A legal mapping of 48 WHO member states' inclusion of public health emergency of international concern, pandemic, and health emergency terminology within national emergency legislation in responding to health emergencies.

WHO has determined a public health emergency of international concern (PHEIC) seven times, and beyond this nomenclature declared COVID-19 to be a pandemic. Under the International Health Regulations (IHR), and through their operationalisation in the joint external evaluation (JEE), governments are urged to create suitable legislation to be able to enact a response to a public health emergency. Whether the pandemic declaration had a greater effect than a PHEIC in encouraging goverments to act, however, remains conjecture, as there is no systemic analysis of what each term means in practice and whether either has meaningful legal implications at the national level. We undertook a legal scoping review to assess the utilisation of PHEIC and pandemic language within national legislation in 28 WHO member states. Data were collected from national websites, JEE reviews, COVID Analysis and Mapping of Policies Tool, Natlex, and Oxford Compendium of National Legal Responses to COVID-19. We found that only 16% of countries have any reference to the PHEIC in national legislation and 37·5% of countries reference the term pandemic. This finding paints a weakened picture of the IHR and PHEIC mechanisms. Having such legalese enshrined in legislation might enhance the interaction between WHO determining a PHEIC or declaring a pandemic and resulting action to mitigate transnational spread of disease and enhance health security. Given the ongoing negotiations at WHO in relation to the amendments to the IHR and creation of the pandemic accord, both of which deal with this declaratory power of the PHEIC and pandemic language, negotiators should understand the possible implications of any changes to these proclamations at the national level and for global health security.

Purulent Skin and Soft Tissue Infections, Challenging the Practice of Incision and Drainage: A Scoping Review.

Aim: To generate a landscape of the current knowledge in the interventional management and outcomes of purulent skin and soft tissue infections. Design: This study is a scoping review. Methods: Electronic searches were undertaken using CINAHL, Medline, Cochrane Library, British Nursing Index, Science Direct, the National Health Service knowledge and library hub, ClinicalTrials.gov, and MedNar. The population, concept, context framework, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews were utilised, supporting a rigorous appraisal and synthesis of literature. Data Sources. The initial search and synthesis of literature were completed in January 2022 with repeat searches completed in March 2022 and July 2023. There were no imposed chronological parameters placed on the returned literature. Results: Nineteen papers were reviewed. Incision and drainage with primary closure, needle aspiration, loop drainage, catheter drainage, and suction drainage are viable adjuncts or alternatives to the traditional surgical management of skin and soft tissue abscesses. Conclusion: Despite the empirically favourable alternatives to the incision and drainage technique demonstrated, this does not appear to be driving a change in clinical practice. Future research must now look to mixed and qualitative evidence to understand the causative mechanisms of incision and drainage and its ritualistic practice. Implications. Ritual surgical practices must be challenged if nurses are to improve the treatment and management of this patient group. This will lead to further practice innovation. Impact: This study explored the challenges posed to patients, clinicians, nurses, and stakeholders, resulting from the ritualistic practice of the incision and drainage technique in purulent skin or soft tissue abscesses. Empirically and holistically viable alternatives were identified, impacting all identified entities and recommending a wider holistic study. Reporting Method. Adherence to EQUATOR guidance was achieved through the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.