COVID-19 among Nursing Staff: Settings and Regional Differences

  1. Manuela Hoedl
  2. Doris Eglseer
  3. Silvia Bauer

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

<b><i>Background/Aims:</i></b> So far detailed insights into the nursing staff’s COVID-19 symptoms, testing, and results are missing. Therefore, this study aimed to describe the setting and regional differences in the occurrence of COVID-19 among nursing staff, analysing symptoms, testing, and their respective results. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We used an online survey to conduct this cross-sectional study among Austrian nursing staff in different settings between May 12 and July 13, 2020. This article follows the STROBE statement. The survey includes demographic data, including age, professional qualification, e.g., nurse, nurse aid, and in which federal state and setting the participants work. In addition, we asked for COVID-19 symptoms and (result of the) testing. We used descriptive statistics as well as bivariate analysis to calculate the differences. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Nearly every sixth nurse reported experiencing COVID-19 symptoms. We found statistically significant differences between the settings and the federal provinces for the reported COVID-19 symptoms, but not the test results. In total, 1.6% of the participating nurses were tested for COVID-19, of which all were positive for COVID-19. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> In the future during a pandemic, health care staff should be comprehensively tested in all settings. Our results showed that shifting the perspectives from critical/acute settings to other settings, such as nursing homes, is needed.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1159/000520475
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.14.20174797: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: All participants then had to sign a written informed consent for, in compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation of the European Union, in order to participate and continue to the questionnaire.
    IACUC: An ethical approval was granted by the responsible ethical committee.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations: Every study has strengths and limitations. The first limitation of our study is that our sample is not representative for the Austrian health care setting. As an example, according to data collected in 2017 (Federal Ministry of Labor, 2019), 53% percent of all nurses were employed at hospitals, 33% in nursing homes and 14% in home care settings. In our study, nearly three-quarters of the nurses who participated worked in a hospital setting, only 17% worked in nursing homes and 2.7% worked in the home care setting. Another limitation of this study might be that we asked the nurses retrospectively regarding their experiences with COVID-19. The COVID-19 pandemic began in Austria at the beginning of March, with a lockdown order issued on 16 March 2020. When we started the survey (May 12), shopping centers, shops, restaurants, cafes, bars and nursing homes had already opened again. This retrospective view might have introduced a bias. However, most of the participants completed the questionnaire within the first two weeks after the online platform was opened.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.08.14.20174797v1 on medRxiv