RESUMEN
Aims: To present the impact of COVID-19 on inpatient cancer care across Victorian health services by comparing the changes in patient and admission numbers for the years 2019-2021. Background(s): The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted cancer care, including delaying diagnoses and treatment, and halting clinical trials.Despite cancer-related services remaining available, utilisation dropped in 2020 due to a range of factors. In 2020, the Victorian Cancer Registry (VCR) recorded 2420 fewer individual diagnoses, a decline of 7%, likely due to COVID-19.1 VCR modelling data shows that the decline in cancer incidence reported in 2020 continued into 2021.2 Methods:Analysis of cancer activity to understand the change in activity between 2019 (pre-COVID-19) and 2020 and 2021 using a subset of cancer-specific patient data from the Victorian Admitted Episode Dataset (VAED). Result(s): Analysis of VAED data shows despite 28290 fewer admissions (-6%) and 16,782 fewer patients (-10%) for patients with both malignant and non-malignant neoplasms in Victoria from 2019 to 2020. The most significant decline in admissions were in May (-23%) and August (-18%)which coincided with COVID lockdowns 1 and 2. In 2021, this trend reversed and admission and patient numbers increased by 8% and 10% respectively when comparing to 2020, but had barely increased when compared to 2019, with lung cancer new admissions down 2.6%. There was growth in admissions mid-year with August having a 29% increase compared to the previous year. October had a slight decrease in admissions (-0.6%) compared to 2020 following 113 days of rolling lockdowns (lockdowns 3-6). Conclusion(s): Previous trends have shown ~4% annual increase in activity however between 2019 and 2021 there was only 2% increase. Our analysismirrors evidence thatCOVID-19 has negatively impacted cancer care which would suggest a surge in activity and late stage cancer diagnoses in 2022.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Face masks, also referred to as half masks, are essential to protect healthcare professionals working in close contact with patients with COVID-19-related symptoms. Because of the Corona material shortages, healthcare institutions sought an approach to reuse face masks or to purchase new, imported masks. The filter quality of these masks remained unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the quality of sterilized and imported FFP2/KN95 face masks. METHODS: A 48-minute steam sterilization process of single-use FFP2/KN95 face masks with a 15 minute holding time at 121°C was developed, validated and implemented in the Central Sterilization Departments (CSSD) of 19 different hospitals. Masks sterilized by steam and H2O2 plasma as well as new, imported masks were tested for particle filtration efficiency (PFE) and pressure drop in a custom-made test setup. RESULTS: The results of 84 masks tested on the PFE dry particle test setup showed differences of 2.3±2% (mean±SD). Test data showed that the mean PFE values of 444 sterilized FFP2 face masks from the 19 CSSDs were 90±11% (mean±SD), and those of 474 new, imported KN95/FFP2 face masks were 83±16% (mean±SD). Differences in PFE of masks received from different sterilization departments were found. CONCLUSION: Face masks can be reprocessed with 121 °C steam or H2O2 plasma sterilization with a minimal reduction in PFE. PFE comparison between filter material of sterilized masks and new, imported masks indicates that the filter material of most reprocessed masks of high quality brands can outperform new, imported face masks of unknown brands. Although the PFE of tested face masks from different sterilization departments remained efficient, using different types of sterilization equipment, can result in different PFE outcomes.