Risks and challenges in COVID-19 infection prevention and control in a hospital setting: Perspectives of healthcare workers in Thailand.

INTRODUCTION: In hospital settings, awareness of, and responsiveness to, COVID-19 are crucial to reducing the risk of transmission among healthcare workers and protecting them from infection. Healthcare professionals can offer insights into the practicalities of infection prevention and control (IPC) measures and on how the guideline aimed to ensure adherence to IPC, including use of personal protective equipment (PPE), could best be delivered during the pandemic. To inform future development of such guideline, this study examined the perspectives of healthcare professionals working in a large hospital during the pandemic regarding their infection risks, the barriers or facilitators to implementing their tasks and the IPC measures to protect their safety and health and of their patients. METHOD: In-depth interviews were conducted with 23 hospital staff coming into contact with possible or confirmed cases of COVID-19, or were at potential risk of contracting the disease, including medical doctors, nurses, virology laboratory staff, and non-medical workers. This qualitative study was carried out as part of a knowledge, attitudes and practice survey to prevent COVID-19 transmission at Ramathibodi Hospital in Thailand. We used content analysis to categorize and code transcribed interview data. Existing IPC guideline and evidence synthesis of organisational, environmental, and individual factors to IPC adherence among healthcare workers were used to guide the development of the interview questions and analysis. FINDING: Factors identified as influencing the use of, and adherence to, prevention measures among healthcare workers included knowledge, perceived risk and concerns about the infection. The extent to which these factors were influential varied based on the medical procedures, among other features, that individuals were assigned to perform in the hospital setting. Beyond availability of PPE and physical safety, ease of and readiness to utilize the equipment and implement IPC measures were crucial to motivate hospital staff to follow the practice guideline. Having a ventilated outdoor space for screening and testing, and interaction through mobile technology, facilitated the performance of healthcare workers while reducing the transmission risk for staff and patients. Adequate training, demonstration of guided practices, and streamlined communications are crucial organisational and management support factors to encourage appropriate use of, and adherence to, implementation of infection prevention and control measures among healthcare workers. CONCLUSION: This finding could help inform the development of recommendations to optimise compliance with appropriate use of these measures, and to improve guidance to reduce HCW's risk of disease in hospital settings. Further study should explore the perceptions and experiences of health professionals in smaller health facilities and community-based workers during the pandemic, particularly in resource-limited settings.

Comparative cardiovascular outcomes of novel drugs as an addition to conventional triple therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF): a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is no head-to-head comparison of novel pharmacological treatments for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). A network meta-analysis aimed to compare effects of both conventional and alternative drug combinations on time to develop primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalisation (PCO). METHODS: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from Medline, Scopus up to June 2021. The RCTs were included if comparing any single or combination of drugs, that is, ACE inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers (BB), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), ivabradine (IVA), angiotensin receptor blocker/neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), soluble guanylyl cyclase and omecamtiv mecarbil and reporting PCO. Data were extracted from Kaplan-Meier curves, individual patient data were generated. A mixed-effect Weibull regression was applied. Median time to PCO, HRs with 95% CI were estimated accordingly. Our findings suggested that ACEI+BB+MRA+SGLT2i, BB+MRA+ARNI, and ACEI+BB+MRA+IVA had lower probability of PCOs than the conventional triple therapy (ACEI+BB+MRA). RESULTS: Median time to PCOs of ACEI+BB+MRA was 57.7 months whereas median times to those new combinations were longer than 57.7 months. In addition, the three new regimens had a significantly lower PCO risks than ACEI+BB+MRA, with the HRs (95% CI) of 0.51 (0.43 to 0.61), 0.55 (0.46 to 0.65) and 0.56 (0.47 to 0.67), accordingly. CONCLUSION: This study suggested that SGLT2i, ARNI and IVA in addition to ACEI+BB+MRA may be better in prolonging time to develop PCO in HFrEF patients.