Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 17 de 17
Filter
1.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 23(1): 483, 2023 May 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2319919

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, health care had to find new ways to care for patients while reducing infection transmission. The role of telemedicine role has grown exponentially. METHODS: A questionnaire on experiences and satisfaction was sent to the staff of the Head and Neck Center of Helsinki University Hospital and to otorhinolaryngology patients treated remotely between March and June 2020. Additionally, patient safety incident reports were examined for incidents involving virtual visits. RESULTS: Staff (response rate 30.6%, (n = 116)) opinions seemed to be quite polarized. In general, staff felt virtual visits were useful for select groups of patients and certain situations, and beneficial in addition to face-to-face visits, not instead of them. Patients (response rate 11.7%, (n = 77)) gave positive feedback on virtual visits, with savings in time (average 89 min), distance travelled (average 31.4 km) and travel expenses (average 13.84€). CONCLUSIONS: While telemedicine was implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure patient treatment, its usefulness after the pandemic must be examined. Evaluation of treatment pathways is critical to ensure that quality of care is upheld while new treatment protocols are introduced. Telemedicine offers the opportunity to save environmental, temporal, and monetary resources. Nonetheless, the appropriate use of telemedicine is essential, and clinicians must be offered the option to examine and treat patients face-to-face.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Telemedicine , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Patient Safety , Telemedicine/methods , Patient Satisfaction
3.
Int J Occup Med Environ Health ; 36(1): 139-150, 2023 Mar 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2238849

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has globally affected healthcare workers' (HCWs) health and wellbeing. Most studies on COVID-19 have focused on tertiary healthcare. The aim of this study was to increase the knowledge on the effects of the pandemic on working conditions in tertiary and primary healthcare. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The comparative cross-sectional study consisted of an online questionnaire sent to HCWs of the City of Helsinki (primary healthcare) and Helsinki University Hospital (tertiary healthcare). Altogether 1580 HCWs with direct patient contact participated in the study: 895 from tertiary and 685 from primary healthcare. Statistical analysis used SPSS 25 from IBM. The tests used were the χ2 test, Fisher's exact test, and binary logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Primary HCWs were less likely to treat COVID-19 patients (OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.37-0.56). However, both groups reported a similar number of COVID-19 infections, primary HCWs 4.9% and tertiary HCWs 5.0%, and workrelated quarantine was significantly more prevalent (OR = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.38-2.79) among primary HCWs. In addition, work-related wellbeing was poorer among primary HCWs than tertiary HCWs in terms of feeling more stressed at work (OR = 3.20, 95% CI: 2.55-4.02), not recovering from work (OR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.39-0.62), reported mental wellbeing below normal levels (OR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.26-2.00), and increased working hours (OR = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.25-2.12). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates how the pandemic has affected the wellbeing and working conditions of not only tertiary but also less studied primary HCWs. The authors' findings suggest that the challenges identified during the COVID-19 pandemic in the health and wellbeing of healthcare workers are even greater in primary care than in tertiary care. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2023;36(1):139-50.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Cross-Sectional Studies , Pandemics , Tertiary Healthcare , SARS-CoV-2 , Working Conditions , Health Personnel
4.
Indoor Air ; 32(11): e13165, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2136901

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 has highlighted the need for indoor risk-reduction strategies. Our aim is to provide information about the virus dispersion and attempts to reduce the infection risk. Indoor transmission was studied simulating a dining situation in a restaurant. Aerosolized Phi6 viruses were detected with several methods. The aerosol dispersion was modeled by using the Large-Eddy Simulation (LES) technique. Three risk-reduction strategies were studied: (1) augmenting ventilation with air purifiers, (2) spatial partitioning with dividers, and (3) combination of 1 and 2. In all simulations infectious viruses were detected throughout the space proving the existence long-distance aerosol transmission indoors. Experimental cumulative virus numbers and LES dispersion results were qualitatively similar. The LES results were further utilized to derive the evolution of infection probability. Air purifiers augmenting the effective ventilation rate by 65% reduced the spatially averaged infection probability by 30%-32%. This relative reduction manifests with approximately 15 min lag as aerosol dispersion only gradually reaches the purifier units. Both viral findings and LES results confirm that spatial partitioning has a negligible effect on the mean infection-probability indoors, but may affect the local levels adversely. Exploitation of high-resolution LES jointly with microbiological measurements enables an informative interpretation of the experimental results and facilitates a more complete risk assessment.


Subject(s)
Air Pollution, Indoor , COVID-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Restaurants , Air Pollution, Indoor/analysis , Respiratory Aerosols and Droplets
5.
Front Public Health ; 10: 982738, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2142333

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has posed several risk factors to healthcare workers' (HCWs') emotional distress. The purpose of the study was to enhance understanding of the experiences and feelings of HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic, with specific reference to infection prevention and control (IPC) practices and guidance, focusing on the quality and availability of personal protective equipment (PPE), guidelines, and management. With a qualitative approach, we aimed to enable a wider narrative; to gain a more detailed understanding related to PPE use and identify experiences that can be overlooked in forced-choice questionnaires. Methods: An online questionnaire was conducted among HCWs of the City of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital between 12.6.2020 and 5.4.2021. Altogether 1,580 HCWs participated in the study, from whom 579 shared 1,666 free-text responses. These responses were analyzed qualitatively, and the results were combined with statistical data on the participants' working conditions and backgrounds. Results: We identified problems in PPE availability and changing guidelines as factors causing the most distress in the participants. Regarding availability, running out of masks and respirators emerged as the most worrying issue, and inadequate PPE was associated with the excessive workload (OR 1.51, CI 95% 1.01-2.25). The results also highlight the importance of transparent and clear communication regarding IPC instructions and guidance, and clear IPC guidance was associated with better levels of reported recovery from work (OR 1.51, CI 95% 1.06-2.14). Conclusions: Our study highlights the importance of adequate PPE provision, transparent communication, clear guidance, and supportive supervisory work in this ongoing pandemic and potential new ones. We suggest more rigorous preparation, with crisis communication planning and emergency storage of PPE.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , Pandemics , Infection Control/methods , Health Personnel , Personal Protective Equipment
6.
Indoor Air ; 32(10): e13118, 2022 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2088231

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2 has been detected both in air and on surfaces, but questions remain about the patient-specific and environmental factors affecting virus transmission. Additionally, more detailed information on viral sampling of the air is needed. This prospective cohort study (N = 56) presents results from 258 air and 252 surface samples from the surroundings of 23 hospitalized and eight home-treated COVID-19 index patients between July 2020 and March 2021 and compares the results between the measured environments and patient factors. Additionally, epidemiological and experimental investigations were performed. The proportions of qRT-PCR-positive air (10.7% hospital/17.6% homes) and surface samples (8.8%/12.9%) showed statistical similarity in hospital and homes. Significant SARS-CoV-2 air contamination was observed in a large (655.25 m3 ) mechanically ventilated (1.67 air changes per hour, 32.4-421 L/s/patient) patient hall even with only two patients present. All positive air samples were obtained in the absence of aerosol-generating procedures. In four cases, positive environmental samples were detected after the patients had developed a neutralizing IgG response. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in the following particle sizes: 0.65-4.7 µm, 7.0-12.0 µm, >10 µm, and <100 µm. Appropriate infection control against airborne and surface transmission routes is needed in both environments, even after antibody production has begun.


Subject(s)
Air Pollution, Indoor , COVID-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , RNA, Viral , Prospective Studies , Respiratory Aerosols and Droplets
7.
Int J Occup Med Environ Health ; 2022 Oct 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2067272

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unseen pressure on healthcare systems in many countries, jeopardizing the mental well-being of healthcare workers. The authors aimed to assess the mental well-being of Finnish healthcare workers from 2 hospital districts (Helsinki University Hospital [HUS] and Social and Health Services in Kymenlaakso [Kymsote]) with differing COVID-19 incidence rates during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total number of 996 healthcare workers (HUS N = 862, Kymsote N = 134) participated in this prospectively conducted survey study during summer 2020. Symptom criteria of self-reported mental health symptoms followed ICD-10 classification, excluding duration criteria. Participants were divided into symptom categories "often/sometimes", and "rarely/never". These groups were compared to sociodemographic factors and factors related to work, workload, and well-being. RESULTS: The degree of mental health symptoms did not differ between the 2 healthcare districts despite differing COVID-19 incidences (p = 1). The authors observed a significant relationship between self-reported diagnostic mental health symptoms and experiences of insufficient instructions for protection against COVID-19 (in HUS cohort p < 0.001), insufficient recovery from work (p < 0.001), and subjective increased workload (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The authors' results show the importance of well-planned and sufficient instructions for protection from SARS-CoV-2 for healthcare workers, indicating their need to feel safe and protected at work. The workload of healthcare workers should be carefully monitored to keep it moderate and ensure sufficient recovery. Sufficient control of the epidemic to keep the burden of the healthcare system low is vital for healthcare workers' well-being.

8.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A ; 119(38): e2209514119, 2022 09 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2017036

ABSTRACT

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) cell entry starts with membrane attachment and ends with spike (S) protein-catalyzed membrane fusion depending on two cleavage steps, namely, one usually by furin in producing cells and the second by TMPRSS2 on target cells. Endosomal cathepsins can carry out both. Using real-time three-dimensional single-virion tracking, we show that fusion and genome penetration require virion exposure to an acidic milieu of pH 6.2 to 6.8, even when furin and TMPRSS2 cleavages have occurred. We detect the sequential steps of S1-fragment dissociation, fusion, and content release from the cell surface in TMPRRS2-overexpressing cells only when exposed to acidic pH. We define a key role of an acidic environment for successful infection, found in endosomal compartments and at the surface of TMPRSS2-expressing cells in the acidic milieu of the nasal cavity.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Nasal Cavity , SARS-CoV-2 , Serine Endopeptidases , Virus Internalization , COVID-19/virology , Furin/genetics , Furin/metabolism , Humans , Hydrogen-Ion Concentration , Nasal Cavity/chemistry , Nasal Cavity/virology , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Serine Endopeptidases/metabolism , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/metabolism
9.
Otol Neurotol ; 43(8): 924-930, 2022 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1961215

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether aerosol generation occurs during otologic surgery, to define which instruments are aerosol generating, and to identify factors that enhance safety in protection against airborne pathogens, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. STUDY DESIGN: An observational prospective study on aerosol measurements during otologic operations recorded between August and December 2020. SETTING: Aerosol generation was measured with an Optical Particle Sizer as part of otologic operations with anesthesia. Particles with a size range of 0.3 to 10 µm were quantified. Aerosol generation was measured during otologic operations to analyze aerosols during drilling in transcanal and transmastoid operations and when using the following instruments: bipolar electrocautery, laser, suction, and cold instruments. Coughing is known to produce significant concentration of aerosols and is commonly used as a reference for high-risk aerosol generation. Thus, the operating room background concentration and coughing were chosen as reference values. PATIENTS: Thirteen otologic operations were included. The average drilling time per surgery was 27.00 minutes (range, 2.00-71.80 min). INTERVENTION: Different rotation speeds during drilling and other instruments were used. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Aerosol concentrations during operations were recorded and compared with background and cough aerosol concentrations. RESULTS: Total aerosol concentrations during drilling were significantly higher than background ( p < 0.0001, d = 2.02) or coughing ( p < 0.0001, d = 0.50). A higher drilling rotation speed was associated with higher particle concentration ( p = 0.037, η2 = 0.01). Aerosol generation during bipolar electrocautery, drilling, and laser was significantly higher than with cold instruments or suction ( p < 0.0001, η2 = 0.04). CONCLUSION: High aerosol generation is observed during otologic surgery when drill, laser, or bipolar electrocautery is used. Aerosol generation can be reduced by using cold instruments instead of electric and keeping the suction on during aerosol-generating procedures. If drilling is required, lower rotation speeds are recommended. These measures may help reduce the spread of airborne pathogens during otologic surgery.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cough , Humans , Prospective Studies , Respiratory Aerosols and Droplets , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Med Microbiol Immunol ; 211(4): 173-183, 2022 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1888865

ABSTRACT

We examined the usefulness of dried spot blood and saliva samples in SARS-CoV-2 antibody analyses. We analyzed 1231 self-collected dried spot blood and saliva samples from healthcare workers. Participants filled in a questionnaire on their COVID-19 exposures, infections, and vaccinations. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgA, and IgM levels were determined from both samples using the GSP/DELFIA method. The level of exposure was the strongest determinant of all blood antibody classes and saliva IgG, increasing as follows: (1) no exposure (healthy, non-vaccinated), (2) exposed, (3) former COVID-19 infection, (4) one vaccination, (5) two vaccinations, and (6) vaccination and former infection. While the blood IgG assay had a 99.5% sensitivity and 75.3% specificity to distinguish participants with two vaccinations from all other types of exposure, the corresponding percentages for saliva IgG were 85.3% and 65.7%. Both blood and saliva IgG-seropositivity proportions followed similar trends to the exposures reported in the questionnaires. Self-collected dry blood and saliva spot samples combined with the GSP/DELFIA technique comprise a valuable tool to investigate an individual's immune response to SARS-CoV-2 exposure or vaccination. Saliva IgG has high potential to monitor vaccination response wane, since the sample is non-invasive and easy to collect.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/diagnosis , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , Saliva
11.
J Med Microbiol ; 71(4)2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1788578

ABSTRACT

Saliva is an alternative sample material to nasopharyngeal swab in SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics. We investigated possible aspects to improve the reliability of SARS-CoV-2 detection from saliva. Saliva was collected from asymptomatic healthy subjects (n=133) and COVID-19 patients (n=9). SARS-CoV-2 detection was performed with quantitative reverse-transcriptase PCR (RT-qPCR) with two viral and one host target serving as an internal control. The use of internal control revealed that in the first RT-qPCR run 25-30 % of assays failed. The failure is associated with poor RNA quality. When the amount of RNA was cut down to half from the original amount, the performance of RT-qPCR was greatly enhanced (95 % of the assays succeeded). The quality of RNA was not affected by the use of different nucleic acid stabilizing buffers. Our study showed that saliva is suitable material for RT-qPCR based SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics, but the use of internal control is essential to distinguish the true negative samples from failed assays.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnosis , Humans , Nasopharynx , RNA, Viral/analysis , RNA, Viral/genetics , Reproducibility of Results , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Saliva , Specimen Handling
12.
Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol ; 279(2): 825-834, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1661679

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 spreads through aerosols produced in coughing, talking, exhalation, and also in some surgical procedures. Use of CO2 laser in laryngeal surgery has been observed to generate aerosols, however, other techniques, such cold dissection and microdebrider, have not been sufficiently investigated. We aimed to assess whether aerosol generation occurs during laryngeal operations and the effect of different instruments on aerosol production. METHODS: We measured particle concentration generated during surgeries with an Optical Particle Sizer. Cough data collected from volunteers and aerosol concentration of an empty operating room served as references. Aerosol concentrations when using different techniques and equipment were compared with references as well as with each other. RESULTS: Thirteen laryngological surgeries were evaluated. The highest total aerosol concentrations were observed when using CO2 laser and these were significantly higher than the concentrations when using microdebrider or cold dissection (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001) or in the background or during coughing (p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001). In contrast, neither microdebrider nor cold dissection produced significant concentrations of aerosol compared with coughing (p = 0.146, p = 0.753). In comparing all three techniques, microdebrider produced the least aerosol particles. CONCLUSIONS: Microdebrider and cold dissection can be regarded as aerosol-generating relative to background reference concentrations, but they should not be considered as high-risk aerosol-generating procedures, as the concentrations are low and do not exceed those of coughing. A step-down algorithm from CO2 laser to cold instruments and microdebrider is recommended to lower the risk of airborne infections among medical staff.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Lasers, Gas , Aerosols , Carbon Dioxide , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
13.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand ; 66(4): 463-472, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1596588

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Intubation, laryngoscopy, and extubation are considered highly aerosol-generating procedures, and additional safety protocols are used during COVID-19 pandemic in these procedures. However, previous studies are mainly experimental and have neither analyzed staff exposure to aerosol generation in the real-life operating room environment nor compared the exposure to aerosol concentrations generated during normal patient care. To assess operational staff exposure to potentially infectious particle generation during general anesthesia, we measured particle concentration and size distribution with patients undergoing surgery with Optical Particle Sizer. METHODS: A single-center observative multidisciplinary clinical study in Helsinki University Hospital with 39 adult patients who underwent general anesthesia with tracheal intubation. Mean particle concentrations during different anesthesia procedures were statistically compared with cough control data collected from 37 volunteers to assess the differences in particle generation. RESULTS: This study measured 25 preoxygenations, 30 mask ventilations, 28 intubations, and 24 extubations. The highest total aerosol concentration of 1153 particles (p)/cm³ was observed during mask ventilation. Preoxygenations, mask ventilations, and extubations as well as uncomplicated intubations generated mean aerosol concentrations statistically comparable to coughing. It is noteworthy that difficult intubation generated significantly fewer aerosols than either uncomplicated intubation (p = .007) or coughing (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesia induction generates mainly small (<1 µm) aerosol particles. Based on our results, general anesthesia procedures are not highly aerosol-generating compared with coughing. Thus, their definition as high-risk aerosol-generating procedures should be re-evaluated due to comparable exposures during normal patient care. IMPLICATION STATEMENT: The list of aerosol-generating procedures guides the use of protective equipments in hospitals. Intubation is listed as a high-risk aerosol-generating procedure, however, aerosol generation has not been measured thoroughly. We measured aerosol generation during general anesthesia. None of the general anesthesia procedures generated statistically more aerosols than coughing and thus should not be considered as higher risk compared to normal respiratory activities.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cough , Adult , Aerosols , Anesthesia, General , Humans , Pandemics
15.
J Voice ; 2021 Jun 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1281478

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Applying measures that prioritize staff safety, while protecting patient safety and care, represents a challenge during the current pandemic. Many documents of recommendations toward safe practice have been developed for this purpose. OBJECTIVE: To assess adjustments that have been undertaken by phoniatricians and otolaryngologists in the delivery of health-care services during the pandemic in order to reduce staff exposure to COVID-19 and improve safety. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. METHODS: An online self-administered survey was used during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in June 2020 to collect data related to demographics of participants, their sources of information, administrative alterations, and changes they adopted when meeting patients for a consultation/procedure/surgery. RESULTS: The eligible 154 responses were grouped into 4 groups based on country of residence. Alterations to service delivery amongst the different groups were compared. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of participants were following the suggested recommendations to service delivery adjustments, with some inconsistencies in practice across countries.

16.
Int J Occup Med Environ Health ; 34(2): 239-249, 2021 May 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1181806

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of safety guidelines in the workplace, the authors analyzed the work-related exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and the source of COVID­19 infections among healthcare workers (HCWs), together with the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional prospective study was conducted in tertiary hospitals in the Uusimaa region, Finland, with 1072 volunteers being enrolled in the study from among the HCWs at the Helsinki University Hospital. Overall, 866 (80.8%) HCWs (including 588 nurses, 170 doctors, and 108 laboratory and medical imaging nurses) completed the questionnaire by July 15, 2020, with 52% of the participants taking care of COVID­19 patients. The participants answered a structured questionnaire regarding their use of PPE, the ability to follow safety guidelines, exposure to COVID­19, and the source of potential COVID­19 infections. The participants with COVID­19 symptoms were tested with the SARS-CoV-2 realtime polymerase chain reaction method. All infected participants were contacted, and their answers were confirmed regarding COVID­19 exposure. RESULTS: In total, 41 (4.7%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, with 22 (53.6%) of infections being confirmed or likely occupational, and 12 (29.3%) originating from colleagues. In 14 cases (63.6%), occupational infections occurred while using a surgical mask, and all infections originating from patients occurred while using a surgical mask or no mask at all. No occupational infections were found while using an FFP2/3 respirator and following aerosol precautions. The combined odds ratio for working at an intensive care unit, an emergency department, or a ward was 3.4 (95% CI: 1.2-9.2, p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: A high infection rate was found among HCWs despite safety guidelines. Based on these findings, the authors recommend the use of FFP2/3 respirators in all patient contacts with confirmed or suspected COVID­19, along with the use of universal masking, also in personnel rooms. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2021;34(2):239-49.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Personal Protective Equipment/standards , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , COVID-19/transmission , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Finland/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Prospective Studies
17.
Dysphagia ; 35(4): 549-557, 2020 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-401728

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 is a global pandemic. Its rapid dissemination and serious course require a novel approach to healthcare practices. Severe disease progression is often associated with the development of the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and may require some form of respiratory support, including endotracheal intubation, mechanical ventilation, and enteral nutrition through a nasogastric tube. These conditions increase the risk of dysphagia, aspiration, and aspiration pneumonia. The data on the incidence and risks of dysphagia associated with COVID-19 are not yet available. However, it is assumed that these patients are at high risk, because of respiratory symptoms and reduced lung function. These findings may exacerbate swallowing deficits. The aim of this review is to summarize available information on possible mechanisms of postintubation dysphagia in COVID-19 patients. Recommendations regarding the diagnosis and management of postintubation dysphagia in COVID-19 patients are described in this contemporary review.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/complications , Deglutition Disorders/etiology , Intubation, Intratracheal/adverse effects , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Deglutition , Deglutition Disorders/diagnosis , Deglutition Disorders/therapy , Deglutition Disorders/virology , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL