ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: On February 23rd, the 1st case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was diagnosed at the University Hospital Trust of Verona, Italy. On March 13th, the Oncology Section was converted into a 22-inpatient bed coronavirus disease (COVID) Unit, and we reshaped our organisation to face the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic, while maintaining oncological activities. METHODS: We tracked down (i) volumes of oncological activities (January 1st - March 31st, 2020 versus the same period of 2019), (ii) patients' and caregivers' perception and (iii) SARS-CoV-2 infection rate in oncology health professionals and SARS-CoV-2 infection-related hospital admissions of "active"' oncological patients. RESULTS: As compared with the same trimester in 2019, the overall reduction in total numbers of inpatient admissions, chemotherapy administrations and specialist visits in January-March 2020 was 8%, 6% and 3%, respectively; based on the weekly average of daily accesses, reduction in some of the oncological activities became statistically significant from week 11. The overall acceptance of adopted measures, as measured by targeted questionnaires administered to a sample of 241 outpatients, was high (>70%). Overall, 8 of 85 oncology health professionals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection (all but one employed in the COVID Unit, no hospital admissions and no treatment required); among 471 patients admitted for SARS-CoV-2 infection, 7 had an "active"' oncological disease (2 died of infection-related complications). CONCLUSIONS: A slight, but statistically significant reduction in oncology activity was registered during the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic peak in Verona, Italy. Organisational and protective measures adopted appear to have contributed to keep infections in both oncological patients and health professionals to a minimum.
Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Infection Control/organization & administration , Medical Oncology/organization & administration , Neoplasms/therapy , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/standards , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Female , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Infection Control/standards , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Mass Screening/standards , Medical Oncology/methods , Neoplasms/psychology , Patient Admission/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Psychosocial Support Systems , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
Determination of the time since death in the early postmortem period is one of the most critical issues to be faced by criminal investigators. One of the techniques is the evaluation of the pupil pharmacological reactivity. In the present work, we aim at identifying whether an objective and single method, based on pharmacological pupil reaction, is feasible or not. Between 2002 and 2003 calendar years, we observed 309 bodies, whose eyes have been each instilled apart, within 26 hours since death, with either a myotic substance or a mydriatic solution. Our results show that the real effectiveness of pupil pharmacological reactivity as method for assessing the time since death in early postmortem period is not only questionable but even highly misleading if not replaced by alternative objective physiological tests and appropriate professional judgments by the investigators.
