Lack of SARS transmission among healthcare workers, United States

Healthcare workers accounted for a large proportion of persons with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) during the worldwide epidemic of early 2003. We conducted an investigation of healthcare workers exposed to laboratory-confirmed SARS patients in the United States to evaluate infection-control practices and possible SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV) transmission. We identified 110 healthcare workers with exposure within droplet range (i.e., 3 feet) to six SARS-CoV-positive patients. Forty-five healthcare workers had exposure without any mask use, 72 had exposure without eye protection, and 40 reported direct skin-to-skin contact. Potential droplet- and aerosol-generating procedures were infrequent: 5% of healthcare workers manipulated a patient's airway, and 4% administered aerosolized medication. Despite numerous unprotected exposures, there was no serologic evidence of healthcare-related SARS-CoV transmission. Lack of transmission in the United States may be related to the relative absence of high-risk procedures or patients, factors that may place healthcare workers at higher risk for infection.     

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and healthcare workers

The recent outbreak of severe acute respiratory synt drome (SARS) was spread by international air travel, a direct result of globalization. The disease is caused by a novel coronavirus, transmitted from human to human by droplets or by direct contact. Healthcare workers (HCWs) were at high risk and accounted for a fifth of all cases globally. Risk factors for infection in HCWs included lack of awareness and preparedness when the disease first struck, poor institutional infection control measures, lack of training in infection control procedures, poor compliance with the use of personal protection equipment (PPE), exposure to high-risk procedures such as intubation and nebulization, and exposure to unsuspected SARS patients. Measures to prevent nosocomial infection included establishing isolation wards for triage, SARS patients, and step-down; training and monitoring hospital staff in infection-control procedures; active and passive screening of HCWs; enforcement of droplet and contact precautions; and compliance with the use of PPE.     

Lack of SARS transmission and U.S. SARS case-patient

In early April 2003, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) was diagnosed in a Pennsylvania resident after his exposure to persons with SARS in Toronto, Canada. To identify contacts of the case-patient and evaluate the risk for SARS transmission, a detailed epidemiologic investigation was performed. On the basis of this investigation, 26 persons (17 healthcare workers, 4 household contacts, and 5 others) were identified as having had close contact with this case-patient before infection-control practices were implemented. Laboratory evaluation of clinical specimens showed no evidence of transmission of SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV) infection to any close contact of this patient. This investigation documents that, under certain circumstances, SARS-CoV is not readily transmitted to close contacts, despite ample unprotected exposures. Improving the understanding of risk factors for transmission will help focus public health control measures.     

Severe acute respiratory syndrome: lessons from Singapore

An outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) occurred in Singapore in March 2003. To illustrate the problems in diagnosing and containing SARS in the hospital, we describe a case series and highlight changes in triage and infection control practices that resulted. By implementing these changes, we have stopped the nosocomial transmission of the virus.An outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) was first recognized in Singapore on March 12, 2003. The index patient was hospitalized at Tan Tock Seng Hospital, which has since become the country’s designated SARS hospital. The patient infected 20 other people (including patients and healthcare workers), who subsequently became the sources for secondary spread of the infection (1). As of June 12, 2003, a total of 206 cases and 31 deaths attributed to SARS had been reported in Singapore.We describe the important lessons learned during the triage and containment of SARS at the National University Hospital, Singapore. Both involved expanding isolation criteria to include all patients with undifferentiated fever (even in the absence of respiratory symptoms or chest x-ray changes), improving contact-tracing methods, enforcing the use of fit-tested personal protective equipment in all patient-care areas, avoiding aerosol-generating procedures, and carefully monitoring all healthcare workers for fever or respiratory symptoms. We also highlight the impact of these measures on preventing the entry and nosocomial spread of infection.     

'Severe acute respiratory syndrome' (SARS): epidemiology,clinical signs,diagnosis and prevention

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a recently identified Coronavirus (SARS-CoV). The clinical symptoms are non-specific and during the first few days in particular, are not clinically distinguishable from those of many other viral or bacterial infections. The majority of infected patients develop pneumonia within a week of the first symptoms appearing. Since November 2002 the virus has spread from South China to almost 30 other countries, where about 8500 infected individuals have been registered; about 800 people have already died from the disease (9.5%). The number of infected persons includes a noticeably high percentage of health workers. This fact underlines the importance of good infection prevention measures for each patient contact. The implementation of hygienic measures requires attention, because the infection of personnel in Toronto hospitals still occurred after the virus and transmission routes were known. It appears that transmission can be prevented with relatively simple precautions, as long as these are consistently implemented. Early recognition and isolation of a possible source are an essential part of this. SARS is a group A notifiable disease (report if suspected). In the Netherlands the general practitioner has a prominent role in assessing and treating individuals who are infected or might be infected with SARS-CoV. A protocol and a detailed action plan are available. In addition to this hospitals should be prepared for the initial reception of a patient with SARS, who presents directly to the outpatients' clinic or Casualty Department.     

Patient contact recall after SARS exposure

We reinterviewed healthcare workers who had been exposed to a patient with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in an intensive care unit to evaluate the effect of time on recall reliability and willingness to report contact activities and infection control precautions. Healthcare workers reliably recalled events 6 months after exposure.     

SARS surveillance during emergency public health response, United States, March-July 2003

In response to the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), the United States established national surveillance using a sensitive case definition incorporating clinical, epidemiologic, and laboratory criteria. Of 1,460 unexplained respiratory illnesses reported by state and local health departments to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from March 17 to July 30, 2003, a total of 398 (27%) met clinical and epidemiologic SARS case criteria. Of these, 72 (18%) were probable cases with radiographic evidence of pneumonia. Eight (2%) were laboratory-confirmed SARS-coronavirus (SARS-CoV) infections, 206 (52%) were SARS-CoV negative, and 184 (46%) had undetermined SARS-CoV status because of missing convalescent-phase serum specimens. Thirty-one percent (124/398) of case-patients were hospitalized; none died. Travel was the most common epidemiologic link (329/398, 83%), and mainland China was the affected area most commonly visited. One case of possible household transmission was reported, and no laboratory-confirmed infections occurred among healthcare workers. Successes and limitations of this emergency surveillance can guide preparations for future outbreaks of SARS or respiratory diseases of unknown etiology.     

Cluster of cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome among Toronto healthcare workers after implementation of infection control precautions: a case series.

OBJECTIVE: To review the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) infection control practices, the types of exposure to patients with SARS, and the activities associated with treatment of such patients among healthcare workers (HCWs) who developed SARS in Toronto, Canada, after SARS-specific infection control precautions had been implemented. METHODS: A retrospective review of work logs and patient assignments, detailed review of medical records of patients with SARS, and comprehensive telephone-based interviews of HCWs who met the case definition for SARS after implementation of infection control precautions. RESULTS: Seventeen HCWs from 6 hospitals developed disease that met the case definition for SARS after implementation of infection control precautions. These HCWs had a mean age (+/-SD) of 39+/-2.3 years. Two HCWs were not interviewed because of illness. Of the remaining 15, only 9 (60%) reported that they had received formal infection control training. Thirteen HCWs (87%) were unsure of proper order in which personal protective equipment should be donned and doffed. Six HCWs (40%) reused items (eg, stethoscopes, goggles, and cleaning equipment) elsewhere on the ward after initial use in a room in which a patient with SARS was staying. Use of masks, gowns, gloves, and eyewear was inconsistent among HCWs. Eight (54%) reported that they were aware of a breach in infection control precautions. HCWs reported fatigue due to an increased number and length of shifts; participants worked a median of 10 shifts during the 10 days before onset of symptoms. Seven HCWs were involved in the intubation of a patient with SARS. One HCW died, and the remaining 16 recovered. CONCLUSION: Multiple factors were likely responsible for SARS in these HCWs, including the performance of high-risk patient care procedures, inconsistent use of personal protective equipment, fatigue, and lack of adequate infection control training.     

SARS in hospital emergency room

Thirty-one cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) occurred after exposure in the emergency room at the National Taiwan University Hospital. The index patient was linked to an outbreak at a nearby municipal hospital. Three clusters were identified over a 3-week period. The first cluster (5 patients) and the second cluster (14 patients) occurred among patients, family members, and nursing aids. The third cluster (12 patients) occurred exclusively among healthcare workers. Six healthcare workers had close contact with SARS patients. Six others, with different working patterns, indicated that they did not have contact with a SARS patient. Environmental surveys found 9 of 119 samples of inanimate objects to be positive for SARS coronavirus RNA. These observations indicate that although transmission by direct contact with known SARS patients was responsible for most cases, environmental contamination with the SARS coronavirus may have lead to infection among healthcare workers without documented contact with known hospitalized SARS patients.     

Factors associated with critical-care healthcare workers' adherence to recommended barrier precautions during the Toronto severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak.

OBJECTIVE: To assess factors associated with adherence to recommended barrier precautions among healthcare workers (HCWs) providing care to critically ill patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). SETTING: Fifteen acute care hospitals in Ontario, Canada. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENTS: All patients with SARS who required intubation during the Toronto SARS outbreak in 2003. PARTICIPANTS: HCWs who provided care to or entered the room of a SARS patient during the period from 24 hours before intubation until 4 hours after intubation. METHODS: Standardized interviews were conducted with eligible HCWs to assess their interactions with the SARS patient, their use of barrier precautions, their practices for removing personal protective equipment, and the infection control training they received. RESULTS: Of 879 eligible HCWs, 795 (90%) participated. In multivariate analysis, the following predictors of consistent adherence to recommended barrier precautions were identified: recognition of the patient as a SARS case (odds ratio [OR], 2.5 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.5-4.5); recent infection control training (OR for interactive training, 2.7 [95% CI, 1.7-4.4]; OR for passive training, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.0-3.0]), and working in a SARS unit (OR, 4.0 [95% CI, 1.8-8.9]) or intensive care unit (OR, 4.3 [95% CI, 2.0-9.0]). Two factors were associated with significantly lower rates of consistent adherence: the provision of care for patients with higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores (OR for score APACHE II of 20 or greater, 0.4 [95% CI, 0.28-0.68]) and work on shifts that required more frequent room entry (OR for 6 or more entries per shift, 0.5 [95% CI, 0.32-0.86]). CONCLUSIONS: There were significant deficits in knowledge about self-protection that were partially corrected by education programs during the SARS outbreak. HCWs' adherence to self-protection guidelines was most closely associated with whether they provided care to patients who had received a definite diagnosis of SARS.     

SARS among critical care nurses, Toronto

To determine factors that predispose or protect healthcare workers from severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), we conducted a retrospective cohort study among 43 nurses who worked in two Toronto critical care units with SARS patients. Eight of 32 nurses who entered a SARS patient's room were infected. The probability of SARS infection was 6% per shift worked. Assisting during intubation, suctioning before intubation, and manipulating the oxygen mask were high-risk activities. Consistently wearing a mask (either surgical or particulate respirator type N95) while caring for a SARS patient was protective for the nurses, and consistent use of the N95 mask was more protective than not wearing a mask. Risk was reduced by consistent use of a surgical mask, but not significantly. Risk was lower with consistent use of a N95 mask than with consistent use of a surgical mask. We conclude that activities related to intubation increase SARS risk and use of a mask (particularly a N95 mask) is protective.     

The impact of work-related risk on nurses during the SARS outbreak in Hong Kong

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a highly infectious disease, with high potential for transmission to close contacts, particularly among healthcare workers. This is the first systematic study investigating hospital nurses' physical and psychological health status and the kinds of healthcare used-stratified by the level of contact with SARS patients-during the 2003 outbreak in Hong Kong. Nurses in moderate-risk areas appeared to have more stress symptoms than those working in high-risk areas. It is essential to design hospital support systems and occupational health policy to promote the psychological well-being of nurses during future outbreaks of emerging infections.     

SARS transmission among hospital workers in Hong Kong

Despite infection control measures, breakthrough transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) occurred for many hospital workers in Hong Kong. We conducted a case-control study of 72 hospital workers with SARS and 144 matched controls. Inconsistent use of goggles, gowns, gloves, and caps was associated with a higher risk for SARS infection (unadjusted odds ratio 2.42 to 20.54, p < 0.05). The likelihood of SARS infection was strongly associated with the amount of personal protection equipment perceived to be inadequate, having <2 hours of infection control training, and not understanding infection control procedures. No significant differences existed between the case and control groups in the proportion of workers who performed high-risk procedures, reported minor protection equipment problems, or had social contact with SARS-infected persons. Perceived inadequacy of personal protection equipment supply, infection control training <2 hours, and inconsistent use of personal protection equipment when in contact with SARS patients were significant independent risk factors for SARS infection.     

Infection control and SARS transmission among healthcare workers, Taiwan

This study found infrequent transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus to healthcare workers involved in the care of the first five case-patients in Taiwan, despite a substantial number of unprotected exposures. Nonetheless, given that SARS has been highly transmissible on some occasions, we still recommend strict precautions.     

Severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus infection

Whether severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV) infection can be asymptomatic is unclear. We examined the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV among 674 healthcare workers from a hospital in which a SARS outbreak had occurred. A total of 353 (52%) experienced mild self-limiting illnesses, and 321 (48%) were asymptomatic throughout the course of these observations. None of these healthcare workers had antibody to SARS CoV, indicating that subclinical or mild infection attributable to SARS-CoV in adults is rare.     

Anti-SARS-CoV immunoglobulin G in healthcare workers, Guangzhou, China

To determine the prevalence of inapparent infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) among healthcare workers, we performed a serosurvey to test for immunoglobulin (Ig) G antibodies to the SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV) among 1,147 healthcare workers in 3 hospitals that admitted SARS patients in mid-May 2003. Among them were 90 healthcare workers with SARS. As a reference group, 709 healthcare workers who worked in 2 hospitals that never admitted any SARS patients were similarly tested. The seroprevalence rate was 88.9% (80/90) for healthcare workers with SARS and 1.4% (15/1,057) for healthcare workers who were apparently healthy. The seroprevalence in the reference group was 0.4% (3/709). These findings suggest that inapparent infection is uncommon. Low level of immunity among unaffected healthcare workers reinforces the need for adequate personal protection and other infection control measures in hospitals to prevent future epidemics.     

The 2003 SARS outbreak and its impact on infection control practices

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) emerged recently as a new infectious disease that was transmitted efficiently in the healthcare setting and particularly affected healthcare workers (HCWs), patients and visitors. The efficiency of transmission within healthcare facilities was recognised following significant hospital outbreaks of SARS in Canada, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and Vietnam. The causative agent of SARS was identified as a novel coronavirus, the SARS coronavirus. This was largely spread by direct or indirect contact with large respiratory droplets, although airborne transmission has also been reported. High infection rates among HCWs led initially to the theory that SARS was highly contagious and the concept of 'super-spreading events'. Such events illustrated that lack of infection control (IC) measures or failure to comply with IC precautions could lead to large-scale hospital outbreaks. SARS was eventually contained by the stringent application of IC measures that limited exposure of HCWs to potentially infectious individuals. As the 'global village' becomes smaller and other microbial threats to health emerge, or re-emerge, there is an urgent need to develop a global strategy for infection control in hospitals. This paper provides an overview of the main IC practices employed during the 2003 SARS outbreak, including management measures, dedicated SARS hospitals, personal protective equipment, isolation, handwashing, environmental decontamination, education and training. The psychological and psychosocial impact on HCWs during the outbreak are also discussed. Requirements for IC programmes in the post-SARS period are proposed based on the major lessons learnt from the SARS outbreak.     

Atypical SARS and Escherichia coli bacteremia

We describe a patient with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) whose clinical symptoms were masked by Escherichia coli bacteremia. SARS developed in a cluster of healthcare workers who had contact with this patient. SARS was diagnosed when a chest infiltrate developed and when the patient's brother was hospitalized with acute respiratory failure. We highlight problems in atypical cases and offer infection control suggestions.     

Factors involved in the aerosol transmission of infection and control of ventilation in healthcare premises

The epidemics of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 highlighted both short- and long-range transmission routes, i.e. between infected patients and healthcare workers, and between distant locations. With other infections such as tuberculosis, measles and chickenpox, the concept of aerosol transmission is so well accepted that isolation of such patients is the norm. With current concerns about a possible approaching influenza pandemic, the control of transmission via infectious air has become more important. Therefore, the aim of this review is to describe the factors involved in: (1) the generation of an infectious aerosol, (2) the transmission of infectious droplets or droplet nuclei from this aerosol, and (3) the potential for inhalation of such droplets or droplet nuclei by a susceptible host. On this basis, recommendations are made to improve the control of aerosol-transmitted infections in hospitals as well as in the design and construction of future isolation facilities.     

SARS in healthcare facilities, Toronto and Taiwan

The healthcare setting was important in the early spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in both Toronto and Taiwan. Healthcare workers, patients, and visitors were at increased risk for infection. Nonetheless, the ability of individual SARS patients to transmit disease was quite variable. Unrecognized SARS case-patients were a primary source of transmission, and early detection and intervention were important to limit spread. Strict adherence to infection control precautions was essential in containing outbreaks. In addition, grouping patients into cohorts and limiting access to SARS patients minimized exposure opportunities. Given the difficulty in implementing several of these measures, control measures were frequently adapted to the acuity of SARS care and level of transmission within facilities. Although these conclusions are based only on a retrospective analysis of events, applying the experiences of Toronto and Taiwan to SARS preparedness planning efforts will likely minimize future transmission within healthcare facilities.