Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T13:40:49.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Strategies for the Management of Varicella-Susceptible Healthcare Workers After a Known Exposure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Adele Josephson*
Affiliation:
SUNY-Health Science Center at Brooklyn, Departments of Hospital Epidemiology, Preventive Medicine and Medicine, Brooklyn, New York
Lynne Karanfil
Affiliation:
SUNY-Health Science Center at Brooklyn, Departments of Hospital Epidemiology, Preventive Medicine and Medicine, Brooklyn, New York
Myles E. Gombert
Affiliation:
SUNY-Health Science Center at Brooklyn, Departments of Hospital Epidemiology, Preventive Medicine and Medicine, Brooklyn, New York
*
Epidemiology Department, SUNY-Health Science Center at Brooklyn, 450 Clarkson Avenue, Box 37, Brooklyn, NY 11203

Abstract

Three different sequentially applied post-varicella zoster virus (VZV) exposure management strategies were employed over a 43-month period. We began by using a standard post-exposure protocol in which 50 susceptible healthcare workers (HCW) involved in hospital exposures were furloughed from work at a loss to the hospital of 424 workdays and $46,000. Of the eight nosocomial cases of VZV infection in HCWs, four (50%) caused future HCW and patient exposure. In trial I, we substituted a post-exposure screening procedure for the standard work furlough procedure. We screened 77 exposed staff resulting in one nosocomial VZV infection that was the source of another exposure incident. No secondary cases of varicella resulted from this exposure and only 20 days of furlough time were used during trial I. As VZV resulting from a home exposure source was responsible for most hospital exposures in which HCWs were the source, our trial II protocol added the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) off-duty procedure, but limited its use to susceptibles exposed at home. The 43-month overall attack rate of nosocomial varicella was 4.7%, while the true home exposure attack rate was 79% (p < .00001). There was an average of 42.4 lost workdays charged to the hospital per incident under the standard protocol and three days per incident in the combined experience of trials I and II (p < .0001). Both trial protocol periods saved the hospital many potentially lost HCW days, 592 and 401, respectively, but the trial I protocol led to an observed increase in hospital exposure incidents. While the trial II protocol resulted in more lost workdays (120 of 521) than the trial I protocol, it prevented 18 additional HCW exposures. We conclude that the trial II protocol is safe and the most cost-effective of the three management strategies.

Type
Special Sections
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Josephson, A, Gombert, ME. Airborne transmission of nosocomial varicella from localized zoster. J Infect Dis. 1986;158:238241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Leclair, JM, Zaia, JA, Levin, MJ, Congdon, RG, Goldmann, DA. Airborne transmission of chickenpox in a hospital. N Engl J Med. 1980;302:450453.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Gustafson, TL, Lavely, GB, Brawner, ER, Hutcheson, RH, Wright, PF, Schaffner, W. An outbreak of airborne nosocomial varicella. Pediatrics. 1982;70:550556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Hyams, PJ, Stuewe, MC, Heitzer, V. Herpes zoster causing varicella (chickenpox) in hospital employees: cost of a casual attitude. Am J Infect Control. 1984;12:25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Krasinski, K, Holzman, RS, LaCouture, R, Florman, A. Hospital experience with varicella-zoster virus. Infect Control. 1986;7:312316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Weitekamp, MR, Schan, P, Aber, RC. An algorithm for the control of nosocomial varicella-zoster virus infection. Am J Infect Control. 1985;13:193198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Brawley, RL, Wenzel, RP. An algorithm for chickenpox exposure. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1984;3:502504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Sayre, MR, Lucid, EJ. Management of varicella-zoster virus—exposed hospital employees. Ann Emerg Med. 1987;16:421424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Alter, SJ, Hammond, JA, McVey, CJ, Myers, MG. Susceptibility to varicella-zoster among adults at high risk for exposure. Infect Control. 1986;7:448451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. SAS Users Guide: Statistics. 5th ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc; 1985.Google Scholar
11. Fleiss, JL. The Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments. New York, NY: Wiley; 1986.Google Scholar
12. Weber, DJ, Rutala, WA, Parham, C. Impact and costs of varicella prevention in a university hospital. Am J Pub Health. 1988;78:1923 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Stover, BH, Cost, KM. Hamm, C, Adams, G, Cook, LN. Varicella exposure in a neonatal intensive care unit: case report and control measures. Am J Infect Control. 1988;16:167172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Miller, PJ, Landry, S, Searcy, MA, Hunt, E, Wenzel, RP. Cost of varicella epidemic. Pediatrics. 1985;75:989990.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed