Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 8 de 8
Filtrar
1.
PLoS One ; 17(2): e0263039, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1793535

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Distrust, and more broadly, public perception of government's handling of a crisis, has been a widely studied topic within health crisis research and suggests that these perceptions are significantly associated with the behavior of its citizens. PURPOSE: To understand which aspects of the public's perception of government handling of the COVID-19 pandemic predicted engagement of protective behaviors among older adults, who are the most vulnerable to COVID-19. METHODS: Participants were recruited from an ongoing biopsychosocial study on aging amongst community-dwelling older adults. There were two rounds of data collection, during the national lockdown and post-lockdown. The average length of follow-up was 5.88 months. N = 421 completed the first round of data collection and N = 318 subsequently completed the second round of questionnaires. RESULTS: During the lockdown, perceptions that pandemic-related measures in place were sufficient, effective, timely, provided a sense of safety, important information was easily accessible, and government handling of the pandemic could be trusted, were found to significantly predict engagement in protective behaviors. During post-lockdown, only perceptions that measures in place were sufficient, provided a sense of safety, and important information was easily accessible, remained significant predictors. The perception that COVID-19 measures were clear and easy to understand now became a significant predictor. CONCLUSIONS: Public perceptions of government handling of the pandemic predicted engagement in protective behaviors but were less important during post-lockdown. To effectively engage older adults in protective behavior, our findings suggest for pandemic-related information to be accessible, introducing timely safety measures, and having easy-to-understand instructions for nuanced measures.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/psicología , Gestión de Recursos de Personal en Salud/métodos , Confianza/psicología , Anciano , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles , Femenino , Gobierno , Programas de Gobierno/tendencias , Humanos , Vida Independiente/psicología , Estudios Longitudinales , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pandemias , Percepción , SARS-CoV-2 , Singapur/epidemiología , Encuestas y Cuestionarios
2.
Chest ; 161(2): 504-513, 2022 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1401308

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Faced with possible shortages due to COVID-19, many states updated or rapidly developed crisis standards of care (CSCs) and other pandemic preparedness plans (PPPs) for rationing resources, particularly ventilators. RESEARCH QUESTION: How have US states incorporated the controversial standard of rationing by age and/or life-years into their pandemic preparedness plans? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was an investigator-initiated, textual analysis conducted from April to June 2020, querying online resources and in-state contacts to identify PPPs published by each of the 50 states and for Washington, DC. Analysis included the most recent versions of CSC documents and official state PPPs containing triage guidance as of June 2020. Plans were categorized as rationing by (A) short-term survival (≤ 1 year), (B) 1 to 5 expected life-years, (C) total life-years, (D) "fair innings," that is, specific age cutoffs, or (O) other. The primary measure was any use of age and/or life-years. Plans were further categorized on the basis of whether age/life-years was a primary consideration. RESULTS: Thirty-five states promulgated PPPs addressing the rationing of critical care resources. Seven states considered short-term prognosis, seven considered whether a patient had 1 to 5 expected life-years, 13 rationed by total life-years, and one used the fair innings principle. Seven states provided only general ethical considerations. Seventeen of the 21 plans considering age/life-years made it a primary consideration. Several plans borrowed heavily from a few common sources, although use of terminology was inconsistent. Many documents were modified in light of controversy. INTERPRETATION: Guidance with respect to rationing by age and/or life-years varied widely. More than one-half of PPPs, many following a few common models, included age/life-years as an explicit rationing criterion; the majority of these made it a primary consideration. Terminology was often vague, and many plans evolved in response to pushback. These findings have ethical implications for the care of older adults and other vulnerable populations during a pandemic.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Defensa Civil/normas , Gestión de Recursos de Personal en Salud , Cuidados Críticos , Asignación de Recursos para la Atención de Salud/normas , Nivel de Atención/organización & administración , Triaje , Anciano , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/terapia , Gestión de Recursos de Personal en Salud/ética , Gestión de Recursos de Personal en Salud/métodos , Gestión de Recursos de Personal en Salud/organización & administración , Cuidados Críticos/ética , Cuidados Críticos/organización & administración , Cuidados Críticos/normas , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2 , Capacidad de Reacción/normas , Triaje/ética , Triaje/organización & administración , Triaje/normas , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Poblaciones Vulnerables
3.
J Perinat Neonatal Nurs ; 35(2): 105-109, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1201358

RESUMEN

The Covid-19 pandemic has further illuminated the already existing need for methods of building resilience in perinatal caregivers. Using a scoping review approach, literature was examined to identify evidence-based models of resilience building in a cohort of perinatal clinicians. Research published between January 2015 and 2020 was evaluated using PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases. Of the initial 3399 records reviewed, 2 qualitative studies met the inclusion criteria. Given the deleterious effects of Covid-19 on perinatal care providers, and in light of the paucity of available studies, personnel, time, and funding should be allocated for research to address these issues.


Asunto(s)
Agotamiento Profesional , COVID-19 , Enfermeras Neonatales/psicología , Estrés Laboral , Atención Perinatal/métodos , Resiliencia Psicológica , Adaptación Psicológica , Agotamiento Profesional/prevención & control , Agotamiento Profesional/psicología , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/psicología , Gestión de Recursos de Personal en Salud/métodos , Femenino , Humanos , Recién Nacido , Partería , Atención Plena/métodos , Enfermería Obstétrica/métodos , Estrés Laboral/prevención & control , Estrés Laboral/rehabilitación , Embarazo , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol ; 35(3): 369-376, 2021 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-962786

RESUMEN

Hospitals face catastrophic financial challenges in light of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Acute shortages in materials such as masks, ventilators, intensive care unit capacity, and personal protective equipment (PPE) are a significant concern. The future success of supply chain management involves increasing the transparency of where our raw materials are sourced, diversifying of our product resources, and improving our technology that is able to predict potential shortages. It is also important to develop a proactive budgeting strategy to meet supply demands through early designation of dependable roles to support organizations and through the education of healthcare staff. In this paper, we discuss supply chain management, governance and financing, emergency protocols, including emergency procurement and supply chain, supply chain gaps and how to address them, and the importance of communication in the times of crisis.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/terapia , Gestión de Recursos de Personal en Salud/métodos , Equipos y Suministros de Hospitales/provisión & distribución , Equipo de Protección Personal/provisión & distribución , COVID-19/economía , COVID-19/epidemiología , Defensa Civil/economía , Defensa Civil/métodos , Gestión de Recursos de Personal en Salud/economía , Equipos y Suministros de Hospitales/economía , Humanos , Equipo de Protección Personal/economía
5.
Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol ; 35(3): 377-388, 2021 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-962785

RESUMEN

The Hospital Incident Command System (HICS) is an incident management system specific to hospitals based on the principles of Incident Command System (ICS), and it includes prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery. It plays a crucial role in effective and timely response during the periods of disasters, mass casualties, and public health emergencies. In recent times, hospitals have used a customized HICS structure to coordinate effective responses to public health problems such as the Ebola outbreak in the US and SARS epidemic in Taiwan. The current COVID-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented challenges on the healthcare system, necessitating the creation of HICS that can help in the proper allocation of resources and ineffective utilization of healthcare personnel. The key elements in managing a response to this pandemic include screening and early diagnosis, quarantining affected individuals, monitoring disease progression, delivering appropriate treatment, and ensuring an adequate supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) to healthcare staff.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/epidemiología , Gestión de Recursos de Personal en Salud/métodos , Servicios Médicos de Urgencia/métodos , COVID-19/terapia , Servicios Médicos de Urgencia/tendencias , Humanos , Incidencia , Centros de Información/tendencias
6.
Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol ; 35(3): 405-414, 2021 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-927468

RESUMEN

The current COVID-19 pandemic is testing political leaders and healthcare systems worldwide, exposing deficits in crisis communication, leadership, preparedness and flexibility. Extraordinary situations abound, with global supply chains suddenly failing, media communicating contradictory information, and politics playing an increasingly bigger role in shaping each country's response to the crisis. The pandemic threatens not just our health but also our economy, liberty, and privacy. It challenges the speed at which we work, the quality of our research, and the effectiveness of communication within the scientific community. It can impose ethical dilemmas and emotional stress on healthcare workers. Nevertheless, the pandemic also provides an opportunity for healthcare organizations, leaders, and researchers to learn from their mistakes and to place their countries and institutions in a better position to face future challenges.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/epidemiología , Gestión de Recursos de Personal en Salud/normas , Personal de Salud/normas , Liderazgo , COVID-19/terapia , Comunicación , Gestión de Recursos de Personal en Salud/métodos , Atención a la Salud/métodos , Atención a la Salud/normas , Humanos , Pandemias
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA