To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge-org.demo.remotlog.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been identified as an acute respiratory illness leading to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. As the disease spread, demands on health care systems increased, specifically the need to expand hospital capacity. Alternative care hospitals (ACHs) have been used to mitigate these issues; however, establishing an ACH has many challenges. The goal of this session was to perform systems testing, using a simulation-based evaluation to identify areas in need of improvement.
Methods:
Four simulation cases were designed to depict common and high acuity situations encountered in the ACH, using a high technology simulator and standardized patient. A multidisciplinary observer group was given debriefing forms listing the objectives, critical actions, and specific areas to focus their attention. These forms were compiled for data collection.
Results:
Logistical, operational, and patient safety issues were identified during the simulation and compiled into a simulation event report. Proposed solutions and protocol changes were made in response to the identified issues.
Conclusion:
Simulation was successfully used for systems testing, supporting efforts to maximize patient care and provider safety in a rapidly developed ACH. The simulation event report identified operational deficiencies and safety concerns directly resulting in equipment modifications and protocol changes.
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)/coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has amplified the role of hospitals in infectious disease response and capacity building. In efforts to respond to the growing volume of cases, hospitals have become a microcosm for US pandemic response. The COVID-19 outbreak has highlighted that hospital preparedness for biological events, such as a pandemic, are often inadequate and dependent on leadership investment in biopreparedness. This article discusses the proactive decision, before COVID-19, that a Phoenix-based hospital system made to invest in high-consequence disease (HCD) preparedness. Within these efforts, a gap analysis was performed, which led to creation of an HCD subcommittee and corresponding efforts to address vulnerabilities and opportunities for improvement. From establishing enhanced personal protective equipment (PPE) and infectious disease training for frontline staff, to building an outbreak tracking mechanism for travel alerts within the electronic medical record, the HCD efforts of this hospital system created a stronger foundation to respond to biological events like the COVID-19 pandemic.
In March 2020, concurrently with the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Iran, the rate of alcohol poisoning was unexpectedly increased in the country. This study has attempted to make an overall description and analysis of this phenomenon by collecting credible data from the field, news, and reports published by the emergency centers and the Iranian Ministry of Health. The investigations showed that in May 20, 2020, more than 6150 people have been affected by methanol poisoning from whom 804 deaths have been reported. A major cause of the increased rate of alcohol poisoning in this period was actually the illusion that alcohol could eliminate the coronaviruses having entered the body. It is of utmost importance that all mass media try to dismiss the cultural, religious, and political considerations and prepare convincing programs to openly discuss the side-effects of forged alcohol consumption with the public, especially with the youth. It must be clearly specified that “consuming alcohol cannot help prevent COVID-19.”
The aim of this study was to assess the stigma associated with coronavirus disease - 2019 (COVID-19) among health care workers (HCWs) in Indonesia during the early phase of the pandemic.
Methods:
A cross-sectional study was conducted in 12 hospitals across the country in March, 2020. A logistic regression was employed to assess the association between stigma and explanatory variables.
Results:
In total, 288 HCWs were surveyed, of which 93.4% had never experienced any outbreaks. Approximately 21.9% of the respondents had stigma associated with COVID-19. HCWs who were doctors, had not participated in trainings related to COVID-19, worked in the capital of the province, worked at private hospitals, or worked at a hospital with COVID-19 triage protocols were likely to have no stigma associated with COVID-19.
Conclusions:
The stigma associated with COVID-19 is relatively high among HCWs in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. Adequate dissemination of knowledge and adequate protection are necessary to reduce stigma among HCWs.
Surveys based on self-reported hygiene-relevant routine behaviors have played a crucial role in policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article, using anchoring to test validity in a randomized controlled survey experiment during the COVID-19 pandemic, we demonstrate that asking people to self-report on the frequency of routine behaviors are prone to significant measurement error and systematic bias. Specifically, we find that participants across age, gender, and political allegiance report higher (lower) frequencies of COVID-19-relevant behaviors when provided with a higher (lower) anchor. The results confirm that such self-reports should not be regarded as behavioral data and should primarily be used to inform policy decisions if better alternatives are not available. To this end, we discuss the use of anchoring as a validity test relative to self-reported behaviors as well as viable alternatives to self-reports when seeking to behaviorally inform policy decisions.
This prospective study aimed to evaluate possible diagnostic delays in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma recurrences due to the changed follow-up protocol during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.
Methods
The follow-up appointments of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients treated more than one year prior to the pandemic were changed to telephone appointments in order to reduce physical visits to the hospital. All contacts, reasons for contact and recurrent cancers were recorded.
Results
There were 17 recurrences during a seven-month study period among 178 patients treated in the previous year (10 per cent); 14 of these recurrences occurred in patients whose treatment had ended less than one year previously and 3 occurred more than one year after treatment had ended. There was no delay in diagnoses of recurrent tumours or treatment despite reduced visits because of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.
Conclusion
According to our analyses, no delay was caused in the diagnoses of recurrent diseases. Follow up by telephone or telemedicine can be considered as part of the follow-up protocol one year after the treatment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma when necessary.
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is having a well-documented impact on the mental health of front-line health and social care workers (HSCWs). However, little attention has been paid to the experiences of, and impact on, the mental health professionals who were rapidly tasked with supporting them.
Aims
We set out to redress this gap by qualitatively exploring UK mental health professionals’ experiences, views and needs while working to support the well-being of front-line HSCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Method
Mental health professionals working in roles supporting front-line HSCWs were recruited purposively and interviewed remotely. Transcripts of the interviews were analysed by the research team following the principles of reflexive thematic analysis.
Results
We completed interviews with 28 mental health professionals from varied professional backgrounds, career stages and settings across the UK. Mental health professionals were motivated and driven to develop new clinical pathways to support HSCWs they perceived as colleagues and many experienced professional growth. However, this also came at some costs, as they took on additional responsibilities and increased workloads, were anxious and uncertain about how best to support this workforce and tended to neglect their own health and well-being. Many were professionally isolated and were affected vicariously by the traumas and moral injuries that healthcare workers talked about in sessions.
Conclusions
This research highlights the urgent need to consider the mental well-being, training and support of mental health professionals who are supporting front-line workers.
This report examines what has come to be known as “vaccine nationalism” through the lens of the early experience with the COVID-19 vaccination process. After explaining the meaning of the term, this report investigates how this phenomenon has manifested during the COVID-19 pandemic, identifying its epidemiological, economical, ethical and legal aspects. It also looks at the different international initiatives that have been adopted to deal with it, concentrating in this context on the COVAX project. The report concludes that the success of these initiatives has been limited. It also observes that COVID-19 vaccine nationalism appears to be a phenomenon that is characteristic of the high-income Western countries, while in aspiring non-Western powers the vaccine crisis is primarily seen as a way to advance their geopolitical goals.
The dynamics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) seroconversion of hospital employees are understudied. We measured the proportion of seroconverted employees and evaluated risk factors for seroconversion during the first pandemic wave.
Methods:
In this prospective cohort study, we recruited Geneva University Hospitals employees and sampled them 3 times, every 3 weeks from March 30 to June 12, 2020. We measured the proportion of seroconverted employees and determined prevalence ratios of risk factors for seroconversion using multivariate mixed-effects Poisson regression models.
Results:
Overall, 3,421 participants (29% of all employees) were included, with 92% follow-up. The proportion of seroconverted employees increased from 4.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.7%–5.1%) at baseline to 8.5% [(95% CI, 7.6%–9.5%) at the last visit. The proportions of seroconverted employees working in COVID-19 geriatrics and rehabilitation (G&R) wards (32.3%) and non–COVID-19 G&R wards (12.3%) were higher compared to office workers (4.9%) at the last visit. Only nursing assistants had a significantly higher risk of seroconversion compared to office workers (11.7% vs 4.9%; P = .006). Significant risk factors for seroconversion included the use of public transportation (adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.25–2.03), known community exposure to severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (2.80; 95% CI, 2.22–3.54), working in a ward with a nosocomial COVID outbreak (2.93; 95% CI, 2.27–3.79), and working in a COVID-19 G&R ward (3.47; 95% CI, 2.45–4.91) or a non–COVID-19 G&R ward (1.96; 95% CI, 1.46–2.63). We observed an association between reported use of respirators and lower risk of seroconversion (0.73; 95% CI, 0.55–0.96).
Conclusion:
Additional preventive measures should be implemented to protect employees in G&R wards. Randomized trials on the protective effect of respirators are urgently needed.
Investigate an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among operating room staff utilizing contact tracing, mass testing for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and environmental sampling.
Operating room staff with positive SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing.
Methods:
Epidemiologic and environmental investigations were conducted including contact tracing, environmental surveys, and sampling and review of the operating room schedule for staff-to-staff, staff-to-patient, and patient-to-staff SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
Results:
In total, 24 healthcare personnel (HCP) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, including nurses (29%), surgical technologists (25%), and surgical residents (16%). Moreover, 19 HCP (79%) reported having used a communal area, most commonly break rooms (75%). Overall, 20 HCP (83%) reported symptomatic disease. In total, 72 environmental samples were collected from communal areas for SARS-CoV-2 genomic testing; none was positive. Furthermore, 236 surgical cases were reviewed for transmission: 213 (90%) had negative preoperative SARS-CoV-2 testing, 21 (9%) had a positive test on or before the date of surgery, and 2 (<1%) did not have a preoperative test performed. In addition, 40 patients underwent postoperative testing (mean, 13 days to postoperative testing), and 2 returned positive results. Neither of these 2 cases was linked to our outbreak.
Conclusions:
Complacency in infection control practices among staff during peak community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is believed to have driven staff-to-staff transmission. Prompt identification of the outbreak led to rapid interventions, ultimately allowing for uninterrupted surgical service.
To describe a pilot project infection prevention and control (IPC) assessment conducted in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) in New York State (NYS) during a pivotal 2-week period when the region became the nation’s epicenter for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Design:
A telephone and video assessment of IPC measures in SNFs at high risk or experiencing COVID-19 activity.
Participants:
SNFs in 14 New York counties, including New York City.
Intervention:
A 3-component remote IPC assessment: (1) screening tool; (2) telephone IPC checklist; and (3) COVID-19 video IPC assessment (ie, “COVIDeo”).
Results:
In total, 92 SNFs completed the IPC screening tool and checklist: 52 (57%) were conducted as part COVID-19 investigations, and 40 (43%) were proactive prevention-based assessments. Among the 40 proactive assessments, 14 (35%) identified suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases. COVIDeo was performed in 26 (28%) of 92 assessments and provided observations that other tools would have missed: personal protective equipment (PPE) that was not easily accessible, redundant, or improperly donned, doffed, or stored and specific challenges implementing IPC in specialty populations. The IPC assessments took ∼1 hour each and reached an estimated 4 times as many SNFs as on-site visits in a similar time frame.
Conclusions:
Remote IPC assessments by telephone and video were timely and feasible methods of assessing the extent to which IPC interventions had been implemented in a vulnerable setting and to disseminate real-time recommendations. Remote assessments are now being implemented across New York State and in various healthcare facility types. Similar methods have been adapted nationally by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Nosocomial outbreaks leading to healthcare worker (HCW) infection and death have been increasingly reported during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.
Objective:
We implemented a strategy to reduce nosocomial acquisition.
Methods:
We summarized our experience in implementing a multipronged infection control strategy in the first 300 days (December 31, 2019, to October 25, 2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic under the governance of Hospital Authority in Hong Kong.
Results:
Of 5,296 COVID-19 patients, 4,808 (90.8%) were diagnosed in the first pandemic wave (142 cases), second wave (896 cases), and third wave (3,770 cases) in Hong Kong. With the exception of 1 patient who died before admission, all COVID-19 patients were admitted to the public healthcare system for a total of 78,834 COVID-19 patient days. The median length of stay was 13 days (range, 1–128). Of 81,955 HCWs, 38 HCWs (0.05%; 2 doctors and 11 nurses and 25 nonprofessional staff) acquired COVID-19. With the exception of 5 of 38 HCWs (13.2%) infected by HCW-to-HCW transmission in the nonclinical settings, no HCW had documented transmission from COVID-19 patients in the hospitals. The incidence of COVID-19 among HCWs was significantly lower than that of our general population (0.46 per 1,000 HCWs vs 0.71 per 1,000 population; P = .008). The incidence of COVID-19 among professional staff was significantly lower than that of nonprofessional staff (0.30 vs 0.66 per 1,000 full-time equivalent; P = .022).
Conclusions:
A hospital-based approach spared our healthcare service from being overloaded. With our multipronged infection control strategy, no nosocomial COVID-19 in was identified among HCWs in the first 300 days of the COVID-19 pandemic in Hong Kong.