Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 21
Filter
1.
Postgrad Med J ; 97(1154): 825-830, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1537991

ABSTRACT

We explore how engagement with checklists and adoption of a strict 'checking' discipline help avoid unintentional individual, team and systemic errors. Paradoxically, this is equally important when performing repetitive mundane tasks as well as during times of high-stress workload. In this article, we aim to discuss the different types of checklists and explain how deviations from a 'checking' discipline can lead to never events such as wrong side or site surgery. Well-designed checklists function as mental notes and prompts in clinical situations where the combination of fatigue and stress can contribute to a decline in cognitive performance. Furthermore, the need for proactive discussion by all members of the team during the implementation of the surgical checklist also reinforces the concept of teamwork and contributes towards effective communication. Patient safety is often a product of good communication, teamwork and anticipation: a 'checking' mentality remains the lynchpin which links these factors.


Subject(s)
Checklist , Guideline Adherence/standards , Medical Errors/prevention & control , Patient Safety , Surgical Procedures, Operative/adverse effects , Humans , Operating Rooms , Treatment Outcome
2.
PLoS One ; 16(9): e0257093, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1435606

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding patients with COVID-19 and analyse the influence factors. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library databases were searched to collect RCTs regarding patients with COVID-19. The retrieval time was from the inception to December 1, 2020. The CONSORT 2010 statement was used to evaluate the overall reporting quality of these RCTs. RESULTS: 53 RCTs were included. The study showed that the average reporting rate for 37 items in CONSORT checklist was 53.85% with mean overall adherence score of 13.02±3.546 (ranged: 7 to 22). The multivariate linear regression analysis showed the overall adherence score to the CONSORT guideline was associated with journal impact factor (P = 0.006), and endorsement of CONSORT statement (P = 0.014). CONCLUSION: Although many RCTs of COVID-19 have been published in different journals, the overall reporting quality of these articles was suboptimal, it can not provide valid evidence for clinical decision-making and systematic reviews. Therefore, more journals should endorse the CONSORT statement, authors should strictly follow the relevant provisions of the CONSORT guideline when reporting articles. Future RCTs should particularly focus on improvement of detailed reporting in allocation concealment, blinding and estimation of sample size.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Publications/standards , Publishing/standards , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/standards , Data Management/standards , Guideline Adherence/standards , Humans , Journal Impact Factor , PubMed/standards , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity
3.
Ann Biol Clin (Paris) ; 79(4): 325-330, 2021 Aug 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1412311

ABSTRACT

Health care workers (HCWs) are at major risk to be infected by SARS-CoV-2 and transmit the virus to the patients. Furthermore, travels are a major factor in the diffusion of the virus. We report our experience regarding the screening of asymptomatic HCWs returning from holidays, following the issue of a national guideline on 08/20/2020. The organization of the occupational health department and the clinical laboratory was adapted in order to start the screening on August, 24, 2020. All HCWs tested for SARS-CoV-2 the week before and 4 weeks after the implementation of the screening were included. The mean number of tests was analyzed per working day and working week. Overall, 502 (31.4%) HCWs were tested for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period. The mean number of HCWs tested per working day was 27.1. HCWs accounted for 36.9% (n = 167) and 11.2% (n = 84) of the tests performed in the 1st and the 4th week following the implementation of the guidelines. The number of tests performed each week in HCWs increased by at least 20-fold after the implementation of the guidelines. No asymptomatic HCW was tested positive. Screening of asymptomatic HCWs was poorly effective in the context of low circulation of the virus. We suggest giving priority to infection prevention and control measures and screening of symptomatic subjects and asymptomatic contacts.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , Health Personnel , Asymptomatic Infections , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19 Testing/standards , Cross Infection/prevention & control , France/epidemiology , Guideline Adherence/organization & administration , Guideline Adherence/standards , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Hospitals, General , Humans , Implementation Science , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/organization & administration , Infection Control/standards , Mass Screening/methods , Mass Screening/organization & administration , Mass Screening/standards , Occupational Health Services/organization & administration , Occupational Health Services/standards , Occupational Health Services/statistics & numerical data , Return to Work/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification
4.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 4: CD013582, 2020 04 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1372688

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: This review is one of a series of rapid reviews that Cochrane contributors have prepared to inform the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. When new respiratory infectious diseases become widespread, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare workers' adherence to infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines becomes even more important. Strategies in these guidelines include the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as masks, face shields, gloves and gowns; the separation of patients with respiratory infections from others; and stricter cleaning routines. These strategies can be difficult and time-consuming to adhere to in practice. Authorities and healthcare facilities therefore need to consider how best to support healthcare workers to implement them. OBJECTIVES: To identify barriers and facilitators to healthcare workers' adherence to IPC guidelines for respiratory infectious diseases. SEARCH METHODS: We searched OVID MEDLINE on 26 March 2020. As we searched only one database due to time constraints, we also undertook a rigorous and comprehensive scoping exercise and search of the reference lists of key papers. We did not apply any date limit or language limits. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included qualitative and mixed-methods studies (with a distinct qualitative component) that focused on the experiences and perceptions of healthcare workers towards factors that impact on their ability to adhere to IPC guidelines for respiratory infectious diseases. We included studies of any type of healthcare worker with responsibility for patient care. We included studies that focused on IPC guidelines (local, national or international) for respiratory infectious diseases in any healthcare setting. These selection criteria were framed by an understanding of the needs of health workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts and full texts identified by our search. We used a prespecified sampling frame to sample from the eligible studies, aiming to capture a range of respiratory infectious disease types, geographical spread and data-rich studies. We extracted data using a data extraction form designed for this synthesis. We assessed methodological limitations using an adapted version of the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool. We used a 'best fit framework approach' to analyse and synthesise the evidence. This provided upfront analytical categories, with scope for further thematic analysis. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. We examined each review finding to identify factors that may influence intervention implementation and developed implications for practice. MAIN RESULTS: We found 36 relevant studies and sampled 20 of these studies for our analysis. Ten of these studies were from Asia, four from Africa, four from Central and North America and two from Australia. The studies explored the views and experiences of nurses, doctors and other healthcare workers when dealing with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), H1N1, MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome), tuberculosis (TB), or seasonal influenza. Most of these healthcare workers worked in hospitals; others worked in primary and community care settings. Our review points to several barriers and facilitators that influenced healthcare workers' ability to adhere to IPC guidelines. The following factors are based on findings assessed as of moderate to high confidence. Healthcare workers felt unsure as to how to adhere to local guidelines when they were long and ambiguous or did not reflect national or international guidelines. They could feel overwhelmed because local guidelines were constantly changing. They also described how IPC strategies led to increased workloads and fatigue, for instance because they had to use PPE and take on additional cleaning. Healthcare workers described how their responses to IPC guidelines were influenced by the level of support they felt that they received from their management team. Clear communication about IPC guidelines was seen as vital. But healthcare workers pointed to a lack of training about the infection itself and about how to use PPE. They also thought it was a problem when training was not mandatory. Sufficient space to isolate patients was also seen as vital. A lack of isolation rooms, anterooms and shower facilities was a problem. Other important practical measures described by healthcare workers included minimising overcrowding, fast-tracking infected patients, restricting visitors, and providing easy access to handwashing facilities. A lack of PPE, and equipment that was of poor quality, was a serious concern for healthcare workers and managers. They also pointed to the need to adjust the volume of supplies as infection outbreaks continued. Healthcare workers believed that they followed IPC guidance more closely when they saw the value of it. Some healthcare workers felt motivated to follow the guidance because of fear of infecting themselves or their families, or because they felt responsible for their patients. Some healthcare workers found it difficult to use masks and other equipment when it made patients feel isolated, frightened or stigmatised. Healthcare workers also found masks and other equipment uncomfortable to use. The workplace culture could also influence whether healthcare workers followed IPC guidelines or not. Across many of the findings, healthcare workers pointed to the importance of including all staff, including cleaning staff, porters, kitchen staff and other support staff when implementing IPC guidelines. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare workers point to several factors that influence their ability and willingness to follow IPC guidelines when managing respiratory infectious diseases. These include factors tied to the guideline itself and how it is communicated, support from managers, workplace culture, training, physical space, access to and trust in personal protective equipment, and a desire to deliver good patient care. The review also highlights the importance of including all facility staff, including support staff, when implementing IPC guidelines.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Guideline Adherence , Health Personnel , Infection Control , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Guideline Adherence/standards , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Isolation , Personal Protective Equipment , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Universal Precautions
6.
Hum Resour Health ; 19(1): 80, 2021 07 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1304406

ABSTRACT

In the European free movement zone, various mechanisms aim to harmonize how the competence of physicians and nurses is developed and maintained to facilitate the cross-country movement of professionals. This commentary addresses these mechanisms and discusses their implications during the COVID-19 pandemic, drawing lessons for future policy. It argues that EU-wide regulatory mechanisms should be reviewed to ensure that they provide an adequate foundation for determining competence and enabling health workforce flexibility during health system shocks. Currently, EU regulation focuses on the automatic recognition of the primary education of physicians and nurses. New, flexible mechanisms should be developed for specializations, such as intensive or emergency care. Documenting new skills, such as the ones acquired during rapid training in the pandemic, in a manner that is comparable across countries should be explored, both for usual practice and in light of outbreak preparedness. Initiatives to strengthen continuing education and professional development should be supported further. Funding under the EU4Health programme should be dedicated to this endeavour, along with revisiting the scope of necessary skills following the experience of COVID-19. Mechanisms for cross-country sharing of information on violations of good practice standards should be maintained and strengthened to enable agile reactions when the need for professional mobility becomes urgent.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Education, Continuing/standards , Health Workforce/standards , International Cooperation , Professional Competence/standards , Europe/epidemiology , Guideline Adherence/standards , Humans , Information Dissemination , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
7.
Ann Glob Health ; 87(1): 56, 2021 06 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1296122

ABSTRACT

Background: The adherence of medical laboratory technicians (MLT) to infection control guidelines is essential for reducing the risk of exposure to infectious agents. This study explored the adherence of MLT towards infection control practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: The study population consisted of MLT (n = 444) who worked in private and government health sectors in Jordan. A self-reported survey was used to collect data from participants. Findings: More than 87% of the participants reported adherence to hand-washing guidelines and using personal protective equipment (PPE) when interacting with patients (74.5%), and handling clinical samples (70.0%). Besides, 88.1%, 48.2%, and 7.7% reported wearing of lab coats, face masks, and goggles, at all times, respectively. The majority reported increased adherence to infection control practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes increased PPE use at the workplace (94.2%), increased frequency of disinfection of laboratory surfaces (92.4%) and laboratory equipment (86.7%), and increased frequency of handwashing/use of antiseptics (94.6%). Having a graduate degree was significantly associated with increased adherence of participants to the daily use of goggles/eye protection (p = 0.002), and the use of PPE while handling clinical samples (p = 0.011). Having work experience of >10 years was associated with increased adherence to the use of PPE while handling clinical samples (p = 0.001). Conclusion: MLT reported very good adherence with most assessed infection control practices. In addition, they reported increased conformity with infection control guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Guideline Adherence , Infection Control , Laboratories , Medical Laboratory Personnel , Personal Protective Equipment , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Guideline Adherence/standards , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Hand Disinfection/methods , Hand Disinfection/standards , Health Care Surveys , Humans , Infection Control/instrumentation , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/standards , Jordan/epidemiology , Laboratories/organization & administration , Laboratories/standards , Male , Medical Laboratory Personnel/standards , Medical Laboratory Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Personal Protective Equipment/supply & distribution , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Self Report
8.
Fertil Steril ; 115(5): 1156-1158, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1171964

ABSTRACT

The prevalence and ease of electronic communication, specifically email through patient portals associated with electronic medical records or via traditional enterprise email clients (e.g., Outlook) and video, have resulted in increased use for rapid communication between practitioners and their patients. Concerns regarding patient privacy and compliance with the regulations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) remain a barrier to routine incorporation of electronic communication into practice. Furthermore, capital investment, implementation, and maintenance costs may provide additional barriers. These long-standing concerns have been heightened and tested by the COVID-19 pandemic. Best-practice guidelines for the secure and safe use of electronic communication with reproductive care patients are provided.


Subject(s)
Confidentiality/standards , Electronic Mail/standards , Reproductive Medicine/standards , Telemedicine/standards , Text Messaging/standards , Video Recording/standards , COVID-19/epidemiology , Electronic Health Records/standards , Guideline Adherence/standards , Humans , Reproductive Medicine/methods , Telemedicine/methods , Video Recording/methods
10.
J Hosp Infect ; 108: 120-134, 2021 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1014626

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) represent a high-risk population for infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). AIM: To determine the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among HCWs, and identify the factors associated with this seroprevalence. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were applied for this systematic review and meta-analysis. Databases including PubMed/MEDLINE and preprint services (medRχiv and bioRχiv) were searched from inception to 24th August 2020. FINDINGS: Forty-nine studies including 127,480 HCWs met the inclusion criteria. The estimated overall seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among HCWs was 8.7% (95% confidence interval 6.7-10.9%). Seroprevalence was higher in studies conducted in North America (12.7%) compared with those conducted in Europe (8.5%), Africa (8.2) and Asia (4%). Meta-regression showed that increased sensitivity of antibody tests was associated with increased seroprevalence. The following factors were associated with seropositivity: male gender; Black, Asian and Hispanic HCWs; work in a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) unit; patient-related work; front-line HCWs; healthcare assistants; shortage of personal protective equipment; self-reported belief of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection; previous positive polymerase chain reaction test; and household contact with suspected or confirmed cases of COVID-19. CONCLUSION: The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among HCWs is high. Excellent adherence to infection prevention and control measures; sufficient and adequate personal protective equipment; and early recognition, identification and isolation of HCWs infected with SARS-CoV-2 are imperative to decrease the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/immunology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Africa/epidemiology , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Asia/epidemiology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , Europe/epidemiology , Female , Guideline Adherence/standards , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , North America/epidemiology , Personal Protective Equipment/supply & distribution , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Self Report , Sensitivity and Specificity , Seroepidemiologic Studies
12.
Endocrine ; 71(1): 20-25, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-962158

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Nowadays, the clinical management of thyroid nodules needs to be multi-disciplinary. In particular, the crosstalk between endocrinologists and cytopathologists is key. When FNAs are properly requested by endocrinologists for nodules characterised by relevant clinical and ultrasound features, cytopathologists play a pivotal role in the diagnostic work-up. Conversely, improper FNA requests can lead to questionable diagnostic efficiency. Recently, recommendations to delay all non-urgent diagnostic procedures, such as thyroid FNAs, to contain the spread of COVID-19 infection, have made the interplay between endocrinologists and cytopathologists even more essential. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on our practice by evaluating the total number of FNAs performed and the distribution of the Bethesda Categories before, during, and after the lockdown. METHODS: We analysed the FNA trends before (1st January 2019 to March 13th 2020), during (March 14th to May 15th), and after (May 16th to July 7th) the lockdown. RESULTS: Although the total number of weekly FNAs dropped from 62.1 to 23.1, our referring endocrinologists managed to prioritise patients with high-risk nodules. In fact, in the post-lockdown, the weekly proportion of benign diagnoses dropped on average by 12% and that of high-risk diagnoses increased by 6%. CONCLUSIONS: The lesson we have learned so far from this pandemic is that by applying safety protocols to avoid contagion and by increasing the threshold for FNA requests for thyroid nodules, we can continue to guarantee our services to high-risk patients even in times of a health crisis.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Services Accessibility , Pandemics , Quarantine , Thyroid Nodule/diagnosis , Adult , Aged , Attitude to Health , Biopsy, Fine-Needle/statistics & numerical data , Biopsy, Fine-Needle/trends , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Communicable Disease Control/organization & administration , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Female , Guideline Adherence/standards , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Guideline Adherence/trends , Health Priorities/standards , Health Priorities/statistics & numerical data , Health Priorities/trends , Health Services Accessibility/standards , Health Services Accessibility/trends , History, 21st Century , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/standards , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/trends , Quarantine/organization & administration , Quarantine/standards , Referral and Consultation/statistics & numerical data , Referral and Consultation/trends , Thyroid Gland/pathology , Thyroid Nodule/epidemiology , Time Factors , Ultrasonography, Interventional
13.
Br J Hosp Med (Lond) ; 81(9): 1-9, 2020 Sep 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-807015

ABSTRACT

Guidance regarding appropriate use of personal protective equipment in hospitals is in constant flux as research into SARS-COV-2 transmission continues to develop our understanding of the virus. The risk associated with procedures classed as 'aerosol generating' is under constant debate. Current guidance is largely based on pragmatic and cautious logic, as there is little scientific evidence of aerosolization and transmission of respiratory viruses associated with procedures. The physical properties of aerosol particles which may contain viable virus have implications for the safe use of personal protective equipment and infection control protocols. As elective work in the NHS is reinstated, it is important that the implications of the possibility of airborne transmission of the virus in hospitals are more widely understood. This will facilitate appropriate use of personal protective equipment and help direct further research into the true risks of aerosolization during these procedures to allow safe streamlining of services for staff and patients.


Subject(s)
Air Microbiology , Coronavirus Infections , Critical Care , Guideline Adherence/standards , Infection Control , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment , Pneumonia, Viral , Risk Management/organization & administration , Aerosols , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Critical Care/methods , Critical Care/trends , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Humans , Infection Control/instrumentation , Infection Control/methods , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom/epidemiology
14.
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control ; 9(1): 148, 2020 09 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-745017

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are on the front line of the COVID-19 outbreak, and their constant exposure to infected patients and contaminated surfaces puts them at risk of acquiring and transmitting the infection. Therefore, they must employ protective measures. In practice, HCWs in Israel were not fully prepared for this sudden COVID-19 outbreak. This research aimed to identify and compare: (1) Israeli HCWs' perceptions regarding the official COVID-19 guidelines' applicability and their protective value, and (2) HCWs executives' response to HWCs' concern regarding personal protective equipment (PPE) shortage. METHODS: A mixed-methods sequential explanatory design consists of: (1) An online survey of 242 HCWs about the application of the guidelines and PPE, and (2) Personal interviews of 15 HCWs executives regarding PPE shortage and the measures they are taking to address it. RESULTS: A significant difference between the perceived applicability and protective value was found for most of the guidelines. Some of the guidelines were perceived as more applicable than protective (hand hygiene, signage at entrance, alcohol rub sanitizers at entrance, and mask for contact with symptomatic patients). Other were perceived as less applicable than protective (prohibited gathering of over 10 people, maintaining a distance of 2 m', and remote services). CONCLUSIONS: HCWs need the support of the healthcare authorities not only to provide missing equipment, but also to communicate the risk to them. Conveying the information with full transparency, while addressing the uncertainty element and engaging the HCWs in evaluating the guidelines, are critical for establishing trust.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Health Personnel/psychology , Infection Control/methods , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Adult , Attitude of Health Personnel , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Cross Infection/transmission , Cross Infection/virology , Female , Guideline Adherence/standards , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Israel/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Personal Protective Equipment , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
15.
J Surg Oncol ; 122(6): 1013-1019, 2020 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-694538

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCWs) are at risk of getting infected while at work, for example, operating room (OR), hence it is pertinent that they don all the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) to minimize the chance of getting infected. METHODS: A COVID-19 specific briefing and debriefing form was created and used in the OR along with the World Health Organization surgical safety checklist to reinforce the use of appropriate PPE. An audit was subsequently done to understand the compliance to PPE use, followed by a survey based on the findings of the audit to understand the issues related to noncompliance. RESULTS: The form was used in 183 out of the 238 (77%) surgeries performed during a months' time. The overall compliance for PPE usage was 96.3%. Noncompliance was seen most often for eye protection (45/567) (P = .01). The survey revealed that this was mostly among surgeons mainly due to discomfort, poor visibility, and frequent fogging. CONCLUSIONS: Our HCW were adapting well to the new normal of donning appropriate PPE in the OR, except for the eye protection due to discomfort and visibility related issues. This is important to know so that necessary changes could be introduced to better the compliance.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/transmission , Guideline Adherence/standards , Health Personnel/psychology , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Neoplasms/surgery , Personal Protective Equipment/supply & distribution , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/virology , Guidelines as Topic , Health Personnel/education , Humans , Infection Control/organization & administration , Operating Rooms , Perception , Protective Clothing
17.
Am J Infect Control ; 48(9): 1074-1079, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-549199

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Higher requirement is put forward in the measurement of hand hygiene (HH) during a pandemic. This study aimed to describe HH compliance measurement and explore observed influencing factors with respect to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) guidelines in China. METHODS: Compliance was measured as the percentage of compliant opportunities based on criteria for 17 moments. The criteria for compliance included HH behavior, procedure, duration, hand drying method, and the overall that counts them all. The observed influencing factors included different departments and areas and protection motivation. Descriptive analysis and logistic regression were performed. RESULTS: The compliance of overall criteria, HH behavior, procedure, duration, and hand drying method were 79.44%, 96.71%, 95.74%, 88.93%, and 88.42%, respectively, which were significantly different from each other (P < .001). Meanwhile, the overall and hand drying method compliance in semi-contaminated areas (odds ratio [OR] = 1.829, P < .001; OR = 2.149, P = .001) and hygienic areas (OR = 1.689, P = .004; OR = 1.959, P = .015) were significantly higher than those in contaminated area. The compliance with HH behavior for the motivation of patient-protection (OR = 0.362, P < .001) was lower than that for the motivation of self-protection. CONCLUSIONS: HH compliance was firstly measured using different criteria for 17 moments according to COVID-19 guidelines in China. The measurement of HH compliance needs clearer definition and comprehensive practice. Contaminated areas and motivation of patient-protection contribute to lower compliance, which may be addressed by allocating more human resources and increasing supervision and education.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Guideline Adherence/standards , Hand Hygiene/standards , Hospitals/standards , Infection Control/standards , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Adult , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , China/epidemiology , Female , Hand Hygiene/methods , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2
18.
Front Med ; 14(5): 623-629, 2020 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-505952

ABSTRACT

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently under a global pandemic trend. The efficiency of containment measures and epidemic tendency of typical countries should be assessed. In this study, the efficiency of prevention and control measures in China, Italy, Iran, South Korea, and Japan was assessed, and the COVID-19 epidemic tendency among these countries was compared. Results showed that the effective reproduction number(Re) in Wuhan, China increased almost exponentially, reaching a maximum of 3.98 before a lockdown and rapidly decreased to below 1 due to containment and mitigation strategies of the Chinese government. The Re in Italy declined at a slower pace than that in China after the implementation of prevention and control measures. The Re in Iran showed a certain decline after the establishment of a national epidemic control command, and an evident stationary phase occurred because the best window period for the prevention and control of the epidemic was missed. The epidemic in Japan and South Korea reoccurred several times with the Re fluctuating greatly. The epidemic has hardly rebounded in China due to the implementation of prevention and control strategies and the effective enforcement of policies. Other countries suffering from the epidemic could learn from the Chinese experience in containing COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Basic Reproduction Number/statistics & numerical data , Communicable Disease Control , Coronavirus Infections , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , China/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control/legislation & jurisprudence , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Communicable Disease Control/organization & administration , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Cross-Cultural Comparison , Government Regulation , Guideline Adherence/standards , Humans , Iran/epidemiology , Italy/epidemiology , Law Enforcement/methods , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Program Evaluation , Republic of Korea/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Social Validity, Research , Time Factors
19.
Am J Emerg Med ; 38(7): 1448-1453, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-140495

ABSTRACT

As shown by the current COVID-19 pandemic, emergency departments (ED) are the front line for hospital-and-community-based care during viral respiratory disease outbreaks. As such, EDs must be able to reorganize and reformat operations to meet the changing needs and staggering patient volume. This paper addresses ways to adapt departmental operations to better manage in times of elevated disease burden, specifically identifying areas of intervention to help limit crowding and spread. Using experience from past outbreaks and the current COVID-19 pandemic, we advise strategies to increase surge capacity and limit patient inflow. Triage should identify and geographically cohort symptomatic patients within a designated unit to limit exposure early in an outbreak. Screening and PPE guidelines for both patient and staff should be followed closely, as determined by hospital administration and the CDC. Equipment needs are also greatly affected in an outbreak; we emphasis portable radiographic equipment to limit transport, and an upstocking of certain medications, respiratory supplies, and PPE.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Emergency Service, Hospital , Guideline Adherence/standards , Health Personnel , Infection Control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Humans , Patient Isolation , Personal Protective Equipment , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Surge Capacity , Triage , Universal Precautions
20.
Implement Sci ; 15(1): 26, 2020 04 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-116872

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Rates of opioid prescribing tripled in the USA between 1999 and 2015 and were associated with significant increases in opioid misuse and overdose death. Roughly half of all opioids are prescribed in primary care. Although clinical guidelines describe recommended opioid prescribing practices, implementing these guidelines in a way that balances safety and effectiveness vs. risk remains a challenge. The literature offers little help about which implementation strategies work best in different clinical settings or how strategies could be tailored to optimize their effectiveness in different contexts. Systems consultation consists of (1) educational/engagement meetings with audit and feedback reports, (2) practice facilitation, and (3) prescriber peer consulting. The study is designed to discover the most cost-effective sequence and combination of strategies for improving opioid prescribing practices in diverse primary care clinics. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is a hybrid type 3 clustered, sequential, multiple-assignment randomized trial (SMART) that randomizes clinics from two health systems at two points, months 3 and 9, of a 21-month intervention. Clinics are provided one of four sequences of implementation strategies: a condition consisting of educational/engagement meetings and audit and feedback alone (EM/AF), EM/AF plus practice facilitation (PF), EM/AF + prescriber peer consulting (PPC), and EM/AF + PF + PPC. The study's primary outcome is morphine-milligram equivalent (MME) dose by prescribing clinicians within clinics. The study's primary aim is the comparison of EM/AF + PF + PPC versus EM/AF alone on change in MME from month 3 to month 21. The secondary aim is to derive cost estimates for each of the four sequences and compare them. The exploratory aim is to examine four tailoring variables that can be used to construct an adaptive implementation strategy to meet the needs of different primary care clinics. DISCUSSION: Systems consultation is a practical blend of implementation strategies used in this case to improve opioid prescribing practices in primary care. The blend offers a range of strategies in sequences from minimally to substantially intensive. The results of this study promise to help us understand how to cost effectively improve the implementation of evidence-based practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04044521 (ClinicalTrials.gov). Registered 05 August 2019.


Subject(s)
Analgesics, Opioid/administration & dosage , Guideline Adherence/organization & administration , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Counseling/organization & administration , Education, Medical, Continuing/organization & administration , Guideline Adherence/standards , Humans , Peer Group , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Primary Health Care/standards , Research Design
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL