Dataset Information

A Global Survey on the Impact of COVID-19 on Urological Services.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. The impact of COVID-19 on urological services in different geographical areas is unknown.

Objective

To investigate the global impact of COVID-19 on urological providers and the provision of urological patient care.

Design, setting, and participants

A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted from March 30, 2020 to April 7, 2020. A 55-item questionnaire was developed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on various aspects of urological services. Target respondents were practising urologists, urology trainees, and urology nurses/advanced practice providers.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

The primary outcome was the degree of reduction in urological services, which was further stratified by the geographical location, degree of outbreak, and nature and urgency of urological conditions. The secondary outcome was the duration of delay in urological services.

Results and limitations

A total of 1004 participants responded to our survey, and they were mostly based in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Worldwide, 41% of the respondents reported that their hospital staff members had been diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, 27% reported personnel shortage, and 26% had to be deployed to take care of COVID-19 patients. Globally, only 33% of the respondents felt that they were given adequate personal protective equipment, and many providers expressed fear of going to work (47%). It was of concerning that 13% of the respondents were advised not to wear a surgical face mask for the fear of scaring their patients, and 21% of the respondents were advised not to discuss COVID-19 issues or concerns on media. COVID-19 had a global impact on the cut-down of urological services, including outpatient clinic appointments, outpatient investigations and procedures, and urological surgeries. The degree of cut-down of urological services increased with the degree of COVID-19 outbreak. On average, 28% of outpatient clinics, 30% of outpatient investigations and procedures, and 31% of urological surgeries had a delay of >8 wk. Urological services for benign conditions were more affected than those for malignant conditions. Finally, 47% of the respondents believed that the accumulated workload could be dealt with in a timely manner after the COVID-19 outbreak, but 50% thought the postponement of urological services would affect the treatment and survival outcomes of their patients. One of the limitations of this study is that Africa, Australia, and New Zealand were under-represented.

Conclusions

COVID-19 had a profound global impact on urological care and urology providers. The degree of cut-down of urological services increased with the degree of COVID-19 outbreak and was greater for benign than for malignant conditions. One-fourth of urological providers were deployed to assist with COVID-19 care. Many providers reported insufficient personal protective equipment and support from hospital administration.

Patient summary

Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) has led to significant delay in outpatient care and surgery in urology, particularly in regions with the most COVID-19 cases. A considerable proportion of urology health care professionals have been deployed to assist in COVID-19 care, despite the perception of insufficient training and protective equipment.

SUBMITTER: Teoh JY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7248000 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDetermining whether members follow guidelines, including guidelines prepared to help direct practice management during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, is an important goal for medical associations.ObjectiveTo determine whether practice of urologists is in line with guidelines for the management of common urological conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic produced by leading (inter)national urological associations.Design, setting, and participantsSelf-selected urologists completed a voluntary survey available online from March 27 to April 11, 2020 and distributed globally by the Société Internationale d'Urologie.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisResponses to two survey questions on the (1) management of 14 common urological procedures and (2) priority scoring of 10 common urological procedures were evaluated by practice setting and geographical region using chi-square and one-way analysis of variance analyses, respectively.Results and limitationsThere were 2494 respondents from 76 countries. Oncological conditions were prioritised over benign conditions, and benign conditions were deferred when feasible and safe. Oncological conditions with the greatest malignant potential were prioritised over less aggressive cancers. Respondents from Europe were least likely to postpone and most likely to prioritise conditions identified by guidelines as being of the highest priority. Respondents' priority scoring of urological procedures closely matched the priorities assigned by guidelines. The main limitation of this study is that respondents were self-selected, and access to the survey was limited by language and technology barriers.ConclusionsPrioritisation and management of urological procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic are in line with current guidelines. The greatest agreement was reported in Europe. Observed differences may be related to limited resources in some settings.Patient summaryWhen deciding how best to treat patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, urologists are taking into account both expert recommendations and the availability of important local resources.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic outbreak has dramatically disrupted healthcare systems. Two rapid WHO pulse surveys studied disruptions in mental health services, but did not particularly focus on neurology. Here, a global survey was conducted and addresses the impact of the pandemic on neurology services.MethodsA cross-sectional study was carried out in which 34 international neurological associations were asked to distribute the survey to national associations. The responses represented the national situation, in November-December 2020, with regard to the main disrupted neurological services, reasons and the mitigation strategies implemented as well as the disruption on training of residents and on neurological research. A comparison with the situation in February-April 2020, first pandemic wave, was also requested.Findings54 completed surveys came from 43 countries covering all the 6 WHO regions. Overall, neurological services disruption was reported as mild by 26%, moderate by 30%, complete by 13% of associations. The most affected services were cross-sectoral neurological services (57%) and neurorehabilitation (56%). The second wave of the pandemic, however, was associated with the improvement of service provision for diagnostics services (44%) and for neurorehabilitation (41%). Governmental directives were the major cause of services' disruption (56%). Mitigation strategies were mostly established through telemedicine (48%). Almost half of respondents reported a significant impact on neurological research (48%) and educational activities (60%). Most associations (67%) were not involved in decision making for neurological patients' issues by their national government.InterpretationThe COVID-19 pandemic affects neurological services and raises the universal need for the development of neurological health care at the policy, systems and services levels. A global national plan on mitigation strategies for disruption of neurological services during pandemic situations should be established and neurological scientific and patients associations should get involved in decision making.

Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has placed significant challenges on health-care systems worldwide, whether in the preparation, response, or recovery phase of the pandemic. This has been primarily managed by dramatically reducing in- and outpatient services for other diseases and implementing infection prevention and control measures. The impact of the pandemic on nuclear medicine departments and their services has not yet been established. The aim of this online survey was to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on nuclear medicine departments. Methods: A web-based questionnaire, made available from April 16 to May 3, 2020, was designed to determine the impact of the pandemic on in- and outpatient nuclear medicine departments, including the number of procedures, employee health, availability of radiotracers and other essential supplies, and availability of personal protective equipment. The survey also inquired about operational aspects and types of facilities as well as other challenges. Results: A total of 434 responses from 72 countries were registered and analyzed. Respondents reported an average decline of 54% in diagnostic procedures. PET/CT scans decreased by an average of 36%, whereas sentinel lymph-node procedures decreased by 45%, lung scans by 56%, bone scans by 60%, myocardial studies by 66%, and thyroid studies by 67%. Of all participating centers, 81% performed radionuclide therapies, and they reported a reduction of 45% on average in the last 4 wk, ranging from over 76% in Latin America and South East Asia to 16% in South Korea and Singapore. Survey results showed that 52% of participating sites limited their 99mTc/99Mo generator purchases, and 12% of them temporarily cancelled orders. Insufficient supplies of essential materials (radioisotopes, generators, and kits) were reported, especially for 99mTc/99Mo generators and 131I, particularly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Conclusion: Both diagnostic and therapeutic nuclear medicine procedures declined precipitously, with countries worldwide being affected by the pandemic to a similar degree. Countries that were in the postpeak phase of the pandemic when they responded to the survey, such as South Korea and Singapore, reported a less pronounced impact on nuclear medicine services; however, the overall results of the survey showed that nuclear medicine services worldwide had been significantly impacted. In relation to staff health, 15% of respondents experienced COVID-19 infections within their own departments.