Understanding characteristics of healthcare personnel (HCP) with SARS-CoV-2 infection supports the development and prioritization of interventions to protect this important workforce. We report detailed characteristics of HCP who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from April 20, 2020 through December 31, 2021.

CDC collaborated with Emerging Infections Program sites in 10 states to interview HCP with SARS-CoV-2 infection (case-HCP) about their demographics, underlying medical conditions, healthcare roles, exposures, personal protective equipment (PPE) use, and COVID-19 vaccination status. We grouped case-HCP by healthcare role. To describe residential social vulnerability, we merged geocoded HCP residential addresses with CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) values at the census tract level. We defined highest and lowest SVI quartiles as high and low social vulnerability, respectively.

Our analysis included 7,531 case-HCP. Most case-HCP with roles as certified nursing assistant (CNA) (444, 61.3%), medical assistant (252, 65.3%), or home healthcare worker (HHW) (225, 59.5%) reported their race and ethnicity as either non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic. More than one third of HHWs (166, 45.2%), CNAs (283, 41.7%), and medical assistants (138, 37.9%) reported a residential address in the high social vulnerability category. The proportion of case-HCP who reported using recommended PPE at all times when caring for patients with COVID-19 was lowest among HHWs compared with other roles.

To mitigate SARS-CoV-2 infection risk in healthcare settings, infection prevention, and control interventions should be specific to HCP roles and educational backgrounds. Additional interventions are needed to address high social vulnerability among HHWs, CNAs, and medical assistants.

This study was performed to assess whether an intervention for critically appraising influenza vaccine exemption requests from healthcare personnel (HCP) affected (1) the overall rate of influenza vaccine exemption within a healthcare institution and/or (2) the rates of postintervention vaccine acceptance among those who inconsistently request exemption from annual vaccination and those who consistently request exemption from vaccination.

Retrospective, before-and-after intervention study.

We conducted the study at a single academic medical center.

This study included 29,663 HCP.

Between 2010 and 2019, HCP were permitted to request an exemption from influenza vaccination without critical appraisal of exemption requests. After January 2019, medical center policy required critical appraisal of exemption requests. Of those employed 3 or more years who requested an exemption at least once during the preintervention period (n = 1,177), those with unchanging exemption reasons annually were termed “consistent exempters.” Those who changed reasons or accepted vaccination n ≥ 1 times were termed “inconsistent exempters.”

The overall exemption rate from influenza vaccine decreased from 3.8% to 1.2% (P < .001; N = 29,663) after the intervention. Of those requesting exemption at least once before the intervention, 329 (28.0%) of 1,177 were consistent exempters and 878 (72.0%) were inconsistent exempters. Of inconsistent exempters employed after the intervention, 442 (88.9%) of 497 accepted vaccine postintervention compared with 118 (59.6%) of 198 consistent exempters (P < .001). Of all exempters who changed from exemption to acceptance after the intervention, 442 (78.9%) of 560 were inconsistent exempters.

Critical appraisal of HCP exemption requests promotes influenza vaccine acceptance, and acceptance by inconsistent exempters drives the effect of the intervention. Analysis of changes in annual exemption requests represents a novel objective method for describing those on the spectrum of vaccine hesitancy.

Patients living in rural areas often need to travel long distances for access to specialist care. To increase access to specialist care, video consultation between patients in primary healthcare and specialist care has been used. In order for this new method to be developed and used to the fullest, it is important to understand healthcare personnel’s experiences with this intervention.

The aim of this study was to describe healthcare personnel’s experiences using video consultation in their work in primary healthcare.

A mixed methods design was used, and the data were analysed using qualitative and quantitative analysis methods. Interviews were conducted with eight general practitioners and one district nurse, all of whom had conducted a video consultation with a patient and a specialist physician or a cardiac specialist nurse. After each video consultation, the participants completed a consultation report/questionnaire.

Healthcare personnel considered video consultation to provide quicker access to specialist care for the patient, and greater security when the video consultation encounter was conducted at their own primary healthcare centre. They considered video consultation an opportunity to provide education and for the patients to ask questions.

Video consultation is a satisfactory tool for healthcare personnel, and the technology is a new, useful method, especially for the district nurses. Further, video consultation is an opportunity for healthcare personnel to learn. However, for it to work as an accepted method, the technology must function well and be user friendly. It must also be clear that it is beneficial for the patients and the healthcare personnel.

Understanding and assessing health care personnel's work culture in palliative care is important, as a conflict between “high tech” and “high touch” is present. Implementing necessary changes in behavior and procedures may imply a profound challenge, because of this conflict. The aim of this study was to explore the work culture at a palliative medicine unit (PMU).

Healthcare personnel (N = 26) at a PMU in Norway comprising physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, and others filled in a questionnaire about their perception of the work culture at the unit. The Systematizing Person-Group Relations (SPGR) method was used for gathering data and for the analyses. This method applies six different dimensions representing different aspects of a work culture (Synergy, Withdrawal, Opposition, Dependence, Control, and Nurture) and each dimension has two vectors applied. The method seeks to explore which aspects dominate the particular work culture, identifying challenges, limitations, and opportunities. The findings were compared with a reference group of 347 ratings of well-functioning Norwegian organizations, named the “Norwegian Norm.”

The healthcare personnel working at the PMU had significantly higher scores than the “Norwegian Norm” in both vectors in the “Withdrawal” dimension and significant lower scores in both vectors in the “Synergy,” “Control,” and “Dependence” dimensions.

Healthcare personnel at the PMU have a significantly different perception of their work culture than do staff in “well-functioning organizations” in several dimensions. The low score in the “Synergy” and “Control” dimensions indicate lack of engagement and constructive goal orientation behavior, and not being in a position to change their behavior. The conflict between “high tech” and “high touch” at a PMU seems to be an obstacle when implementing new procedures and alternative courses of action.

In order to prepare the healthcare system and healthcare personnel to meet the health needs of populations affected by disasters, educational programs have been developed by numerous academic institutions, hospitals, professional organizations, governments, and non-government organizations. Lacking standards for best practices as a foundation, many organizations and institutions have developed “core competencies” that they consider essential knowledge and skills for disaster healthcare personnel.

The Nursing Section of the World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine (WADEM) considered the possibility of endorsing an existing set of competencies that could be used to prepare nurses universally to participate in disaster health activities. This study was undertaken for the purpose of reviewing published disaster health competencies to determine commonalities and universal applicability for disaster preparedness.

In 2007, a review of the electronic literature databases was conducted using the major keywords: disaster response competencies; disaster preparedness competencies; emergency response competencies; disaster planning competencies; emergency planning competencies; public health emergency preparedness competencies; disaster nursing competencies; and disaster nursing education competencies. A manual search of references and selected literature from public and private sources also was conducted. Inclusion criteria included: English language; competencies listed or specifically referred to; competencies relevant to disaster, mass-casualty incident (MCI), or public health emergency; and competencies relevant to healthcare.

Eighty-six articles were identified; 20 articles failed to meet the initial inclusion criteria; 27 articles did not meet the additional criteria, leaving 39 articles for analysis. Twenty-eight articles described competencies targeted to a specific profession/discipline, while 10 articles described competencies targeted to a defined role or function during a disaster. Four of the articles described specific competencies according to skill level, rather than to a specific role or function. One article defined competencies according to specific roles as well as proficiency levels. Two articles categorized disaster nursing competencies according to the phases of the disaster management continuum. Fourteen articles described specified competencies as “core” competencies for various target groups, while one article described “cross-cutting” competencies applicable to all healthcare workers.

Hundreds of competencies for disaster healthcare personnel have been developed and endorsed by governmental and professional organizations and societies. Imprecise and inconsistent terminology and structure are evident throughout the reviewed competency sets. Universal acceptance and application of these competencies are lacking and none have been validated. Further efforts must be directed to developing a framework and standardized terminology for the articulation of competency sets for disaster health professionals that can by accepted and adapted universally.