Student nurses, nursing curriculums and emergency responses to Covid-19: A scoping review

Background Emergency healthcare responses to COVID-19 substantially impacted on nursing curriculums and student nurses worldwide. Understanding the extent of this impact on their learning experiences could inform nursing curriculums going forward. Objective Identify the range and nature of literature related to emergency healthcare response to COVID-19 and its impact on student nurses and nursing curriculums. Explore and analyze the findings within the searched literature. Position findings within the broader context of the ongoing impact of COVID-19 on nursing curriculums. Identify gaps in the literature. Design Using the Johanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology, we conducted a scoping review of literature published in the English language from 2019 to 2021. Search strategy included specific search terms used to search five online databases: CINAHL, ProQuest, and PubMed and OVID, and Google Scholar. A narrative approach was used to synthesize the identified papers. Results 356 papers were retrieved through initial database and hand searches;260 once duplicates were removed. Close assessment by title, , and full paper using inclusion/exclusion criteria narrowed this to 16 relevant articles. Conclusions This review did not assess for quality, however selected studies were themselves emergency responses to COVID-19, conducted in haste, so reviewers deemed the quality of evidence to be impacted by this. They suggest healthcare responses to COVID-19 have been highly disruptive for many student nurses. Studies focused almost entirely on face-to-face traditional nurse learners, with distance learners only mentioned in passing in two papers.

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine candidate significantly reduces SARS-CoV-2 shedding in ferrets.

Vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are likely to be critical in the management of the ongoing pandemic. A number of candidates are in Phase III human clinical trials, including ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), a replication-deficient chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine candidate. In preclinical trials, the efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 against SARS-CoV-2 challenge was evaluated in a ferret model of infection. Groups of ferrets received either prime-only or prime-boost administration of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 via the intramuscular or intranasal route. All ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 administration combinations resulted in significant reductions in viral loads in nasal-wash and oral swab samples. No vaccine-associated adverse events were observed associated with the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 candidate, with the data from this study suggesting it could be an effective and safe vaccine against COVID-19. Our study also indicates the potential for intranasal administration as a way to further improve the efficacy of this leading vaccine candidate.

Safety and efficacy of telephone clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic in the provision of care for patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, telephone clinics have been utilised to reduce the risk of transmission. Evidence supporting its quality and safety is required. AIMS: Assess the efficacy and safety of telephone clinics in delivering care to established oncology patients and assess patient and health professionals' preference (telephone vs face-to-face clinics). METHODS: Retrospective chart audit in the month preceding and month following the introduction of telephone clinics at the Gold Coast University Hospital and a patient and health professional questionnaire. RESULTS: In total, 1212 clinical encounters occurred in the month post the introduction of telephone clinics (vs 1208 encounters prior). There were no statistically significant differences in 24-h (18 vs 22, P = 0.531) or 7-day admissions (50 vs 46, P = 0.665) comparing encounters in the month prior to the introduction of telephone clinics versus the month post, but there was a statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality post systemic therapy in favour of the post-telephone clinic period (7 vs 0 patients, P = 0.008). Of the 222 patients who undertook the questionnaire, 42.3% preferred telephone clinics (95% confidence interval (CI) 35.97-48.97), 25.2% preferred face-to-face clinics (95% CI 19.92-31.39) and 32.4% did not prefer one method over another. Of the 24 health professionals who undertook the questionnaire, 70.8% felt patients preferred phone clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Generally, patients and clinicians viewed telephone clinics favourably. Nevertheless, a large portion of patients still prefer face-to-face clinics. Services should be tailored to individual preferences. Although there were no 'red flags' in terms of mortality or admission rates, further longitudinal research is required.