Search

Background: COVID-19 pandemic has tremendously caused significant health impacts leading to high load of ICU critical patients. Multiple Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission framework and triaging score have been adapted worldwide for admission of COVID-19 patients. The aim of this article is to review the COVID-19 ICU admission policy in five (5) countries, identify challenges and provide recommendations. Materials and Methods: Literature review was carried out through searching available literature from online databases such as EBSCO, PubMed, Research Gate, Google Scholar and Google search engine. The selected information used in this review is taken from any journal, article, report, thesis, national report, news update regarding the topic. Result: The ICU admission policy in 5 countries, namely South Africa, USA, UK, Hong Kong and Malaysia were reviewed. Different countries apply different guidelines to triage, prioritize and admit severe COVID-19 patients to ICU such as Color-coded Priority Scale in South Africa, Critical Care Triage Tool in USA, COVID-19 Critical Care Guideline in UK, COVID- 19 Critical Care Triage Tool in Hong Kong and ICU Admission Prioritization Criteria in Malaysia. The ICU admission decision-making is supported with multiple ICU scorings such as Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Clinical Frailty score and National Early Warning score 2 (NEWS2). Conclusion: The COVID-19 ICU admission policies in these countries are well established and have been practised appropriately despite challenges faced by the ICU practitioners. All five selected national guidelines in this paper correspond to the WHO framework on the ICU admission policy. Ethical issues and legal supports on the ICU practitioners in ICU admission decision-making requires great attention form government and relevant policy stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the recent impact by the COVID‐19 pandemic, nursing research has gone through unexpected changes across the globe. The purpose of this special report is to present the commonalities in the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on nursing research across four countries, including the United States, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, and one region, that is, Hong Kong, and to make recommendations for future nursing research during the immediate postpandemic period and future pandemic situations. To identify the commonalities, seven researchers/leaders from the five countries/regions had discussions through 3 days of an international workshop. The content for this discussion paper derived from: (a) the exemplars/cases of the COVID‐19 impact on the research process, (b) researchers/leaders' presentations on the COVID‐19 impact, and (c) memos from the workshop. The materials were analyzed using a simple content analysis. The commonalities included: (a) "a heavy emphasis on teaching and fluctuating productivity," (b) "increased funding opportunities and governmental support," (c) "gendered experience complicated by professional differences," (d) "delays and changes/modifications in research process," (e) "limited research settings and difficulties in getting access," and (f) "increased online dissemination activities with positive changes in the image of nursing." With all collective wisdom that nurse researchers have obtained during the COVID‐19 pandemic, nursing research will evolve again for the successful future of the nursing discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The term 'pandemic paranoia' has been coined to refer to heightened levels of mistrust and suspicion towards other people specifically due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we examine the international prevalence of pandemic paranoia in the general population and its associated sociodemographic profile. Methods: A representative international sample of general population adults (N = 2510) from five sites (USA N = 535, Germany N = 516, UK N = 512, Australia N = 502 and Hong Kong N = 445) were recruited using stratified quota sampling (for age, sex, educational attainment) and completed the Pandemic Paranoia Scale (PPS). Results: The overall prevalence rate of pandemic paranoia was 19%, and was highest in Australia and lowest in Germany. On the subscales of the PPS, prevalence was 11% for persecutory threat, 29% for paranoid conspiracy and 37% for interpersonal mistrust. Site and general paranoia significantly predicted pandemic paranoia. Sociodemographic variables (lower age, higher population size and income, being male, employed and no migrant status) explained additional variance and significantly improved prediction of pandemic paranoia. Conclusions: Pandemic paranoia was relatively common in a representative sample of the general population across five international sites. Sociodemographic variables explained a small but significant amount of the variance in pandemic paranoia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]