RESUMO
PURPOSE: To estimate long-term prognosis of chemosensory dysfunctions among patients recovering from COVID-19 disease. METHODS: Between April 2020 and July 2022, we conducted a prospective, observational study enrolling 48 patients who experienced smell and/or taste dysfunction during the acute-phase of COVID-19. Patients were evaluated for chemosensory function up to 24 months after disease onset. RESULTS: During the acute-phase of COVID-19, 80% of patients reported anosmia, 15% hyposmia, 63% ageusia, and 33% hypogeusia. At two years' follow-up, 53% still experienced smell impairment, and 42% suffered from taste impairment. Moreover, 63% of patients who reported parosmia remained with olfactory disturbance. Interestingly, we found a negative correlation between visual analogue scale scores for smell and taste impairments during the acute-phase of COVID-19 and the likelihood of long-term recovery. CONCLUSION: Our study sheds light on the natural history and long-term follow-up of chemosensory dysfunction in patients recovering from COVID-19 disease. Most patients who initially suffered from smell and/or taste disturbance did not reach full recovery after 2 years follow-up. The severity of impairment may serve as a prognostic indicator for full recovery.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To assess the knowledge and confidence level regarding the basic first-aid for treating epistaxis among medical staff, including nurses and physicians across various medical disciplines. The study focused three aspects of first aid management: location of digital pressure, head position and duration of pressure. METHODS: The study involved 597 participants, categorized into five groups according to their specialties: emergency medicine, internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, and community-based healthcare. A paper-based multiple-choice questionnaire assessed knowledge of managing epistaxis. Correct answers were determined from literature review and expert consensus. RESULTS: Most medical staff showed poor knowledge regarding the preferred site for applying digital pressure in epistaxis management. For head position, pediatricians and internal medicine physicians were most accurate (79.4% and 64.8%, respectively, p < 0.01), and nurses from the emergency department outperformed nurses from other disciplines; internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, and community-based healthcare (61.1%, 41.5%, 43.5%, 60%, 45.6%, respectively, p < 0.05). While most medical staff were unfamiliar with the recommended duration for applying pressure on the nose, pediatricians and community clinic physicians were most accurate (47.1% and 46.0%, respectively, p < 0.01), while ER physicians were least accurate (14.9%, p < 0.01). Interestingly, a negative correlation was found between years of work experience and reported confidence level in managing epistaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate a significant lack of knowledge concerning epistaxis first-aid among medical staff, particularly physicians in emergency departments. This finding highlights the pressing need for education and training to enhance healthcare workers' knowledge in managing epistaxis.