Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison of the contact risk and personal infection-prevention measures between the groups stayed on emergency department (ED) and general ward (GW)

From: Risk of transmission via medical employees and importance of routine infection-prevention policy in a nosocomial outbreak of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS): a descriptive analysis from a tertiary care hospital in South Korea

 

ED (n = 228)

GW (n = 218)

p-value

MERS identified

1 (0.4)

3 (1.4)

0.362

Baseline

 Sex, male

108 (47.4)

101 (46.3)

0.850

 Age

42 ± 20

57 ± 21

<  0.001

 Immuno-compromise

7 (3.1)

18 (8.3)

0.022

Contact identified

 Touch of patient

14 (6.4)

4 (1.8)

0.028

 Touch of bed or equipment

16 (7.0)

6 (2.8)

0.048

Locational risk

 High (within 2 m)

33 (14.5)

6 (2.8)

<  0.001

 Intermediate (same room)

27 (11.8)

2 (0.9)

<  0.001

 Low (same department)

168 (73.7)

210 (96.3)

<  0.001

Median time of stay

2 (1,5)

1 (1,1)

<  0.001

Jobs

  

<  0.001

 Patients

68 (29.8)

109 (50.0)

 

 Doctor/Nurse

37 (16.2)

8 (3.7)

 

 Other HCP

17 (7.5)

1 (0.5)

 

 Visitors at same room

21 (9.2)

1 (0.5)

 

 Visitors at different room

85 (46.2)

99 (45.4)

 

Personal protection equipment

 Protection of eye, nose and mouse

  Face shield or Goggle

0

0

  Surgical Mask

212 (93.0)

4 (1.8)

<  0.001

  Particulate respirator (N95)

2 ()

0

 Gloves

  Surgical Glove

3 (1.3)

1 (0.5)

0.624

 Gown/Coverall

  Disposable gowning

0

0

  Disposable coverall

0

0

 Foot wear

  Waterproof boots

0

0

 Head protection

  Head cover

0

0

Hand hygiene

 Hand washing

228 (100%)a

218 (100%)a

 Hand-rubbing observed in CCTV

218 (95.6)

Not checkable

Post-identification measure

 Isolated

228 (100%)

8 (3.7%)

 

 Non-isolated and active surveillance

 

210 (96.3%)

 
  1. MERS Middle East respiratory syndrome, CCTV the closed-circuit television
  2. a All recalled that they washed their hands, but the time and place were unclear