scholarly journals Departments of Pediatrics Approach at the Beginning of the COVID-19 Pandemic

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Beatriz Simões Vala ◽  
Mariana Lopes Costa ◽  
Joana Aquino ◽  
Bilhota Xavier

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> The novel coronavirus pandemic poses a challenge to healthcare systems’ balance. Since children apparently have milder disease courses, COVID-19 guidelines were not easily adapted to pediatrics. We intend to characterize how the national departments of pediatrics adapted to the pandemic at the beginning and describe the measures that were taken to protect healthcare workers. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> An unvalidated online questionnaire was sent to all departments of pediatrics directors of Portuguese public health system hospitals regarding course of actions taken between April and May 2020 to face the new coronavirus pandemic. Neonatology units were excluded. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Thirty-eight questionnaires were included (93% of public health system departments). All departments divided the pediatric emergency unit into non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 areas: 68% in different areas, 47% divided the same space with a physical barrier and 16% with a line on the floor. Healthcare workers were divided into non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 teams in 71% of the departments. Personal protective equipment mostly used in COVID-19 areas consisted of face shield/goggles (97%) and respirators (95%). Others wore surgical masks (8%). The main clinical criteria for testing were Direção-Geral da Saúde criteria (84%). Presential appointments were maintained in 68% of departments with selected follow-up (81%) and priority-first appointments (73%). <b><i>Discussion:</i></b> National departments of pediatrics faced the pandemic differently and measures taken in the emergency department were more similar. Personal protective equipment was adequate in all wards with occasional overuse, considering national and international guidelines.

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 97
Author(s):  
Connie CR Gan ◽  
Febi Dwirahmadi

INTRODUCTIONThe response to the COVID-19 pandemic is a tragic aberration gripping the world. As the disease evolves, uncertainty and fear of harm rise, which can significantly diminish community health and wellbeing. This article stresses the importance of public health preparedness in overcoming social and health risks associated with public panic.Since the COVID-19 outbreak began in late 2019, the numbers of people affected and fatalities continue to mount, causing panic and crippling vital economic and social activities. Authorities have failed to prevent inaccurate and misleading headlines that agitate the public and impinge on public communication. Fake news and rumors about magical products claiming to cure the virus abound. Additionally, people assumed emergency preparation meant stockpiling resources. Amid growing fears, consumers raided supermarkets and pharmacies for supplies, from masks to hygiene products, and people have fought over protective gear as tensions flared among anxious customers.When general panic starts driving political decision-making, public health professionals may be unable to implement strategies based on informed decisions. Researchers argue that government secrecy and non-transparency diminish people’s confidence and trust, creating panic (Wilson et al., 2007). Even naming the disease possibly triggered epidemic-related trauma and the ensuing public mistrust and disbelief of authorities; the panic has also sparked a wave of racial prejudice (Titanji, 2020). Although a series of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases, from Avian flu to Zika virus, may have created more public awareness, whether leaders can translate this newfound awareness into meaningful policies and action is debatable.Globally, attention is growing on responses from state leaders, as some try to downplay the epidemic’s severity to maintain “business as usual”. In early March 2020, the Indonesian government was still in a state of denial and was attempting to convince the general public that the country was free from COVID-19 (Lindsey & Mann, 2020) Instead, currently confirmed cases are growing rapidly, suspected cases are far above the testing capacity, and case fatality is at an alarming rate.In contrast, several countries took drastic action by declaring travel restrictions and locking down cities. As an example, New Zealand decided to implement level-4 measures, with strict movement restrictions, not long after they confirmed their first case on 28 February 2020; they have recently begun a gradual exit from coronavirus lockdown (Knight, 2020).The public expects leaders to curb the spread of COVID-19 responsibly, appropriately, effectively, and proactively. Meanwhile, leaders are urging the public to stay calm and adopt new norms during this rapidly evolving situation. This crisis is not limited to any individual and requires cooperation rather than a unilateral response. DISCUSSIONHow to do this?A critical approach to pandemics is to ensure the preparedness of both healthcare capacity and public health systems (Jain, Duse, & Bausch, 2018). To respond to emergency needs—to have the capacity to treat rapidly increasing numbers of COVID-19 patients—it is important for each country to have existing policies and action plans for healthcare facilities to temporarily expand service capacity, cancel or postpone elective procedures, and engage in rapid intervention to conserve medical supplies, including personal protective equipment (Gan, Tseng, & Lee, 2020). Measures including recalling recently retired healthcare workers and providing drive-through services for chronic disease medications have been implemented to lessen pressures on hospitals (Wang, Ng, & Brook, 2020).While healthcare capacity is the ability to care for patients with COVID-19, the public health system aims to prevent people from being infected and mitigating the health risks associated with COVID-19. The public health system is important for strengthening community vigilance by promoting effective sanitation, a healthy lifestyle, and food safety, and preventing injuries, inequality, and violence. This involves not only healthcare professionals, but also well-planned strategies that consider various stakeholders’ perspectives and concerns (Glik, 2007). Despite the lockdown, we have seen healthcare workers and people in the community providing the basic essentials for those in need—from food, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), mental health support, and evidence-based research communication, to virtual musical performances and concerts. Organizations in the virtual sphere, including WhatsApp (WhatsApp Inc, 2020) and TikTok, are partnering with health agencies to increase accessibility to health information.The best outbreak response is a collective response (Gille & Brall, 2020), which could effectively contain the disease and the panic caused by the disease. People naturally experience fear when dealing with a catastrophic event. This unprecedented threat triggered panic purchasing or falling for viral hoaxes, which reflects misconceptions about the problem, most likely because people lack trust in the measures taken (Heide, 2004), When designing and implementing public health measures, we must ensure we do not just acknowledge that, but actively engage relevant stakeholders. In an age of uncertainty, community solidarity and collective action are key to maintaining community vigilance against the crisis (Aldrich et al., 2015).


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hatice İkiışık ◽  
Yasemin Çağ ◽  
Mehmet Akif Sezerol ◽  
Aral Surmeli ◽  
Yusuf Taşçı ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Global pandemic of novel Coronavirus Disease (SARS- COV-2) has spread across all continents and infected almost 80 million people. Since it is a novel disease, unknowns about the disease characteristic, treatment and length of immunity still persist. This study aims to characterize reinfection, personal protective equipment use and disease progress in healthcare workers in İstanbul. Methods: 23 healthcare workers who had confirmed negative PCR results after infection and another positivity later were questioned about both infection progress, their symptoms and treatment through an online questionnaire. Results: While the symptoms during both courses did not change drastically, 73.9% were treated as outpatient during the first infection while all but one (95.7%) were treated as such during second time around. Median time between two infections were 106 days. All participants were cleared of disease and none had to be treated in intensive care unit. Conclusion: Use of personal protective equipment was found subpar compared to World Health Organization recommendations. This is the first study from Turkey characterizing reinfected cases in healthcare workers.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 152-152
Author(s):  
Flavia Tavares Silva Elias ◽  
Juliana da Motta Girardi ◽  
Rafael Moraes ◽  
Fabio Amorim ◽  
Ana Carolina Pereira ◽  
...  

Introduction:The Federal District in Brazil has about 2.9 million inhabitants and the public health system is focused on medical specialties, with one university hospital and twenty regional hospitals. This ecosystem is favorable for fostering health technology assessment (HTA) to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of health care. The objective was to identify institutions that could form a HTA network to support decision-oriented evidence in the public health system.Methods:Stakeholders from the hospitals and training/research institutions in the Federal District were surveyed. An online questionnaire (Google Docs) was developed to identify the potential and capacity of institutions to analyze or produce clinical and economic evidence. Two HTA seminars were held to spread knowledge about HTA and to encourage stakeholders to complete the survey.Results:The questionnaire response rate was thirty-five percent (25/70). Fifteen institutions were cited by the respondents as having the potential to build a HTA network. Twelve of the institutions produced rapid reviews and clinical guidelines, but only three of these had an organized priority setting process or produced assessments at the request of the hospital manager. The challenges identified were training and willingness of decision makers to organize HTA units in the hospitals.Conclusions:An executive group was created which defined a strategy to support the implementation of HTA units as part of the HTA National Network (REBRATS). A regulation proposal was also created to encourage decision makers to activate a HTA network in the Federal District.


Author(s):  
Michella Hill ◽  
Erin Smith ◽  
Brennen Mills

Abstract Objectives The majority of research investigating healthcare workers’ (HCWs) willingness to work during public health emergencies asks participants to forecast their perceptions based on hypothetical emergencies, rather than in response to actual public health emergencies they have experienced. This research explored frontline HCWs willingness to work during Australia’s first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic among frontline HCWs. Methods Participants (n=580) completed an online questionnaire regarding their willingness to work during the pandemic. Results Forty-two percent of participants reported being less willing to work during the pandemic compared to before. Availability of personal protective equipment (PPE), concern expressed by family members, and viral exposure were significant barriers. One-third of participants disagreed that some level of occupational risk for exposure to infectious disease was acceptable. One-quarter of participants had received communications from their workplace concerning obligations to work during COVID-19. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted Australian frontline HCWs’ willingness to work. Scarcity of PPE and exposure to the virus were the most cited reasons impacting on willingness to work. Appropriate policies and practices should be implemented and communicated efficiently to frontline HCW’s. This research provides insight into the lived experiences of Australian healthcare professionals’ willingness to work during a pandemic.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Miranda E. Vidgen ◽  
Sid Kaladharan ◽  
Eva Malacova ◽  
Cameron Hurst ◽  
Nicola Waddell

Abstract Background There has been considerable investment and strategic planning to introduce genomic testing into Australia’s public health system. As more patients’ genomic data is being held by the public health system, there will be increased requests from researchers to access this data. It is important that public policy reflects public expectations for how genomic data that is generated from clinical tests is used. To inform public policy and discussions around genomic data sharing, we sought public opinions on using genomic data contained in medical records for research purposes in the Australian state of Queensland. Methods A total of 1494 participants completed an online questionnaire between February and May 2019. Participants were adults living in Australia. The questionnaire explored participant preferences for sharing genomic data or biological samples with researchers, and concerns about genomic data sharing. Results Most participants wanted to be given the choice to have their genomic data from medical records used in research. Their expectations on whether and how often they needed to be approached for permission on using their genomic data, depended on whether the data was identifiable or anonymous. Their willingness to sharing data for research purposes depended on the type of information being shared, what type of research would be undertaken and who would be doing the research. Participants were most concerned with genomics data sharing that could lead to discrimination (insurance and employment), data being used for marketing, data security, or commercial use. Conclusions Most participants were willing to share their genomic data from medical records with researchers, as long as permission for use was sought. However, the existing policies related to this process in Queensland do not reflect participant expectations for how this is achieved, particularly with anonymous genomics data. This inconsistency may be addressed by process changes, such as inclusion of research in addition to clinical consent or general research data consent programs.


Author(s):  
Jennifer Hanrahan ◽  
Joel Kammeyer ◽  
Deana Sievert ◽  
Brenda Naylor ◽  
Sadik Khuder ◽  
...  

Abstract We describe a care delivery model in which one hospital in a larger health system was dedicated exclusively to treatment of COVID-19 patients. This allowed for rapid training, conservation of resources and promoted safety of healthcare workers, demonstrated by no healthcare worker exposures due to improper personal protective equipment use.


2021 ◽  
Vol 104 (2) ◽  
pp. 003685042110037
Author(s):  
Borja Nicolás Santana López ◽  
Yeray G. Santana-Padilla ◽  
Jesús M. González-Martín ◽  
Luciano Santana-Cabrera

During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare professionals are taking the risk of becoming infected or infecting their families. Spain is the country with the highest number of infected healthcare professionals worldwide. Our aim was to study the attitudes and beliefs of these professionals during the current pandemic. Descriptive study conducted by using an online questionnaire—based on an earlier one—which was sent to healthcare professionals at the national level, during the week March 20-27, 2020. Healthcare professionals returned 971 completed questionnaires. A total of 803 (82.7%) participants thought that they did not have suitable PPEs (Personal Protective Equipment) to protect them from infection with COVID-19. In addition, even 229 (23.58%) agreed to go on working even if they were not. In spite of this, 606 (62.4%) of them were ready to work, even with a higher-than-usual risk of becoming infected at work and getting ill. Remarkably high professional commitment has been observed among Spanish healthcare workers in the current pandemic. They were ready to work even when many of them considered that they did not have suitable PPEs, and were thus taking a higher than usual infection risk. However, they put the health of their relatives before their duties at work.


Author(s):  
Stephanie Ishack ◽  
Shari R Lipner

The novel coronavirus, COVID-19, created a pandemic with significant mortality and morbidity which poses challenges for patients and healthcare workers. The global spread of COVID-19 has resulted in shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) leaving frontline health workers unprotected and overwhelming the healthcare system. 3D printing is well suited to address shortages of masks, face shields, testing kits and ventilators. In this article, we review 3D printing and suggest potential applications for creating PPE for healthcare workers treating COVID-19 patients. A comprehensive literature review was conducted using PubMed with keywords “Coronavirus disease 2019”, “COVID-19”, “severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2”, “SARS-CoV-2”, “supply shortages”, “N95 respirator masks”, “personal protective equipment”, “PPE”, “ventilators”, “three-dimensional model”, “three-dimensional printing” “3D printing” and “ventilator”. A summary of important studies relevant to the development of 3D printed clinical applications for COVID-19 is presented. 3D technology has great potential to revolutionize healthcare through accessibility, affordably and personalization.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document