ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: One major concern in hospitalized patients is acquiring infections from pathogens borne on surfaces, patients, and healthcare workers (HCWs). Fundamental to controlling healthcare-associated infections is identifying the sources of pathogens, monitoring the processes responsible for their transmission, and evaluating the efficacy of the procedures employed for restricting their transmission. AIM: To present a method using the bacteriophage Lambda (λ) to achieve these ends. METHODS: Defined densities of multiple genetically marked λ phages were inoculated at known hotspots for contamination on high-fidelity mannequins. HCWs then entered a pre-sanitized simulated hospital room and performed a series of patient care tasks on the mannequins. Sampling occurred on the scrubs and hands of the HCWs, as well as previously defined high-touch surfaces in hospital rooms. Following sampling, the rooms were decontaminated using procedures demonstrated to be effective. Following the conclusion of the simulation, the samples were tested for the presence, identity, and densities of these λ phages. FINDINGS: The data generated enabled the determination of the sources and magnitude of contamination caused by the breakdown of established infection prevention practices by HCWs. This technique enabled the standardized tracking of multiple contaminants during a single episode of patient care. Unlike other biological surrogates, λ phages are susceptible to common hospital disinfectants, and allow for a more accurate evaluation of pathogen transmission. CONCLUSION: Whereas our application of these methods focused on healthcare-associated infections and the role of HCW behaviours in their spread, these methods could be employed for identifying the sources and sites of microbial contamination in other settings.
Subject(s)
Bacteriophage lambda , Cross Infection , Humans , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Hospitals , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Health PersonnelABSTRACT
COVID-19 posed the healthcare professionals at enormous risk during this pandemic era while vaccination was recommended as one of the effective preventive approaches. It was visualized that almost all health workforces would be under vaccination on a priority basis as they are the frontline fighters during this pandemic. This study was designed to explore the reality regarding infection and vaccination status of COVID-19 among healthcare professionals of Bangladesh. It was a web-based cross-sectional survey and conducted among 300 healthcare professionals available in the academic platform of Bangladesh. A multivariate logistic regression model was used for the analytical exploration. Adjusted and Unadjusted Odds Ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for the specified setting indicators. A Chi-square test was used to observe the association. Ethical issues were maintained according to the guidance of the declaration of Helsinki. Study revealed that 41% of all respondents identified as COVID-19 positive whereas a significant number (18.3%) found as non-vaccinated due to registration issues as 52.70%, misconception regarding vaccination as 29.10%, and health-related issues as 18.20%. Respondents of more than 50 years of age found more significant on having positive infection rather than the younger age groups. Predictors for the non-vaccination guided that male respondents (COR/p = 3.49/0.01), allied health professionals, and respondents from the public organizations (p = 0.01) who were ≤29 (AOR/p = 4.45/0.01) years of age significantly identified as non-vaccinated. As the older female groups were found more infected and a significant number of health care professionals found as non-vaccinated, implementation of specific strategies and policies are needed to ensure the safety precautions and vaccination among such COVID-19 frontiers.
Subject(s)
Academic Medical Centers/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Bangladesh/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/psychology , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Surveys and Questionnaires/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination/psychology , Vaccination Hesitancy/statistics & numerical dataSubject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Personnel/legislation & jurisprudence , Mandatory Programs/legislation & jurisprudence , State Medicine/legislation & jurisprudence , Vaccination/legislation & jurisprudence , Attitude of Health Personnel , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , England/epidemiology , Health Personnel/standards , Humans , Immunization, Secondary/standards , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Mandatory Programs/standards , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , State Medicine/standards , Vaccination/standardsSubject(s)
COVID-19/transmission , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Government Regulation , Health Personnel , Hospitals , Humans , Immunization, Secondary , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Mandatory Programs/legislation & jurisprudence , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity , United StatesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The effect of eye protection to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in the real-world remains uncertain. We aimed to synthesize all available research on the potential impact of eye protection on transmission of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We searched PROSPERO, PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library for clinical trials and comparative observational studies in CENTRAL, and Europe PMC for pre-prints. We included studies that reported sufficient data to estimate the effect of any form of eye protection including face shields and variants, goggles, and glasses, on subsequent confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: We screened 898 articles and included 6 reports of 5 observational studies from 4 countries (USA, India, Columbia, and United Kingdom) that tested face shields, goggles, and wraparound eyewear on 7567 healthcare workers. The three before-and-after and one retrospective cohort studies showed statistically significant and substantial reductions in SARS-CoV-2 infections favouring eye protection with odds ratios ranging from 0.04 to 0.6, corresponding to relative risk reductions of 96% to 40%. These reductions were not explained by changes in the community rates. However, the one case-control study reported odds ratio favouring no eye protection (OR 1.7, 95% CI 0.99, 3.0). The high heterogeneity between studies precluded any meaningful meta-analysis. None of the studies adjusted for potential confounders such as other protective behaviours, thus increasing the risk of bias, and decreasing the certainty of evidence to very low. CONCLUSIONS: Current studies suggest that eye protection may play a role in prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers. However, robust comparative trials are needed to clearly determine effectiveness of eye protections and wearability issues in both healthcare and general populations.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Eye Protective Devices , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Communicable Disease Control , Humans , SARS-CoV-2Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/transmission , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/statistics & numerical data , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/statistics & numerical data , Preoperative Care/methods , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Testing/standards , Clinical Protocols , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Patient Safety , Preoperative Care/standards , TexasABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: In late 2019, a novel coronavirus was detected in China. Supported by its respiratory transmissibility, even by people infected without symptomatic disease, this coronavirus soon began to rapidly spread worldwide. BACKGROUND: Many countries have implemented different infection control and containment strategies due to ongoing community transmission. In this context, contact tracing as well as adequate testing and consequent quarantining of high-risk contacts play leading roles in containing the virus by interrupting infection chains. This approach is especially important in the hospital setting where contacts often cannot be avoided and physical distance is usually not possible. Furthermore, health care workers (HCWs) usually have contact with a variety of vulnerable people, making it essential to identify infections among hospital employees as soon as possible to interrupt the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the facility. Several electronic tools for contact tracing, such as specific software or mobile phone apps, are available for the public health sector. In contrast, contact tracing in hospitals often has to be carried out without helpful electronic tools, and an enormous amount of human resources is typically required. AIM: For rapid contact tracing and effective infection control and management measures for HCWs in hospitals, adapted technical solutions are needed. METHODS: In this study, we report the development of our containment strategy to a web-based contact tracing and rapid point-of-care-testing workflow. RESULTS/CONCLUSION: Our workflow yielded efficient control of the rapidly evolving situation during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic from May 2020 until January 2021 at a German University Hospital.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/methods , COVID-19/transmission , Computer Communication Networks , Contact Tracing/methods , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional , Pandemics , Point-of-Care Testing , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Germany/epidemiology , Hospitals, University , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Mobile Applications , Personnel, Hospital , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Retrospective Studies , Seasons , Software , WorkflowABSTRACT
Most people think that origami has little practical utility, but it has many applications, and this paper highlights particularly its usefulness in making face shields for the containment of COVID-19. The article presents an origami-based, do-it-yourself face shield that the end-user can make for personal use rather than commercial production.
Subject(s)
Masks , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Equipment Design , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & controlABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess organizational and technical difficulties of neurosurgical procedures during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and their possible impact on survival and functional outcome and to evaluate virological exposure risk of medical personnel. METHODS: Data for all urgent surgical procedures performed in the COVID-19 operating room were prospectively collected. Preoperative and postoperative variables included demographics, pathology, Karnofsky performance status (KPS) and neurological status at admission, type and duration of surgical procedures, length of stay, postoperative KPS and functional outcome comparison, and destination at discharge. We defined 5 classes of pathologies (traumatic, oncological, vascular, infection, hydrocephalus) and 4 surgical categories (burr hole, craniotomy, cerebrospinal fluid shunting, spine surgery). Postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection was checked in all the operators. RESULTS: We identified 11 traumatic cases (44%), 4 infections (16%), 6 vascular events (24%), 2 hydrocephalus conditions (8%), and 2 oncological cases (8%). Surgical procedures included 11 burr holes (44%), 7 craniotomies (28%), 6 cerebrospinal fluid shunts (24%), and 1 spine surgery (4%). Mean patient age was 57.8 years. The most frequent clinical presentation was coma (44 cases). Mean KPS score at admission was 20 ± 10, mean surgery duration was 85 ± 63 minutes, and mean length of stay was 27 ± 12 days. Mean KPS score at discharge was 35 ± 25. Outcome comparison showed improvement in 16 patients. Four patients died. Mean follow-up was 6 ± 3 months. None of the operators developed postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized protocols are mandatory to guarantee a high standard of care for emergency and urgent surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic. Personal protective equipment affects maneuverability, dexterity, and duration of interventions without affecting survival and functional outcome.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Infection Control , Neurosurgical Procedures/mortality , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Emergencies , Female , Humans , Infant , Infection Control/instrumentation , Infection Control/methods , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Italy/epidemiology , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Operating Rooms/organization & administration , Pandemics , Perioperative Care , Personal Protective Equipment/adverse effects , Personal Protective Equipment/virology , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Survival Analysis , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
ABSTRACT: Ophthalmologists and patients have an inherent increased risk for transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The human ocular surface expresses receptors and enzymes facilitating transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Personal protective equipment alone provides incomplete protection. Adjunctive topical ocular, nasal, and oral antisepsis with povidone iodine bolsters personal protective equipment in prevention of provider-patient transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in ophthalmology.
Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local/therapeutic use , COVID-19/transmission , Disinfection/methods , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Povidone-Iodine/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2 , Administration, Ophthalmic , Humans , Ophthalmic Solutions , Personal Protective Equipment , Physical ExaminationABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There is general consensus that hand hygiene is the most effective way to prevent healthcare-associated infections. However, low rates of compliance amongst healthcare workers have been reported globally. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has further emphasized the need for global improvement in hand hygiene compliance by healthcare workers. AIM: This comprehensive systematic review provides an up-to-date compilation of clinical trials, reported between 2014 and 2020, assessing hand hygiene interventions in order to inform healthcare leaders and practitioners regarding approaches to reduce healthcare-associated infections using hand hygiene. METHODS: CINAHL, Cochrane, EMbase, Medline, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for clinical trials published between March 2014 and December 2020 on the topic of hand hygiene compliance among healthcare workers. In total, 332 papers were identified from these searches, of which 57 studies met the inclusion criteria. FINDINGS: Forty-five of the 57 studies (79%) included in this review were conducted in Asia, Europe and the USA. The large majority of these clinical trials were conducted in acute care facilities, including hospital wards and intensive care facilities. Nurses represented the largest group of healthcare workers studied (44 studies, 77%), followed by physicians (41 studies, 72%). Thirty-six studies (63%) adopted the World Health Organization's multi-modal framework or a variation of this framework, and many of them recorded hand hygiene opportunities at each of the 'Five Moments'. However, recording of hand hygiene technique was not common. CONCLUSION: Both single intervention and multi-modal hand hygiene strategies can achieve modest-to-moderate improvements in hand hygiene compliance among healthcare workers.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Guideline Adherence/trends , Hand Hygiene/standards , Hand Hygiene/trends , Health Personnel/psychology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Adult , Female , Forecasting , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Hand Hygiene/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, elective surgical activity was reduced to a minimum. As both the number of cases and the hospitalization needs for this pathology decreased, we thought it appropriate to progressively recover scheduled surgical activity. This work describes how, even with the current alarm state, we were able to practically normalize this activity in a few weeks. METHODS: Two weeks before the intervention, the patients included in the waiting lists were contacted by telephone. After checking their health status and expressing their desire to undergo surgery, they were provided with recommendations to decrease the risk of coronavirus infection. Likewise, an exclusive circuit was established to carry out, 48 hours before the intervention, the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by means of exudates nasopharyngeal PCR. The results were evaluated by each surgical service and the anesthesiology service. In addition, asymptomatic Surgical Area professionals could undergo weekly screening for the early detection of coronavirus according to the recommendations of Occupational Health. RESULTS: In the midst of a pandemic, scheduled surgical activity was reduced by 85%. From the week of April 13, the operating rooms available were recovered, which allowed practically all surgical activity to be recovered the week of May 25. CONCLUSIONS: The creation of circuits and procedures to streamline surgical activity, still in full force of the state of alarm, has allowed us, in a few weeks, to recover almost all of it.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Elective Surgical Procedures , Hospitals, University/organization & administration , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Surgery Department, Hospital/organization & administration , Tertiary Care Centers/organization & administration , Anesthesiology/organization & administration , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Elective Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Hospitals, Urban/organization & administration , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Mass Screening , Nasopharynx/virology , Operating Rooms/statistics & numerical data , Personnel, Hospital , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Spain , Time-to-Treatment , Waiting ListsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic led to the postponement of low-acuity surgical procedures in an effort to conserve resources and ensure patient safety. This study aimed to characterize patient-reported concerns about undergoing surgical procedures during the pandemic. METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional survey to patients who had their general and plastic surgical procedures postponed at the onset of the pandemic, asking about barriers to accessing surgical care. Questions addressed dependent care, transportation, employment and insurance status, as well as perceptions of and concerns about COVID-19. Mixed methods and inductive thematic analyses were conducted. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five patients were interviewed. We identified the following patient concerns: contracting COVID-19 in the hospital (46%), being alone during hospitalization (40%), facing financial stressors (29%), organizing transportation (28%), experiencing changes to health insurance coverage (25%), and arranging care for dependents (18%). Nonwhite participants were 5 and 2.5 times more likely to have concerns about childcare and transportation, respectively. Perceptions of decreased hospital safety and the consequences of possible COVID-19 infection led to delay in rescheduling. Education about safety measures and communication about scheduling partially mitigated concerns about COVID-19. However, uncertainty about timeline for rescheduling and resolution of the pandemic contributed to ongoing concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Providing effective surgical care during this unprecedented time requires both awareness of societal shifts impacting surgical patients and system-level change to address new barriers to care. Eliciting patients' perspectives, adapting processes to address potential barriers, and effectively educating patients about institutional measures to minimize in-hospital transmission of COVID-19 should be integrated into surgical care.
Subject(s)
Appointments and Schedules , COVID-19/transmission , Elective Surgical Procedures/psychology , Fear , Health Services Accessibility/organization & administration , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/psychology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Elective Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Female , Health Services Accessibility/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Infection Control/organization & administration , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Patient Education as Topic/organization & administration , Surgery Department, Hospital/organization & administration , Surveys and Questionnaires/statistics & numerical data , UncertaintyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The interruption of surgical care in Spain caused by the pandemic must end. Recovery from this activity must be carried out on an elective basis and in conjunction with possible cases of COVID-19. The objective of this review was to incorporate good practice criteria related to COVID-19 into the context of safe surgery, which would make it possible to develop a proposed surgical safety checklist adapted to patients with this disease. METHODS: Narrative literature review, following the PRISMA protocol, in the Medline and Cochrane directories, using the MeSH terms (coronavirus, infections, safety, surgical procedures, operative, checklist) and the Boolean operator AND. In addition, recommendations from scientific bodies and societies were reviewed (grey literature). RESULTS: Thirty-three final studies were included with recommendations for safe surgery and surgical safety checklist adapted for COVID-19, the most frequent being aspects related to treatment (41.3%) and prevention and control measures (27.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The existence of a broad consensus on good practices recommended for COVID surgical patients makes it possible to make a proposal for surgical safety checklist to these patients.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Surgical Procedures, Operative , Airway Management , Anesthesia/adverse effects , Anesthesia/methods , Antibiotic Prophylaxis , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Testing , Checklist , Consensus , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Elective Surgical Procedures , Emergencies , Equipment Contamination , Humans , Hygiene , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/standards , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Medical Waste Disposal , Operating Rooms , Patient Safety , Personal Protective Equipment , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Recovery Room , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Spain/epidemiology , Time-to-TreatmentABSTRACT
Methods: We hereby provide a systematic description of the response actions in which the public health residents' workforce was pivotal, in a large tertiary hospital. Background: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic has posed incredible challenges to healthcare workers worldwide. The residents have been affected by an almost complete upheaval of the previous setting of activities, with a near total focus on service during the peak of the emergency. In our Institution, residents in public health were extensively involved in leading activities in the management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic. Results: The key role played by residents in the response to Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic is highlighted by the diversity of contributions provided, from cooperation in the rearrangement of hospital paths for continuity of care, to establishing and running new services to support healthcare professionals. Overall, they constituted a workforce that turned essential in governing efficiently such a complex scenario. Conclusions: Despite the difficulties posed by the contingency and the sacrifice of many training activities, Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic turned out to be a unique opportunity of learning and measuring one's capabilities and limits in a context of absolute novelty and uncertainty.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Internship and Residency , Pandemics , Public Health Administration , Public Health/education , SARS-CoV-2 , Asymptomatic Infections , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19 Testing , Case Management/organization & administration , Emergency Medical Services/organization & administration , Emergency Medical Services/supply & distribution , Health Personnel , Health Services Needs and Demand , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Italy , Mass Screening , Outpatient Clinics, Hospital/organization & administration , Population Surveillance , Preoperative Care , Quarantine , Role , Self-Assessment , Software Design , Tertiary Care Centers/organization & administration , WorkforceABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To avoid hospital spread of Coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) and to analyze out of hospital outcomes after amputation. METHODS: Prospective analysis of data obtained from 60 diabetic patients in 2020 was performed at Cantonal Hospital Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Personal protection equipment included double surgical mask, glasses, disposable surgical coats, and surgical masks for patients. Swabs were used to take samples from wounds. We randomly divided patients in 2 groups of 30 patients each. In pre-operative treatment, we used local anesthesia lidocaine hydrochloride 2% (Belupo, Koprivnica, Croatia) in group A and systemic analgesia intravenous tramadol chloride 100 mg intravenous (Krka, Novo Mesto, Slovenia) in group B. Wounds were surgically treated each day and heal spontaneously. Periodical control exams were performed. RESULTS: Wound healing did not present any statistically significant differences between groups (group A: 69±21.97 and B: 61±22.13 days, t=-1.22; p=0.11). No statistically significant differences (p<0.05) between groups A and B in wound healing regarding to gender or cigarette use was noted. CONCLUSION: No significant differences in amputation treatment between the 2 comparative groups were noted. No confirmed COVID-19 infections in medical staff who performed surgical interventions or in treated patients were detected.
Subject(s)
Amputation, Surgical , COVID-19/prevention & control , Diabetic Foot/surgery , Infection Control/methods , Perioperative Care/methods , Bosnia and Herzegovina/epidemiology , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Diabetic Foot/complications , Female , Humans , Infection Control/instrumentation , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Male , Pandemics , Personal Protective Equipment , Prospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Wound HealingABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak have major implications in conventional surgical practice. As the number of patients with this diagnosis is rising, the infection risk for the surgical staff will be higher. Few publications have addressed the surgical management of patients diagnosed with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To assess recommendations for care of patients and surgical team during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (April 2020) were searched the key words "COVID-19", "PROTOCOL" and "SURGERY". Relevant recommendations, guidelines and cases series were checked for the most accurate information for apply to our center. RESULTS: We found 379 papers that included the key words. A total of 25 papers were included in the manuscript based in the pertinence of the recommendations. Three major topics were selected: perioperative, intraoperative and postoperative. CONCLUSION: As an attempt to regulate the surgical team approach, we present recommendations to preserve patients and surgical staff safety with high quality standards of care through reproducible strategies applicable in most hospital centers.
ANTECEDENTES: La pandemia de COVID-19 ha tenido un gran impacto en la práctica quirúrgica convencional. Conforme el número de pacientes diagnosticados con esta enfermedad vaya en aumento, el riesgo de contagio para el equipo quirúrgico será mayor. Pocas publicaciones han abordado el manejo del paciente diagnosticado con COVID-19 dentro del quirófano. OBJETIVO: Evaluar las recomendaciones para el cuidado de pacientes y del equipo quirúrgico durante la pandemia de COVID-19. MÉTODO: La búsqueda bibliográfica principal utilizó las bases de datos MEDLINE, Embase y Cochrane, utilizando las palabras clave "COVID-19", "PROTOCOL" y "SURGERY". Se verificaron recomendaciones, guías y series de casos relevantes para obtener la información más precisa y aplicable. RESULTADOS: Se hizo la revisión de 379 artículos que contenían las palabras clave. Se incluyeron 25 artículos basándose en la pertinencia de las recomendaciones. Los tres temas principales seleccionados fueron las fases preoperatoria, transoperatoria y posoperatoria. CONCLUSIÓN: En un esfuerzo por tratar de normar el manejo quirúrgico, presentamos recomendaciones para preservar la seguridad del paciente y del equipo quirúrgico con estándares de alta calidad, mediante estrategias reproducibles en la mayoría de los centros hospitalarios.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Infection Control/methods , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Aerosols , Air Pollution, Indoor , Appointments and Schedules , COVID-19/transmission , Disinfection/methods , Equipment Contamination/prevention & control , Humans , Mexico , Occupational Exposure , Operating Rooms , Patient Isolation , Perioperative Care , Personal Protective Equipment , Personnel, Hospital , Recovery Room , Sterilization/methods , Surgical EquipmentABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the rate of same-day discharge (SDD) after robotic surgery METHODS: We reviewed our robotic surgeries during COVID-19 restrictions on surgery in Ohio between March 17 and June 5, 2020 and compared them with robotic procedures before COVID-19 and after restrictions were lifted. We followed our formerly described protocol in use since 2016 offering the option of SDD to all robotic urologic surgery patients, regardless of procedure type or patient-specific factors. RESULTS: During COVID-19 restrictions (COV), 89 robotic surgeries were performed and compared with 1667 of the same procedures performed previously (pre-COV) and 42 during the following month (post-COV). Among COV patients 98% (87/89 patients) opted for same-day discharge after surgery versus 52% in the historical pre-COV group (P < .00001). Post-COV, the higher rate of SDD was maintained at 98% (41/42 patients). There were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between SDD and overnight patients with only 2 COV (2%) and no post-COV 30-day readmissions. CONCLUSION: SDD after robotic surgery was safely applied during the COVID-19 crisis without increasing complications or readmissions. SDD may allow continuation of robotic surgery despite limited hospital beds and when minimizing hospital stay is important to protect postoperative patients from infection. Our experience suggests that patient attitude is a major factor in SDD after robotic surgery since the proportion of patients opting for SDD was much higher during COV and continued post-COV. Consideration of SDD long-term may be warranted for cost savings even in the absence of a crisis.