Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 472
Filter
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
2.
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control ; 10(1): 159, 2021 11 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1505725

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In the COVID-19 pandemic context, a massive shortage of personal protective equipment occurred. To increase the available stocks, several countries appealed for donations from individuals or industries. While national and international standards to evaluate personal protective equipment exist, none of the previous research studied how to evaluate personal protective equipment coming from donations to healthcare establishments. Our aim was to evaluate the quality and possible use of the personal protective equipment donations delivered to our health care establishment in order to avoid a shortage and to protect health care workers throughout the COVID-19 crisis. METHODS: Our intervention focused on evaluation of the quality of donations for medical use through creation of a set of assessment criteria and analysis of the economic impact of these donations. RESULTS: Between 20th March 2020 and 11th May 2020, we received 239 donations including respirators, gloves, coveralls, face masks, gowns, hats, overshoes, alcohol-based hand rubs, face shields, goggles and aprons. A total of 448,666 (86.3%) products out of the 519,618 initially received were validated and distributed in health care units, equivalent to 126 (52.7%) donations out of the 239 received. The budgetary value of the validated donations was 32,872 euros according to the pre COVID-19 prices and 122,178 euros according to the current COVID-19 prices, representing an increase of 371.7%. CONCLUSIONS: By ensuring a constant influx of personal protective equipment and proper stock management, shortages were avoided. Procurement and distribution of controlled and validated personal protective equipment is the key to providing quality care while guaranteeing health care worker safety.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Eye Protective Devices/supply & distribution , Health Personnel/psychology , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Masks/supply & distribution , Personal Protective Equipment/supply & distribution , Protective Clothing/supply & distribution , Safety Management , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Infection Control , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Protective Clothing/statistics & numerical data , Quality Improvement , SARS-CoV-2
6.
BMJ ; 369: m2195, 2020 06 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1430181

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To examine the protective effects of appropriate personal protective equipment for frontline healthcare professionals who provided care for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Cross sectional study. SETTING: Four hospitals in Wuhan, China. PARTICIPANTS: 420 healthcare professionals (116 doctors and 304 nurses) who were deployed to Wuhan by two affiliated hospitals of Sun Yat-sen University and Nanfang Hospital of Southern Medical University for 6-8 weeks from 24 January to 7 April 2020. These study participants were provided with appropriate personal protective equipment to deliver healthcare to patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 and were involved in aerosol generating procedures. 77 healthcare professionals with no exposure history to covid-19 and 80 patients who had recovered from covid-19 were recruited to verify the accuracy of antibody testing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Covid-19 related symptoms (fever, cough, and dyspnoea) and evidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, defined as a positive test for virus specific nucleic acids in nasopharyngeal swabs, or a positive test for IgM or IgG antibodies in the serum samples. RESULTS: The average age of study participants was 35.8 years and 68.1% (286/420) were women. These study participants worked 4-6 hour shifts for an average of 5.4 days a week; they worked an average of 16.2 hours each week in intensive care units. All 420 study participants had direct contact with patients with covid-19 and performed at least one aerosol generating procedure. During the deployment period in Wuhan, none of the study participants reported covid-19 related symptoms. When the participants returned home, they all tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 specific nucleic acids and IgM or IgG antibodies (95% confidence interval 0.0 to 0.7%). CONCLUSION: Before a safe and effective vaccine becomes available, healthcare professionals remain susceptible to covid-19. Despite being at high risk of exposure, study participants were appropriately protected and did not contract infection or develop protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2. Healthcare systems must give priority to the procurement and distribution of personal protective equipment, and provide adequate training to healthcare professionals in its use.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Infection Control/instrumentation , Pandemics/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment/supply & distribution , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Adult , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , China , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2
9.
PLoS One ; 16(9): e0256454, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1394544

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has placed a significant burden on the mental health and wellbeing of frontline health and social care workers. The need to support frontline staff has been recognised. However, there is to date little research specifically on how best to support the mental health needs of frontline workers, and none on their own experiences and views about what might be most helpful. AIMS: We set out to redress this research gap by qualitatively exploring UK frontline health and social care workers' own experiences and views of psychosocial support during the pandemic. METHOD: Frontline health and social care workers were recruited purposively through social media and by snowball sampling via healthcare colleagues. Workers who volunteered to take part in the study were interviewed remotely following a semi-structured interview guide. Transcripts of the interviews were analysed by the research team following the principles of Reflexive Thematic Analysis. RESULTS: We conducted 25 interviews with frontline workers from a variety of professional groups working in health and social care settings across the UK. Themes derived from our analysis showed that workers' experiences and views about psychosocial support were complex. Peer support was many workers' first line of support but could also be experienced as a burden. Workers were ambivalent about support shown by organisations, media and the public. Whilst workers valued psychological support services, there were many disparities in provision and barriers to access. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that frontline health and social care workers are likely to need a flexible system of support including peer, organisational and professional support. More research is needed to fully unpack the structural, systemic and individual barriers to accessing psychosocial support. Greater collaboration, consultation and co-production of support services and their evaluation is warranted.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Personnel/psychology , Psychosocial Support Systems , Qualitative Research , Social Workers/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Female , Humans , Interviews as Topic , Male , Mental Health , Pandemics/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment/supply & distribution , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Social Support
14.
Health Qual Life Outcomes ; 19(1): 207, 2021 Aug 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1376587

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The effect of COVID-19 on Health-Care Professionals' mental health has received increased attention in the last year's literature. However, previous studies essentially evaluated psychopathological symptoms and not the presence of positive mental health. Therefore, the first objective of the present research is to evaluate health-care professionals' mental illness (i.e., anxiety and traumatic intensity) and positive mental health (i.e., well-being) using the Complete State Model of Health. Our second objective is to study the effect of Personal Protection Equipment availability on professionals' mental health. METHODS: Two-hundred and thirty-two health-care professionals working in Spain in the first line of COVID-19 patient care participated in the study. To measure anxiety, traumatic intensity and well-being participants completed the State Trait Anxiety Inventory, the Davidson Trauma Scale, and the Mental Health Continuum-Short Form. Pearson correlations were used to examine the relationships between all scales. In order to test the two continua model of mental health, we used parallel analysis and exploratory factor analysis. To analyze anxiety, traumatic intensity, and well-being differences between health-care professionals with and without Personal Protection Equipment availability we conducted different ANOVAS. To test our hypothesis regarding the moderating role of Personal Protection Equipment availability in the effect of mental illness on positive mental health, data were subjected to a hierarchical regression analysis. RESULTS: As in previous studies, health-care professionals showed high levels of anxiety and traumatic intensity. They also presented low levels of well-being indicators. According to our hypothesis, results of parallel analysis and exploratory factorial analysis indicated that the measures of mental illness and positive mental health loaded on separate but correlated factors. Finally, Personal Protection Equipment availability moderated the effects of state anxiety and traumatic intensity on professionals' well-being. CONCLUSIONS: Health-care professionals' mental illness and positive mental health reflect distinct continua, rather than the extreme ends of a single spectrum. Therefore, it is essential to measure both psychopathology and the presence of positive health to comprehensively evaluate professionals' mental health. Finally, our results indicated that Personal Protection Equipment availability is essential not only for professionals' physical health, but also for their mental health.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/psychology , COVID-19/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Personal Protective Equipment/supply & distribution , Quality of Life/psychology , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain/epidemiology
15.
Am J Public Health ; 111(9): 1595-1599, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1374179

ABSTRACT

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a shortage of personal protective equipment compromised efficient patient care and provider safety. Volunteers from many different backgrounds worked to meet these demands. Additive manufacturing, laser cutting, and alternative supply chains were used to produce, test, and deliver essential equipment for health care workers and first responders. Distributed equipment included ear guards, face shields, and masks. Contingent designs were created for powered air-purifying respirator hoods, filtered air pumps, intubation shields, and N95 masks.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Equipment and Supplies/supply & distribution , Colorado/epidemiology , Equipment Design , Humans , Masks/supply & distribution , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment/supply & distribution , SARS-CoV-2 , Volunteers
16.
Eur J Gen Pract ; 27(1): 235-240, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1371664

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the WHO declared the SARS CoV-2 pandemic. This had an immediate and dramatic impact on Romanian physicians. OBJECTIVES: To analyse SARS-CoV-2 risk perception among Romanian physicians following the official WHO pandemic announcement. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to Romanian physicians (n = 319) between 13 and 27 of March 2020 to determine the perceived threat of exposure to SARS CoV-2 infection, the assessment COVID-19 sources of documentation, physicians' access to personal protective equipment and the attitude towards a prospective vaccine against SARS CoV-2. RESULTS: Confronted with a new and unknown disease, the lack of appropriate information regarding disease management, media pressure and the lack of protective equipment, physicians experiencing a highly stressful a period. We found a significant relationship between the perceived level of fear and the risk of infection with SARS CoV-2 among respondents. A relationship was also found between the perceived level of fear related to COVID-19 and the acceptance of future vaccines against SARS CoV-2. Our data show that doctors working in urban areas considered the medical research on COVID-19 as clearer than those working in rural locations did. CONCLUSION: Pandemic preparedness should focus on measures that make medical practice safe (supplies, working protocols, experience sharing with experts/colleagues from other countries).


Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , COVID-19/epidemiology , Personal Protective Equipment/supply & distribution , Physicians/statistics & numerical data , Adult , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Disease Outbreaks , Fear , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Physicians/psychology , Romania , Surveys and Questionnaires
20.
Pan Afr Med J ; 39: 53, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1359427

ABSTRACT

Introduction: health care workers are at greatest risk to being infected with COVID-19 in health care facilities. This study is focused on assessing the level of practice and factors affecting practice towards COVID-19 among health care workers in health care facility of West Guji Zone, Oromia region, Ethiopia. Methods: health facility based cross-sectional study design was carried out from December 1st to 30th 2020 among health care providers in West Guji Zone. The simple random sampling technique was used in study and total sample size for this study was 281. The data enter into Epi Data version 4.4.3.1 and SPSS Version 25 used for analysis. The descriptive statistics and logistic regression are needed. The cut point for statically significance settled at p < 0.05. Results: the response rate in this study was 97.8%. Of all study participants, 50.2%, 8.4%, and 6.5% had traveling history, chronic illnesses, and contact with COVID-19 confirmed cases. Too much working, lack of training, and shortage of protective equipment were reported by 54.5%, 50.9%, and 29.1% respectively. About 36.4% and 38.2% of health care providers had poor level of knowledge and prevention practice towards COVID-19. Working at hospital (AOR= 0.156, 95% CI=0.033-0.741), awareness of the action during suggestive symptoms and signs of COVID-19 developed (AOR= 0.038, 95% CI=0.002-0.817), hand washing (AOR= 0.043, 95% CI=0.008-0.238), not going to crowded place (AOR= 0.001, 95% CI=0.001-0.030), applying physical distance (AOR=0.091,95% CI=0.041-0.579) adherence to triage and isolation protocol (AOR=0.317,95%=0.039-0.577)and knowledge level of COVID-19 (AOR=2.378,95%CI=1.523-6.322) were factors significantly associated with prevention practice of COVID-19. Conclusion: in this study, the knowledge level and prevention practice gap was identified. Type of facility, awareness of the action during suggestive symptoms and signs of COVID-19 developed, hands washing to the standard, not going to crowded place, keeping physical distance, adherence to triage and isolation protocol and having good level of knowledge about COVID-19 were factors associated with good prevention practices. Adequate supply of personal protective materials; provision of continuous on-job training and guideline for prevention of COVID-19 must be given to all health care facilities.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Ethiopia , Female , Hand Disinfection , Health Facilities , Humans , Male , Personal Protective Equipment/supply & distribution , Physical Distancing , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...