scholarly journals Contamination of air and surfaces in workplaces with SARS-CoV-2 virus: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
JW Cherrie ◽  
MPC Cherrie ◽  
A Davis ◽  
D Holmes ◽  
S Semple ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Respiratory Viruses ◽  
Work Environments ◽  
List Type ◽  
Limited Data ◽  
Health Care Settings ◽  
Healthcare Settings ◽  
Virus Rna

ABSTRACTObjectivesThis systematic review aimed to evaluate the evidence for air and surface contamination of workplace environments with SARS-CoV-2 RNA and the quality of the methods used to identify actions necessary to improve the quality of the data.MethodsWe searched Web of Science and Google Scholar until 24th December 2020 for relevant articles and extracted data on methodology and results.ResultsThe vast majority of data come from healthcare settings, with typically around 6 % of samples having detectable concentrations of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and almost none of the samples collected had viable virus. There were a wide variety of methods used to measure airborne virus, although surface sampling was generally undertaken using nylon flocked swabs. Overall, the quality of the measurements was poor. Only a small number of studies reported the airborne concentration of SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA, mostly just reporting the detectable concentration values without reference to the detection limit. Imputing the geometric mean air concentration assuming the limit of detection was the lowest reported value, suggests typical concentrations in health care settings may be around 0.01 SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA copies/m3. Data on surface virus loading per unit area were mostly unavailable.ConclusionThe reliability of the reported data is uncertain. The methods used for measuring SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses in work environments should be standardised to facilitate more consistent interpretation of contamination and to help reliably estimate worker exposure.Key messagesWhat is already known about this subject?Low level contamination of air and surfaces in hospitals with SARS-CoV-2 RNA have been reported during the Covid-19 pandemic.Limited data have published from non-healthcare settings.What are the new findings?Typically, around 6% of air and surface samples in hospitals were positive for SARS-COV-2 RNA, although there is very limited data for non-healthcare settings.The quality of the available measurement studies is generally poor, with little consistency in the sampling and analytical methods used.Few studies report the concentration of SARS-CoV-2 in air or as surface loading of virus RNA, and very few studies have reported culture of the virus.The best estimate of typical air concentrations in health care settings is around 0.01 SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA copies/m3How might this impact on policy or clinical practice in the foreseeable future?There should be concerted efforts to standardise the methods used for measuring SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses in work environments.

scholarly journals Management of Nursing Workplace Incivility in the Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 66 (8) ◽  
pp. 403-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Armstrong
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Care Setting ◽  
Workplace Incivility ◽  
Review Of Literature ◽  
Educational Training ◽  
Health Care Settings ◽  
Physical Distress ◽  
Quality Of Research

Workplace incivility is a well-documented issue in nursing in the health care setting. It has the potential to cause emotional and physical distress in victims and potentially affects the quality of care provided. The purpose of this study was to critique and summarize the most recent, available evidence related to interventions in assisting nursing staff working in health care settings in managing incivility. This systematic review of literature yielded 10 studies meeting the criteria. The studies were mostly identified as lower quality research. Despite the lower quality of research, the collection of evidence suggests the use of a combination of educational training about workplace incivility, training about effective responses to uncivil workplace behaviors, and active learning activities to practice newly learned communication skills, in assisting nurses in improving their ability to manage incivility in the workplace.

Evaluation of Ceiling Lifts in Health Care Settings

AAOHN Journal ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 57 (9) ◽  
pp. 374-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hasanat Alamgir ◽  
Olivia Wei Li ◽  
Erin Gorman ◽  
Catherine Fast ◽  
Shicheng Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Pressure Ulcer ◽  
Care Facility ◽  
Care Quality ◽  
Patient Perceptions ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Health Care Settings ◽  
The Relationship

Ceiling lifts have been introduced into health care settings to reduce manual patient lifting and thus occupational injuries. Although growing evidence supports the effectiveness of ceiling lifts, a paucity of research links indicators, such as quality of patient care or patient perceptions, to the use of these transfer devices. This study explored the relationship between ceiling lift coverage rates and measures of patient care quality (e.g., incidence of facility-acquired pressure ulcers, falls, urinary infections, urinary incontinence, and assaults [patient to staff] in acute and long-term care facilities), as well as patient perceptions of satisfaction with care received while using ceiling lifts in a complex care facility. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were used to generate data. A significant inverse relationship was found between pressure ulcer rates and ceiling lift coverage; however, this effect was attenuated by year. No significant relationships existed between ceiling lift coverage and patient outcome indicators after adding the “year” variable to the model. Patients generally approved of the use of ceiling lifts and recognized many of the benefits. Ceiling lifts are not detrimental to the quality of care received by patients, and patients prefer being transferred by ceiling lifts. The relationship between ceiling lift coverage and pressure ulcer rates warrants further investigation.

scholarly journals Current Evidence for Continuous Vital Signs Monitoring by Wearable Wireless Devices in Hospitalized Adults: Systematic Review

10.2196/18636 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
pp. e18636 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jobbe P L Leenen ◽  
Crista Leerentveld ◽  
Joris D van Dijk ◽  
Henderik L van Westreenen ◽  
Lisette Schoonhoven ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Continuous Monitoring ◽  
Vital Signs ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Wireless Devices

Background Continuous monitoring of vital signs by using wearable wireless devices may allow for timely detection of clinical deterioration in patients in general wards in comparison to detection by standard intermittent vital signs measurements. A large number of studies on many different wearable devices have been reported in recent years, but a systematic review is not yet available to date. Objective The aim of this study was to provide a systematic review for health care professionals regarding the current evidence about the validation, feasibility, clinical outcomes, and costs of wearable wireless devices for continuous monitoring of vital signs. Methods A systematic and comprehensive search was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 2009 to September 2019 for studies that evaluated wearable wireless devices for continuous monitoring of vital signs in adults. Outcomes were structured by validation, feasibility, clinical outcomes, and costs. Risk of bias was determined by using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2nd edition, or quality of health economic studies tool. Results In this review, 27 studies evaluating 13 different wearable wireless devices were included. These studies predominantly evaluated the validation or the feasibility outcomes of these devices. Only a few studies reported the clinical outcomes with these devices and they did not report a significantly better clinical outcome than the standard tools used for measuring vital signs. Cost outcomes were not reported in any study. The quality of the included studies was predominantly rated as low or moderate. Conclusions Wearable wireless continuous monitoring devices are mostly still in the clinical validation and feasibility testing phases. To date, there are no high quality large well-controlled studies of wearable wireless devices available that show a significant clinical benefit or cost-effectiveness. Such studies are needed to help health care professionals and administrators in their decision making regarding implementation of these devices on a large scale in clinical practice or in-home monitoring.

scholarly journals Comparison of (Partial) economic evaluations of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) versus Posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis: A systematic review

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e0245963
Author(s):  
Inge J. M. H. Caelers ◽  
Suzanne L. de Kunder ◽  
Kim Rijkers ◽  
Wouter L. W. van Hemert ◽  
Rob A. de Bie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Interbody Fusion ◽  
Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Lumbar Interbody Fusion ◽  
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis

Introduction The demand for spinal fusion surgery has increased over the last decades. Health care providers should take costs and cost-effectiveness of these surgeries into account. Open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) are two widely used techniques for spinal fusion. Earlier research revealed that TLIF is associated with less blood loss, shorter surgical time and sometimes shorter length of hospital stay, while effectiveness of both techniques on back and/or leg pain are equal. Therefore, TLIF could result in lower costs and be more cost-effective than PLIF. This is the first systematic review comparing direct and indirect (partial) economic evaluations of TLIF with PLIF in adults with lumbar spondylolisthesis. Furthermore, methodological quality of included studies was assessed. Methods Searches were conducted in eight databases for reporting on eligibility criteria; TLIF or PLIF, lumbar spondylolisthesis or lumbar instability, and cost. Costs were converted to United States Dollars with reference year 2020. Study quality was assessed using the bias assessment tool of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Level of Evidence guidelines of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list. Results Of a total of 693 studies, 16 studies were included. Comparison of TLIF and PLIF could only be made indirectly, since no study compared TLIF and PLIF directly. There was a large heterogeneity in health care and societal perspective costs due to different in-, and exclusion criteria, baseline characteristics and the use of costs or charges in calculations. Health care perspective costs, calculated with hospital costs, ranged from $15,867-$43,217 in TLIF-studies and $32,662 in one PLIF-study. Calculated with hospital charges, it ranged from $8,964-$51,469 in TLIF-studies and $21,838-$93,609 in two PLIF-studies. Societal perspective costs and cost-effectiveness, only mentioned in TLIF-studies, ranged from $5,702/QALY-$48,538/QALY and $50,092/QALY-$90,977/QALY, respectively. Overall quality of studies was low. Conclusions This systematic review shows that TLIF and PLIF are expensive techniques. Moreover, firm conclusions about the preferable technique, based on (partial) economic evaluations, cannot be drawn due to limited studies and heterogeneity. Randomized prospective trials and full economical evaluations with direct TLIF and PLIF comparison are needed to obtain high levels of evidence. Furthermore, development of guidelines to perform adequate economic evaluations, specified for the field of interest, will be useful to minimize heterogeneity and maximize transferability of results. Trial registration Prospero-database registration number: CRD42020196869.

scholarly journals Transforming the systematic review service: a team-based model to support the educational needs of researchers

2018 ◽  
Vol 106 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Clare Roth
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Educational Needs ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Educational Services ◽  
Educational Service ◽  
Service Model ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Health Care Settings

To meet the current needs of researchers who perform systematic reviews in health care settings, libraries need to provide high-quality educational services for researchers as part of their systematic review services. A team of librarians with diverse skills is also important for ensuring the growth and sustainability of systematic review services. This commentary describes a new team-based systematic review service model that can transform systematic review services by providing a pathway for librarians to offer a comprehensive educational service for systematic review research in a variety of health sciences library settings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document