization, regardless of their exposure risk category. Exposed HCP were followed for 14 days after last exposure. Results We prospectively studied 3398 occupationally exposed HCP; nursing Personnel accounted for most exposures (n=1705; 50.2%). Of the 3398 exposed HCP, 1599 (47.1%) were classified as low-risk, 765 (22.5%) as moderate-risk, and 1031 (30.4%) as high-risk exposures. Sixty-six (1.9%) HCP developed COVID-19 at a mean of 3.65 days (range: 0-17 days) post-exposure. Of the 66 HCP with COVID-19, 46, 7, and 13 had a history of high-, moderate- or low-risk exposure (4.5%, 0.9%, and 0.8% of all high-, moderate-, and low-risk exposures, respectively). Hospitalization and absenteeism were more prevalent among HCP with high-risk exposure. A logistic regression analysis showed that the following variables were significantly associated with an increased risk for the onset of COVID-19: male, Administrative Personnel, underlying disease and high-risk exposure. Conclusion HCP with high-risk occupational exposure to COVID-19 had increased probability of serious morbidity, healthcare seeking, hospitalization and absenteeism. Our findings justify the 7-day exclusion from work policy for HCP with high-risk exposure.

Jens Kjaergaard Boldsen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • sars cov 2 seroprevalence survey among 17 971 healthcare and Administrative Personnel at hospitals pre hospital services and specialist practitioners in the central denmark region
    Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2020
    Co-Authors: Sanne Jespersen, Susan Mikkelsen, Thomas Greve, Kathrine Agergard Kaspersen, Martin Tolstrup, Jens Kjaergaard Boldsen, Jacob Dvinge Redder, Kent Jacob Nielsen
    Abstract:

    Background The objective of this study was to perform a seroprevalence survey on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among Danish healthcare workers to identify high risk groups. Methods All healthcare workers and Administrative Personnel at the seven hospitals, pre-hospital services and specialist practitioner clinics in the Central Denmark Region were invited to be tested by a commercial SARS-CoV-2 total antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA, Wantai Biological Pharmacy Enterprise Co., Ltd., Beijing, China). Results A total of 25,950 participants were invited. Of these, 17,971 had samples available for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. After adjustment for assay sensitivity and specificity, the overall seroprevalence was 3.4% (CI: 2.5%-3.8%). The seroprevalence was higher in the western part of the region than in the eastern part (11.9% vs 1.2%, difference: 10.7 percentage points, CI: 9.5-12.2). In the high prevalence area, the emergency departments had the highest seroprevalence (29.7%), while departments without patients or with limited patient contact had the lowest seroprevalence (2.2%). Among the total 668 seropositive participants, 433 (64.8%) had previously been tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and 50.0% had a positive RT-PCR result. Conclusions We found large differences in the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in staff working in the healthcare sector within a small geographical area of Denmark. Half of all seropositive staff had been tested positive by PCR prior to this survey. This study raises awareness of precautions which should be taken to avoid in-hospital transmission. Regular testing of healthcare workers for SARS-CoV-2 should be considered to identify areas with increased transmission.

  • sars cov 2 seroprevalence survey among 18 000 healthcare and Administrative Personnel at hospitals pre hospital services and specialist practitioners in the central denmark region
    medRxiv, 2020
    Co-Authors: Sanne Jespersen, Susan Mikkelsen, Thomas Greve, Kathrine Agergard Kaspersen, Martin Tolstrup, Jens Kjaergaard Boldsen, Jacob Dvinge Redder, Kent Jacob Nielsen
    Abstract:

    Abstract Objectives The objective of this study was to perform a large seroprevalence survey on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among Danish healthcare workers to identify high risk groups. Design Cross-sectional survey. Setting All healthcare workers and Administrative Personnel at the seven hospitals, pre-hospital services and specialist practitioner clinics in the Central Denmark Region were invited by e-mail to be tested for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 by a commercial SARS-CoV-2 total antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA, Wantai Biological Pharmacy Enterprise Co., Ltd., Beijing, China). Participants A total of 25,950 participants were invited. Of these, 17,987 (69%) showed up for blood sampling, and 17,971 had samples available for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. Main outcome measures 1) Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies; 2) Risk factors for seropositivity; 3) Association of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and antibodies. Results After adjustment for assay sensitivity and specificity, the overall seroprevalence was 3.4% (CI: 2.5%-3.8%). The seroprevalence was higher in the western part of the region than in the eastern part (11.9% vs 1.2%, difference: 10.7 percentage points, CI: 9.5-12.2). In the high prevalence area, the emergency departments had the highest seroprevalence (29.7%) while departments without patients or with limited patient contact had the lowest seroprevalence (2.2%). Multivariable logistic regression analysis with age, sex, and profession as the predictors showed that nursing staff, medical doctors, and biomedical laboratory scientists had a higher risk than medical secretaries, who served as reference (OR = 7.3, CI: 3.5–14.9; OR = 4., CI: 1.8–8.9; and OR = 5.0, CI: 2.1–11.6, respectively). Among the total 668 seropositive participants, 433 (64.8%) had previously been tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and 50.0% had a positive RT-PCR result. A total of 98% of individuals who had a previous positive viral RNA test were also found to be seropositive. Conclusions We found large differences in the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in staff working in the healthcare sector within a small geographical area of Denmark and signs of in-hospital transmission. Half of all seropositive staff had been tested positive by PCR prior to this survey. This study raises awareness of precautions which should be taken to avoid in-hospital transmission. Additionally, regular testing of healthcare workers for SARS-CoV-2 should be considered to identify areas with increased transmission. Trial registration The study is approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (1-16-02-207-20).

Kathrine Agergard Kaspersen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • sars cov 2 seroprevalence survey among 17 971 healthcare and Administrative Personnel at hospitals pre hospital services and specialist practitioners in the central denmark region
    Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2020
    Co-Authors: Sanne Jespersen, Susan Mikkelsen, Thomas Greve, Kathrine Agergard Kaspersen, Martin Tolstrup, Jens Kjaergaard Boldsen, Jacob Dvinge Redder, Kent Jacob Nielsen
    Abstract:

    Background The objective of this study was to perform a seroprevalence survey on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among Danish healthcare workers to identify high risk groups. Methods All healthcare workers and Administrative Personnel at the seven hospitals, pre-hospital services and specialist practitioner clinics in the Central Denmark Region were invited to be tested by a commercial SARS-CoV-2 total antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA, Wantai Biological Pharmacy Enterprise Co., Ltd., Beijing, China). Results A total of 25,950 participants were invited. Of these, 17,971 had samples available for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. After adjustment for assay sensitivity and specificity, the overall seroprevalence was 3.4% (CI: 2.5%-3.8%). The seroprevalence was higher in the western part of the region than in the eastern part (11.9% vs 1.2%, difference: 10.7 percentage points, CI: 9.5-12.2). In the high prevalence area, the emergency departments had the highest seroprevalence (29.7%), while departments without patients or with limited patient contact had the lowest seroprevalence (2.2%). Among the total 668 seropositive participants, 433 (64.8%) had previously been tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and 50.0% had a positive RT-PCR result. Conclusions We found large differences in the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in staff working in the healthcare sector within a small geographical area of Denmark. Half of all seropositive staff had been tested positive by PCR prior to this survey. This study raises awareness of precautions which should be taken to avoid in-hospital transmission. Regular testing of healthcare workers for SARS-CoV-2 should be considered to identify areas with increased transmission.

  • sars cov 2 seroprevalence survey among 18 000 healthcare and Administrative Personnel at hospitals pre hospital services and specialist practitioners in the central denmark region
    medRxiv, 2020
    Co-Authors: Sanne Jespersen, Susan Mikkelsen, Thomas Greve, Kathrine Agergard Kaspersen, Martin Tolstrup, Jens Kjaergaard Boldsen, Jacob Dvinge Redder, Kent Jacob Nielsen
    Abstract:

    Abstract Objectives The objective of this study was to perform a large seroprevalence survey on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among Danish healthcare workers to identify high risk groups. Design Cross-sectional survey. Setting All healthcare workers and Administrative Personnel at the seven hospitals, pre-hospital services and specialist practitioner clinics in the Central Denmark Region were invited by e-mail to be tested for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 by a commercial SARS-CoV-2 total antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA, Wantai Biological Pharmacy Enterprise Co., Ltd., Beijing, China). Participants A total of 25,950 participants were invited. Of these, 17,987 (69%) showed up for blood sampling, and 17,971 had samples available for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. Main outcome measures 1) Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies; 2) Risk factors for seropositivity; 3) Association of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and antibodies. Results After adjustment for assay sensitivity and specificity, the overall seroprevalence was 3.4% (CI: 2.5%-3.8%). The seroprevalence was higher in the western part of the region than in the eastern part (11.9% vs 1.2%, difference: 10.7 percentage points, CI: 9.5-12.2). In the high prevalence area, the emergency departments had the highest seroprevalence (29.7%) while departments without patients or with limited patient contact had the lowest seroprevalence (2.2%). Multivariable logistic regression analysis with age, sex, and profession as the predictors showed that nursing staff, medical doctors, and biomedical laboratory scientists had a higher risk than medical secretaries, who served as reference (OR = 7.3, CI: 3.5–14.9; OR = 4., CI: 1.8–8.9; and OR = 5.0, CI: 2.1–11.6, respectively). Among the total 668 seropositive participants, 433 (64.8%) had previously been tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and 50.0% had a positive RT-PCR result. A total of 98% of individuals who had a previous positive viral RNA test were also found to be seropositive. Conclusions We found large differences in the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in staff working in the healthcare sector within a small geographical area of Denmark and signs of in-hospital transmission. Half of all seropositive staff had been tested positive by PCR prior to this survey. This study raises awareness of precautions which should be taken to avoid in-hospital transmission. Additionally, regular testing of healthcare workers for SARS-CoV-2 should be considered to identify areas with increased transmission. Trial registration The study is approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (1-16-02-207-20).

Adam Wright - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • communication failure analysis of prescribers use of an internal free text field on electronic prescriptions
    Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2018
    Co-Authors: Angela Ai, Adrian Wong, Mary G Amato, Adam Wright
    Abstract:

    Importance: Electronic prescribing promises to improve the safety and clarity of prescriptions. However, it also can introduce miscommunication between prescribers and pharmacists. There are situations where information that is meant to be sent to pharmacists is not sent to them, which has the potential for dangerous errors. Objective: To examine how frequently prescribers or Administrative Personnel put information intended for pharmacists in a field not sent to pharmacists, classify the type of information included, and assess the potential harm associated with these missed messages. Design, Setting, Participants: Medication record data from our legacy electronic health record were requested for ambulatory care patients seen at an academic medical center from January 1, 2000, to May 31, 2015 (20 123 881 records). From this database, 6 060 272 medication orders met our inclusion criteria. We analyzed a random sample of 10 000 medication orders with internal comments. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reviewers classified internal comments for intent. Comments intended for pharmacists were also sorted into descriptive categories and analyzed for the potential for patient harm. Results: We found that 11.7% of the prescriptions in our sample contained comments that were intended to be sent to pharmacists. Many comments contained information about the dose, route, or duration of the prescription (38.0%). Approximately a third of the comments intended for pharmacists contained information that had the potential for significant or severe harm if not communicated. Conclusion: We found undelivered comments that were clearly intended for pharmacists and contained important information for either pharmacists or patients. This poses a legitimate safety concern, as a portion of comments contained information that could have prevented severe or significant harm.

  • communication failure analysis of prescribers use of an internal free text field on electronic prescriptions
    Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2018
    Co-Authors: Adrian Wong, Mary G Amato, Adam Wright
    Abstract:

    Importance Electronic prescribing promises to improve the safety and clarity of prescriptions. However, it also can introduce miscommunication between prescribers and pharmacists. There are situations where information that is meant to be sent to pharmacists is not sent to them, which has the potential for dangerous errors. Objective To examine how frequently prescribers or Administrative Personnel put information intended for pharmacists in a field not sent to pharmacists, classify the type of information included, and assess the potential harm associated with these missed messages. Design, Setting, Participants Medication record data from our legacy electronic health record were requested for ambulatory care patients seen at an academic medical center from January 1, 2000, to May 31, 2015 (20 123 881 records). From this database, 6 060 272 medication orders met our inclusion criteria. We analyzed a random sample of 10 000 medication orders with internal comments. Main Outcomes and Measures Reviewers classified internal comments for intent. Comments intended for pharmacists were also sorted into descriptive categories and analyzed for the potential for patient harm. Results We found that 11.7% of the prescriptions in our sample contained comments that were intended to be sent to pharmacists. Many comments contained information about the dose, route, or duration of the prescription (38.0%). Approximately a third of the comments intended for pharmacists contained information that had the potential for significant or severe harm if not communicated. Conclusion We found undelivered comments that were clearly intended for pharmacists and contained important information for either pharmacists or patients. This poses a legitimate safety concern, as a portion of comments contained information that could have prevented severe or significant harm.