Physical and stressful psychological impacts of prolonged personal protective equipment use during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional survey study.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) caring for COVID-19 infected patients are exposed to stressful and traumatic events with potential for severe and sustained adverse mental and physical health consequences. Our aim was to assess the magnitude of physical and mental health outcomes of HCWs due to the prolonged use of personal protective equipment (PPE) treating COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This cross-sectional study assessed the symptoms of stress, anxiety, insomnia, and psychological resilience using the Stress and Anxiety to Viral Epidemics (SAVE) scale, Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), and Resilience Scale (RS), respectively, in Italy between 1st February and 31st March 2022. The physical outcomes reported included vertigo, dyspnea, nausea, micturition desire, retroauricular pain, thirst, discomfort at work, physical fatigue, and thermal stress. The relationships between prolonged PPE use and psychological outcomes and physical discomforts were analyzed using Generalized Linear Models (GLMs). We calculated the factor mean scores and a binary outcome to measure study outcomes. FINDINGS: We found that 23% of the respondents reported stress related symptoms, 33% anxiety, 43% moderate to severe insomnia, and 67% reported moderate to very low resilience. The GLMs suggested that older people (>55 years old) are less likely to suffer from stress compared to younger people (<35 y.o); conversely, HCW aged more than 35 years are more inclined to suffer from insomnia than younger people (<35 y.o). Female HCW reported a lower probability of resilience than males. University employed HCWs were less likely to report anxiety than those who worked in a community hospital. The odds of suffering from insomnia for social workers was significantly higher than for other HCWs. Female HCW>3 years old, enrolled in training programs for nursing, social work, technical training and other healthcare professionals increased the probability of reported physical discomforts. HCW that worked on non COVID-19 wards and used PPE for low-medium exposure level, were at lower risks for lasting physical side effects as compared to the HCW who worked in high-risk PPE intense, COVID-19 environments. INTERPRETATION: The study suggests that frontline HCWs who had extensive PPE exposure while directly engaged in the diagnosis, treatment, and care for patients with COVID-19 are at significant risks for lasting physical and psychological harm and distress.

Patient safety implications of wearing a face mask for prevention in the era of COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and consensus recommendations.

In the past, the use of face masks in western countries was essentially limited to occupational health. Now, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, mask-wearing has been recommended as a public health intervention. As potential side effects and some contraindications are emerging, we reviewed the literature to assess the impact of them in daily life on patient safety and to provide appropriate guidelines and recommendations. We performed a systematic review of studies investigating physiological impact, safety, and risk of masks in predefined categories of patients, which have been published in peer-reviewed journals with no time and language restrictions. Given the heterogeneity of studies, results were analyzed thematically. We used PRISMA guidelines to report our findings. Wearing a N95 respirator is more associated with worse side effects than wearing a surgical mask with the following complications: breathing difficulties (reduced FiO2, SpO2, PaO2 increased ETCO2, PaCO2), psychiatric symptoms (panic attacks, anxiety) and skin reactions. These complications are related to the duration of use and/or disease severity. Difficulties in communication is another issue to be considered especially with young children, older person and people with hearing impairments. Even if benefits of wearing face masks exceed the discomfort, it is recommended to take an "air break" after 1-2 h consecutively of mask-wearing. However, well-designed prospective studies are needed. The COVID-19 pandemic could represent a unique opportunity for collecting large amount of real-world data.

Improved FMEA Methods for Proactive Health Care Risk Assessment of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of COVID-19 Remote Patient Telemonitoring.

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the need to more effectively harness and leverage digital tools and technology for remote patient monitoring (RPM). RPM gained great popularity given the need to provide effective, safe, efficient, and remote patient care. RPM is based on noninvasive digital technologies aimed at improving the safety and efficiency of health care delivery. We report on an RPM program in which 200 COVID-19 patients were followed remotely to evaluate the effectiveness in treating and monitoring patients in home settings. We analyzed the inherent risks using mixed methods, including failure mode and effect analysis, a prospective, team-based risk management methodology structured to identify high-risk process system failures before they occur in telemonitoring of remote patients. The RPM saved lives and improved decision-making during the pandemic and helped prevent the health system's collapse. The failure mode and effect analysis-based assessment offers important insights and considerations for evaluating future RPM implementation and direction. RPM solutions are technically feasible, staff friendly, and can achieve high adherence rates. Rigorous and ongoing evaluation of devices and platforms is essential to clarifying their value and guiding national health and insurance health coverage decisions and adoption programs.

Intentional Rounding versus Standard of Care for Patients Hospitalised in Internal Medicine Wards: Results from a Cluster-Randomised Nation-Based Study.

The aim of the study was to explore the effects of Intentional Rounding, a regular-based proactive patient monitoring, on falls and pressure ulcers in internal medicine units. This is a cluster-randomised controlled study, where units were assigned (1:1) to Intentional Rounding (intervention group) or Standard of Care (control group). The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of falls and new pressure ulcers. These events were considered separately as secondary endpoints, together with the number of bell calls and the evaluation of patient satisfaction. Primary analyses were carried out on the modified intention-to-treat population (hospitalisation of at least 10 days). Recruitment occurred between October 2019 and March 2020, at which time the study was prematurely closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Enrolment totalled 1822 patients at 26 sites; 779 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The intervention group had a lower risk of falls (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.78; p = 0.03). There were no statistical differences in new pressure ulcers or the cumulative incidence of both adverse events. Mean bell calls for each patient were 15.4 ± 24.1 in the intervention group and 13.7 ± 20.5 in the control group (p = 0.38). Additionally, patient satisfaction in the intervention group was almost at the maximum level. Our study supports the usefulness of Intentional Rounding in a complex and vulnerable population such as that hospitalised in internal medicine units.

Fibromyalgia: a new facet of the post-COVID-19 syndrome spectrum? Results from a web-based survey.

OBJECTIVE: Postacute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS) is an emerging entity characterised by a large array of manifestations, including musculoskeletal complaints, fatigue and cognitive or sleep disturbances. Since similar symptoms are present also in patients with fibromyalgia (FM), we decided to perform a web-based cross-sectional survey aimed at investigating the prevalence and predictors of FM in patients who recovered from COVID-19. METHODS: Data were anonymously collected between 5 and 18 April 2021. The collection form consisted of 28 questions gathering demographic information, features and duration of acute COVID-19, comorbid diseases, and other individual's attributes such as height and weight. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Survey Criteria and the Italian version of the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire completed the survey. RESULTS: A final sample of 616 individuals (77.4% women) filled the form 6±3 months after the COVID-19 diagnosis. Of these, 189 (30.7%) satisfied the ACR survey criteria for FM (56.6% women). A multivariate logistic regression model including demographic and clinical factors showed that male gender (OR: 9.95, 95% CI 6.02 to 16.43, p<0.0001) and obesity (OR: 41.20, 95% CI 18.00 to 98.88, p<0.0001) were the strongest predictors of being classified as having post-COVID-19 FM. Hospital admission rate was significantly higher in men (15.8% vs 9.2%, p=0.001) and obese (19.2 vs 10.8%, p=0.016) respondents. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that clinical features of FM are common in patients who recovered from COVID-19 and that obesity and male gender affect the risk of developing post-COVID-19 FM.

Aggressions on Social Networks: What Are the Implications for Healthcare Providers? An Exploratory Research.

Incidents of violence by healthcare users against staff have been considered as sentinel events. New forms of aggression, i.e., cyberbullying, have emerged with the advent of social networks. Medical literature includes some reports about workplace cyberbullying on nurses and young doctors by colleagues/supervisors, but not by users. To investigate cyberbullying on healthcare providers via social networks, we carried out an exploratory quali-quantitative study, researching and analyzing posts and comments relating to a local Health Trust (ASL5) in Italy, published from 2013 until May 2020 on healthcare worker aggressions on social networks on every local community's Facebook page. We developed a thematic matrix through an analysis of the most recurring meaning categories (framework method). We collected 217 texts (25 posts and 192 comments): 26% positive and 74% negative. Positive posts were shared about ten times more than negative ones. Negative comments received about double the "Likes" than the positive ones. Analysis highlighted three main meaning categories: 1. lack of adequate and functional structures; 2. negative point of view (POV) towards some departments; 3. positive POV towards others. No significant differences were observed between the various categories of healthcare workers (HCW). Geriatric, medical wards and emergency department were the most frequent targets of negative comments. All the texts referred to first-line operators except for one. Online violence against HCW is a real, largely unknown, problem that needs immediate and concrete attention for its potentially disastrous consequences. Compared to traditional face-to-face bullying, it can be more dangerous as it is contagious and diffusive, without spatial, temporal or personal boundaries.

Looking for the right balance between human and economic costs during COVID-19 outbreak.

Since the beginning of Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) disease outbreak, there has been a heated debate about public health measures, as they can presumably reduce human costs in the short term but can negatively impact economies and well-being over a longer period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To study the relationship between health and economic impact of COVID-19, we conducted a secondary research on Italian regions, combining official data (mortality due to COVID-19 and contractions in value added of production for a month of lockdown). Then, we added the tertiles of the number of people tested for COVID-19 and those of health aids to evaluate the correspondence with the outcome measures. RESULTS: Five regions out of 20, the most industrialized northern regions, which were affected both earlier and more severely by the outbreak, registered both mortality and economic value loss above the overall medians. The southern regions, which were affected later and less severely, had low mortality and less economic impact. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis shows that considering health and economic outcomes in the assessment of response to pandemics offers a bigger picture perspective of the outbreak and could allow policymakers and health managers to choose systemic, 'personalized' strategies, in case of a feared second epidemic wave.

Levels and Factors Associated with Resilience in Italian Healthcare Professionals during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Web-Based Survey.

BACKGROUND: Resilience is defined as the capacity to cope successfully with change or adversity. The aims of our study were to investigate levels of resilience in Italian healthcare professionals (HCPs) during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to identify potential predictors of resilience. METHODS: We performed a web-based survey of HCPs (n = 1009) working in Italian hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey contained a 14-item resilience scale (RS14) and questionnaires to evaluate depression and anxiety symptoms. Non-HCP individuals (n = 375) from the general population were used for comparison. RESULTS: HCPs showed significantly lower resilience compared to the control group (p = 0.001). No significant differences were observed after stratification for geographical area, work setting, role, or suspected/confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19. In a linear regression analysis, RS14 was inversely correlated with depression (R2 = 0.227, p < 0.001) and anxiety (R2 = 0.117, p < 0.001) and directly correlated with age (R2 = 0.012, p < 0.001) but not with body mass index (BMI, R2 = 0.002, p = 0.213). In male HCPs, higher depression score (odds ratio (OR) 1.147, p < 0.001) or BMI (OR 1.136, p = 0.011) significantly predicted having low resilience. In female HCPs, higher depression score (OR 1.111, p < 0.0001) and working in a COVID-19 free setting (OR 2.308, p = 0.002) significantly predicted having low resilience. HCPs satisfied with personal protective equipment had higher levels of resilience (p < 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that resilience was lower in Italian HCPs than in the general population after the first COVID-19 wave. Specific factors can be identified, and targeted interventions may have an important role to foster resilience of HCPs.

International survey of COVID-19 management strategies.

BACKGROUND: While individual countries have gained considerable knowledge and experience in coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) management, an international, comparative perspective is lacking, particularly regarding the measures taken by different countries to tackle the pandemic. This paper elicits the views of health system staff, tapping into their personal expertise on how the pandemic was initially handled. METHODS: From May to July 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional, online, purpose-designed survey comprising 70 items. Email lists of contacts provided by the International Society for Quality in Health Care, the Italian Network for Safety in Health Care and the Australian Institute of Health Innovation were used to access healthcare professionals and managers across the world. We snowballed the survey to individuals and groups connected to these organizations. Key outcome measures were attitudes and information about institutional approaches taken; media communication; how acute hospitals were re-organized; primary health organization; personal protective equipment; and staffing and training. RESULTS: A total of 1131 survey participants from 97 countries across the World Health Organization (WHO) regions responded to the survey. Responses were from all six WHO regions; 57.9% were female and the majority had 10 or more years of experience in healthcare; almost half (46.5%) were physicians; and all other major clinical professional groups participated. As the pandemic progressed, most countries established an emergency task force, developed communication channels to citizens, organized health services to cope and put in place appropriate measures (e.g. pathways for COVID-19 patients, and testing, screening and tracing procedures). Some countries did this better than others. We found several significant differences between the WHO regions in how they are tackling the pandemic. For instance, while overall most respondents (71.4%) believed that there was an effective plan prior to the outbreak, this was only the case for 31.9% of respondents from the Pan American Health Organization compared with 90.7% of respondents from the South-East Asia Region (SEARO). Issues with swab testing (e.g. delay in communicating the swab outcome) were less frequently reported by respondents from SEARO and the Western Pacific Region compared with other regions. CONCLUSION: The world has progressed in its knowledge and sophistication in tackling the pandemic after early and often substantial obstacles were encountered. Most WHO regions have or are in the process of responding well, although some countries have not yet instituted widespread measures known to support mitigation, for example, effective swab testing and social control measures.