Hebdomadal rhythms of the heart
Authors: C. Martyn
Journal: BMJ (2000)

<h3>Abstract</h3> <h3>Objective</h3> To quantify occupational risks of Covid-19 among healthcare staff during the first wave of the pandemic in England <h3>Methods</h3> Using pseudonymised data on 902,813 individuals continuously employed by 191 National Health Service trusts during 1.1.19 to 31.7.20, we explored demographic and occupational risk factors for sickness absence ascribed to Covid-19 during 9.3.20 to 31.7.20 (n = 92,880). We estimated odds ratios (ORs) by multivariate logistic regression. <h3>Results</h3> With adjustment for employing trust, demographic characteristics, and previous frequency of sickness absence, risk relative to administrative/clerical occupations was highest in additional clinical services (a group that included care assistants) (OR 2.31), registered nursing and midwifery professionals (OR 2.28) and allied health professionals (OR 1.94), and intermediate in doctors and dentists (OR 1.55). Differences in risk were higher after the employing trust had started to care for documented Covid-19 patients, and were reduced, but not eliminated, following additional adjustment for exposure to infected patients or materials, assessed by a job-exposure matrix. For prolonged Covid-19 sickness absence (episodes lasting &gt;14 days), the variation in risk by staff group was somewhat greater. <h3>Conclusions</h3> After allowance for possible bias and confounding by non-occupational exposures, we estimated that relative risks for Covid-19 among most patient-facing occupations were between 1.5 and 2.5. The highest risks were in those working in additional clinical services, nursing and midwifery and in allied health professions. Better protective measures for these staff groups should be a priority. Covid-19 may meet criteria for compensation as an occupational disease in some healthcare occupations. <h3>Key messages</h3> What is already known about this subject?<i>Healthcare workers and other keyworkers (workers whose job was considered essential to societal functioning) had a higher likelihood of testing positive for COVID-19 than other workers during the first lockdown in England. Amongst healthcare workers, those working in inpatient settings had the highest rate of infection</i>. What are the new findings?<i>Between March and July 2000, the overall risk of COVID-19 sickness absence in National Health Service staff in England was lower at older ages, higher in non-white staff, and (in comparison with administrative and clerical staff) more than doubled in registered nurses and among workers such as healthcare assistants providing support to health professionals. Risk in health care scientists was little different from that in administrative and clerical occupations</i> How might this impact on policy or clinical practice in the foreseeable future?<i>Our results suggest that the risk reduction strategies that were in place for healthcare scientists were effective. However, the protection for nursing and supporting health professionals was insufficient. In the event of a further ‘wave’ of infections resulting in high hospital admissions, attention should be paid to ensuring that risk reduction strategies for nurses and supporting health professionals are improved</i>.