BACKGROUND: Outbreaks of emerging multidrug-resistant organisms (eMDROs), including carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE), carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), and Candida auris, have been reported among SARS-CoV-2 patients. We describe eMDRO clusters in SARS-CoV-2 units and associated infection control (IC) practices early in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective survey of a convenience sample of health departments in 11 states to describe clusters of eMDROs that began before November 1, 2020 and involved SARS-CoV-2 units. Cluster characteristics and IC practices during the cluster period were assessed using a standardized outbreak report form and descriptive analyses were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 18 eMDRO clusters (10 CRE, 6 C. auris, 1 carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and 1 CRAB) in 18 healthcare facilities involving 397 patients were reported from 10 states. During the cluster period, 60% of facilities reported a shortage of isolation gowns, 69% extended use of gowns, and 67% reported difficulty obtaining preferred disinfectants. Reduced frequency of hand hygiene audits was reported in 85% of acute care hospitals during the cluster period compared to before the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in IC practices and supply shortages were identified in facilities with eMDRO outbreaks during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and might have contributed to eMDRO transmission.

Background: Q fever, brucellosis, and leptospirosis are zoonoses typically associated with terrestrial animal reservoirs. These bacterial agents are now known to infect marine mammal species, though little is known about potential human health risks from marine mammal reservoir species. We investigated potential risks of these bacteria in humans associated with marine mammal exposure. Methods: The Marine Mammal Center (TMMC) in Sausalito, California, requested a Health Hazard Evaluation by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. In June 2011, an investigation occurred, which included a written questionnaire and serosurvey among workers for Coxiella burnetii, Brucella spp., and Leptospira spp., and an environmental assessment for C. burnetii. Results: Serologic evidence of past exposure was detected in 4% (C. burnetii), 0% (Brucella), and 1% (Leptospira) of 213 participants, respectively. One of 130 environmental samples tested positive for C. burnetii. No significant marine mammal-specific risk factors were identified, but some safety deficiencies were noted that could lead to a higher risk of exposure to zoonotic diseases. Conclusion: Although this study did not identify disease exposure risks associated with marine mammals, additional studies in different settings of other groups with frequent exposure to marine mammals are warranted. Some deficiencies in safety were noted, and based on these, TMMC modified protocols to improve safety. © 2024 The Authors. Public Health Challenges published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

OBJECTIVE: To describe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mitigation measures in workplaces of employed US blood donors by industry and work arrangement. METHODS: During May-December 2021, blood donors responded to a survey; we describe the distribution of reported workplace mitigation measures by industry and work arrangement, organized using the hierarchy of controls. RESULTS: Of 53,433 respondents representing 21 industries, ventilation upgrades were reported by 4%-38% of respondents (overall: 20%); telework access ranged from 14%-80% (53% overall). Requiring masks (overall: 84%; range: 40%-94%), physical distancing (77%; 51%-86%), paid leave for illness (70%; 38%-87%), and encouraging vaccination (61%; 33%-80%) were common. Independent workers reported fewer mitigation measures than those in traditional employment settings. CONCLUSIONS: Mitigation measures varied by industry and work arrangement. Some mitigation measures may be challenging to implement or irrelevant in certain industries, supporting the idea that mitigation is not a one-size-fits-all strategy. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Tailored strategies to mitigate workplace risks of disease transmission are vital. Strategies should rely on effective methods for identifying workplace controls (e.g., through the hierarchy of controls) and account for industry-specific characteristics and workplace environments.

OBJECTIVES: The risk for mpox virus (MPXV) transmission in most workplaces has not been thoroughly assessed in the context of the 2022 global mpox outbreak. Our objectives were to describe mpox case patients who worked while infectious and the subsequent workplace contact tracing efforts, risk assessments, and outcomes. METHODS: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention requested information from health departments in the United States in September 2022 to identify people with confirmed or probable mpox who worked outside the home while infectious, either before or after diagnosis, from June 1 through August 31, 2022. We collected and summarized data on demographic, clinical, and workplace characteristics of case patients and workplace contact investigations. We stratified data by industry and occupation categories. RESULTS: In total, 102 case patients were reported by 6 jurisdictions. The most common industries were accommodation and food services (19.8%) and professional business, management, and technical services (17.0%). Contact investigations identified 178 total contacts; 54 cases (52.9%) had no contacts identified. Of 178 contacts, 54 (30.3%) were recommended to receive postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) and 18 (10.1%) received PEP. None of the contacts developed a rash or were tested for orthopox or mpox, and none were reported to have confirmed or probable mpox. CONCLUSION: Data from 6 jurisdictions suggest that the risk of MPXV transmission from workers to others in workplace settings in many industries is low. These findings might support future updates to exposure risk classifications and work activity recommendations for patients. These findings also demonstrate the importance of collecting and analyzing occupation and industry data in case reports to better understand risks in workplaces.

Approximately 6 months before an unprecedented global mpox outbreak was first identified in the United Kingdom, an adult man was diagnosed with mpox in Maryland, USA [1]. At the time of the investigation, the case was only the eighth monkeypox virus (MPXV) infection diagnosed in a non-African country during the preceding 3 years, all of which were associated with recent travel to Nigeria [2]. One of these 8 imported cases occurred in Texas, USA four months earlier; that case exhibited features clinically consistent with those classically reported in Africa (i.e., large and diffuse lesions, high fever and prodromal symptoms, umbilicated lesions in the same stage of development on specific anatomic surfaces) [3]. In contrast, the Maryland case was milder in severity and had signs that, at the time, were considered unusual for mpox. Several aspects of the Maryland case are noteworthy and in retrospect may offer clues to the origins of the 2022 global mpox outbreak, as well as explain how mpox might have spread undetected before emerging as a global outbreak.

Introduction Employer vaccination requirements have been used to increase vaccination uptake among healthcare personnel (HCP). In summer 2021, HCP were the group most likely to have employer requirements for COVID-19 vaccinations as healthcare facilities led the implementation of such requirements. This study examined the association between employer requirements and HCP's COVID-19 vaccination status and attitudes about the vaccine. Methods Participants were a national representative sample of United States (US) adults who completed the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module (NIS-ACM) during August-September 2021. Respondents were asked about COVID-19 vaccination and intent, requirements for vaccination, place of work, attitudes surrounding vaccinations, and sociodemographic variables. This analysis focused on HCP respondents. We first calculated the weighted proportion reporting COVID-19 vaccination for HCP by sociodemographic variables. Then we computed unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios for vaccination coverage and key indicators on vaccine attitudes, comparing HCP based on individual self-report of vaccination requirements. Results Of 12,875 HCP respondents, 41.5% reported COVID-19 vaccination employer requirements. Among HCP with vaccination requirements, 90.5% had been vaccinated against COVID-19, as compared to 73.3% of HCP without vaccination requirements-a pattern consistent across sociodemographic groups. Notably, the greatest differences in uptake between HCP with and without employee requirements were seen in sociodemographic subgroups with the lowest vaccination uptake, e.g., HCP aged 18-29 years, HCP with high school or less education, HCP living below poverty, and uninsured HCP. In every sociodemographic subgroup examined, vaccine uptake was more equitable among HCP with vaccination requirements than in HCP without. Finally, HCP with vaccination requirements were also more likely to express confidence in the vaccine's safety (68.3% vs. 60.1%) and importance (89.6% vs 79.6%). Conclusion In a large national US sample, employer requirements were associated with higher and more equitable HCP vaccination uptake across all sociodemographic groups examined. Our findings suggest that employer requirements can contribute to improving COVID-19 vaccination coverage, similar to patterns seen for other vaccines. Copyright The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. This article is a US Government work. It is not subject to copyright under 17 USC 105 and is also made available for use under a CC0 license.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare personnel (HCP) are at risk for acquiring and transmitting respiratory infections in the workplace. Paid sick leave benefits allow workers to stay home and visit a healthcare provider when ill. The objectives of this study were to quantify the percentage of HCP reporting paid sick leave, identify differences across occupations and settings, and determine factors associated with having paid sick leave. METHODS: In a national nonprobability Internet panel survey of HCP in April 2022, respondents were asked, "Does your employer offer paid sick leave?." Responses were weighted to the U.S. HCP population by age, sex, race/ethnicity, work setting, and census region. The weighted percentage of HCP who reported paid sick leave was calculated by occupation, work setting, and type of employment. Using multivariable logistic regression, factors associated with having paid sick leave were identified. RESULTS: In April 2022, 73.2% of 2,555 responding HCP reported having paid sick leave, similar to 2020 and 2021 estimates. The percentage of HCP reporting paid sick leave varied by occupation, ranging from 63.9% (assistants/aides) to 81.2% (non-clinical personnel). Female HCP and those working as licensed independent practitioners, in the Midwest, and in the South were less likely to report paid sick leave. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of HCP from all occupational groups and healthcare settings reported having paid sick leave. However, differences by sex, occupation, type of work arrangement, and Census region exist and highlight disparities. Increasing HCP access to paid sick leave may decrease presenteeism and subsequent transmission of infectious diseases in healthcare settings.

In August 2022, the Florida Department of Health notified CDC of a nurse who acquired monkeypox through an occupational exposure while providing care to a patient with monkeypox. To date, occupationally acquired Monkeypox virus (MPXV) infections in health care personnel (HCP) have been rarely reported during the 2022 multinational outbreak (1,2). This report describes the first reported U.S. case and recommends approaches for preventing occupationally acquired MPXV infections in HCP.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and CDC recommend that all health care personnel (HCP) receive annual influenza vaccination to reduce influenza-related morbidity and mortality among these personnel and their patients (1). ACIP also recommends that all persons aged ≥6 months, including HCP, be vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines and remain up to date (2,3). During March 29-April 19, 2022, CDC conducted an opt-in Internet panel survey of 3,618 U.S. HCP to estimate influenza vaccination coverage during the 2021-22 influenza season as well as receipt of the primary COVID-19 vaccination series and a booster dose. Influenza vaccination coverage was 79.9% during the 2021-22 season, and 87.3% of HCP reported having completed the primary COVID-19 vaccination series; among these HCP, 67.1% reported receiving a COVID-19 booster dose. Among HCP, influenza, COVID-19 primary series, and COVID-19 booster dose vaccination coverage were lowest among assistants and aides, those working in long-term care (LTC) or home health care settings, and those whose employer neither required nor recommended the vaccines. Overall, employer requirements for influenza and COVID-19 primary series vaccines were reported by 43.9% and 59.9% of HCP, respectively; among HCP who completed the primary series of COVID-19 vaccines, 23.5% reported employer requirements for COVID-19 booster vaccines. Vaccination coverage for all three vaccine measures was higher among HCP who reported employer vaccination requirements and ranged from 95.8% to 97.3% for influenza, 90.2% to 95.1% for COVID-19 primary series, and 76.4% to 87.8% for COVID-19 booster vaccinations among HCP who completed the primary series of COVID-19 vaccines, by work setting. Implementing workplace strategies demonstrated to improve vaccination coverage among HCP, including vaccination requirements or active promotion of vaccination, can increase influenza and COVID-19 vaccination coverage among HCP and reduce influenza and COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality among HCP and their patients (4).

The risk for monkeypox transmission to health care personnel (HCP) caring for symptomatic patients is thought to be low but has not been thoroughly assessed in the context of the current global outbreak (1). Monkeypox typically spreads through close physical (often skin-to-skin) contact with lesions or scabs, body fluids, or respiratory secretions of a person with an active monkeypox infection. CDC currently recommends that HCP wear a gown, gloves, eye protection, and an N95 (or higher-level) respirator while caring for patients with suspected or confirmed monkeypox to protect themselves from infection(†) (1,2). The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) evaluated HCP exposures and personal protective equipment (PPE) use in health care settings during care of patients who subsequently received a diagnosis of Orthopoxvirus infection (presumptive monkeypox determined by a polymerase chain reaction [PCR] DNA assay) or monkeypox (real-time PCR assay and genetic sequencing performed by CDC). During May 1-July 31, 2022, a total of 313 HCP interacted with patients with subsequently diagnosed monkeypox infections while wearing various combinations of PPE; 23% wore all recommended PPE during their exposures. Twenty-eight percent of exposed HCP were considered to have had high- or intermediate-risk exposures and were therefore eligible to receive postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) with the JYNNEOS vaccine(§); among those, 48% (12% of all exposed HCP) received the vaccine. PPE use varied by facility type: HCP in sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics and community health centers reported the highest adherence to recommended PPE use, and primary and urgent care settings reported the lowest adherence. No HCP developed a monkeypox infection during the 21 days after exposure. These results suggest that the risk for transmission of monkeypox in health care settings is low. Infection prevention training is important in all health care settings, and these findings can guide future updates to PPE recommendations and risk classification in health care settings.

INTRODUCTION: Employer vaccination requirements have been used to increase vaccination uptake among healthcare personnel (HCP). In summer 2021, HCP were the group most likely to have employer requirements for COVID-19 vaccinations as healthcare facilities led the implementation of such requirements. This study examined the association between employer requirements and HCP's COVID-19 vaccination status and attitudes about the vaccine. METHODS: Participants were a national representative sample of United States (US) adults who completed the National Immunization Survey Adult COVID Module (NIS-ACM) during August-September 2021. Respondents were asked about COVID-19 vaccination and intent, requirements for vaccination, place of work, attitudes surrounding vaccinations, and sociodemographic variables. This analysis focused on HCP respondents. We first calculated the weighted proportion reporting COVID-19 vaccination for HCP by sociodemographic variables. Then we computed unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios for vaccination coverage and key indicators on vaccine attitudes, comparing HCP based on individual self-report of vaccination requirements. RESULTS: Of 12,875 HCP respondents, 41.5% reported COVID-19 vaccination employer requirements. Among HCP with vaccination requirements, 90.5% had been vaccinated against COVID-19, as compared to 73.3% of HCP without vaccination requirements-a pattern consistent across sociodemographic groups. Notably, the greatest differences in uptake between HCP with and without employee requirements were seen in sociodemographic subgroups with the lowest vaccination uptake, e.g., HCP aged 18-29 years, HCP with high school or less education, HCP living below poverty, and uninsured HCP. In every sociodemographic subgroup examined, vaccine uptake was more equitable among HCP with vaccination requirements than in HCP without. Finally, HCP with vaccination requirements were also more likely to express confidence in the vaccine's safety (68.3% vs. 60.1%) and importance (89.6% vs 79.6%). CONCLUSION: In a large national US sample, employer requirements were associated with higher and more equitable HCP vaccination uptake across all sociodemographic groups examined. Our findings suggest that employer requirements can contribute to improving COVID-19 vaccination coverage, similar to patterns seen for other vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Health care personnel (HCP) have experienced significant SARS-CoV-2 risk, but exposure settings among HCP COVID-19 cases are poorly characterized. METHODS: We assessed exposure settings among HCP COVID-19 cases in the United States from March 2020 to March 2021 with reported exposures (n = 83,775) using national COVID-19 surveillance data. Exposure setting and reported community incidence temporal trends were described using breakpoint estimation. Among cases identified before initiation of COVID-19 vaccination programs (n = 65,650), we used separate multivariable regression models to estimate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) for associations of community incidence with health care and household and/or community exposures. RESULTS: Health care exposures were the most reported (52.0%), followed by household (30.8%) and community exposures (25.6%). Health care exposures and community COVID-19 incidence showed similar temporal trends. In adjusted analyses, HCP cases were more likely to report health care exposures (aPR = 1.31; 95% CI:1.26-1.36) and less likely to report household and/or community exposures (aPR = 0.73; 95% CI:0.70-0.76) under the highest vs lowest community incidence levels. DISCUSSION: These findings highlight HCP exposure setting temporal trends and workplace exposure hazards under high community incidence. Findings also underscore the need for robust collection of work-related data in infectious disease surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Many reported HCP cases experienced occupational COVID-19 exposures, particularly during periods of higher community COVID-19 incidence.

Since 1997, nine cases of severe pneumonia, caused by species within the B. cereus group and with a presentation similar to that of inhalation anthrax, were reported in seemingly immunocompetent metalworkers, with most being welders. In seven of the cases, isolates were found to harbor a plasmid similar to the B. anthracis pXO1 that encodes anthrax toxins. In this paper, we review the literature on the B. cereus group spp. pneumonia among welders and other metalworkers, which we term welder’s anthrax. We describe the epidemiology, including more information on two cases of welder’s anthrax in 2020. We also describe the health risks associated with welding, potential mechanisms of infection and pathological damage, prevention measures according to the hierarchy of controls, and clinical and public health considerations. Considering occupational risk factors and controlling exposure to welding fumes and gases among workers, according to the hierarchy of controls, should help prevent disease transmission in the workplace. © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare personnel are at increased risk for COVID-19 from workplace exposure. National estimates on COVID-19 vaccination coverage among healthcare personnel are limited. METHODS: Data from an opt-in Internet panel survey of 2,434 healthcare personnel, conducted on March 30, 2021-April 15, 2021, were analyzed to assess the receipt of ≥1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and vaccination intent. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination and intent for vaccination. RESULTS: Overall, 68.2% of healthcare personnel reported a receipt of ≥1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, 9.8% would probably/definitely get vaccinated, 7.1% were unsure, and 14.9% would probably/definitely not get vaccinated. COVID-19 vaccination coverage was highest among physicians (89.0%), healthcare personnel working in hospitals (75.0%), and healthcare personnel of non-Hispanic White or other race (75.7%-77.4%). Healthcare personnel who received influenza vaccine in 2020-2021 (adjusted prevalence ratio=1.92) and those aged ≥60 years (adjusted prevalence ratio=1.37) were more likely to report a receipt of ≥1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Non-Hispanic Black healthcare personnel (adjusted prevalence ratio=0.74), nurse practitioners/physician assistants (adjusted prevalence ratio=0.55), assistants/aides (adjusted prevalence ratio=0.73), and nonclinical healthcare personnel (adjusted prevalence ratio=0.79) were less likely to have received a COVID-19 vaccine. The common reasons for vaccination included protecting self (88.1%), family and friends (86.3%), and patients (69.2%) from COVID-19. The most common reason for nonvaccination was concern about side effects and safety of COVID-19 vaccine (59.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding vaccination status and intent among healthcare personnel is important for addressing barriers to vaccination. Addressing concerns on side effects, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines as well as their fast development and approval may help improve vaccination coverage among healthcare personnel.

In 2020, CDC confirmed two cases of pneumonia (one fatal) in welders caused by rare Bacillus cereus group bacteria containing anthrax toxin genes typically associated with Bacillus anthracis. B. cereus group bacteria are gram-positive facultative anaerobes, often toxin-producing, that are ubiquitous in the environment and reside naturally in soil and dust (1). B. cereus can also be found in food, and although infection typically causes illnesses characterized by diarrhea or vomiting, B. cereus can have other clinical manifestations (e.g., pulmonary, ocular, or cutaneous). Among seven persons in the United States reported to be infected with B. cereus group bacteria containing anthrax toxin genes resulting in pneumonia since 1994, five patients died and two had critical illness with prolonged hospitalization and recovery (2–5). All persons with pneumonia were welders or other metalworkers who had worked in Louisiana or Texas (Table). In addition to the seven pneumonia cases, a cutaneous infection with B. cereus group bacteria containing anthrax toxin genes has been reported in a patient with an anthrax eschar in Florida.†

In areas where Histoplasma is endemic in the environment, occupations involving activities exposing workers to soil that contains bird or bat droppings may pose a risk for histoplasmosis. Occupational exposures are frequently implicated in histoplasmosis outbreaks. In this paper, we review the literature on occupationally acquired histoplasmosis. We describe the epidemiology, occupational risk factors, and prevention measures according to the hierarchy of controls.

OBJECTIVES: To propose a framework for considering SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing of unexposed asymptomatic workers in selected workplaces. METHODS: This is a commentary based on established occupational safety and health principles, published articles, and other pertinent literature, including non-peer-reviewed preprints in medrixiv.org prior to April 16, 2021. RESULTS: Not applicable to this commentary/viewpoint article. CONCLUSION: Antigen testing is a rapidly evolving and useful public health tool that can be used to guide measures to reduce spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the community and in selected workplaces. This commentary provides a proposed framework for occupational safety and health practitioners and employers for considering antigen testing as a method to screen asymptomatic workers in selected non-healthcare settings. When applied selectively, antigen testing can be a useful, effective part of a comprehensive workplace program for COVID-19 prevention and control.

We aimed to describe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) deaths among first responders early in the COVID-19 pandemic. We used media reports to gather timely information about COVID-19-related deaths among first responders during March 30-April 30, 2020, and evaluated the sensitivity of media scanning compared with traditional surveillance. We abstracted information about demographic characteristics, occupation, underlying conditions, and exposure source. Twelve of 19 US public health jurisdictions with data on reported deaths provided verification, and 7 jurisdictions reported whether additional deaths had occurred; we calculated the sensitivity of media scanning among these 7 jurisdictions. We identified 97 COVID-19-related first-responder deaths during the study period through media and jurisdiction reports. Participating jurisdictions reported 5 deaths not reported by the media. Sixty-six decedents worked in law enforcement, and 31 decedents worked in fire/emergency medical services. Media reports rarely noted underlying conditions. The media scan sensitivity was 88% (95% CI, 73%-96%) in the subset of 7 jurisdictions. Media reports demonstrated high sensitivity in documenting COVID-19-related deaths among first responders; however, information on risk factors was scarce. Routine collection of data on industry and occupation could improve understanding of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality among all workers.

In July 2020, the Florida Department of Health was alerted to three Candida auris bloodstream infections and one urinary tract infection in four patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who received care in the same dedicated COVID-19 unit of an acute care hospital (hospital A). C. auris is a multidrug-resistant yeast that can cause invasive infection. Its ability to colonize patients asymptomatically and persist on surfaces has contributed to previous C. auris outbreaks in health care settings (1-7). Since the first C. auris case was identified in Florida in 2017, aggressive measures have been implemented to limit spread, including contact tracing and screening upon detection of a new case. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, hospital A conducted admission screening for C. auris and admitted colonized patients to a separate dedicated ward.

OBJECTIVES: To identify important background information on pooled tested of employees that employers workers, and health authorities should consider. METHODS: This paper is a commentary based on the review by the authors of pertinent literature generally from preprints in medrixiv.org prior to August 2020. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: Pooled testing may be particularly useful to employers in communities with low prevalence of COVID-19. It can be used to reduce the number of tests and associated financial costs. For effective and efficient pooled testing employers should consider it as part of a broader, more comprehensive workplace COVID-19 prevention and control program. Pooled testing of asymptomatic employees can prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and help assure employers and customers that employees are not infectious.

Occupational respiratory infections can be caused by bacterial, viral, and fungal pathogens. Transmission in occupational settings can occur from other humans, animals, or the environment, and occur in various occupations and industries. In this article, we describe 4 occupationally acquired respiratory infections at the focus of NIOSH investigations over the last decade: tuberculosis (TB), influenza, psittacosis, and coccidioidomycosis. We highlight the epidemiology, clinical manifestations, occupational risk factors, and prevention measures.

Exposure to hepatitis viruses is a recognized occupational risk for health care personnel (HCP). This report establishes new CDC guidance that includes recommendations for a testing algorithm and clinical management for HCP with potential occupational exposure to hepatitis C virus (HCV). Baseline testing of the source patient and HCP should be performed as soon as possible (preferably within 48 hours) after the exposure. A source patient refers to any person receiving health care services whose blood or other potentially infectious material is the source of the HCP's exposure. Two options are recommended for testing the source patient. The first option is to test the source patient with a nucleic acid test (NAT) for HCV RNA. This option is preferred, particularly if the source patient is known or suspected to have recent behaviors that increase risk for HCV acquisition (e.g., injection drug use within the previous 4 months) or if risk cannot be reliably assessed. The second option is to test the source patient for antibodies to hepatitis C virus (anti-HCV), then if positive, test for HCV RNA. For HCP, baseline testing for anti-HCV with reflex to a NAT for HCV RNA if positive should be conducted as soon as possible (preferably within 48 hours) after the exposure and may be simultaneous with source-patient testing. If follow-up testing is recommended based on the source patient's status (e.g., HCV RNA positive or anti-HCV positive with unavailable HCV RNA or if the HCV infection status is unknown), HCP should be tested with a NAT for HCV RNA at 3-6 weeks postexposure. If HCV RNA is negative at 3-6 weeks postexposure, a final test for anti-HCV at 4-6 months postexposure is recommended. A source patient or HCP found to be positive for HCV RNA should be referred to care. Postexposure prophylaxis of hepatitis C is not recommended for HCP who have occupational exposure to blood and other body fluids. This guidance was developed based on expert opinion (CDC. Updated U.S. Public Health Service guidelines for the management of occupational exposures to HBV, HCV, and HIV and recommendations for postexposure prophylaxis. MMWR Recommend Rep 2001;50[No. RR-11]; Supplementary Figure, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/90288) and reflects updated guidance from professional organizations that recommend treatment for acute HCV infection. Health care providers can use this guidance to update their procedures for postexposure testing and clinical management of HCP potentially exposed to hepatitis C virus.

N95 respirators are the personal protective equipment most often used to control exposures to infections transmitted via the airborne route. Supplies of N95 respirators can become depleted during pandemics or when otherwise in high demand. In this paper, we offer strategies for optimizing supplies of N95 respirators in healthcare settings while maximizing the level of protection offered to healthcare personnel when there is limited supply in the United States during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The strategies are intended for use by professionals who manage respiratory protection programs, occupational health services, and infection prevention programs in healthcare facilities to protect healthcare personnel from job-related risks of exposure to infectious respiratory illnesses. Consultation with federal, state, and local public health officials is also important. We use the framework of surge capacity and the occupational health and safety hierarchy of controls approach to discuss specific engineering control, administrative control, and personal protective equipment measures that may help in optimizing N95 respirator supplies.

Health care personnel who care for critically ill patients with suspected or confirmed novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) routinely participate in procedures, such as endotracheal intubation, that may create infectious aerosols. Among persons infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19, approximately 8% will require endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation.1 | | Aerosol-generating procedures have been described as “…procedures performed on patients [that] are more likely to generate higher concentrations of infectious respiratory aerosols than coughing, sneezing, talking, or breathing.”2 Health Protection Scotland defines aerosol-generating procedures “as medical and patient care procedures that result in the production of airborne particles (aerosols) that create the potential for airborne transmission of infections that may otherwise only be transmissible by the droplet route.”3 Although there is no generally accepted and comprehensive list of aerosol-generating procedures performed during clinical care, examples include open suctioning of airways, sputum induction, manual ventilation, endotracheal intubation and extubation, noninvasive ventilation, bronchoscopy, and tracheotomy.4 There is great interest in understanding the hazards posed by the range of potentially hazardous aerosol-generating procedures for the transmission of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases.

Objectives: We sought to identify patterns of knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors (KABs) about influenza and influenza vaccination among healthcare personnel (HCP) and define characteristics associated with these patterns. Methods: We used an Internet panel survey of HCP (N = 2265) during March 27-April 17, 2018; clustered HCP by their vaccination-related KABs. Results: Four clusters were identified: Immunization Champions (61.1% of the sample) received influenza vaccine to prevent disease; Unworried Vaccinators (15.4%) received the influenza vaccine but did not believe influenza is a serious threat to themselves; Fence Sitters (8.1%) believed the vaccine is safe and worth the time and expense but is not effective; Skeptics (15.4%) did not believe the vaccine is safe or effective. Influenza vaccination coverage was 78.4% overall and higher among Immunization Champions (90.2%) and Unworried Vaccinators (87.0%) than Fence Sitters (61.6%) or Skeptics (32.2%). Conclusions: Findings suggest that based on KABs, the 3 clusters comprising 85% of HCP might be vaccinated in the future. Using messages specific to each group may improve vaccination coverage among HCP.

During August-October, 2018, an outbreak of severe respiratory illness was reported among poultry slaughter plant workers in Virginia and Georgia, USA. A multiorganizational team investigated the cause and extent of illness, determined that the illness was psittacosis, and evaluated and recommended controls for health hazards in the workplace to prevent additional cases.

During November 8–December 25, 2017, health care personnel at an 80-bed acute care facility in West Virginia reported dermatologic, respiratory, and ophthalmic symptoms to management or the occupational health clinic, prompting concern about a common exposure, possibly related to construction activities. Symptoms of affected staff members, who performed a range of clinical and nonclinical duties, often improved hours to days after leaving the hospital, suggesting potential exposure to an environmental irritant. Initially, hospital leadership encouraged symptomatic persons to seek evaluation at the occupational health clinic, although systematic evaluations were not implemented. No etiology was identified by environmental sampling for fibers, volatile organic compounds, or mold. In the absence of a clear etiology, hospital leadership stopped inpatient admissions, transferred inpatients from the two wards where most symptomatic staff members worked, and completed cleaning to include associated air-handling systems. Dermatology and allergy consultants evaluated symptomatic staff members, but because of varying clinical manifestations, results were inconclusive. On December 26, one of the closed wards reopened; during the ensuing week, six additional workers reported symptoms, and onsite CDC assistance was requested to identify an etiology. A CDC team arrived on January 8, 2018, and met with hospital and union leadership, reviewed occupational health records, observed occupational health encounters, performed unstructured individual interviews with both affected and unaffected health care personnel, assessed the physical environment, and reviewed environmental testing results. Despite these efforts, investigators were unable to identify an etiology, and the outbreak resolved without intervention.

Vaccinia virus (VACV) is an orthopoxvirus used in smallpox vaccines, as a vector for novel cancer treatments, and for experimental vaccine research (1). The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends smallpox vaccination for laboratory workers who handle replication-competent VACV (1). For bioterrorism preparedness, the U.S. government stockpiles tecovirimat, the first Food and Drug Administration-approved antiviral for treatment of smallpox (caused by variola virus and globally eradicated in 1980*(,dagger)) (2). Tecovirimat has activity against other orthopoxviruses and can be administered under a CDC investigational new drug protocol. CDC was notified about an unvaccinated laboratory worker with a needlestick exposure to VACV, who developed a lesion on her left index finger. CDC and partners performed laboratory confirmation, contacted the study sponsor to identify the VACV strain, and provided oversight for the first case of laboratory-acquired VACV treated with tecovirimat plus intravenous vaccinia immunoglobulin (VIGIV). This investigation highlights 1) the misconception among laboratory workers about the virulence of VACV strains; 2) the importance of providing laboratorians with pathogen information and postexposure procedures; and 3) that although tecovirimat can be used to treat VACV infections, its therapeutic benefit remains unclear.

Workers in specific settings and activities are at increased risk for certain infectious diseases. When an infectious disease case occurs in a worker, investigators need to understand the mechanisms of disease propagation in the workplace. Few publications have explored these factors in the United States; a literature search yielded 66 investigations of infectious disease occurring in US workplaces during 2006-2015. Reported cases appear to be concentrated in specific industries and occupations, especially the healthcare industry, laboratory workers, animal workers, and public service workers. A hierarchy-of-controls approach can help determine how to implement effective preventive measures in workplaces. Consideration of occupational risk factors and control of occupational exposures will help prevent disease transmission in the workplace and protect workers' health.

Recent increases in the rate of drug overdose-related deaths, the emergence of potent opioids such as carfentanil, and media reports of incidents have raised concerns about the potential for work-related exposure to a variety of illicit drugs among law enforcement officers (LEOs), other emergency responders, and other workers in the United States. To characterize the risk associated with unintentional occupational exposure to drugs, we retrospectively investigated two incidents that occurred in 2017 and 2018 where LEOs were exposed to opioid and stimulant drugs and experienced health effects. We interviewed five affected LEOs and others. We reviewed records, including emergency department documentation, incident reports, forensic laboratory results, and when available, body camera footage. Multiple drug types, including opioids and nonopioids, were present at each incident. Potential routes of exposure varied among LEOs and were difficult to characterize with certainty. Health effects were not consistent with severe, life-threatening opioid toxicity, but temporarily precluded affected LEOs from performing their essential job duties. While health risks from occupational exposure to drugs during law enforcement activities cannot currently be fully characterized with certainty, steps to prevent such exposures should be implemented now. The creation and implementation of appropriate controls plus education and training are both important to protecting first responders from these hazardous agents. To more fully characterize potential exposures, timely prospective toxicological evaluation of affected responders is recommended.