Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 287
Filtrar
1.
Pan Afr Med J ; 35(Suppl 2): 143, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33193958

RESUMO

Zimbabwe reported its first case of COVID-19 on 20 March 2020, and since then the number has increased to over 4000. To contain the spread of the causative SARS-CoV-2 and prepare the healthcare system, public health interventions, including lockdowns, were imposed on 30 March 2020. These resulted in disruptions in healthcare provision, and movement of people and supply chains. There have been resultant delays in seeking and accessing healthcare by the patients. Additionally, disruption of essential health services in the areas of maternal and child health, sexual and reproductive health services, care for chronic conditions and access to oncological and other specialist services has occurred. Thus, there may be avoidable excess morbidity and mortality from non-COVID-19 causes that is not justifiable by the current local COVID-19 burden. Measures to restore normalcy to essential health services provision as guided by the World Health Organisation and other bodies needs to be considered and implemented urgently, to avoid preventable loss of life and excess morbidity. Adequate infection prevention and control measures must be put in place to ensure continuity of essential services whilst protecting healthcare workers and patients from contracting COVID-19.


Assuntos
Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Atenção à Saúde , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Doença Crônica/epidemiologia , Controle de Doenças Transmissíveis/organização & administração , Continuidade da Assistência ao Paciente , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Guias como Assunto , Recursos em Saúde/provisão & distribuição , Acesso aos Serviços de Saúde , Humanos , Pessoas sem Cobertura de Seguro de Saúde , Medicina , Modelos Teóricos , Mortalidade , Neoplasias/terapia , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/provisão & distribuição , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Serviços de Saúde Reprodutiva/provisão & distribuição , Organização Mundial da Saúde , Zimbábue/epidemiologia
3.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 20(1): 1035, 2020 Nov 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33176775

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: To cope with shortages of equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic, we established a nonprofit end-to-end system to identify, validate, regulate, manufacture, and distribute 3D-printed medical equipment. Here we describe the local and global impact of this system. METHODS: Together with critical care experts, we identified potentially lacking medical equipment and proposed solutions based on 3D printing. Validation was based on the ISO 13485 quality standard for the manufacturing of customized medical devices. We posted the design files for each device on our website together with their technical and printing specifications and created a supply chain so that hospitals from our region could request them. We analyzed the number/type of items, petitioners, manufacturers, and catalogue views. RESULTS: Among 33 devices analyzed, 26 (78·8%) were validated. Of these, 23 (88·5%) were airway consumables and 3 (11·5%) were personal protective equipment. Orders came from 19 (76%) hospitals and 6 (24%) other healthcare institutions. Peak production was reached 10 days after the catalogue was published. A total of 22,135 items were manufactured by 59 companies in 18 sectors; 19,212 items were distributed to requesting sites during the busiest days of the pandemic. Our online catalogue was also viewed by 27,861 individuals from 113 countries. CONCLUSIONS: 3D printing helped mitigate shortages of medical devices due to problems in the global supply chain.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Equipamentos e Provisões/provisão & distribuição , Pandemias , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/provisão & distribuição , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Impressão Tridimensional , Hospitais , Humanos
4.
BMJ Open Qual ; 9(4)2020 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33154097

RESUMO

Since the outbreak of COVID-19 in December 2019, there had been global shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) supply due to the breakage of supply chain and also the forbidding of PPE exported by various countries. This situation had greatly affected the healthcare services in local hospitals of Hong Kong. To maintain the availability of PPE for healthcare workers in high-risk clinical settings, the cluster management of New Territories West Cluster, Hospital Authority, had implemented a bundle of interventions in controlling and managing the PPE consumption and ensuring its proper use. A Taskforce on Management of PPE was set up in February 2020 with the aim to monitor and manage the use of PPE in five local hospitals and eight general outpatient clinics of New Territories West Cluster, which were governed in a cluster basis, under the COVID-19 epidemic. Interventions including cutting down non-essential services, implementing telecare, monitoring PPE consumption at unit level and PPE stock at the Cluster Central Distribution Centre and forming mobile infection teams were implemented. The updated PPE standards and usage guidelines to clinical staff were promulgated through forums, newsletters and unit visits. The PPE consumption rates of individual unit were reviewed. Significant decrease in PPE consumption rates was noted when comparing with the baseline data. Comparing the data between 20 February and 1 June 2020, the overall PPE consumption rates were reduced by 64% (r=-0.841; p<0.001) while the PPE consumption rates in anaesthesia and operating theatres, and isolation and surveillance wards were reduced by 47% (r=-0.506; p=0.023) and 49% (r=-0.810; p<0.001), respectively. A bundled approach, including both administrative measures and staff education, is effective in managing PPE consumption during major infection outbreaks especially when PPE supply is at risk.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Alocação de Recursos para a Atenção à Saúde/normas , Transmissão de Doença Infecciosa do Paciente para o Profissional/prevenção & controle , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/provisão & distribuição , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Comitês Consultivos , Betacoronavirus , Hong Kong , Hospitais/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos
6.
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control ; 9(1): 179, 2020 11 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33160398

RESUMO

COVID-19 is continuing to ravage the globe. In many Western Countries, the populous has not embraced public health advice which has resulted in a resurgence of the COVID-19 virus. In the United States, there is an absence of a coordinated Federal response. Instead, frontline workers and average citizens are having to cope with extensive mixed messaging regarding mask usage and social distancing from the highest levels of government. This has resulted in the United States not being able to achieve a low level of infection since the pandemic began. In addition, many citizens hold a profound belief that individual freedoms must be preserved, even at the expense of public health; and view the wearing of masks as renouncing this right. These engrained political beliefs can be traced back to the late 1800s. The response of the United States has also been hampered by a highly cost-efficient healthcare system, which does not provide universal care and has a just-in-time supply chain, with far too few supplies in reserve. This efficiency prevented a rapid scaling up of the healthcare response, which resulted in severe deficiencies in available personal protective equipment (PPE) and healthcare staff. To compound issues many healthcare staff are not provided an economic or healthcare safety net. Other frontline workers, such as those who work in transportation and food services, are working under even greater adversities. Many of these workers are from diverse backgrounds, who, along with their families, are at even greater risk for COVID-19. This vulnerable population of frontline workers are faced with a choice of going to work with inadequate PPE or placing food on their families' table. In the United States, official recommendations seem to be ever changing, based more upon supply and test availability, than on science. We must rely on science and learn from the lessons of past pandemics or we will relive, even to a greater degree, the deaths and devastations experienced by our ancestors over 100 years ago.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Saúde Global , Internacionalidade , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Vírus da SARS , Humanos , Máscaras/provisão & distribuição , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/provisão & distribuição
8.
Ann Glob Health ; 86(1): 129, 2020 10 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33102149

RESUMO

In August 2017, Bangladesh saw a massive influx of Rohingya refugees following their violent persecution by the Myanmar authorities. Since then, the district of Cox's Bazar has been home to nearly 900,000 Rohingya refugees living in the densely populated and unhygienic camps. The refugees have been living in makeshift settlements which are cramped into one another, making it extremely difficult to maintain "social distance". The overcrowded conditions coupled with the low literacy level, lack of basic sanitation facilities, face masks and gloves and limited communication make these camps an ideal place for the virus to spread rapidly. As nations struggle to contain the SARS-CoV-2 virus, refugees are one such population who are extremely vulnerable to the effects of this outbreak. If issues are not addressed at an early stage, its effects can be catastrophic.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus , Aglomeração , Transmissão de Doença Infecciosa/prevenção & controle , Controle de Infecções , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral , Campos de Refugiados , Refugiados/estatística & dados numéricos , Bangladesh/epidemiologia , Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Infecções por Coronavirus/transmissão , Acesso aos Serviços de Saúde/normas , Necessidades e Demandas de Serviços de Saúde , Humanos , Controle de Infecções/métodos , Controle de Infecções/organização & administração , Controle de Infecções/normas , Mianmar/epidemiologia , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/provisão & distribuição , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/transmissão , Campos de Refugiados/normas , Campos de Refugiados/provisão & distribuição , Saneamento/normas
9.
Biomed Eng Online ; 19(1): 75, 2020 Oct 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33008462

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The world is facing an unprecedented outbreak affecting all aspects of human lives which is caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the virus novelty, healthcare systems are challenged by a high rate of patients and the shortage of medical products. To address an increased need for essential medical products, national authorities, worldwide, made various legislative concessions. This has led to essential medical products being produced by automotive, textile and other companies from various industries and approved under the emergency use authorizations or legal concessions of national regulatory bodies. This paper presents a narrative commentary of the available documentation on emergency use authorizations and legal concessions for medical products during COVID-19 pandemic. METHODOLOGY: The basis for narrative commentary includes scientific articles published in Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed and Embase databases, official publications of international organizations: Food and Drug Agency (FDA), World Health Organisation (WHO), World Bank and United Nations (UN), and national regulatory agency reports in native languages (English, German, Bosnian, and Croatian) published from November 1, 2019 to May 1, 2020. This paper focuses on three types of essential medical products: mechanical ventilators, personal protective equipment (PPE) and diagnostic tests. Evidence-informed commentary of available data and potential identified risks of emergency use authorizations and legal concessions is presented. DISCUSSION: It is recognized that now more than ever, raising global awareness and knowledge about the importance of respecting the essential requirements is needed to guarantee the appropriate quality, performance and safety of medical products, especially during outbreak situation, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Emergency use authorizations for production, import and approval of medical products should be strictly specified and clearly targeted from case to case and should not be general or universal for all medical products, because all of them are associated with different risk level. CONCLUSION: Presented considerations and experiences should be taken as a guide for all possible future outbreak situations to prevent improvised reactions of national regulatory bodies.


Assuntos
Betacoronavirus , Comércio/legislação & jurisprudência , Infecções por Coronavirus , Licenciamento/legislação & jurisprudência , Indústria Manufatureira/legislação & jurisprudência , Pandemias , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/provisão & distribuição , Pneumonia Viral , Kit de Reagentes para Diagnóstico/provisão & distribuição , Ventiladores Mecânicos/provisão & distribuição , Técnicas de Laboratório Clínico/normas , Infecções por Coronavirus/diagnóstico , Falha de Equipamento , União Europeia , Saúde Global , Humanos , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/normas , Kit de Reagentes para Diagnóstico/normas , Medição de Risco , Estados Unidos , United States Food and Drug Administration , Ventiladores Mecânicos/normas
10.
Air Med J ; 39(5): 340-342, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33012469

RESUMO

In late 2019, a novel coronavirus was identified as the cause of a cluster of atypical pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China. It subsequently spread throughout China and around the world, quickly becoming a public health emergency. In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared coronavirus disease 2019 a pandemic. This article explores the preparation and early experiences of a large Canadian critical care transport program during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic focused on 6 broad strategic objectives centered around staff welfare, regular and transparent communication, networking, evidenced-based approach to personal protective equipment, agile mission planning, and an expedited approach to clinical practice and policy updates and future state modeling.


Assuntos
Comunicação , Infecções por Coronavirus , Cuidados Críticos/organização & administração , Disseminação de Informação , Liderança , Pandemias , Transferência de Pacientes/organização & administração , Pneumonia Viral , Transporte de Pacientes/organização & administração , Medicina Aeroespacial , Resgate Aéreo , Ambulâncias , Betacoronavirus , Colúmbia Britânica , Prática Clínica Baseada em Evidências , Humanos , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/provisão & distribuição , Resiliência Psicológica
11.
PLoS One ; 15(10): e0240503, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33035244

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In this paper, we predict the health and economic consequences of immediate investment in personal protective equipment (PPE) for health care workers (HCWs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: To account for health consequences, we estimated mortality for HCWs and present a cost-effectiveness and return on investment (ROI) analysis using a decision-analytic model with Bayesian multivariate sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulation. Data sources included inputs from the World Health Organization Essential Supplies Forecasting Tool and the Imperial College of London epidemiologic model. RESULTS: An investment of $9.6 billion USD would adequately protect HCWs in all LMICs. This intervention would save 2,299,543 lives across LMICs, costing $59 USD per HCW case averted and $4,309 USD per HCW life saved. The societal ROI would be $755.3 billion USD, the equivalent of a 7,932% return. Regional and national estimates are also presented. DISCUSSION: In scenarios where PPE remains scarce, 70-100% of HCWs will get infected, irrespective of nationwide social distancing policies. Maintaining HCW infection rates below 10% and mortality below 1% requires inclusion of a PPE scale-up strategy as part of the pandemic response. In conclusion, wide-scale procurement and distribution of PPE for LMICs is an essential strategy to prevent widespread HCW morbidity and mortality. It is cost-effective and yields a large downstream return on investment.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/patologia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Mão de Obra em Saúde/economia , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/economia , Pneumonia Viral/patologia , Teorema de Bayes , Betacoronavirus/isolamento & purificação , Infecções por Coronavirus/economia , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/virologia , Países em Desenvolvimento , Pessoal de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Método de Monte Carlo , Pandemias/economia , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/provisão & distribuição , Pneumonia Viral/economia , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Pneumonia Viral/virologia
12.
PLoS One ; 15(10): e0239024, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33044978

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: During the course of the Novel Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, Italy has reported one of the highest number of infections. Nearly ten percent of reported coronavirus infections in Italy occurred in healthcare workers. This study aimed to understand physicians' access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and to information about their use, risk perception and strategies adopted to prevent contracting the infection. METHODS: We undertook a cross-sectional, online self-reported survey implemented between March 31 and April 5 2020 of Italian physicians. RESULTS: Responses were received from 516 physicians, only 13% of which reported to have access to PPE every time they need them. Approximately half of the physicians reported that the information received about the use of PPE was either clear (47%) or complete (54%). Risk perception about contracting the infection was influenced by receiving adequate information on the use of PPE. Access to adequate information on the use of PPE was associated with better ability to perform donning and doffing procedures [OR = 2.2 95% C.I. 1.7-2.8] and reduced perception of risk [OR = 0.5, 95% C.I. 0.4-0.6]. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this rapid survey indicate that while ramping up supplies on PPE for healthcare workers is certainly of mandatory importance, adequate training and clear instructions are just as important.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus/patologia , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/provisão & distribuição , Médicos/psicologia , Pneumonia Viral/patologia , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Betacoronavirus/isolamento & purificação , Infecções por Coronavirus/virologia , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Pessoal de Saúde/psicologia , Humanos , Controle de Infecções/métodos , Itália , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Razão de Chances , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/virologia , Risco , Autorrelato , Inquéritos e Questionários , Adulto Jovem
13.
BMJ Open ; 10(10): e040321, 2020 10 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33067299

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: In patient-facing healthcare workers delivering secondary care, what is the evidence behind UK Government personal protective equipment (PPE) guidance on surgical masks versus respirators for SARS-CoV-2 protection? DESIGN: Two independent reviewers performed a rapid review. Appraisal was performed using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. Results were synthesised by comparison of findings and appraisals. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Google Scholar, UK Government COVID-19 website and grey literature. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies published on any date containing primary data comparing surgical facemasks and respirators specific to SARS-CoV-2, and studies underpinning UK Government PPE guidance, were included. RESULTS: Of 30 identified, only 3 laboratory studies of 14 different respirators and 12 surgical facemasks were found. In all three, respirators were significantly more effective than facemasks when comparing protection factors, reduction factors, filter penetrations, total inspiratory leakages at differing particle sizes, mean inspiratory flows and breathing rates. Tests included live viruses and inert particles on dummies and humans. In the six clinical studies (6502 participants) included the only statistically significant result found continuous use of respirators more effective in clinical respiratory illness compared with targeted use or surgical facemasks. There was no consistent definition of 'exposure' to determine the efficacy of respiratory protective equipment (RPE). It is difficult to define 'safe'. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of evidence on the comparison of facemasks and respirators specific to SARS-CoV-2, and poor-quality evidence in other contexts. The use of surrogates results in extrapolation of non-SARS-CoV-2 specific data to guide UK Government PPE guidance. The appropriateness of this is unknown given the uncertainty over the transmission of SARS-CoV-2.This means that the evidence base for UK Government PPE guidelines is not based on SARS-CoV-2 and requires generalisation from low-quality evidence of other pathogens/particles. There is a paucity of high-quality evidence regarding the efficacy of RPE specific to SARS-CoV-2. UK Government PPE guidelines are underpinned by the assumption of droplet transmission of SARS-CoV-2.These factors suggest that the triaging of filtering face piece class 3 respirators might increase the risk of COVID-19 faced by some.


Assuntos
Aerossóis/efeitos adversos , Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/transmissão , Transmissão de Doença Infecciosa/prevenção & controle , Pessoal de Saúde , Controle de Infecções/métodos , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/provisão & distribuição , Pneumonia Viral/transmissão , Triagem/métodos , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Humanos , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia
15.
J Cross Cult Gerontol ; 35(4): 493-500, 2020 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33015728
16.
Clin Microbiol Rev ; 34(1)2020 12 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33115724

RESUMO

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been intense debate over SARS-CoV-2's mode of transmission and appropriate personal protective equipment for health care workers in low-risk settings. The objective of this review is to identify and appraise the available evidence (clinical trials and laboratory studies on masks and respirators, epidemiological studies, and air sampling studies), clarify key concepts and necessary conditions for airborne transmission, and shed light on knowledge gaps in the field. We find that, except for aerosol-generating procedures, the overall data in support of airborne transmission-taken in its traditional definition (long-distance and respirable aerosols)-are weak, based predominantly on indirect and experimental rather than clinical or epidemiological evidence. Consequently, we propose a revised and broader definition of "airborne," going beyond the current droplet and aerosol dichotomy and involving short-range inhalable particles, supported by data targeting the nose as the main viral receptor site. This new model better explains clinical observations, especially in the context of close and prolonged contacts between health care workers and patients, and reconciles seemingly contradictory data in the SARS-CoV-2 literature. The model also carries important implications for personal protective equipment and environmental controls, such as ventilation, in health care settings. However, further studies, especially clinical trials, are needed to complete the picture.


Assuntos
Aerossóis/análise , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Infecções por Coronavirus/transmissão , Controle de Infecções/métodos , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Material Particulado/análise , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/provisão & distribuição , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/transmissão , Betacoronavirus , Infecção Hospitalar/prevenção & controle , Infecção Hospitalar/transmissão , Pessoal de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Modelos Biológicos , Ventilação
18.
Aust J Gen Pract ; 49(11): 728-732, 2020 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33123703

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) have some of the highest rates of mortality from COVID-19 among healthcare workers. SARS-CoV-2 has unique properties that place GPs at particular risk. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to discuss the nose-related features of SARS-CoV-2 that place GPs at risk, and to make recommendations pertinent to the safety and protection of primary healthcare physicians. DISCUSSION: The highest viral load of SARS-CoV-2 is in the nose and nasopharynx. It is often highest early in the illness, before the development of symptoms. Further, SARS-CoV-2 replicates and continues to shed in the nasopharynx long after the virus is no longer detectable in the lower respiratory tract. This places any physician performing examinations on, or procedures involving, the upper respiratory tract at risk for contracting COVID-19. New-onset hyposmia and dysgeusia are indicators for COVID-19 and should be included in screening protocols.


Assuntos
Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus , Clínicos Gerais/estatística & dados numéricos , Controle de Infecções , Cavidade Nasal/virologia , Nasofaringe/virologia , Transtornos do Olfato/virologia , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral , Austrália , Betacoronavirus/isolamento & purificação , Betacoronavirus/fisiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/mortalidade , Infecções por Coronavirus/prevenção & controle , Infecções por Coronavirus/transmissão , Infecções por Coronavirus/virologia , Transmissão de Doença Infecciosa/prevenção & controle , Humanos , Controle de Infecções/instrumentação , Controle de Infecções/métodos , Controle de Infecções/normas , Mucosa Nasal/metabolismo , Exposição Ocupacional/prevenção & controle , Exposição Ocupacional/estatística & dados numéricos , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/provisão & distribuição , Pneumonia Viral/mortalidade , Pneumonia Viral/prevenção & controle , Pneumonia Viral/transmissão , Pneumonia Viral/virologia , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Atenção Primária à Saúde/normas , Gestão de Riscos , Carga Viral
19.
Nursing ; 50(11): 50-52, 2020 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33105428

RESUMO

The fog of war is a major obstacle for a fighting force trying to accomplish a goal, and it has been a significant barrier in the fight against COVID-19. This article discusses the factors that compounded a sense of confusion and created chaos in an already stressed healthcare system during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.


Assuntos
Confusão , Infecções por Coronavirus/enfermagem , Atenção à Saúde/organização & administração , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/enfermagem , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Comunicação , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Humanos , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/provisão & distribuição , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
20.
Ann Cardiol Angeiol (Paris) ; 69(5): 227-232, 2020 Nov.
Artigo em Francês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33059875

RESUMO

The COVID-19 pandemic has swept through our hospitals which have had to adapt as a matter of urgency. We are aware that a health crisis of this magnitude is likely to generate mental disorders particularly affecting exposed healthcare workers. Being so brutal and global, this one-of the kind pandemic has been impacting the staff in their professional sphere but also within their private circle. The COV IMPACT study is an early assessment survey conducted for 2 weeks in May 2020, of the perception by all hospital workers of the changes induced in their professional activity by the pandemic. The study was carried out by a survey sent to the hospital staff of Béziers and Montfermeil. The readjusted working conditions were source of increased physical fatigue for 62 % of the respondents. Moral exhaustion was reported by 36 %. It was related to the stress of contracting the infection (72 %) but above all of transmitting it to relatives (89 %) with a broad perception of a vital risk (41 %). This stress affected all socio-professional categories (CSP) and was independent of exposure to COVID. Change in organisation, lack of information and protective gear and equipment were major factors of insecurity at the start of the epidemic. Work on supportive measures is necessary. It should focus on the spread of information, particularly towards the youngest, as well as bringing more psychological support and a larger amount of medical equipment, beyond healthcare workers and the COVID sectors.


Assuntos
Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Recursos Humanos em Hospital/psicologia , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Estresse Psicológico/etiologia , Adulto , Infecções por Coronavirus/psicologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/transmissão , Família , Fadiga/etiologia , Fadiga/psicologia , França/epidemiologia , Inquéritos Epidemiológicos , Humanos , Disseminação de Informação , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Moral , Doenças Profissionais/etiologia , Doenças Profissionais/psicologia , Inovação Organizacional , Pandemias , Equipamento de Proteção Individual/provisão & distribuição , Pneumonia Viral/psicologia , Pneumonia Viral/transmissão , Estresse Psicológico/psicologia , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...