viewpoint TIME TO RESTART: PROTOCOL OF RESUMPTION OF ACTIVITIES OF A DERMATOLOGICAL CLINIC OF A LEVEL II HOSPITAL IN THE COVID-19 ERA. (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federico Diotallevi ◽  
Anna Campanati ◽  
Giulia Radi ◽  
Oriana Simonetti ◽  
Emanuela Martina ◽  
...  

UNSTRUCTURED Two months have passed since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the pandemic of the Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19), caused by the SARS CoV-2 virus, on March 11, 2020. Medical and healthcare workers have continued to be on the frontline to defeat this disease, however, continual changes are being made to their working habits which are proving to be difficult. Since the beginning of the pandemic, a major reorganisation of all hospital wards, including dermatological wards, has been carried out in order to make medical and nursing staff available in COVID wards and to prevent the spread of infection. These strategies, which were also adopted in our clinic, proved to be effective, as no staff members or patients were infected by the virus. Now, thanks to the global decrease in SARS-CovV2 infections, it is necessary to make dermatological wards accessible to patients again, but it is also essential to adopt specific protocols to avoid a new wave of infections.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeya Sutha M

UNSTRUCTURED COVID-19, the disease caused by a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is a highly contagious disease. On January 30, 2020 the World Health Organization declared the outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. As of July 25, 2020; 15,947,292 laboratory-confirmed and 642,814 deaths have been reported globally. India has reported 1,338,928 confirmed cases and 31,412 deaths till date. This paper presents different aspects of COVID-19, visualization of the spread of infection and presents the ARIMA model for forecasting the status of COVID-19 death cases in the next 50 days in order to take necessary precaution by the Government to save the people.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 215013272110133
Author(s):  
Samar Fares ◽  
Merihan M. Elmnyer ◽  
Shimaa Sabry Mohamed ◽  
Radwa Elsayed

Introduction COVID-19 pandemic has affected the whole world, especially the frontline worriers. To get shielded through this war, the world is racing to reach and manufacture COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccination hesitancy is one of the significant obstacles to global health. Objectives This study aimed to assess the perception and attitude of healthcare workers in Egypt toward COVID-19 vaccines, acknowledge the determinants of their attitude, and the factors that could increase the acceptance of the vaccine. Methods an observational web-based anonymous survey was conducted on 385 Egyptian healthcare workers in different governorates. The questionnaire-based on Vaccine Hesitancy Survey Questions of the World Health Organization was available in Arabic and English languages and was tested for reliability. Results Regarding vaccination decision, 51% of the participants were undecided, 28% refused, and 21% accepted vaccination. Reasons for vaccine acceptance mainly were risks of COVID-19 (93%), safety (57.5%), and effectiveness (56.25%) of the vaccine. Simultaneously, the reasons for vaccine hesitancy were the absence of enough clinical trials (92.4%) and fear of side effects of the vaccine (91.4%). The leading factor that could increase vaccination acceptance among the participants was to get sufficient and accurate information about the available vaccines. The participants revealed a high mean level of concern for COVID-19 vaccines’ safety (3.8 of 5) that differs significantly among the different study groups ( P-value .002). Conclusion Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, only approximately 21% of Egyptian healthcare workers in our study accepted the COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccine hesitancy represents a major barrier to implementing vaccination programs.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 53
Author(s):  
Rosalia Ragusa ◽  
Marina Marranzano ◽  
Alessandro Lombardo ◽  
Rosalba Quattrocchi ◽  
Maria Alessandra Bellia ◽  
...  

The aim of the study was to assess adherence to hand washing by healthcare workers (HCWs) and its variations over time in hospital wards. We wanted to check whether the pandemic had changed the behavior of HCWs. The study was conducted between 1 January 2015, and 31 December 2020. The HCWs were observed to assess their compliance with the Five Moments for Hand Hygiene. We described the percentage of adherence to World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines stratified per year, per specialty areas, per different types of HCWs. We also observed the use of gloves. Descriptive data were reported as frequencies and percentages. We observed 13,494 hand hygiene opportunities. The majority of observations concerned nurses who were confirmed as the category most frequently involved with patients. Hospital’s global adherence to WHO guidelines did not change in the last six years. During the pandemic, the rate of adherence to the procedure increased significantly only in Intensive Care Unit (ICU). In 2020, the use of gloves increased in pre-patient contact. The hand-washing permanent monitoring confirmed that it is very difficult to obtain the respect of correct hand hygiene in all opportunities, despite the ongoing pandemic and the fear of contagion.


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (155) ◽  
pp. 200068 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martina Ferioli ◽  
Cecilia Cisternino ◽  
Valentina Leo ◽  
Lara Pisani ◽  
Paolo Palange ◽  
...  

The World Health Organization has recently defined the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection a pandemic. The infection, that may cause a potentially very severe respiratory disease, now called coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has airborne transmission via droplets. The rate of transmission is quite high, higher than common influenza. Healthcare workers are at high risk of contracting the infection particularly when applying respiratory devices such as oxygen cannulas or noninvasive ventilation. The aim of this article is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the correct use of “respiratory devices” in the COVID-19 emergency and protect healthcare workers from contracting the SARS-CoV-2 infection.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 67
Author(s):  
Enis Uruci

Exposure prevention is the primary strategy to reduce the risk of occupational bloodborne pathogen infections in healthcare workers (HCW). HCWs should be made aware of the medicolegal and clinical relevance of reporting an exposure, and have ready access to expert consultants to receive appropriate counselling, treatment and follow-up. Vaccination against hepatitis B virus (HBV), and demonstration of immunisation before employment are strongly recommended. HCWs with postvaccinal anti-HBs levels, 1-2 months after vaccine completion, -or=10 mIU/mL are considered as responders. Responders are protected against HBV infection: booster doses of vaccine or periodic antibody concentration testing are not recommended. Alternative strategies to overcome non-response should be adopted. Isolated anti-HBc positive HCWs should be tested for anti-HBcIgM and HBV-DNA: if negative, anti-HBs response to vaccination can distinguish between infection (anti-HBs -or=50 mIU/ml 30 days after 1st vaccination: anamnestic response) and false positive results(anti-HBs -or=10 mUI/ml 30 days after 3rd vaccination: primary response); true positive subjects have resistance to re-infection. and do not need vaccination The management of an occupational exposure to HBV differs according to the susceptibility of the exposed HCW and the serostatus of the source. When indicated, post-exposure prophylaxis with HBV vaccine, hepatitis B immunoglobulin or both must be started as soon as possible (within 1-7 days). In the absence of prophylaxis against hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, follow-up management of HCV exposures depends on whether antiviral treatment during the acute phase is chosen. Test the HCW for HCV-Ab at baseline and after 6 months; up to 12 for HIV-HCV co-infected sources. If treatment is recommended, perform ALT (amino alanine transferase) activity at baseline and monthly for 4 months after exposure, and qualitative HCV-RNA when an increase is detected. Introduction Bloodborne pathogens such as hepatitis B (HBV) and C virus (HCV) represent an important hazard for healthcare workers (HCWs) [1]. In the general population, HCV prevalence varies geographically from about 0.5 percent in northern countries to 2 percent in Mediterranean countries, with some 5 million chronic carriers estimated in Europe; while HBV prevalence ranges from 0.3 percent to 3 percent. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that each year in Europe 304 000 HCWs are exposed to at least one percutaneous injury with a sharp object contaminated with HBV, 149 000 are exposed to HCV and 22 000 to HIV. The probability of acquiring a bloodborne infection following an occupational exposure has been estimated to be on average. Bloodborne pathogens such as hepatitis B (HBV) and C virus (HCV) represent an important hazard for healthcare workers (HCWs) [1]. In the general population, HCV prevalence varies geographically from about 0.5 percent in northern countries to 2 percent in Mediterranean countries, with some 5 million chronic carriers estimated in Europe; while HBV prevalence ranges from 0.3 percent to 3 percent. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that each year in Europe 304 000 HCWs are exposed to at least one percutaneous injury with a sharp object contaminated with HBV, 149 000 are exposed to HCV and 22 000 to HIV.We present here recommendations for the general management of occupational risk of bloodborne infections, HBV vaccination and management of HBV and HCV exposures. A description of the project and recommendations for HIV post-exposure management, including antiretroviral prophylaxis, has been previously published [2], and so issues related to occupational risk and prevention of HIV infection following an occupational exposure will not be discussed further.


Author(s):  
S.A. Yeprintsev ◽  
◽  
O.V. Klepikov ◽  
S.V. Shekoyan ◽  
E.V. Zhigulina ◽  
...  

The spread of the dangerous Covid-19 infection caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus since the end of 2019 has become a great challenge to both the world and Russian society. For example, on January 30, 2020, the world health organization recognized the spread of a new infection as a public health emergency of international significance. On March 11, 2020, the same organization declared that the outbreak had become a pandemic. currently, the role of social and environmental factors (which determine the spread of many environmentally-related diseases) in the spread of coronavirus infection in the population has not been fully studied. The spread of Covid-19 infection in Russia can be divided into 3 stages. Stage 1 (31.01.2020–01.04.2020) – primary distribution. At this stage, the infection occurred mainly to Russian citizens visiting other countries. Stage 2 (1.04.2020– 12.05.2020) – active distribution within the country. By the end of this stage, the maximum spread of infection is recorded. Stage 3 (12.05.2020-present) – gradual decline in the appearance of new cases of coronavirus infection. To assess the specific contribution of socio-environmental conditions to the spread of coronavirus infection, data from the Federal information Fund for social and hygienic monitoring of the Federal CENTER for hygiene and epidemiology of Rospotrebnadzor were analyzed on indicators of financial security of citizens, quality of health care and sanitary and hygienic conditions. Research has shown that financial security of the population makes a significant contribution to the spread of infection at the first stages. The specific contribution of the quality of medical care, which has a wide differentiation within the regions of Russia, affects only the third stage of the spread of coronavirus infection. Environmental and hygiene indicators make a weak contribution to the spread of Covid-19 in all three stages of the epidemic.


2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (22) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michel Kohnen ◽  
Patrick Hoffmann ◽  
Caroline Frisch ◽  
Emilie Charpentier ◽  
Aurélie Sausy ◽  
...  

Luxembourg was among the first countries in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region documenting interruption of endemic measles transmission, but an increased incidence was registered in spring 2019. The outbreak started with an unvaccinated student who had been to a winter sports resort in a neighbouring country, where a measles outbreak was ongoing. Subsequently, 12 secondary and two tertiary cases were confirmed among students from the same school, relatives and healthcare workers, as well as six probably unrelated cases. Only 11 cases initially fulfilled the WHO definition for suspected measles cases. Fourteen of 20 cases with information on country of birth and the majority of unvaccinated cases (10/12) were born outside of Luxembourg. Measles IgM antibody results were available for 16 of the confirmed cases, and five of the eight IgM negative cases had been vaccinated at least once. All 21 cases were PCR positive, but for three previously vaccinated cases with multiple specimen types, at least one of these samples was negative. The outbreak highlighted diagnostic challenges from clinical and laboratory perspectives in a measles elimination setting and showed that people born abroad and commuters may represent important pockets of susceptible people in Luxembourg.


2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-18
Author(s):  
Ranjitha Ranganathan ◽  
Amir Maroof Khan ◽  
Pragti Chhabra

Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has been declared by the World Health Organization after it has gripped many countries of the world. The exponential increase in the number of cases has resulted in panic and confusion among healthcare workers and the vulnerable population. Pregnant and lactating mothers are a vulnerable group and need evidence-based advice to protect the health of the mother and the child. Healthcare workers can play an important role in dispelling the myths and misconceptions among pregnant and lactating mothers regarding COVID-19, if they are equipped with scientific information on antenatal care, care at birth, and breastfeeding. This review attempts to summarize the published evidence related to antenatal care, care at birth and breastfeeding during the COVID-19 pandemic.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 1521 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kavita Narang ◽  
Eniola R. Ibirogba ◽  
Amro Elrefaei ◽  
Ayssa Teles Abrao Trad ◽  
Regan Theiler ◽  
...  

Since the declaration of the global pandemic of COVID-19 by the World Health Organization on 11 March 2020, we have continued to see a steady rise in the number of patients infected by SARS-CoV-2. However, there is still very limited data on the course and outcomes of this serious infection in a vulnerable population of pregnant patients and their fetuses. International perinatal societies and institutions including SMFM, ACOG, RCOG, ISUOG, CDC, CNGOF, ISS/SIEOG, and CatSalut have released guidelines for the care of these patients. We aim to summarize these current guidelines in a comprehensive review for patients, healthcare workers, and healthcare institutions. We included 15 papers from 10 societies through a literature search of direct review of society’s websites and their journal publications up till 20 April 2020. Recommendations specific to antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum were abstracted from the publications and summarized into Tables. The summary of guidelines for the management of COVID-19 in pregnancy across different perinatal societies is fairly consistent, with some variation in the strength of recommendations. It is important to recognize that these guidelines are frequently updated, as we continue to learn more about the course and impact of COVID-19 in pregnancy.


1987 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 57-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannu Vuori

Traditionally, the research community—be it biomedical or socio-medical—has not looked at the World Health Organization for inspiration. Understandably so: according to its constitution, the organization was founded to assist the Member States in strengthening health services by providing technical assistance (1). The staffing pattern has reflected this role; most staff members are technical experts, not researchers. They often come from the national health administrations and have limited exposure to—sometimes even limited understanding of—research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document