Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (18)
- Conference Proceeding (5)
Has Fulltext
- yes (23)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (23)
Keywords
- COVID-19 (3)
- Healthcare personnel (2)
- Healthcare worker (2)
- SARS-CoV-2 (2)
- Vaccine uptake rate (2)
- healthcare worker (2)
- pertussis (2)
- pregnancy (2)
- vaccination rates (2)
- Arbeitsbedingt erworbene Infektion (1)
Institute
Recently, pertussis has become a problem also in the adult population, with incidences even higher than in children. Pediatric health care workers (HCWs) are an important source of transmission, exposing very young and immunocompromised patients to an increased risk of potentially severe pertussis infections. Encouraging HCWs to get vaccinated can play a vital role in stopping the transmission of pertussis, thereby reducing institutional outbreaks.
In Germany, HCWs come up with all sorts of reasons for not getting pertussis vaccination. This study was meant to provide information in order to better understand the backgrounds of these attitudes.
A survey was conducted at the children's university hospital in Frankfurt, using an anonymous questionnaire. Survey results were used to design an intervention to increase the immunization rate of staff. Disappointingly, our efforts to increase the acceptance of the immunization program by providing information in advance were not yet satisfying.
Misconception about pertussis vaccination was prevalent especially among nursing staff. The main reasons for non-compliance included: unawareness of an own risk of infection, the belief that pertussis is not a serious illness, fear of side effects, the belief that the pertussis vaccine might trigger the pertussis disease itself, and skepticism about the efficacy of the pertussis vaccination.
ecently, pertussis has become a problem also in the adult population, with incidences even higher than in children. Pediatric health care workers (HCWs) are an important source of transmission, exposing very young and immunocompromised patients to an increased risk of potentially severe pertussis infections. Encouraging HCWs to get vaccinated can play a vital role in stopping the transmission of pertussis, thereby reducing institutional outbreaks.
In Germany, HCWs come up with all sorts of reasons for not getting pertussis vaccination. This study was meant to provide information in order to better understand the backgrounds of these attitudes.
A survey was conducted at the children's university hospital in Frankfurt, using an anonymous questionnaire. Survey results were used to design an intervention to increase the immunization rate of staff. Disappointingly, our efforts to increase the acceptance of the immunization program by providing information in advance were not yet satisfying.
Misconception about pertussis vaccination was prevalent especially among nursing staff. The main reasons for non-compliance included: unawareness of an own risk of infection, the belief that pertussis is not a serious illness, fear of side effects, the belief that the pertussis vaccine might trigger the pertussis disease itself, and skepticism about the efficacy of the pertussis vaccination.
Influenza A (H1N1) 2009 : impact on Frankfurt in due consideration of health care and public health
(2010)
Background: In April 2009 a novel influenza A H1N1/2009 virus was identified in Mexico and in the United States which quickly spread around the world. Most of the countries established infection surveillance systems in order to track the number of (laboratory-confirmed) H1N1 cases, hospitalizations and deaths. Methods: The impact of the emergence of the novel pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus on Frankfurt was statistically evaluated by the Health Protection Authority, City of Frankfurt am Main. Vaccination rates of the health care workers (HCWs) of the University Hospital Frankfurt were measured by the Occupational Health Service. Results: Although the virulence of pandemic (H1N1) 2009 seems to be comparable with seasonal influenza, a major patient load and wave of hospital admissions occurred in the summer of 2009. Even though the 2009 vaccination rate of the University Hospital Frankfurt (seasonal influenza [40.5%], swine flu [36.3%]) is better than the average annual uptake of influenza vaccine in the German health care system (approximately 22% for seasonal and 15% for swine flu), vaccination levels remain insufficient. However, physicians were significantly (p < 0.001) more likely to have been vaccinated against swine flu and seasonal influenza than nurses. Conclusions: The outbreak of the pandemic (H1N1) 2009 in April 2009 provided a major challenge to health services around the world. Nosocomial transmission of H1N1/2009 has been documented. Present experience should be used to improve pandemic preparedness plans and vaccination programs ought to target as many HCWs as possible.
Nosocomial infectious diseases (e.g. influenza, pertussis) are a threat particularly for immunocompromised and vulnerable patients. Although vaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs) constitutes the most convenient and effective means to prevent nosocomial transmissions, vaccine uptake among HCWs remains unacceptably low. Worldwide, numerous studies have demonstrated that nurses have lower vaccination rates than physicians and that there is a relationship between receipt of vaccination by HCWs and knowledge. Measures to improve vaccination rates need to be profession-sensitive as well as specific in their approach in order to achieve sustained success.
With respect to nosocomial influenza infections, the welfare of patients is best served by high rates of staff immunity against influenza. However, data from the Centers of Disease Control (CDC) in the USA and the Robert Koch-Institute (RKI) in Germany indicate that most of health care workers (HCWs) choose not to be vaccinated. Under voluntary influenza immunization standards, institutional influenza outbreaks occur every flu season. The question about the legality of implementation mandatory flu vaccination for HCWs is an ongoing debate, which covers several different positions.
To characterize the attitudes of German HCWs toward mandatory influenza immunization, an anonymous questionnaire was offered to HCWs of the University Hospital in Frankfurt/Main / Germany. Our study showed that almost 70% of the respondents would accept mandatory influenza vaccination.
In our opinion an annual influenza vaccination should be required for HCWs who care for immunocompromised patients and residents in long-term care if there will be a failure of voluntary vaccination programs. An informed declination should be obtained from employees who decline vaccination and these HCWs ought to work in uncritical areas of patient care.
Background Medical students come into contact with infectious diseases early on their career. Immunity against vaccine-preventable diseases is therefore vital for both medical students and the patients with whom they come into contact. Methods The purpose of this study was to compare the medical history and serological status of selected vaccine-preventable diseases of medical students in Germany. Results The overall correlation between medical history statements and serological findings among the 150 students studied was 86.7 %, 66.7 %, 78 % and 93.3 % for measles, mumps, rubella and varicella, conditional on sufficient immunity being achieved after one vaccination. Conclusions Although 81.2 % of the students medical history data correlated with serological findings, significant gaps in immunity were found. Our findings indicate that medical history alone is not a reliable screening tool for immunity against the vaccine-preventable diseases studied.
Health-care personnel (HCP) are exposed to infectious diseases throughout the course of their work. The concerns of pregnant HCP are considerable because certain otherwise mild infections may affect fetal development. We studied 424 pregnant HCP at the University Hospital Frankfurt / Germany between March 2007 and July 2011. Serological tests were carried out for varicella zoster virus (VZV), measles, mumps, rubella (MMR), cytomegalovirus (CMV) and parvovirus B19. Our overall seroprevalence data with regard to VZV, MMR, CMV and parvovirus B 19 corresponded to the general population. It was striking that, only 57.1% of the study population was immune against the four vaccine-preventable diseases (MMR, VZV). Our study suggests that a comprehensive approach to improving the vaccination status of said HCP before pregnancy is paramount.
hintergrund: Männer in Deutschland sterben früher als Frauen und nehmen weniger häufig Krebsvorsorgeuntersuchungen wahr.
Fragestellung: Ziel war die prospektive Evaluation einer „Movember-Gesundheitsinitiative“ am Universitätsklinikum Frankfurt (UKF) im November 2019.
Methoden: Im Rahmen der „Movember-Gesundheitsinitiative“ wurde allen männlichen Mitarbeitern des UKF ab dem 45. Lebensjahr und bei erstgradiger familiärer Vorbelastung eines Prostatakarzinoms ab dem 40. Lebensjahr im November 2019 gemäß S3-Leitlinien der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Urologie (DGU) eine Prostatakarzinom-Vorsorgeuntersuchung angeboten.
Ergebnisse: Insgesamt nahmen 14,4 % der Mitarbeiter teil. Eine familiäre Vorbelastung gaben insgesamt 14,0 % Teilnehmer an. Das mediane Alter betrug 54 Jahre. Der mediane PSA(prostataspezifisches Antigen)-Wert lag bei 0,9 ng/ml, der mediane PSA-Quotient bei 30 %. Bei 5 % (n = 6) zeigte sich ein suspekter Tastbefund in der DRU (digital-rektale Untersuchung). Nach Altersstratifizierung (≤ 50 vs. > 50 Lebensjahre) zeigten sich signifikante Unterschiede im medianen PSA-Wert (0,7 ng/ml vs. 1,0 ng/ml, p < 0,01) und der bereits zuvor durchgeführten urologischen Vorsorge (12,1 vs. 42,0 %, p < 0,01). Vier Teilnehmer (3,3 %) zeigten erhöhte Gesamt-PSA-Werte. Bei 32,2 % der Teilnehmer zeigte sich mindestens ein kontrollbedürftiger Befund. Insgesamt wurden 6 Prostatabiopsien durchgeführt. Hierbei zeigte sich in einem Fall ein intermediate-risk Prostatakarzinom (Gleason 3 + 4, pT3a, pPn1, pNx, R0).
Schlussfolgerungung: Im Rahmen der UKF-Movember-Gesundheitsinitiative 2019 konnten durch ein Vorsorgeangebot 121 Männer für eine Prostatakrebs-Vorsorge inklusive PSA-Testung gewonnen werden. Auffällige/kontrollbedürftige Befunde zeigten sich bei 32,2 %. Bei einem Mitarbeiter wurde ein therapiebedürftiges Prostatakarzinom entdeckt und therapiert.
Background: Due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, interventions in the upper airways are considered high-risk procedures for otolaryngologists and their colleagues. The purpose of this study was to evaluate limitations in hearing and communication when using a powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) system to protect against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission and to assess the benefit of a headset. Methods: Acoustic properties of the PAPR system were measured using a head and torso simulator. Audiological tests (tone audiometry, Freiburg speech test, Oldenburg sentence test (OLSA)) were performed in normal-hearing subjects (n = 10) to assess hearing with PAPR. The audiological test setup also included simulation of conditions in which the target speaker used either a PAPR, a filtering face piece (FFP) 3 respirator, or a surgical face mask. Results: Audiological measurements revealed that sound insulation by the PAPR headtop and noise, generated by the blower-assisted respiratory protection system, resulted in significantly deteriorated hearing thresholds (4.0 ± 7.2 dB hearing level (HL) vs. 49.2 ± 11.0
Purpose: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replicates predominantly in the upper respiratory tract and is primarily transmitted by droplets and aerosols. Taking the medical history for typical COVID-19 symptoms and PCR-based SARS-CoV-2 testing have become established as screening procedures. The aim of this work was to describe the clinical appearance of SARS-CoV-2-PCR positive patients and to determine the SARS-CoV-2 contact risk for health care workers (HCW).
Methods: The retrospective study included n = 2283 SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests from n = 1725 patients with otorhinolaryngological (ORL) diseases performed from March to November 2020 prior to inpatient treatment. In addition, demographic data and medical history were assessed.
Results: n = 13 PCR tests (0.6%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The positive rate showed a significant increase during the observation period (p < 0.01). None of the patients had clinical symptoms that led to a suspected diagnosis of COVID-19 before PCR testing. The patients were either asymptomatic (n = 4) or had symptoms that were interpreted as symptoms typical of the ORL disease or secondary diagnoses (n = 9).
Conclusion: The identification of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients is a considerable challenge in clinical practice. Our findings illustrate that taking a medical history alone is of limited value and cannot replace molecular SARS-CoV-2 testing, especially for patients with ORL diseases. Our data also demonstrate that there is a high probability of contact with SARS-CoV-2-positive patients in everyday clinical practice, so that the use of personal protective equipment, even in apparently “routine cases”, is highly recommended.