National perspectives of COVID-19: case of Sri Lanka

COVID-19 pandemic has given insights into the systemic risks of a hazard, demonstrating the potency of biological hazards to not only render one sector dysfunctional but also fail the entire system. The grave and devastating impacts of the current COVID-19 call for the need to assess the state of global and national preparedness for future pandemics. This chapter provides an outline of Sri Lanka's response to the COVID-19 pandemic while delving into the current status and gaps concerning preparedness for pandemics in the country. The analysis is aimed at providing key recommendations for policymakers to improve national-level preparedness for anticipated pandemic threats. This chapter has drawn on a review of secondary literature and primary data gathered through in-depth interviews conducted with key informants in the disaster management and public health sectors in the country. Findings show that while preparedness planning for biological hazards is predominantly a responsibility of the health sector in the country, there is a pressing need to strengthen such preparedness through a unified legal framework and system of governance that allow for the transfer of relevant expertise, infrastructure, and lessons learned from previous hazards contexts to situations of pandemics;the incorporation of pandemic preparedness into national-level DRR efforts and subnational-level DRR planning;intensifying national focus on building economic and social resilience;emulating a multisectoral approach, enhancing private sector participation, and establishing a national framework to foster preparedness for parallel hazards. © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Improving Risk Management by Learning from Adverse Events: Report on One Year of COVID-19 Vaccination Campaign in Verona (Northeastern Italy).

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 mass vaccination campaign posed new challenges not only from a healthcare perspective, but also in terms of distribution, logistics, and organization. Managing clinical risk in off-site vaccination centers during a pandemic provided a new opportunity for the training and acquisition of competencies through continuous learning from adverse events. The aim of this report, based on a review of activity, was to identify the most recurrent and high-risk failures of the vaccination process in a mass vaccination center. METHODS: Adverse events and near misses reported during the first 11 months of activity (February 2021-January 2022) in the mass vaccination center of Verona (Italy) were evaluated. RESULTS: From 15 February 2021 to 17 January 2022 the center administered about 460,000 doses to the population and nine adverse events and one near miss were reported. Most of the events were errors in vaccine administration, either in principle, dosage, or timing with respect to the indicated schedule. All events had minor outcomes. Communication errors, inadequate training, and general organizational issues were the most recurrent factors contributing to the events. CONCLUSIONS: Risk mitigation during mass vaccination in temporary sites is an essential element of a successful vaccination campaign. The reporting of adverse events should be encouraged in order to obtain as much information as possible for a continuous improvement of the activity.

Outcomes of non-COVID-19 critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic : A retrospective propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disrupts routine care and alters treatment pathways in every medical specialty, including intensive care medicine, which has been at the core of the pandemic response. The impact of the pandemic is inevitably not limited to patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and their outcomes; however, the impact of COVID-19 on intensive care has not yet been analyzed. METHODS: The objective of this propensity score-matched study was to compare the clinical outcomes of non-COVID-19 critically ill patients with the outcomes of prepandemic patients. Critically ill, non-COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) during the first wave of the pandemic were matched with patients admitted in the previous year. Mortality, length of stay, and rate of readmission were compared between the two groups after matching. RESULTS: A total of 211 critically ill SARS-CoV­2 negative patients admitted between 13 March 2020 and 16 May 2020 were matched to 211 controls, selected from a matching pool of 1421 eligible patients admitted to the ICU in 2019. After matching, the outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups: ICU mortality was 5.2% in 2019 and 8.5% in 2020, p = 0.248, while intrahospital mortality was 10.9% in 2019 and 14.2% in 2020, p = 0.378. The median ICU length of stay was similar in 2019: 4 days (IQR 2-6) compared to 2020: 4 days (IQR 2-7), p = 0.196. The rate of ICU readmission was 15.6% in 2019 and 10.9% in 2020, p = 0.344. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective single center study, mortality, ICU length of stay, and rate of ICU readmission did not differ significantly between patients admitted to the ICU during the implementation of hospital-wide COVID-19 contingency planning and patients admitted to the ICU before the pandemic.

A community-health partnership response to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Travellers and Roma in Ireland.

Irish Travellers and Roma are two ethnic minorities experiencing high levels of health inequities. These communities are at greater risk of developing COVID-19 and of suffering more severe symptoms due to poor living environments and higher rates of comorbidities. This study explores the strategies adopted by community-health partnerships and NGOs to minimise the potential widening of Travellers' and Roma's health inequities during the initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Ireland. A descriptive qualitative approach was employed to provide a detailed account of three different community and partnership-led responses. Data were gathered from multiple sources and through first-hand participation in the COVID-19 responses. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. This study found that the main pandemic mitigation interventions implemented were public health measures, culturally sensitive communications, lobbying for policy change and economic and social support. These interventions, supported by the health promotion strategies of partnership, advocacy and empowerment, have proven to be extremely important to reduce potential inequities in exposure to the virus and in access to healthcare. The findings suggest that community-health partnerships between minority groups' organizations and healthcare professionals represent a viable approach to mitigate the disproportionate effects of a pandemic on Travellers and Roma.

A Countrywide Survey in Saudi Arabia Regarding the Knowledge and Attitude of Health Care Professionals about Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has emerged as a pandemic. The updated knowledge and a positive attitude of health care professionals (HCPs) towards fighting any pandemic is the key to success. Thus, the present study aims to assess the knowledge and attitude of HCPs towards COVID-19 in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). A cross-sectional study was conducted across the KSA, covering its five geographical regions with a non-probability quota sample. Twenty-nine, close-ended questions evaluating the knowledge and attitude domain were included in the questionnaire. It was developed with the help of Qualtrics software and circulated among the HCPs through the electronic mode. We analyzed data from about 1040 HCPs using the statistical package of social sciences (SPSS) v.21. All variables were presented in number and percentages. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was performed to explore the odds ratio (OR) and adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of independent variables for inadequate knowledge and attitude. Considering the "good" level of the respective domain, the HCPs have displayed better knowledge (48.2%) over attitude (33.8%). Female (aOR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.15-2.09; p = 0.004), Diploma degree (aOR: 2.51; 95% CI: 1.64-3.83; p < 0.001), 7-10 years' experience (aOR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.01-2.15; p = 0.045) were at higher risk of having inadequate knowledge compared to their contemporaries. Among the sources, the Ministry of Health (MOH) website was the most popular source of information (76%). The knowledge and attitude of HCPs regarding COVID-19 was similar across all the regions of KSA. However, the continuing education program is warranted to fill the potential gap in knowledge for HCPs in higher-risk groups.