Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 7 de 7
Filtrar
1.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 23(1): 602, 2023 Jun 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20235725

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Contact tracing is a key control measure in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. While quantitative research has been conducted on the psychological impact of the pandemic on other frontline healthcare workers, none has explored the impact on contact tracing staff. METHODS: A longitudinal study was conducted using two repeated measures with contact tracing staff employed in Ireland during the COVID-19 pandemic using two-tailed independent samples t tests and exploratory linear mixed models. RESULTS: The study sample included 137 contact tracers in March 2021 (T1) and 218 in September 2021 (T3). There was an increase from T1 to T3 in burnout related exhaustion (p < 0·001), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom scores (p < 0·001), mental distress (p < 0·01), perceived stress (p < 0·001) and tension and pressure (p < 0·001). In those aged 18-30, there was an increase in exhaustion related burnout (p < 0·01), PTSD symptoms (p < 0·05), and tension and pressure scores (p < 0·05). Additionally, participants with a background in healthcare showed an increase in PTSD symptom scores by T3 (p < 0·001), reaching mean scores equivalent to those of participants who did not have a background in healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: Contact tracing staff working during the COVID-19 pandemic experienced an increase in adverse psychological outcomes. These findings highlight a need for further research on psychological supports required by contact tracing staff with differing demographic profiles.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , Trazado de Contacto , Estudios Longitudinales , Pandemias , Agotamiento Psicológico , Personal de Salud
2.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 9: 1031083, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2282708

RESUMEN

Objectives: Understanding the incidence and characteristics that influence severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine breakthrough infections (VBIs) is imperative for developing public health policies to mitigate the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We examined these factors and post-vaccination mitigation practices in individuals partially and fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Materials and methods: Adults >18 years old were voluntarily enrolled from a single metro-based SARS-CoV-2 testing network from January to July 2021. Participants were categorized as asymptomatic or symptomatic, and as unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, or fully vaccinated. All participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection based on standard of care (SOC) testing with nasopharyngeal swabs. Variant analysis by rRT-PCR was performed in a subset of time-matched vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. A subgroup of partially and fully vaccinated individuals with a positive SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR was contacted to assess disease severity and post-vaccination mitigation practices. Results: Participants (n = 1,317) voluntarily underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2 during the enrollment period. A total of 29.5% of the population received at least one SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (n = 389), 12.8% partially vaccinated (n = 169); 16.1% fully vaccinated (n = 213). A total of 21.3% of partially vaccinated individuals tested positive (n = 36) and 9.4% of fully vaccinated individuals tested positive (n = 20) for SARS-CoV-2. Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA-1273 was the predominant vaccine received (1st dose = 66.8%, 2nd dose = 67.9%). Chronic liver disease and immunosuppression were more prevalent in the vaccinated (partially/fully) group compared to the unvaccinated group (p = 0.003, p = 0.021, respectively). There were more asymptomatic individuals in the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated group [n = 6 (10.7%), n = 16 (4.1%), p = 0.045]. CT values were lower for the unvaccinated group (median 24.3, IQR 19.1-30.5) compared to the vaccinated group (29.4, 22.0-33.7, p = 0.004). In the vaccinated group (n = 56), 18 participants were successfully contacted, 7 were lost to follow-up, and 2 were deceased. A total of 50% (n = 9) required hospitalization due to COVID-19 illness. Adherence to nationally endorsed mitigation strategies varied post-vaccination. Conclusion: The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at this center was 21.3% in the partially vaccinated group and 9.4% in the fully vaccinated group. Chronic liver disease and immunosuppression were more prevalent in the vaccinated SARS-CoV-2 positive group, suggesting that these may be risk factors for VBIs. Partially and fully vaccinated individuals had a higher incidence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 and higher CT values compared to unvaccinated SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals.

3.
Frontiers in medicine ; 9, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2157122

RESUMEN

Objectives Understanding the incidence and characteristics that influence severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine breakthrough infections (VBIs) is imperative for developing public health policies to mitigate the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We examined these factors and post-vaccination mitigation practices in individuals partially and fully vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Materials and methods Adults >18 years old were voluntarily enrolled from a single metro-based SARS-CoV-2 testing network from January to July 2021. Participants were categorized as asymptomatic or symptomatic, and as unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, or fully vaccinated. All participants had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection based on standard of care (SOC) testing with nasopharyngeal swabs. Variant analysis by rRT-PCR was performed in a subset of time-matched vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. A subgroup of partially and fully vaccinated individuals with a positive SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR was contacted to assess disease severity and post-vaccination mitigation practices. Results Participants (n = 1,317) voluntarily underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2 during the enrollment period. A total of 29.5% of the population received at least one SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (n = 389), 12.8% partially vaccinated (n = 169);16.1% fully vaccinated (n = 213). A total of 21.3% of partially vaccinated individuals tested positive (n = 36) and 9.4% of fully vaccinated individuals tested positive (n = 20) for SARS-CoV-2. Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA-1273 was the predominant vaccine received (1st dose = 66.8%, 2nd dose = 67.9%). Chronic liver disease and immunosuppression were more prevalent in the vaccinated (partially/fully) group compared to the unvaccinated group (p = 0.003, p = 0.021, respectively). There were more asymptomatic individuals in the vaccinated group compared to the unvaccinated group [n = 6 (10.7%), n = 16 (4.1%), p = 0.045]. CT values were lower for the unvaccinated group (median 24.3, IQR 19.1–30.5) compared to the vaccinated group (29.4, 22.0–33.7, p = 0.004). In the vaccinated group (n = 56), 18 participants were successfully contacted, 7 were lost to follow-up, and 2 were deceased. A total of 50% (n = 9) required hospitalization due to COVID-19 illness. Adherence to nationally endorsed mitigation strategies varied post-vaccination. Conclusion The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at this center was 21.3% in the partially vaccinated group and 9.4% in the fully vaccinated group. Chronic liver disease and immunosuppression were more prevalent in the vaccinated SARS-CoV-2 positive group, suggesting that these may be risk factors for VBIs. Partially and fully vaccinated individuals had a higher incidence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 and higher CT values compared to unvaccinated SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals.

4.
Crit Care Med ; 50(12): 1689-1700, 2022 12 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2087874

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Few surveys have focused on physician moral distress, burnout, and professional fulfilment. We assessed physician wellness and coping during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey using four validated instruments. SETTING: Sixty-two sites in Canada and the United States. SUBJECTS: Attending physicians (adult, pediatric; intensivist, nonintensivist) who worked in North American ICUs. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analysed 431 questionnaires (43.3% response rate) from 25 states and eight provinces. Respondents were predominantly male (229 [55.6%]) and in practice for 11.8 ± 9.8 years. Compared with prepandemic, respondents reported significant intrapandemic increases in days worked/mo, ICU bed occupancy, and self-reported moral distress (240 [56.9%]) and burnout (259 [63.8%]). Of the 10 top-ranked items that incited moral distress, most pertained to regulatory/organizational ( n = 6) or local/institutional ( n = 2) issues or both ( n = 2). Average moral distress (95.6 ± 66.9), professional fulfilment (6.5 ± 2.1), and burnout scores (3.6 ± 2.0) were moderate with 227 physicians (54.6%) meeting burnout criteria. A significant dose-response existed between COVID-19 patient volume and moral distress scores. Physicians who worked more days/mo and more scheduled in-house nightshifts, especially combined with more unscheduled in-house nightshifts, experienced significantly more moral distress. One in five physicians used at least one maladaptive coping strategy. We identified four coping profiles (active/social, avoidant, mixed/ambivalent, infrequent) that were associated with significant differences across all wellness measures. CONCLUSIONS: Despite moderate intrapandemic moral distress and burnout, physicians experienced moderate professional fulfilment. However, one in five physicians used at least one maladaptive coping strategy. We highlight potentially modifiable factors at individual, institutional, and regulatory levels to enhance physician wellness.


Asunto(s)
Agotamiento Profesional , COVID-19 , Médicos , Adulto , Masculino , Humanos , Niño , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Femenino , Estudios Transversales , Pandemias , Agotamiento Profesional/epidemiología , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Adaptación Psicológica , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , América del Norte
5.
Critical Care Clinics ; 38(3):i, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-1882659
6.
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med ; 35(25): 9765-9769, 2022 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1764403

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Comprehensive fetal care centers address congenital anomalies by developing pre- and post-natal care plans in a multidisciplinary format. To reduce exposure during the Coronavirus Infectious Disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) broadened access to telehealth services. We assessed provider satisfaction with the rapid transition from in-person prenatal visits to multidisciplinary consultations via telehealth as an adaptive response to the pandemic. METHODS: Patients referred to an urban academic fetal care center during the first 6 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic underwent advanced imaging including fetal MRI, focused ultrasound, and fetal echocardiography. Subsequently, multidisciplinary telehealth consultations occurred with all providers attending virtually. Patients were given the option of attending the multidisciplinary telehealth consultation in a conference room in the hospital or from home. During these meetings, relevant images were reviewed with all participants via screen sharing through a secure video platform. Provider satisfaction with the telehealth paradigm was assessed using an electronic survey. RESULTS: Twenty-two surveys were administered with a response rate of 82%. 89% of providers were highly satisfied with the telehealth format. 72% of providers would prefer the multidisciplinary telehealth format to an in-person visit for future visits after COVID-19 restrictions are lifted. 22% of providers would leave the choice to the patient's family. One provider preferred in-person visits. Some providers noted that virtual conferences limited the ability to draw pictures, show educational materials, and provide emotional support. CONCLUSION: Providers were overwhelmingly supportive of continuing multidisciplinary telehealth conferences for complex prenatal consultations, even after restrictions are lifted, which has led to the continuation of this model for the duration of the pandemic. Providers highlighted the convenience and improved care coordination across specialties. Further studies to examine the patient experience with virtual consultations are warranted.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Enfermedades Transmisibles , Telemedicina , Anciano , Embarazo , Femenino , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Pandemias , Satisfacción Personal , Satisfacción del Paciente , Medicare , Telemedicina/métodos , Atención Prenatal/métodos , Derivación y Consulta
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA