Assessing a New Prescreening Score for the Simplified Evaluation of the Clinical Quality and Relevance of eHealth Apps: Instrument Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, more than 250 eHealth solutions were added to app stores each day, or 90,000 in the year; however, the vast majority of these solutions have not undergone clinical validation, their quality is unknown, and the user does not know if they are effective and safe. We sought to develop a simple prescreening scoring method that would assess the quality and clinical relevance of each app. We designed this tool with 3 health care stakeholder groups in mind: eHealth solution designers seeking to evaluate a potential competitor or their own tool, investors considering a fundraising candidate, and a hospital clinician or IT department wishing to evaluate a current or potential eHealth solution. OBJECTIVE: We built and tested a novel prescreening scoring tool (the Medical Digital Solution scoring tool). The tool, which consists of 26 questions that enable the quick assessment and comparison of the clinical relevance and quality of eHealth apps, was tested on 68 eHealth solutions. METHODS: The Medical Digital Solution scoring tool is based on the 2021 evaluation criteria of the French National Health Authority, the 2022 European Society of Medical Oncology recommendations, and other provided scores. We built the scoring tool with patient association and eHealth experts and submitted it to eHealth app creators, who evaluated their apps via the web-based form in January 2022. After completing the evaluation criteria, their apps obtained an overall score and 4 categories of subscores. These criteria evaluated the type of solution and domain, the solution's targeted population size, the level of clinical assessment, and information about the provider. RESULTS: In total, 68 eHealth solutions were evaluated with the scoring tool. Oncology apps (22%, 20/90) and general health solutions (23%, 21/90) were the most represented. Of the 68 apps, 32 (47%) were involved in remote monitoring by health professionals. Regarding clinical outcomes, 5% (9/169) of the apps assessed overall survival. Randomized studies had been conducted for 21% (23/110) of the apps to assess their benefit. Of the 68 providers, 38 (56%) declared the objective of obtaining reimbursement, and 7 (18%) out of the 38 solutions seeking reimbursement were assessed as having a high probability of reimbursement. The median global score was 11.2 (range 4.7-17.4) out of 20 and the distribution of the scores followed a normal distribution pattern (Shapiro-Wilk test: P=.33). CONCLUSIONS: This multidomain prescreening scoring tool is simple, fast, and can be deployed on a large scale to initiate an assessment of the clinical relevance and quality of a clinical eHealth app. This simple tool can help a decision-maker determine which aspects of the app require further analysis and improvement.

Laboratory Management and Quality Control Practice of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid Detection.

OBJECTIVE: A positive result of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection provides critical laboratory evidence for clinical confirmed diagnosis, pandemic status evaluation, a pandemic prevention plan, treatment of infected people with symptoms, and protection of uninfected people. This study aims to provide a practical reference for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid-related research and detection. METHODS: Our laboratory has established policies combining personnel management and quality control practices for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection during the pandemic. RESULTS: In this article, we describe cross-department personnel management and key points of personal protection and quality control in the testing process. We also report on the differences in detection and the compatibility between different brand kits. CONCLUSION: It is critical to maintain a standard and accurate laboratory operation for nucleic acid testing.

A comparison of droplet and contact contamination using 3 simulated barrier techniques for COVID-19 intubation: a quality assurance study.

BACKGROUND: The intubation of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) puts health care workers at risk of infection through aerosol, droplet and contact contamination. We evaluated the risk of droplet and contact contamination for health care workers using 3 intubation barrier techniques as part of a quality assurance study at our institution. METHODS: This randomized quality assurance study was completed at a tertiary academic hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, on Apr. 4, 2020. Participants in personal protective equipment performed simulated intubations on a manikin with (a) no barrier, (b) a clear plastic sheet covering the manikin and (c) a plexiglass intubation box over the manikin, in random order. Fluorescein was ejected from inside the manikin's mouth to simulate droplet and contact spread during a standard intubation sequence. Two blinded independent assessors evaluated the location and degree of contamination on the intubator and assistant using an ultraviolet light. Contamination severity was rated in a standard fashion (0 = none; 1 = minor; 2 = major). The primary outcome was total contamination score and secondary outcomes were scores between intubator and assistant, anatomic areas contaminated and qualitative feedback on ease of intubation. RESULTS: Five participants completed this study. Total contamination score was different between the 3 groups for the intubator (p = 0.02) but not the assistant (p = 0.2). For the intubator, the total contamination score was higher when the sheet was used (median 29 [interquartile range (IQR) 25-34]) than when the box was used (median 17 [IQR 15-22]) or when no barrier was used (median 18 [IQR 13-21]). All 5 participants reported challenges during intubation using the sheet. INTERPRETATION: Use of a plastic sheet while intubating patients with COVID-19 may increase the risk of droplet and contact contamination during intubation and impede intubation. Further study should be undertaken before implementing barrier techniques in practice.

Application of the PDCA cycle for standardized nursing management in a COVID-19 intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Nursing quality is an integral part of health care quality and one of key performance indicators (KPIs) for health care management. The Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle is a management tool for continuous improvement of a business's products or processes. It can be applied to standardize nursing management and thus improve the nursing quality and increase the survival rate of patients. This study assessed the value of the PDCA cycle in standardizing nursing management in an intensive care unit (ICU) for patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: The status quo of the ICU was analyzed, and the relevant issues and countermeasures were proposed. The PDCA cycle was applied to standardize the nursing management in the ICU. RESULTS: Nine measures were proposed and applied to improve the management of the COVID-19 ICU: defining the clean or contaminated areas, use of self-designed shoe storage cabinets, defining staff roles and responsibilities, establishing the staffing structure, staff training, placing items at fixed locations, improving shift handover, use of bulletin boards for listing key points, and use of reserved drugs cabinets. The virus contamination awareness, professional skills, awareness of duties and responsibilities, and quality and performance of nursing were remarkably improved 2 weeks after the implementation of the above countermeasures. CONCLUSIONS: The PDCA cycle helps to standardize nursing management in COVID-19 ICU by developing and applying effective nursing management approaches.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease Care in the COVID-19 Pandemic Era: The Humanitas, Milan, Experience.

The outbreak of the COVID-19 caused by coronavirus SARS-CoV2, is rapidly spreading worldwide. This is the first pandemic caused by a coronavirus in history. More than 150 000 confirmed cases worldwide are reported involving the SARS-CoV2, with more than 5000 COVID-19-related deaths on March 14, 2020. Fever, chills, cough, shortness of breath, generalised myalgia, malaise, drowsiness, diarrhoea, confusion, dyspnoea, and bilateral interstitial pneumonia are the common symptoms. No therapies are available, and the only way to contain the virus spread is to regularly and thoroughly clean one's hands with an alcohol-based hand rub or wash them with soap and water, to maintain at least 1 m [3 feet] distance from anyone who is coughing or sneezing, to avoid touching eyes, nose, and mouth, and to stay home if one feels unwell. No data are available on the risk of COVID-19 and outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] patients. Outbreak restrictions can impact on the IBD care. We aim to give a viewpoint on how operationally to manage IBD patients and ensure quality of care in the current pandemic era.