Abbreviations:
IRC (Italian Resuscitation Council), FFP2 (Filtering Face Piece 2)The 2021 annual congress of the Italian Resuscitation Council (IRC) took place in person in Rimini, Northern Italy, between December 16th and 18th. Rigorous measures were adopted to grant the safety of participants, including a mandatory EU Digital COVID Certificate, wearing surgical or FFP2 masks, temperature measurement, hand cleaning and social distancing. However, the attendance of asymptomatics who may transmit the virus and trigger outbreaks was possible despite preventive measures. Therefore, to assess the safety of organising face-to-face congresses during the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted an online survey among participants registered to the congress.
After the congress, 686 registered people received an email on December 23rd to fill out the first survey exploring social behaviours and perceived safety related to the congress. On December 30rd, a second survey was sent to assess the infective status (symptoms compatible with COVID-19 or COVID-19 test results, if performed, during the three weeks following the congress).
We received 414 (60%) responses to the first survey and 653 (95%) to the second one. Most of the respondents (64%) reached the congress venue by car or car-sharing (21.3%). Half of the respondents (50%) declared to have participated in the social events of the congress (lunch, expo area and dinners with other attendees). Of those who did not participate in social events, only a quarter motivated their behaviour with concerns about COVID-19 exposure. Finally, when the participants were asked to score on a 10 points Likert scale their perceived safety of various congress-related contexts, scientific sessions and travels were considered the safest while the lunch and coffee break areas were perceived as the less safe. Concerning the infective status survey, 99.5% of participants declared to be vaccinated with at least one dose at the beginning of the congress. Within three weeks from the congress, 11 participants (1.7%) had symptoms compatible with COVID-19 and 373 (57.1%) tested for COVID-19 of which six (1.6%) were reported positive. Only 16 respondents (3.9%) declared they would have preferred a virtual congress (Table 1).
Table 1Distribution of responses to the survey.
| Perceived congress safety survey (n = 414) | Post congress COVID-19 status survey (n = 653) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transports to the congress, n (%) | Vaccinated for COVID-19 at the time of congress, n (%) | ||
| Car | 266 (64.3%) | ||
| Shared car | 88 (21.3%) | No | 3 (0.5%) |
| Train | 64 (15.5%) | Yes − 1 dose | 5 (0.9%) |
| Plane | 12 (2.9%) | Yes − 2 doses | 50 (7.7%) |
| Other | 13 (3.1%) | Yes − 3 doses | 595 (90.9%) |
| Role – n (%) | Symptoms suggestive for COVID-19 within 3 weeks, n (%) | 11 (1.7%) | |
| Exhibitor | 5 (1.2%) | Tested for COVID-19 within 3 weeks, n (%) | |
| Participant | 353 (85.3%) | No | 280 (42.9%) |
| Volunteer | 19 (4.6%) | Yes – antigenic | 173 (26.5%) |
| Faculty | 26 (6.3%) | Yes – Molecular | 200 (30.6%) |
| Staff | 11 (2.7%) | COVID-19 testing results (n = 373), n (%) | |
| Occupation, n (%) | Positive | 5 (1.3%) | |
| Physician | 81 (20%) | Low positive | 1 (0.3%) |
| Nurse | 221 (53%) | Negative | 367 (98.4%) |
| Rescuer | 68 (16%) | ||
| Other | 44 (11%) | ||
| Participation to social events during the congress, n (%) | |||
| Yes | 191 (50.4%) | ||
| No – concerns related to COVID-19 | 42 (10.1%) | ||
| No – other motivations | 164 (39.6%) | ||
| Perceived safety – median (IQR) | |||
| Scientific sessions | 8 (8–10) | ||
| Expo area | 8 (7–9) | ||
| Coffee Break | 6 (5–8) | ||
| Launch area | 6 (4–8) | ||
| Travels towards and from the Congress | 10 (8–10) | ||
| Global satisfaction for safety measures | 9 (8–10) | ||
| Would have preferred a virtual congress, n (%) | 16 (3.9%) | ||
We found that SARS-CoV-2 transmission was extremely low during a face-to-face medical congress with almost all participants vaccinated and high standards of safety measures. A rate of positive tests of 1.6% is largely acceptable when compared to that of the general Italian population for that period, ranging from 3.6% to 16%,
1.
and we cannot exclude that the 6 positive attendees got infected independently from the congress. Our findings are in line with a recent report from the French Intensive Care Society annual congress where no positive cases were documented.COVID-19: COVID-19 Italia – Monitoraggio situazione 2021. https://github.com/pcm-dpc/COVID-19 (last accessed on February 17, 2022).
2.
Differently from the French study, we reported data under a period of high COVID-19 incidence and according to the seasonality of COVID-19- SRLF Trial Group
Sanitary safety of the 2021 French Intensive Care Society medical conference: a case/control study.
Ann Intensive Care. 2022; 12 (PMID: 35147794; PMCID: PMC8831193): 11https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-022-00986-x
3.
will be preferable to organise congresses in late spring or summer. Despite the limitations of web-based surveys, our data suggest that it is safe, even in winter during high COVID-19 incidence, to organise face-to-face medical congresses if there is a very high vaccination rate among participants and safety measures are employed.Acknowledgements
None.
Authors’ contributions
All the authors have made substantial contributions to conception and design and have been involved in drafting the manuscript and revising it critically.
Conflict of interests
TS is the Social Media Editor of Resuscitation and Resuscitation Plus and member of the ERC BLS Science and Education Committee. FS is the Chair-Elect of the European Resuscitation Council, ILCOR Chair of Social Media Working Group and ILCOR BLS Task Force member. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
COVID-19: COVID-19 Italia – Monitoraggio situazione 2021. https://github.com/pcm-dpc/COVID-19 (last accessed on February 17, 2022).
- Sanitary safety of the 2021 French Intensive Care Society medical conference: a case/control study.Ann Intensive Care. 2022; 12 (PMID: 35147794; PMCID: PMC8831193): 11https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-022-00986-x
- COVID-19 seasonality in temperate countries.Environ Res. 2022; 206 (Epub 2021 Dec 22): 112614https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.112614
Article info
Publication history
Published online: March 14, 2022
Accepted:
February 26,
2022
Received:
February 24,
2022
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
