Cited by 110Infection Control and VentilationInfection Control in HealthcareNosocomial Infections in ICU

Intubation of SARS patients: infection and perspectives of healthcare workers

Open access
Caputo, Karen M., Byrick, Robert, Chapman, Martin G., Orser, Barbara J., Orser, Beverley A.·2006·Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie

Abstract

Purpose The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 presented major challenges to the safety of anesthesiologists and other healthcare workers (HCWs). This study determined the incidence of SARS transmission to HCWs who intubated patients and analyzed the concerns of HCWs regarding personal and patient safety. Methods Healthcare workers who performed tracheal intubation in 10 Toronto hospitals were identified using the Ontario Public Health database. A questionnaire was used to collect information from the HCWs. To determine if the patterns of personal protection or concerns changed over time, data were analyzed according to whether the intubation occurred during SARS 1 (February 23 to April 21) or SARS 2 (April 22 to July 1). Results Thirty-three HCWs who performed 39 intubations on 35 SARS patients were interviewed. Three of 23 HCWs (13%) acquired SARS during SARS 1 whereas none (0/10) acquired SARS during SARS 2. Personal protection increased from SARS 1 to SARS 2 and HCWs' concerns changed over time. During SARS 1, concerns focused on the need for personal protective equipment whereas during SARS 2, concerns focused on the need for strict training and patient care protocols. HCWs perceived that their experiences were ineffectively integrated into risk management protocols. Conclusions Protection guidelines failed to completely prevent the transmission of SARS to HCWs. Nine percent of the interviewed HCWs who intubated patients contracted SARS. A Risk Analysis Framework is presented to facilitate the rapid integration of HCWs' experiences into practice guidelines.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf03021815

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Supportive evidence for the interaction between mask type and protection was seen in within-study comparisons, including that N95 had a stronger protective association compared with surgical masks or 12-16-layer cotton masks, and that both N95 and surgical masks had a stronger association with protection versus single-layer masks.

    “Supportive evidence for this interaction was also seen in within-study comparisons (eg, N95 had a stronger protective association compared with surgical masks or 12–16-layer cotton masks); both N95 and surgical masks also had a stronger association with protection versus single-layer masks.”
  • In 13 unadjusted studies and two adjusted studies, eye protection was associated with lower risk of infection (unadjusted n=3713, RR 0·34, 95% CI 0·22 to 0·52; AR 5·5% with eye protection vs 16·0% with no eye protection, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; adjusted n=701, aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39; low certainty).

    “In 13 unadjusted studies and two adjusted studies,34, 37, 38, 39, 47, 49, 51, 54, 58, 60, 61, 65, 75 eye protection was associated with lower risk of infection (unadjusted n=3713, RR 0·34, 95% CI 0·22 to 0·52; AR 5·5% with eye protection vs 16·0% with no eye protection, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; adjusted n=701, aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39; low certainty; figure 6; table 2; appendix pp 16–”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Caputo, K. M., Byrick, R., Chapman, M. G., Orser, B. J., & Orser, B. A.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Venue
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie
Published
2006-02
Volume
53
Issue
2
Pages
122-129
ISSN
  • 0832-610X (ISSN-L)
  • 1496-8975
OpenAlex
W159957110
Cited by
110
References
15
Citations by year
2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 56 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.06
Type
journal article
Language
fr
Open access
Locations
  • Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d anesthésie (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Infection Control and Ventilation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Nosocomial Infections in ICU
Keywords
SARS, healthcare worker infection, endotracheal intubation, occupational exposure, personal protective equipment, infection control, risk management, risk analysis framework, patient safety, 2003 SARS outbreak
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Disease Outbreaks, Humans, Intubation, Intratracheal, Middle Aged, Ontario, Protective Devices, Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review