Why psychiatry is different - challenges and difficulties in managing a nosocomial outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in hospital care.

OBJECTIVE: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was officially declared a pandemic in March 2020. Many cases of COVID-19 are nosocomial, but to the best of our knowledge, no nosocomial outbreaks on psychiatric departments of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been reported in Europe. The different nature of psychiatry makes outbreak management more difficult. This study determines which psychiatry specific factors contributed to a nosocomial outbreak taking place in a psychiatric department. This will provide possible interventions in future outbreak management. METHOD: A case series describing a nosocomial outbreak in a psychiatric department of an acute care hospital in the Netherlands between March 13, 2020 and April, 14 2020. The outbreak was analyzed by combining data from standardized interviews, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests and whole genome sequencing (WGS). RESULTS: The nosocomial outbreak in which 43% of staff of the psychiatric department and 19% of admitted patients were involved, was caused by healthcare worker (HCW)-to-HCW transmissions, as well as patient-to-HCW-to-patient transmission. We identified four aspects associated with the mental health care system which might have made our department more susceptible to an outbreak. CONCLUSIONS: Infection control measures designed for hospitals are not directly applicable to psychiatric departments. Psychiatric patients should be considered a high-risk group for infectious diseases and customized measures should be designed and implemented. Extra attention for psychiatric departments is necessary during a pandemic as psychiatric HCWs are less familiar with outbreak management. Clear communication and governance is crucial in correctly implementing these measures.

Determining the current roles of physical and occupational therapists in burn care.

The team approach has enjoyed great success in the care of patients with burns, and it has been shown to decrease morbidity and mortality in these cases. Although the concept of the team approach is well-defined, the delineation of roles within this approach remains unclear. This study was designed to better explain the roles of physical therapists (PTs) and occupational therapists (OTs) in burn care. With the use of a questionnaire, PT and OT responsibilities were reviewed. The results showed that OTs perform the majority of activities of daily living training, PTs perform the majority of functional mobility training, both professions are involved in scar management, and neither profession has significant responsibility for care of the burn wound itself. Role delineation occurs to help avoid role confusion and the duplication of services. The title burn therapist offers an example of unclear role definition when a physical therapy assistant uses that title to identify himself or herself. Communication is critical to define these roles within individual burn centers.

Evaluation of treatment modalities in perioral electrical burns.

A retrospective analysis of 29 patients who sustained perioral electrical burns was undertaken. Children were divided into three groups: (group 1) no surgery and no splint (n = 21), (group 2) nonsurgical management with splint appliance (n = 8), and (group 3) commissuroplasty (n = 9). Mean age was 3 years, and minimum follow-up was 1 year. Subjective evaluation of standard photographs was performed by six surgeons. Group 2 had a less noticeable scar and more normal lip parameters. Group 3 and group 1 had similar percent scar involvement and overall poor subjective scores. All evaluators felt that commissuroplasty (group 3) improved patients' appearance compared with no surgery and no splint (group 1). Therefore the application of our easily constructed splint alone yielded the best cosmetic results.