Table 3.
Comparing Employees Who Tested Positive for SARS-CoV-2 Against Other Employees Involved in all Significant Exposures
| Variable | Significant Exposure and Tested Negative for SARS-CoV-2 (n=337), No. (%)a | Significant Exposure and Tested Positive for SARS-CoV-2 (n=8), No. (%)a |
P Valueb |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, mean y (SD) | 34 (11.1) | 37.6 (14.9) | .38 |
| Sex, female | 262 (77.7) | 8 (100%) | .21 |
| Role | |||
| Registered nurse | 197 (58.5) | 6 (75) | .48 |
| Provider (physician, advanced practice provider) | 54 (16) | 1 (12.5) | 1 |
| Patient care assistant | 20 (5.9) | … | 1 |
| Housekeeper | 7 (2.1) | 1 (12.5) | .17 |
| Other | 22 (6.5) | … | 1 |
| Exposure occurring in COVID-19 designated care unit | 114 (33.8) | 2 (25) | .72 |
| Reason for significant exposure | |||
| Only lacking eye protectionc | 121/325 (37.2) | 5/6 (83.3) | .04 |
| Any lack of eye protectiond | 133/337(39.5) | 7/8 (87.5) | .009 |
| Other reason for exposure | 11/337 (3.3) | … |
Note. HCP, healthcare personnel; AGP, aerosol-generating procedure.
a
Values shown are no. (%) unless otherwise stated.
b
The Student t test was used for continuous variables. The Fisher exact test was used for categorical variables.
c
HCP who lacked both eye protection and a respirator during an AGP were excluded from this comparison.
d
Includes HCP thatwho only lacked eye protection, and those who lacked both eye protection and a respirator during an AGP.