Search

Background: Clinical guidelines on infection control strategies in healthcare workers (HCWs) play an important role in protecting them during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic. Poorly constructed guidelines that are incomprehensive and/or ambiguous may compromise HCWs' safety., Objective: The objective of this study was to develop and validate a tool to appraise guidelines on infection control strategies in HCWs based on the guidelines published early in the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic., Design, Setting, and Outcomes: A three-stage, web-based, Delphi consensus-building process among a panel of diverse HCWs and healthcare managers was performed. The tool was validated by appraising 40 international, specialty-specific, and procedure-specific guidelines along with national guidelines from countries with a wide range of gross national income., Results: Overall consensus (≥75%) was reached at the end of three rounds for all six domains included in the tool. The Delphi panel recommended an ideal infection control guideline should encompass six domains: general characteristics (domain 1), engineering recommendations (domain 2), personal protective equipment (PPE) use (domain 3), and administrative aspects (domain 4-6) of infection control. The appraisal tool performed well across the six domains, and the inter-rater agreement was excellent for the 40 guidelines. All included guidelines performed relatively better in domains 1-3 than in domains 4-6, and this was more evident in guidelines originating from lower income countries., Conclusion: The guideline appraisal tool was robust and easy to use. Engineering recommendations aspects of infection control, administrative measures that promote optimal PPE use, and HCW wellbeing were generally lacking in assessed guidelines. This tool may enable health systems to adopt high-quality HCW infection control guidelines during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic and may also provide a framework for future guideline development., (Copyright © 2021 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We aimed to explore anxiety status across a broad range of HCWs supporting patients with COVID-19 in different global regions., Method: This was an international online survey in which participation was on voluntary basis and data were submitted via Google Drive, across a two-week period starting from March 18, 2020. The Beck Anxiety Inventory was used to quantify the level of anxiety., Results: 1416 HCWs (70.8% medical doctors, 26.2% nurses) responded to the survey from 75 countries. The distribution of anxiety levels was: normal/minimal (n = 503, 35.5%), low (n = 390, 27.5%); moderate (n = 287, 20.3%), and severe (n = 236, 16.7%). According to multiple generalized linear model, female gender (p = 0.001), occupation (ie, being a nurse dealing directly with patients with COVID-19 [p = 0.017]), being younger (p = 0.001), reporting inadequate knowledge on COVID-19 (p = 0.005), having insufficient personal protective equipment (p = 0.001) and poor access to hand sanitizers or liquid soaps (p = 0.008), coexisting chronic disorders (p = 0.001) and existing mental health problems (p = 0.001), and higher income of countries where HCWs lived (p = 0.048) were significantly associated with increased anxiety., Conclusions: Front-line HCWs, regardless of the levels of COVID-19 transmission in their country, are anxious when they do not feel protected. Our findings suggest that anxiety could be mitigated ensuring sufficient levels of protective personal equipment alongside greater education and information., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale: Initial reports of case fatality rates (CFRs) among adults with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are highly variable.Objectives: To examine the CFR of patients with COVID-19 receiving IMV.Methods: Two authors independently searched PubMed, Embase, medRxiv, bioRxiv, the COVID-19 living systematic review, and national registry databases. The primary outcome was the "reported CFR" for patients with confirmed COVID-19 requiring IMV. "Definitive hospital CFR" for patients with outcomes at hospital discharge was also investigated. Finally, CFR was analyzed by patient age, geographic region, and study quality on the basis of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.Measurements and Results: Sixty-nine studies were included, describing 57,420 adult patients with COVID-19 who received IMV. Overall reported CFR was estimated as 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39-52%). Fifty-four of 69 studies stated whether hospital outcomes were available but provided a definitive hospital outcome on only 13,120 (22.8%) of the total IMV patient population. Among studies in which age-stratified CFR was available, pooled CFR estimates ranged from 47.9% (95% CI, 46.4-49.4%) in younger patients (age ≤40 yr) to 84.4% (95% CI, 83.3-85.4%) in older patients (age >80 yr). CFR was also higher in early COVID-19 epicenters. Overall heterogeneity is high (I2 >90%), with nonsignificant Egger's regression test suggesting no publication bias.Conclusions: Almost half of patients with COVID-19 receiving IMV died based on the reported CFR, but variable CFR reporting methods resulted in a wide range of CFRs between studies. The reported CFR was higher in older patients and in early pandemic epicenters, which may be influenced by limited ICU resources. Reporting of definitive outcomes on all patients would facilitate comparisons between studies.Systematic review registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020186997). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Antibiotics may be indicated in patients with COVID-19 due to suspected or confirmed bacterial superinfection.Objectives: To investigate antibiotic prescribing practices in patients with COVID-19.Methods: We performed an international web-based survey and investigated the pattern of antibiotic use as reported by physicians involved in treatment of COVID-19. SPSS Statistics version 25 was used for data analysis.Results: The survey was completed by 166 participants from 23 countries and 82 different hospitals. Local guidelines for antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients were reported by 61.8% (n = 102) of participants and for 82.9% (n = 136) they did not differ from local community-acquired pneumonia guidelines. Clinical presentation was recognized as the most important reason for the start of antibiotics (mean score = 4.07 and SD = 1.095 on grading scale from 1 to 5). When antibiotics were started, most respondents rated as the highest the need for coverage of atypical pathogens (mean score = 2.8 and SD = 0.99), followed by Staphylococcus aureus (mean score = 2.67 and SD = 1.05 on bi-modal scale, with values 1 and 2 for disagreement and values 3 and 4 for agreement). In the patients on the ward, 29.1% of respondents chose not to prescribe any antibiotic. Combination of β-lactams and macrolides or fluoroquinolones was reported by 52.4% (n = 87) of respondents. In patients in the ICU, piperacillin/tazobactam was the most commonly prescribed antibiotic. The mean reported duration of antibiotic treatment was 7.12 (SD = 2.44) days.Conclusions: The study revealed widespread broad-spectrum antibiotic use in patients with COVID-19. Implementation of antimicrobial stewardship principles is warranted to mitigate the negative consequences of antibiotic therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]