The experience of European hospital-based health care workers on following infection prevention and control procedures and their wellbeing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Working under pandemic conditions exposes health care workers (HCWs) to infection risk and psychological strain. A better understanding of HCWs' experiences of following local infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures during COVID-19 is urgently needed to inform strategies for protecting the psychical and psychological health of HCWs. The objective of this study was therefore to capture the perceptions of hospital HCWs on local IPC procedures and the impact on their emotional wellbeing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. METHODS: Participants were recruited in two sampling rounds of an international cross-sectional survey. Sampling took place between 31 March and 17 April 2020 via existing research networks and between 14 May and 31 August 2020 via online convenience sampling. Main outcome measures were behavioural determinants of HCWs' adherence to IPC guidelines and the WHO-5 Well-Being Index, a validated scale of 0-100 reflecting emotional wellbeing. The WHO-5 was interpreted as a score below or above 50 points, a cut-off score used in previous literature to screen for depression. RESULTS: 2289 HCWs from 40 countries in Europe participated. Mean age was 42 (±11) years, 66% were female, 47% and 39% were medical doctors and nurses, respectively. 74% (n = 1699) of HCWs were directly treating patients with COVID-19, of which 32% (n = 527) reported they were fearful of caring for these patients. HCWs reported high levels of concern about COVID-19 infection risk to themselves (71%) and their family (82%) as a result of their job. 40% of HCWs considered that getting infected with COVID-19 was not within their control. This feeling was more common among junior than senior HCWs (46% versus 38%, P value < .01). Sufficient COVID-19-specific IPC training, confidence in PPE use and institutional trust were positively associated with the feeling that becoming infected with COVID-19 was within their control. Female HCWs were more likely than males to report a WHO-5 score below 50 points (aOR 1.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-1.8). CONCLUSIONS: In Europe, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a differential impact on those providing direct COVID-19 patient care, junior staff and women. Health facilities must be aware of these differential impacts, build trust and provide tailored support for this vital workforce during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

A study of Indiana University Health's spirit of inquiry and innovation during COVID.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has required nursing innovations to meet patient care needs not previously encountered. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe nursing innovations conceived, implemented, and desired during the first COVID-19 surge. METHODS: The investigators invited registered nurses employed across 16 Midwest hospitals (6,207) to complete the survey. Respondents provided demographics and written descriptions of innovations they conceived, witnessed, and desired. Investigators analyzed text responses using standard content analytic procedures and summarized quantitative demographics using percentages. FINDINGS: Nurses reported seven types of innovations that would (a) improve personal protective equipment (PPE), (b) limit the need to repeatedly don and doff PPE, (c) ensure safer practice, (d) conserve and access supplies, (e) provide patient and family education and support, (f) make team member communication more efficient, and (g) improve peer support. DISCUSSION: Nurses are in a unique position to generate innovative solutions to meet patient care needs under adverse and rapidly changing situations.

Development of a framework of intervention strategies for point of care quality improvement at different levels of healthcare delivery system in India: initial lessons.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate quality of care has been identified as one of the most significant challenges to achieving universal health coverage in low-income and middle-income countries. To address this WHO-SEARO, the point of care quality improvement (POCQI) method has been developed. This paper describes developing a dynamic framework for the implementation of POCQI across India from 2015 to 2020. METHODS: A total of 10 intervention strategies were designed as per the needs of the local health settings. These strategies were implemented across 10 states of India, using a modification of the 'translating research in practice' framework. Healthcare professionals and administrators were trained in POCQI using a combination of onsite and online training methods followed by coaching and mentoring support. The implementation strategy changed to a fully digital community of practice platform during the active phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Dashboard process, outcome indicators and crude cost of implementation were collected and analysed across the implementation sites. RESULTS: Three implementation frameworks were evolved over the study period. The combined population benefitting from these interventions was 103 million. A pool of QI teams from 131 facilities successfully undertook 165 QI projects supported by a pool of 240 mentors over the study period. A total of 21 QI resources and 6 publications in peer-reviewed journals were also developed. The average cost of implementing POCQI initiatives for a target population of one million was US$ 3219. A total of 100 online activities were conducted over 6 months by the digital community of practice. The framework has recently extended digitally across the South-East Asian region. CONCLUSION: The development of an implementation framework for POCQI is an essential requirement for the initiative's successful country-wide scale. The implementation plan should be flexible to the healthcare system's needs, target population and the implementing agency's capacity and amenable to multiple iterative changes.

New Horizons-Addressing Healthcare Disparities in Endocrine Disease: Bias, Science, and Patient Care.

Unacceptable healthcare disparities in endocrine disease have persisted for decades, and 2021 presents a difficult evolving environment. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the gross structural inequities that drive health disparities, and antiracism demonstrations remind us that the struggle for human rights continues. Increased public awareness and discussion of disparities present an urgent opportunity to advance health equity. However, it is more complicated to change the behavior of individuals and reform systems because societies are polarized into different factions that increasingly believe, accept, and live different realities. To reduce health disparities, clinicians must (1) truly commit to advancing health equity and intentionally act to reduce health disparities; (2) create a culture of equity by looking inwards for personal bias and outwards for the systemic biases built into their everyday work processes; (3) implement practical individual, organizational, and community interventions that address the root causes of the disparities; and (4) consider their roles in addressing social determinants of health and influencing healthcare payment policy to advance health equity. To care for diverse populations in 2021, clinicians must have self-insight and true understanding of heterogeneous patients, knowledge of evidence-based interventions, ability to adapt messaging and approaches, and facility with systems change and advocacy. Advancing health equity requires both science and art; evidence-based roadmaps and stories that guide the journey to better outcomes, judgment that informs how to change the behavior of patients, providers, communities, organizations, and policymakers, and passion and a moral mission to serve humanity.

Side-Effects of COVID-19 on Patient Care: An INR Story.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have documented reduced access to patient care due to the COVID-19 pandemic, including access to diagnostic or screening tests, prescription medications, and treatment for an ongoing condition. In the context of clinical management for venous thromboembolism, this could result in suboptimal therapy with warfarin. We aimed to determine the impact of the pandemic on utilization of International Normalized Ratio (INR) testing and the percentage of high and low results. METHODS: INR data from 11 institutions were extracted to compare testing volume and the percentage of INR results ≥3.5 and ≤1.5 between a pre-pandemic period (January-June 2019, period 1) and a portion of the COVID-19 pandemic period (January-June 2020, period 2). The analysis was performed for inpatient and outpatient cohorts. RESULTS: Testing volumes showed relatively little change in January and February, followed by a significant decrease in March, April, and May, and then returned to baseline in June. Outpatient testing showed a larger percentage decrease in testing volume compared to inpatient testing. At 10 of the 11 study sites, we observed an increase in the percentage of abnormal high INR results as test volumes decreased, primarily among outpatients. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted INR testing among outpatients which may be attributable to several factors. Increased supratherapeutic INR results during the pandemic period when there was reduced laboratory utilization and access to care is concerning because of the risk of adverse bleeding events in this group of patients. This could be mitigated in the future by offering drive-through testing and/or widespread implementation of home INR monitoring.

Recommendations for developing clinical care protocols during pandemics: From theory and practice.

In 2019, a novel coronavirus called the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 led to the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019, which was deemed a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020. Owing to the accelerated rate of mortality and utilization of hospital resources, health care systems had to adapt to these major changes. This affected patient care across all disciplines and specifically within the perioperative services. In this review, we discuss the strategies and pitfalls of how perioperative services in a large academic medical center responded to the initial onset of a pandemic, adjustments made to airway management and anesthesia specialty services - including critical care medicine, obstetric anesthesiology, and cardiac anesthesiology - and strategies for reopening surgical caseload during the pandemic.

Pragmatic Recommendations for Therapeutics of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

The therapeutic options for COVID-19 patients are currently limited, but numerous randomized controlled trials are being completed, and many are on the way. For COVID-19 patients in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), we recommend against using remdesivir outside of a clinical trial. We recommend against using hydroxychloroquine ± azithromycin or lopinavir-ritonavir. We suggest empiric antimicrobial treatment for likely coinfecting pathogens if an alternative infectious cause is likely. We suggest close monitoring without additional empiric antimicrobials if there are no clinical or laboratory signs of other infections. We recommend using oral or intravenous low-dose dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 disease who require oxygen or mechanical ventilation. We recommend against using dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 who do not require supplemental oxygen. We recommend using alternate equivalent doses of steroids in the event that dexamethasone is unavailable. We also recommend using low-dose corticosteroids in patients with refractory shock requiring vasopressor support. We recommend against the use of convalescent plasma and interleukin-6 inhibitors, such as tocilizumab, for the treatment of COVID-19 in LMICs outside of clinical trials.

Pragmatic Recommendations for the Management of COVID-19 Patients with Shock in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

As some patients infected with the novel coronavirus progress to critical illness, a subset will eventually develop shock. High-quality data on management of these patients are scarce, and further investigation will provide valuable information in the context of the pandemic. A group of experts identify a set of pragmatic recommendations for the care of patients with SARS-CoV-2 and shock in resource-limited environments. We define shock as life-threatening circulatory failure that results in inadequate tissue perfusion and cellular dysoxia/hypoxia, and suggest that it can be operationalized via clinical observations. We suggest a thorough evaluation for other potential causes of shock and suggest against indiscriminate testing for coinfections. We suggest the use of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) as a simple bedside prognostic score for COVID-19 patients and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) to evaluate the etiology of shock. Regarding fluid therapy for the treatment of COVID-19 patients with shock in low-middle-income countries, we favor balanced crystalloids and recommend using a conservative fluid strategy for resuscitation. Where available and not prohibited by cost, we recommend using norepinephrine, given its safety profile. We favor avoiding the routine use of central venous or arterial catheters, where availability and costs are strong considerations. We also recommend using low-dose corticosteroids in patients with refractory shock. In addressing targets of resuscitation, we recommend the use of simple bedside parameters such as capillary refill time and suggest that POCUS be used to assess the need for further fluid resuscitation, if available.

Patients, procedures, and PPE: Safe office-based anesthesia recommendations in the COVID-19 era.

The growth of office-based surgery (OBS) has been due to ease of scheduling and convenience for patients; office-based anesthesia safety continues to be well supported in the literature. In 2020, the Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19) has resulted in dramatic shifts in healthcare, especially in the office-based setting. The goal of closing the economy was to flatten the curve, impacting office-based and ambulatory practices. Reopening of the economy and the return to ambulatory surgery and OBS and procedures have created a challenge due to COVID-19 and the infectious disease precautions that must be taken. Patients may be more apt to return to the outpatient setting to avoid the hospital, especially with the resurgence of COVID-19 cases locally, nationally, and worldwide. This review provides algorithms for screening and testing patients, selecting patients for procedures, choosing appropriate procedures, and selecting suitable personal protective equipment in this unprecedented period.

The Heart and COVID-19: What Cardiologists Need to Know. / O Coração e a COVID-19: O que o Cardiologista Precisa Saber.

In face of the pandemic of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the management of patients with cardiovascular risk factors and/or disease is challenging. The cardiovascular complications evidenced in patients with COVID-19 derive from several mechanisms, ranging from direct viral injury to complications secondary to the inflammatory and thrombotic responses to the infection. The proper care of patients with COVID-19 requires special attention to the cardiovascular system aimed at better outcomes.

Frente à pandemia da doença causada pelo novo coronavírus (COVID-19), o manejo do paciente com fator de risco e/ou doença cardiovascular é desafiador nos dias de hoje. As complicações cardiovasculares evidenciadas nos pacientes com COVID-19 resultam de vários mecanismos, que vão desde lesão direta pelo vírus até complicações secundárias à resposta inflamatória e trombótica desencadeada pela infecção. O cuidado adequado do paciente com COVID-19 exige atenção ao sistema cardiovascular em busca de melhores desfechos.

Comprehensive review of implications of COVID-19 on clinical outcomes of cancer patients and management of solid tumors during the pandemic.

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has emerged as a novel infection which has spread rapidly across the globe and currently presents a grave threat to the health of vulnerable patient populations like those with malignancy, elderly, and immunocompromised. Healthcare systems across the world are grappling with the detrimental impact of this pandemic while learning about this novel disease and concurrently developing vaccines, strategies to mitigate its spread, and treat those infected. Cancer patients today face with a unique situation. They are susceptible to severe clinically adverse events and higher mortality from COVID-19 infection as well as morbidity and mortality from their underlying malignancy. Conclusion: Our review suggests increased risk of mortality and serious clinical events from COVID-19 infection in cancer patients. However, risk of adverse events does not seem to be increased by cancer therapies. True impact of COVID-19 on cancer patients will unravel over the next few months. We have also reviewed clinical features of COVID-19, recent recommendations from various medical, surgical, and radiation oncology societies for major solid tumor types like lung, breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer during the duration of this pandemic.

A novel tool for patient data management in the ICU-Ensuring timely and accurate vital data exchange among ICU team members.

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the need to simplify data collection for critically-ill patients, particularly for physicians relocated to the ICU setting. Herein we present a simple, reproducible, and highly-customizable manual-entry tool to track ICU patients using new HIPAA-compliant Google Big Query technology for parsing large datasets. This innovative flow chart is useful and could be modified to serve the particular needs of different sub-specialists, particularly those that either rely heavily on hand-written notes or experience poor electronic medical record (EMR) penetration. METHODS: The tool was developed using a combination of three Google Enterprise features: Google Forms for data input, Google Sheets for data output, and Google Big Query for data parsing. Code was written in SQL. Sheets functions were used to transpose and filter parsed data. White and black box tests were performed to examine functionality. RESULTS: Our tool was successfully able to collect and output fictional patient data across all 57 data points specified by the intensivists and surgeons of Cardiovascular Department of Mt. Sinai Morningside Hospital. CONCLUSION: The functional tests performed demonstrate use of the tool. Though originally conceived to simplify patient data collection for newly relocated physicians to the ICU, our tool also overcomes financial and technological barriers previously described in low-income countries that could dramatically improve patient care and provide data to power future studies in these regions. With the original code provided, implementers may adapt our tool to best meet the requirements of their clinical setting and protocols during this very challenging time.