Differences in Distress and Coping with the COVID-19 Stressor in Nurses and Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Since the declaration of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak as pandemic, health workers have shown an incredible commitment to their patients, sometimes in apocalyptic conditions. We explored ways to deal with the coronavirus stressor and psychological outcomes among physicians and nurses. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: 124 healthcare workers in General Hospital Nasice (Croatia) were invited to participate in a study by performing within the period of March 26 to April 6 2020 questionnaire collected information on socio-demographic characteristics and living conditions that may be risk factors for covid-19 concern, Short form health survey-36, Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21) and Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WOC; consisting of 8 subscales: Confrontive Coping, Distancing, Self-Controlling, Seeking Social Support, Accepting Responsibility, Escape-Avoidance, Planful Problem Solving, Positive Reappraisal). RESULTS: 11% healthworkers reports moderate to very-severe depression, 17% moderate to extremely-severe anxiety and 10% for moderate to extremely-severe stress. 67% of medical staff are worried. No statistically significant differences in the scales of depression, anxiety, and stress were found between nurses and physicians, but differences were found on Escape-Avoidance and Positive Reappraisal subscales. Nurses use significantly more avoiding coping style and positive reappraisal than doctors. Seeking social support is more pronounced in those over 40 years old, while those under 40 use more avoidable stress management techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring and ensuring the mental health of coronavirus care staff is crucial for global health. The education of medical staff in the field of stress management is a conditio sine qua non of the issue of an adequate relationship with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cosmetic laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: The cosmetic outcome and recovery time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy has been improved by modifying the operation technique and reducing the number and size of trocars. The next step to improve cosmetic results is moving two trocars below the pubic hairline. We describe our experience in performing cholecystectomy by a combination of European technique using three trocars and moving two ports below the pubic hairline. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The results of 72 patients, ASA physical status I and II, who underwent cosmetic laparoscopic cholecystectomy between January 2002 and May 2005 are presented. RESULTS: The median operating time was 33.3 +/- 9.9 min and postoperative hospital stay was 2.2 +/- 0.6 days. No patients required additional trocars or conversion to open cholecystectomy. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications, and all patients reported satisfaction with their postoperative cosmetic results. CONCLUSION: According to our experience, cosmetic laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a safe procedure with good cosmetic results; however, its use should be based on careful evaluation in each individual case.