Compliance with hand disinfection in the surgical area of an orthopedic university clinic: results of an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene using alcoholic hand rub solution is essential for the prevention of surgical site infections. There are several opportunities for hygienic hand disinfection (termed "hand hygiene" in the following) during immediate pre-, intra- and postoperative orthopedic patient care. However, the level of hand hygiene compliance among surgical and anesthesia staff in this context is unclear. Therefore, we conducted an observational study in operating theatres of an orthopedic university clinic in northern Germany during July and August 2020. METHODS: One trained person directly and comprehensively observed hand hygiene compliance of surgical and anesthesia staff according to the WHO "My 5 moments for hand hygiene" model (WHO-5). In addition to cross-tabulations with Chi2 tests, multiple logistic regression models were used to study associations between occupational group, medical specialty, and compliance (both overall and for each WHO-5 indication). Models were adjusted for hand hygiene opportunities being associated with female or male healthcare workers, being located within or outside the operation room, and occurring in adult or pediatric surgery. RESULTS: In total, 1145 hand hygiene opportunities during 16 surgeries were observed. The overall compliance was 40.8% (95% CI 37.9-43.6%), with a larger difference between surgical versus anesthesia staff (28.4% vs. 46.1%, p < 0.001) than between physicians versus nurses (38.5% vs. 42.9%, p = 0.13). Adjusting for sex, place of observation, and adult versus pediatric operation theatre, logistic regression analyses revealed a significant interaction between medical specialty and occupational group (p < 0.001). In particular, the odds for compliance were higher for anesthesiologists (47.9%) than for surgeons (19.6%) (OR = 4.8, 95% CI 3.0-7.6). In addition, compliance was higher in pediatric surgery (OR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.4-2.6). In general, WHO-5-stratified results were in line with these overall patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Hygienic hand disinfection compliance was approximately 41%. Notably, surgeons performed worse than anesthesiologists did. These results indicate that hand hygiene compliance in orthopedic surgery needs to be improved. Tailored interventions promise to be an appropriate way to address each occupational group's specific needs.

Safety of emergency, elective and day case operating during the winter period at East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust: lessons from the outcomes of 4,254 surgical patients from the first COVID-19 wave.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on perioperative outcomes of surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic to inform continued operating into the winter period. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed the rate of 30-day COVID-19 transmission and mortality of all surgical patients in the three hospitals in our trust in the East of England during the first lockdown in March 2020. All patients who underwent a swab were swabbed on or 24 hours prior to admission. RESULTS: There were 4,254 patients and an overall 30-day mortality of 0.99%. The excess surgical mortality in our region was 0.29%. There were 39 patients who were COVID-19 positive within 30 days of admission, 12 of whom died. All 12 were emergency admissions with a length of stay longer than 24 hours. There were three deaths among those who underwent day case surgery, one of whom was COVID-19 negative, and the other two were not swabbed but not suspected to have COVID-19. There were two COVID-19 positive elective cases and none in day case elective or emergency surgery. There were no COVID-19 positive deaths in elective or day case surgery. CONCLUSIONS: There was a low rate of COVID-19 transmission and mortality in elective and day case operations. Our data have allowed us to guide patients in the consent process and provided the evidence base to restart elective and day case operating with precautions and regular review. A number of regions will be similarly affected and should perform a review of their data for the winter period and beyond.

Do standards of care and early outcomes of periprosthetic fractures change during the COVID-19 pandemic? A multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) are a growing matter for orthopaedic surgeons, and patients with PPFs may represent a frail target in the case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether hospital reorganisations during the most severe phase of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic affected standards of care and early outcomes of patients treated for PPFs in Northern Italy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were retrieved from a multicentre retrospective orthopaedics and traumatology database, including 14 hospitals. The following parameters were studied: demographics, results of nasopharyngeal swabs, prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), comorbidities, general health status (EQ-5D-5L Score), frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale, CFS), pain (visual analogue scale, VAS), anaesthesiologic risk (American Society of Anaesthesiology Score, ASA Score), classification (unified classification system, UCS), type of operation and anaesthesia, in-hospital and early complications (Clavien-Dindo Classification, CDC), and length of stay (LOS). Data were analysed by means of descriptive statistics. Out of 1390 patients treated for any reason, 38 PPFs were included. RESULTS: Median age was 81 years (range 70-96 years). Twenty-three patients (60.5%) were swabbed on admission, and two of them (5.3%) tested positive; in three patients (7.9%), the diagnosis of COVID-19 was established on a clinical and radiological basis. Two more patients tested positive post-operatively, and one of them died due to COVID-19. Thirty-three patients (86.8%) presented a proximal femoral PPF. Median ASA Score was 3 (range, 1-4), median VAS score on admission was 3 (range, 0-6), median CFS was 4 (range, 1-8), median EQ-5D-5L Score was 3 in each one of the categories (range, 1-5). Twenty-three patients (60.5%) developed post-operative complications, and median CDC grade was 3 (range, 1-5). The median LOS was 12.8 days (range 2-36 days), and 21 patients (55.3%) were discharged home. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of PPFs did not seem to change during the lockdown. Patients were mainly elderly with comorbidities, and complications were frequently recorded post-operatively. Despite the difficult period for the healthcare system, hospitals were able to provide effective conventional surgical treatments for PPFs, which were not negatively influenced by the reorganisation. Continued efforts are required to optimise the treatment of these frail patients in the period of the pandemic, minimising the risk of contamination, and to limit the incidence of PPFs in the future. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

SARS-CoV-2 screening among people living in homeless shelters in Brussels, Belgium.

BACKGROUND: Subgroups of precarious populations such as homeless people are more exposed to infection and at higher risk of developing severe forms of COVID-19 compared to the general population. Many of the recommended prevention measures, such as social distancing and self-isolation, are not feasible for a population living in shelters characterised by physical proximity and a high population density. The objective of the study was to describe SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence in homeless shelters in Brussels (Belgium), and to identify risk factors and infection control practices associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates. METHODS: A total of 1994 adults were tested by quantitative PCR tests in 52 shelters in Brussels (Belgium) between April and June, 2020, in collaboration with Doctors of the World. SARS-CoV-2 prevalence is here described site by site, and we identify risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates. We also investigate associations between seropositivity and reported symptoms. RESULTS: We found an overall prevalence of 4.6% for the period, and a cluster of high rates of SARS-CoV-2 positivity (20-30% in two shelters). Among homeless people, being under 40 years of age (OR (CI95%) 2.3 (1.2-4.4), p = 0.02), having access to urgent medical care (AMU) (OR(CI95%): 2.4 (1.4-4.4)], p = 0.02), and sharing a room with someone who tested positive (OR(CI95%): 5.3 (2.9-9.9), p<0.0001) were factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates. 93% of those who tested positive were asymptomatic. CONCLUSION: This study shows high rates of SARS-COV-2 infection positive tests in some shelters, with a high proportion of asymptomatic cases. The survey reveals how important testing and isolation measures are, together with actions taken by medical and social workers during the outbreak.

Comparison of infection control strategies to reduce COVID-19 outbreaks in homeless shelters in the United States: a simulation study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 outbreaks have occurred in homeless shelters across the US, highlighting an urgent need to identify the most effective infection control strategy to prevent future outbreaks. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a homeless shelter and calibrated it to data from cross-sectional polymerase chain reaction (PCR) surveys conducted during COVID-19 outbreaks in five homeless shelters in three US cities from March 28 to April 10, 2020. We estimated the probability of averting a COVID-19 outbreak when an exposed individual is introduced into a representative homeless shelter of 250 residents and 50 staff over 30 days under different infection control strategies, including daily symptom-based screening, twice-weekly PCR testing, and universal mask wearing. RESULTS: The proportion of PCR-positive residents and staff at the shelters with observed outbreaks ranged from 2.6 to 51.6%, which translated to the basic reproduction number (R0) estimates of 2.9-6.2. With moderate community incidence (~ 30 confirmed cases/1,000,000 people/day), the estimated probabilities of averting an outbreak in a low-risk (R0 = 1.5), moderate-risk (R0 = 2.9), and high-risk (R0 = 6.2) shelter were respectively 0.35, 0.13, and 0.04 for daily symptom-based screening; 0.53, 0.20, and 0.09 for twice-weekly PCR testing; 0.62, 0.27, and 0.08 for universal masking; and 0.74, 0.42, and 0.19 for these strategies in combination. The probability of averting an outbreak diminished with higher transmissibility (R0) within the simulated shelter and increasing incidence in the local community. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk homeless shelter environments and locations with high community incidence of COVID-19, even intensive infection control strategies (incorporating daily symptom screening, frequent PCR testing, and universal mask wearing) are unlikely to prevent outbreaks, suggesting a need for non-congregate housing arrangements for people experiencing homelessness. In lower-risk environments, combined interventions should be employed to reduce outbreak risk.

Ophthalmology practice in Afghanistan during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This short communication described the actions taken in ophthalmic practice in Kabul, Afghanistan during the COVID-19 pandemic to effectively protect both patients and staff. By following World Health Organisation (WHO), international and local guidelines it has been possible to continue treating ophthalmic outpatients with minimum risk to both patients and staff. The changes which have been implemented may allow better overall infection control in the hospital which will continue to have benefits post-pandemic.

Postoperative complications and mortality following emergency digestive surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multicenter collaborative retrospective cohort study protocol (COVID-CIR).

ABSTRACT: Infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus seems to contribute significantly to increased postoperative complications and mortality after emergency surgical procedures. Additionally, the fear of COVID-19 contagion delays the consultation of patients, resulting in the deterioration of their acute diseases by the time of consultation. In the specific case of urgent digestive surgery patients, both factors significantly worsen the postoperative course and prognosis. Main working hypothesis: infection by COVID-19 increases postoperative 30-day-mortality for any cause in patients submitted to emergency/urgent general or gastrointestinal surgery. Likewise, hospital collapse during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic increased 30-day-mortality for any cause. Hence, the main objective of this study is to estimate the cumulative incidence of mortality at 30-days-after-surgery. Secondary objectives are: to estimate the cumulative incidence of postoperative complications and to develop a specific postoperative risk propensity model for COVID-19-infected patients.A multicenter, observational retrospective cohort study (COVID-CIR-study) will be carried out in consecutive patients operated on for urgent digestive pathology. Two cohorts will be defined: the "pandemic" cohort, which will include all patients (classified as COVID-19-positive or -negative) operated on for emergency digestive pathology during the months of March to June 2020; and the "control" cohort, which will include all patients operated on for emergency digestive pathology during the months of March to June 2019. Information will be gathered on demographic characteristics, clinical and analytical parameters, scores on the usual prognostic scales for quality management in a General Surgery service (POSSUM, P-POSSUM and LUCENTUM scores), prognostic factors applicable to all patients, specific prognostic factors for patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, postoperative morbidity and mortality (at 30 and 90 postoperative days). The main objective is to estimate the cumulative incidence of mortality at 30 days after surgery. As secondary objectives, to estimate the cumulative incidence of postoperative complications and to develop a specific postoperative risk propensity model for SARS-CoV-2 infected patients.The protocol (version1.0, April 20th 2020) was approved by the local Institutional Review Board (Ethic-and-Clinical-Investigation-Committee, code PR169/20, date 05/05/20). The study findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant national and international scientific meetings.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04479150 (July 21, 2020).

An evaluation of cleaning practices at a teaching hospital.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 outbreak has highlighted the role of hospital-acquired infections in spreading epidemics. Adequately cleaning surfaces in patient rooms is an essential part of this fight to reduce the spread. Traditional audits, however, are insufficient. This study assesses surface cleaning practices using ultravoilet (UV) marker technology and the extent to which this technology can help improve cleaning audits and practices. METHODS: One hundred and forty-four audits (1,235 surfaces) were retrieved. UV-marker cleaning audits conducted at a major teaching hospital in 2018 after implementing a new cleaning protocol. In addition, semi-structured interviews were conducted with cleaning staff and supervisors. RESULTS: On average, 63% of surfaces were appropriately cleaned. Toilet handles (80%) and toilet seats underside (83%) scored highest while main room sink fixtures (54%), light switch (55%), and bedrails (56%) scored lowest. Training, staffing and time constraints may play a role in low cleaning rates. DISCUSSION: The high-touch patient surfaces in the bedroom remain neglected and a potential source of infections. UV marker audits provided an objective measure of cleaning practices that managers and staff were unaware of. CONCLUSIONS: UV-markers audits can play a key role in revealing deficiencies in cleaning practices and help in raising awareness of these deficiencies and improving cleaning practices.

Fatores relacionados à infecção por Klebsiella pneumoniae em um hospital privado / Factors related to infection by Klebsiella pneumoniae in a private hospital / Factores relacionados con la infección por Klebsiella pneumoniae en un hospital privado

Objective:To identify the prevalence of klebsiella pneumoniae and to analyze the factors related to the infection by this bacterium in a private hospital in northeastern Brazil. Method: descriptive retrospective documentary study, carried out with patients who developed infection in the year 2017 (n: 64). Sociodemographic and infection information was collected. The data was processed in SPSS 20.0. The project was approved by the ethics committee. Results: the most prevalent topographic site was the urinary tract (34; 56.7%). the main risk factor for triggering klebsiella pneumoniae infection was the use of mechanical ventilation, presenting a risk of 43.8% for the appearance of infections by this microorganism. Higher resistance was found for the piperacillin / tazobactam 52 antimicrobial (82.5%). Conclusion: because of the high resistance to antibiotics and the great potential of klebsiella contamination, measures should be taken to minimize the high level of contamination and, especially, the negative prognosis for the patient

Objetivo: Identificar a prevalência de Klebsiella pneumoniae e analisar os fatores relacionados à infecção por essa bactéria em hospital privado do nordeste brasileiro. Método: estudo descritivo retrospectivo documental, realizado com pacientes que desenvolveram infecção no ano de 2017 (n:64). Coletou-se informações sociodemográficas e referentes a infecção. Os dados foram processados no SPSS 20.0. O projeto foi aprovado pelo comitê de ética. Resultados: o sítio topográfico mais prevalente foi o trato urinário (34;56,7%). o principal fator de risco para desencadear infecção por Kebsiella pneumoniae foi a utilização de ventilação mecânica, apresentando risco de 43,8% para o aparecimento de infecções por esse microrganismo. Maior resistência foi encontrada para o antimicrobiano piperacilina/tazobactam 52 (82,5%). Conclusão: pela alta resistência aos antibióticos e o grande potencial de contaminação da klebsiella, medidas devem ser adotadas para minimizar o alto nível de contaminação e, principalmente do prognóstico negativo para paciente

Objetivo: Identificar la prevalencia de klebsiella pneumoniae y analizar los factores relacionados con la infección por esta bacteria en un hospital privado en el noreste de Brasil. Método: estudio descriptivo retrospectivo, realizado con pacientes que desarrollaron infección en el año 2017 (n: 64). Se recogió información sociodemográfica y de infección. Los datos fueron procesados en SPSS 20.0. El proyecto fue aprobado por el comité de ética. Resultados: el sitio topográfico más prevalente fue el tracto urinario (34; 56,7%). El principal factor de riesgo para desencadenar la infección por Klebsiella pneumoniae fue el uso de ventilación mecánica, que presenta un riesgo del 43.8% por la aparición de infecciones por este microorganismo. Se encontró una mayor resistencia para el antimicrobiano piperacilina / tazobactam 52 (82.5%). Conclusión: debido a la alta resistencia a los antibióticos y al gran potencial de contaminación por klebsiella, se deben tomar medidas para minimizar el alto nivel de contaminación y, especialmente, el pronóstico negativo para el paciente

Cumprimento às precauções-padrão por profissionais de enfermagem e fatores associados / Observancia de precauciones estándar por parte de profesionales de enfermería y factores asociados / Compliance with standard precautions by nursing professionals and related factors

Resumo Objetivo Verificar o cumprimento às Precauções-Padrão por profissionais de enfermagem e fatores associados. Método Estudo descritivo, transversal, com 522 profissionais de enfermagem, realizado em dois hospitais brasileiros, entre janeiro de 2017 a março de 2018. Os dados foram coletados por meio de um formulário contendo variáveis demográficas e profissionais e a Compliance with Standard Precautions Scale (versão Português-Brasil); posteriormente, analisados por estatísticas descritivas e exploratórias e um modelo de regressão linear múltiplo. Resultados O escore médio global 12,9 (DP=2,5). Técnicos de enfermagem tiveram escores médios estatisticamente significativos maiores (p <0,01) do que enfermeiros. Houve diferença significativa quanto à categoria profissional (p <0,01) e escolaridade (p <0,01), e, marginalmente significativa em relação à idade (p = 0,06). Não houve diferenças quanto à experiência profissional (p = 077), participação em treinamentos (p = 0,79), tipo de hospital (p = 0,13), respectivamente. A escolaridade não contribuiu para um maior cumprimento às medidas (p <0,01), assim como o ensino superior (p ≤ 0,01). Conclusão e Implicações para a prática O aumento na escolaridade e experiência profissional não contribuiu para maior cumprimento às Precações. Por contemplar aspectos da prática de enfermagem, estratégias de prevenção de exposição ocupacional podem ser revistas e aperfeiçoadas.

Resumen Objetivo Verificar la observancia de las Precauciones Estándar por parte de profesionales de enfermería, y sus factores asociados. Método Estudio descriptivo, transversal, con 522 profesionales de enfermería, realizado en dos hospitales brasileños entre enero de 2017 y marzo de 2018. Datos recolectados mediante formulario incluyendo variables sociodemográficas y profesionales, y Compliance with Standard Precautions Scale (versión Portugués-Brasil); analizados por estadística descriptiva y exploratoria y un modelo de regresión lineal múltiple. Resultados Puntaje medio global de 12,9 (DS=2,5). Los auxiliares de enfermería obtuvieron puntajes promedio mayores, estadísticamente significantes (p<0,01) respecto de los enfermeros. Existió diferencia significante respecto de la categoría profesional (p<0,01) y la escolarización (p<0,01); y marginalmente significante en relación a la edad (p=0,06). No hubo diferencias relativas a la experiencia profesional (p=0,77), participación en capacitaciones (p=0,79) y tipos de hospital (p=0,13). La escolarización no contribuyó a una mayor observancia de las medidas (p<0,01), al igual que los estudios superiores (p≤0,01). Conclusión e Implicaciones para la práctica Mayores grados de escolarización y experiencia profesional no contribuyeron a la observancia de las Precauciones. En razón de contemplar aspectos de la práctica de enfermería, las estrategias de prevención y exposición profesional merecen ser revisadas y perfeccionadas.

Abstract Objective To verify compliance with the Standard Precautions by nursing professionals and associated factors. Method A descriptive, cross-sectional study was carried out with 522 nursing professionals, in two Brazilian hospitals, between January 2017 and March 2018. Data were collected using a form containing demographic and professional variables and the Compliance with Standard Precautions Scale (Portuguese-Brazilian version); later, analyzed by descriptive and exploratory statistics and a multiple linear regression model. Results The global mean score was 12.9 (SD = 2.5). Nursing professionals had statistically significant higher scores (p <0.01) than nurses. There was a significant difference in terms of professional category (p < 0.01)) and education (p <0.01), and marginally significant in relation to age (p = 0.06). There were no differences regarding professional experience (p = 077), participation in training (p = 0.79), and type of hospital (p = 0.13), respectively. Education did not contribute to greater compliance with the measures (p <0.01), nor did higher education (p ≤ 0.01). Conclusion and implications for practice Increased education and professional experience did not contribute to greater compliance with the Standards Precautions. By considering aspects of nursing practice, occupational exposure prevention strategies can be reviewed and improved.

Surgical hand preparation in an equine hospital: Comparison of general practice with a standardised protocol and characterisation of the methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus recovered.

Presurgical hand asepsis is part of the daily routine in veterinary medicine. Nevertheless, basic knowledge seems to be low, even among specialised veterinary surgeons. The major objectives of our study were to assess current habits for presurgical hand preparation (phase 1) among personnel in a veterinary hospital and their effectiveness in reducing bacteria from hands in comparison to a standardised protocol (phase 2). Assessment of individual habits focused on time for hand washing and disinfection, the amount of disinfectant used, and the usage of brushes. The standardised protocol defined hand washing for 1 min with liquid neutral soap without brushing and disinfection for 3 min. All participants (2 surgeons, 8 clinic members, 32 students) used Sterillium®. Total bacterial counts were determined before and after hand washing, after disinfection, and after surgery. Hands were immersed in 100 ml sterile sampling fluid for 1 min and samples were inoculated onto Columbia sheep blood agar using the spread-plate method. Bacterial colonies were manually counted. Glove perforation test was carried out at the end of the surgical procedure. Differences in the reduction of relative bacterial numbers between current habits and the standardised protocol were investigated using Mann-Whitney-Test. The relative increase in bacterial numbers as a function of operation time (≤60 min, >60 min) and glove perforation as well as the interaction of both was investigated by using ANOVA. Forty-six and 41 preparations were carried out during phase 1 and phase 2, respectively. Individual habits differed distinctly with regard to time (up to 8 min) and amount of disinfectant (up to 48 ml) used both between participants and between various applications of a respective participant. Comparison of current habits and the standardised protocol revealed that the duration of hand washing had no significant effect on reducing bacteria. Contrary, the reduction in bacterial numbers after disinfection by the standardised protocol was significantly higher (p<0.001) compared to routine every-day practice. With regard to disinfection efficacy, the standardised protocol completely eliminated individual effects. The mean reduction in phase 1 was 90.72% (LR = 3.23; right hand) and 89.97% (LR = 3.28; left hand) compared to 98.85% (LR = 3.29; right hand) and 98.92% (LR = 3.47; left hand) in phase 2. Eight participants (19%) carried MRSA (spa type t011, CC398) which is well established as a nosocomial pathogen in veterinary clinics. The isolates could further be assigned to a subpopulation which is particularly associated with equine clinics (mainly t011, ST398, gentamicin-resistant). Glove perforation occurred in 54% (surgeons) and 17% (assistants) of gloves, respectively, with a higher number in long-term invasive procedures. Overall, bacterial numbers on hands mainly increased over time, especially when glove perforation occurred. This was most distinct for glove perforations on the left hand and with longer operating times. Our results demonstrate that standardised protocols highly improve the efficacy of hand asepsis measures. Hence, guiding standardised protocols should be prerequisite to ensure state-of-the-art techniques which is essential for a successful infection control intervention.

Screening policies, preventive measures and in-hospital infection of COVID-19 in global surgical practices.

BACKGROUND: In a surgical setting, COVID-19 patients may trigger in-hospital outbreaks and have worse postoperative outcomes. Despite these risks, there have been no consistent statements on surgical guidelines regarding the perioperative screening or management of COVID-19 patients, and we do not have objective global data that describe the current conditions surrounding this issue. This study aimed to clarify the current global surgical practice including COVID-19 screening, preventive measures and in-hospital infection under the COVID-19 pandemic, and to clarify the international gaps on infection control policies among countries worldwide. METHODS: During April 2-8, 2020, a cross-sectional online survey on surgical practice was distributed to surgeons worldwide through international surgical societies, social media and personal contacts. Main outcome and measures included preventive measures and screening policies of COVID-19 in surgical practice and centers' experiences of in-hospital COVID-19 infection. Data were analyzed by country's cumulative deaths number by April 8, 2020 (high risk, >5000; intermediate risk, 100-5000; low risk, <100). RESULTS: A total of 936 centers in 71 countries responded to the survey (high risk, 330 centers; intermediate risk, 242 centers; low risk, 364 centers). In the majority (71.9%) of the centers, local guidelines recommended preoperative testing based on symptoms or suspicious radiologic findings. Universal testing for every surgical patient was recommended in only 18.4% of the centers. In-hospital COVID-19 infection was reported from 31.5% of the centers, with higher rates in higher risk countries (high risk, 53.6%; intermediate risk, 26.4%; low risk, 14.8%; P < 0.001). Of the 295 centers that experienced in-hospital COVID-19 infection, 122 (41.4%) failed to trace it and 58 (19.7%) reported the infection originating from asymptomatic patients/staff members. Higher risk countries adopted more preventive measures including universal testing, routine testing of hospital staff and use of dedicated personal protective equipment in operation theatres, but there were remarkable discrepancies across the countries. CONCLUSIONS: This large international survey captured the global surgical practice under the COVID-19 pandemic and highlighted the insufficient preoperative screening of COVID-19 in the current surgical practice. More intensive screening programs will be necessary particularly in severely affected countries/institutions. STUDY REGISTRATION: Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04344197.

Universal Screening for COVID-19 in Children Undergoing Orthopaedic Surgery: A Multicenter Report.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has substantially altered the typical process around performing surgery to ensure protection of health care workers, patients, and their families. One safety precaution has been the implementation of universal preoperative screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This study examines the results of universal screening on children undergoing orthopaedic surgery. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study evaluating the incidence and symptomatology of COVID-19 in all patients presenting for orthopaedic surgery at 3 pediatric tertiary care children's hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic (March to June 2020). All patients underwent universal screening with a nasopharyngeal swab to detect presence of SARS-CoV-2. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for positive COVID-19 screening. RESULTS: In total, 1198 patients underwent preoperative screening across all 3 institutions and 7 (0.58%) had detection of SARS-CoV-2. The majority of patients (1/7, 86%) were asymptomatic. Patients that tested positive were significantly more likely to be Hispanic (P=0.046) and had greater number of medical comorbidities (P=0.013), as scored on the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status score. A known COVID-19 positive contact was found to be a significant risk factor in the multivariate analysis (P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Early results of universal preoperative screening for COVID-19 demonstrates a low incidence and high rate of asymptomatic patients. Health care professionals, especially those at higher risk for the virus, should be aware of the challenges related to screening based solely on symptoms or travel history and consider universal screening for patients undergoing elective surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Gynaecologic cancer care during COVID-19 pandemic in India: a social media survey.

BACKGROUND: Health care services across the globe are undergoing a major transformation to combat the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Regardless of the strength of health care infrastructure across different economies, all countries are diverting their resources toward care for COVID-19 patients. AIM: The aim of this survey was to evaluate the pattern of care of gynaecologic cancers in a developing country during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An anonymous survey consisting of 20 questions intended for the gynaecologic cancer care providers with emphasis on their current practice and approach to their patients was distributed online via social media from April 30 to May 31, 2020. Basic descriptive statistics were applied. RESULTS: Among a total of 61 respondents, 63.9% were gynaecologic oncologists, 18.0% were radiation oncologists and 18.0% were medical oncologists. Majority, that is, 95.1% health care professionals felt that COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant change on their practice pattern and 56.2% practitioners had stopped registering new cases of cancer. In 75.4% centers surgery was being done for gynaecologic cancer cases and among them 60.8% were doing surgery only for cases requiring immediate intervention. Among the centers providing chemotherapy, 39.1% had switched to oral drugs. Among the centers providing radiation, 40.9% were providing radiation to cases based on their type and urgency and 9.0% had implemented hypofractionation. In early stage low risk cases, majority, that is, 34.0% centers were managing as before. In early stage high-risk cases, 32.6% centers were managing as before. In advanced stage endometrial cancer cases, 28.8% had postponed any treatment and 28.8% administered chemotherapy. In early stage, epithelial ovarian cancer 65.9% centers were performing complete staging of the disease. In advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer, 65.9% centers preferred biopsy followed by neoadjuvant chemotherapy and 11.3% centers performed primary debulking surgery. In cases of interval debulking surgery, 73.3% centers deferred surgery till all six cycles of chemotherapy was completed. In cases of recurrent ovarian cancer amenable for secondary debulking surgery, 38.6% preferred chemotherapy. In early stage cervical cancer, surgical treatment was provided in 46.5% centers. In locally advanced cervical cancer, chemoradiation was given in 65.9% centers. In cases of metastatic cervical cancer, 46.6% centers were performing palliative radiation. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 has affected the treatment of gynecologic cancers patients and health care professionals are trying to mitigate the damage by incorporating new elements which are suited to the current scenario.

Cancer Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States: Results From a National Physician Cross-sectional Survey.

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has significantly impacted health care delivery across the United States, including treatment of cancer. We aim to describe the determinants of treatment plan changes from the perspective of oncology physicians across the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Participants were recruited to an anonymous cross-sectional online survey of oncology physicians (surgeons, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists) using social media from March 27 to April 10, 2020. Physician demographics, practice characteristics, and cancer treatment decisions were collected. RESULTS: The analytic cohort included 411 physicians: 241 (58.6%) surgeons, 106 (25.8%) medical oncologists, and 64 (15.6%) radiation oncologists. In all, 38.0% were practicing in states with 1001 to 5000 confirmed COVID-19 cases as of April 3, 2020, and 37.2% were in states with >5000 cases. Most physicians (N=285; 70.0% of surgeons, 64.4% of medical oncologists, and 73.4% of radiation oncologists) had altered cancer treatment plans. Most respondents were concerned about their patients' COVID-19 exposure risks, but this was the primary driver for treatment alterations only for medical oncologists. For surgeons, the primary driver for treatment alterations was conservation of personal protective equipment, institutional mandates, and external society recommendations. Radiation oncologists were primarily driven by operational changes such as visitor restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a majority of oncologists to alter their treatment plans, but the primary motivators for changes differed by oncologic specialty. This has implications for reinstitution of standard cancer treatment, which may occur at differing time points by treatment modality.

Survey of the Impact of COVID-19 on Oncologists' Decision Making in Cancer.

PURPOSE: To understand readiness measures taken by oncologists to protect patients and health care workers from the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and how their clinical decision making was influenced by the pandemic. METHODS: An online survey was conducted between March 24 and April 29, 2020. RESULTS: A total of 343 oncologists from 28 countries participated. The median age was 43 years (range, 29-68 years), and the majority were male (62%). At the time of the survey, nearly all participants self-reported an outbreak in their country (99.7%). Personal protective equipment was available to all participants, of which surgical mask was the most common (n = 308; 90%). Telemedicine, in the form of phone or video encounters, was common and implemented by 80% (n = 273). Testing patients with cancer for COVID-19 via reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction before systemic treatment was not routinely implemented: 58% reported no routine testing, 39% performed testing in selected patients, and 3% performed systematic testing in all patients. The most significant factors influencing an oncologist's decision making regarding choice of systemic therapy included patient age and comorbidities (81% and 92%, respectively). Although hormonal treatments and tyrosine kinase inhibitors were considered to be relatively safe, cytotoxic chemotherapy and immune therapies were perceived as being less safe or unsafe by participants. The vast majority of participants stated that during the pandemic they would use less chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and steroids. Although treatment in neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and first-line metastatic disease was less affected, most of the participants stated that they would be more hesitant to recommend second- or third-line therapies in metastatic disease. CONCLUSION: Decision making by oncologists has been significantly influenced by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Prioritizing resident and patient safety while maintaining educational value: emergency restructuring of a Canadian surgical residency program during COVID-19.

Summary: Surgical programs are facing major and fluctuating changes to the resident workforce because of decreased elective volumes and high exposure risk during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Rapid restructuring of a residency program to protect its workforce while maintaining educational value is imperative. We describe the experience of the Division of General Surgery at the University of Ottawa in Ontario, Canada. The residency program was restructured to feature alternating "on" and "off" weeks, maintaining a healthy resident cohort in case of exposure. Teams were restructured and subdivided to maximize physical distancing and minimize resident exposure to pathogens. Educational initiatives doubled, with virtual sessions targeting every resident year and incorporating intraoperative teaching. The divisional research day and oral exams proceeded uninterrupted, virtually. A small leadership team enabled fast and flexible restructuring of a system for patient care while prioritizing resident safety and maintaining a commitment to resident education in a pandemic.