Table 3 Evidences of environmental and PPE contamination and adherence to IPC procedures for SARS-CoV-2-infection

Zhen-Dong et al., [31]

China

• floor (70)

• computer mouse (75)

• trash can (60);

• sickbed handrail (42.9)

• face shield or medical mask (0)

• sleeve cuff (16.7)

• gloves (25)

• shoe sole (50)

• patients mask (40)

Ye et al., [33]

China

• self-service printer (patient only) (20)

• table top/keyboard (16.8)

• doorknob (16)

• telephone (12.5)

• medical equipment (not PPE) (12.5)

• wall/floor (5.6)

• hand sanitizer dispenser (20.3)

• gloves (15.4)

• eye protection or facial shield (1.7)

Ong et al., [33]

Singapore

• One day HW’s PPE sampling (0)

Ran et al., [34]

China

• Suboptimal hand washing before (RR: 3.10, 95% CI: 1.43–6.73) or after (RR: 2.82, 95% CI: 1.11–7.18) patient contact

• Improper PPE use (RR: 2.82, 95% CI: 1.11–7.18)

• Work in a high risk versus general department (RR: 2.13,95% CI: 1.45–3.95)

• Longer work hours (log-rank P = 0.02)

Liu et al., [35]

China

• Close direct contact (within 1 m) with COVID-19 patients

• Average number of 12 contacts (range: 7–16)

• Average cumulative contact time of two hours (range: 1.5–2.7)

Bartoszko et al., [37]

–

• No differences in rate of infection between medical mask and N95 respirators

Ng et al., [38]

Singapore

• No differences in rate of infection between surgical mask and N95 respirators

Jin et al., [39]

China

• 84.5% of HWs thought they were infected in working environment hospital^a

• 41.8% of HWs reported that their infection was related to not maintaining protective equipment and not utilizing common equipment (masks and gloves) ^a

• 4.9% of HWs thought they were infected in daily life or community environment^a

• 1% of HWs thought that their infection was due to the laboratory environments^a