Service provision and utilisation in German paediatric primary care practices during public health crises: Protocol of the mixed-methods COVID-19 PedCare Study.

INTRODUCTION: Public health crises such as pandemics can cause serious disruptions to the utilisation and provision of healthcare services with negative effects on morbidity and mortality. Despite the important role of paediatric primary care in maintaining high-quality healthcare services during crises, evidence about service utilisation and provision remains limited especially in Germany. This study, therefore, explores the utilisation and provision of paediatric primary care services during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and their barriers and facilitators. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study uses a convergent mixed-methods design and comprises online surveys to parents, adolescents and primary care paediatricians (PCPs) and semistructured interviews with parents and PCPs. We recruit parents and adolescents from paediatric primary care practices and PCPs via email using mailing lists of the German Professional Association of Paediatricians and the German Society of Ambulatory Primary Care Paediatrics. The parent and adolescent surveys assess, inter alia, the utilisation of paediatric primary care services and its correlates, aspects of parental and child health as well as socioeconomic characteristics. The PCP survey investigates the provision of paediatric primary care services and its correlates, aspects of PCP health as well as sociodemographic and practice characteristics. The semistructured interviews with parents and PCPs explore several aspects of the online surveys in more detail. We use descriptive statistics and generalised linear mixed models to assess service utilisation and provision and specific correlates covered in the online surveys and apply qualitative content analysis to explore barriers and facilitators of service utilisation and provision more broadly in the semistructured interviews. We will integrate findings from the quantitative and qualitative analyses at the interpretation stage. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Medical Ethics Review Board of the Medical Faculty Mannheim at Heidelberg University (2020-650N). Study results will be published in journals with external peer-review.

The Expert Next Door: Interactions With Friends and Family During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic thrust the field of public health into the spotlight. For many epidemiologists, biostatisticians, and other public health professionals, this caused the professional aspects of our lives to collide with the personal, as friends and family reached out with concerns and questions. Learning how to navigate this space was new for many of us and required refining our communication style depending on context, setting, and audience. Some of us took to social media, utilizing our existing personal accounts to share information after sorting through and summarizing the rapidly emerging literature to keep loved ones safe. However, those in our lives sometimes asked unanswerable questions, or began distancing themselves when we suggested more stringent guidance than they had hoped for, causing additional stress during an already traumatic time. We often had to remind ourselves that we were also individuals experiencing this pandemic and that our time-intensive efforts were meaningful, relevant, and impactful. As this pandemic and other public health crises continue, we encourage members of our discipline to consider how we can best use shared lessons from this period and to recognize that our professional knowledge, when used in our personal lives, can promote, protect, and bolster confidence in public health.

Evaluation of commercially available immuno-magnetic agglutination in comparison to enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for rapid point-of-care diagnostics of COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Fast, accurate, and simple blood-based assays for quantification of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are urgently needed to identify infected individuals and keep track of the spread of disease. METHODS: The study included 33 plasma samples from 20 individuals with confirmed COVID-19 by real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction and 40 non-COVID-19 plasma samples. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin M (IgM)/immunoglobulin A (IgA) or immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies were detected by a microfluidic quantitative immunomagnetic assay (IMA) (ViroTrack Sero COVID IgM + IgA/IgG Ab, Blusense Diagnostics) and compared to an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (EuroImmun Medizinische Labordiagnostika). RESULTS: Of the 33 plasma samples from the COVID-19 patients, 28 were positive for IgA/IgM or IgG by IMA and 29 samples were positive by ELISA. Sensitivity for only one sample per patient was 68% for IgA + IgM and 75% IgG by IMA and 80% by ELISA. For samples collected 14 days after symptom onset, the sensitivity of both IMA and ELISA was around 91%. The specificity of the IMA reached 100% compared to 95% for ELISA IgA and 97.5% for ELISA IgG. CONCLUSION: IMA for COVID-19 is a rapid simple-to-use point-of-care test with sensitivity and specificity similar to a commercial ELISA.

Prevalence of serum IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 among clinic staff.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic threatens health care providers and society. For planning of treatment capacities, it is of major importance to obtain reliable information on infection and fatality rates of the novel coronavirus. A German community study, the so-called Heinsberg study, found a 5-fold higher infection rate (and thus a remarkably lower fatality rate) than the officially reported cases suggest. We were interested to examine the SARS-CoV-2-IgG antibody status among clinic staff of a large neurological center in Northern Germany. Blood samples and questionnaires (demographic data, medical history) were collected pseudonymously. In total, 406 out of 525 (77.3%) of our employees participated in the study. The infection rate among the staff was as high as 2.7%. Including drop-outs (missing questionnaire but test result available), the infection rate was even higher (2.9%). Only 36% of the positively tested employees did suffer from flu-like symptoms in 2020. None of the nurses-having closest and longest contact to patients-were found to be positive. Despite the fact that the infection rate among clinic staff may not be directly compared to the situation in the surrounding county (due to different testing procedures), one might hypothesize that the infection rate could be more than 30-fold higher than the number of officially reported cases for the county of Hameln-Pyrmont. The high rate of IgG-positive, asymptomatic healthcare workers might help to overcome fears in daily work.

Emergency surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: what you need to know for practice.

INTRODUCTION: Several articles have been published about the reorganisation of surgical activity during the COVID-19 pandemic but few, if any, have focused on the impact that this has had on emergency and trauma surgery. Our aim was to review the most current data on COVID-19 to provide essential suggestions on how to manage the acute abdomen during the pandemic. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of the most relevant English language articles on COVID-19 and surgery published between 15 December 2019 and 30 March 2020. FINDINGS: Access to the operating theatre is almost exclusively restricted to emergencies and oncological procedures. The use of laparoscopy in COVID-19 positive patients should be cautiously considered. The main risk lies in the presence of the virus in the pneumoperitoneum: the aerosol released in the operating theatre could contaminate both staff and the environment. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, all efforts should be deployed in order to evaluate the feasibility of postponing surgery until the patient is no longer considered potentially infectious or at risk of perioperative complications. If surgery is deemed necessary, the emergency surgeon must minimise the risk of exposure to the virus by involving a minimal number of healthcare staff and shortening the occupation of the operating theatre. In case of a lack of security measures to enable safe laparoscopy, open surgery should be considered.