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:BackgroundCovid-19 pandemic greatly impacted on the healthcare systems worldwide with negative consequences on several aspects of clinical populations. For neurological chronic conditions such as Multiple Sclerosis (MS), rehabilitation activities have been suspended or postponed during the pandemic. Rehabilitation is crucial for people with MS (PwMS) because it promotes recovery from relapses and maximizes opportunities for social participation. To better understand the impact of Covid-19 emergency on rehabilitation services for MS, the European network for rehabilitation in MS (RIMS) disseminated a survey to healthcare professionals (HPs) and representatives of the MS rehabilitation services (RSs), to explore the two different perspectives on the delivery of rehabilitation in usual circumstances and during the Covid-19 emergency.MethodsThe online survey was distributed from July 9th to September 20th, 2020. Besides general information on the responders (e.g. location of center, and memebership to RIMS), information was collected on usual service delivery (e.g. settings, specialities, and types of treatment), the impact of Covid-19 circumstances (e.g. restrictions, use of personal protective equipment, and impact on work), and the use of technologiesin rehabilitation.ResultsTwenty-two representatives of MS rehabilitation services (RSs)and 143 health care professionals (HPs) responded. Most of RSs and HPs worked in services specialized for MS including a mixture of all usual rehabilitation settings (i.e. inpatient, outpatient and community setting). The majority of services adopted a multidisciplinary framework, including physical therapy, occupational therapy, social service, speech and language therapy, psychological support, dietary interventions, medical management, vocational rehabilitation and cognitive rehabilitaton. Overall, most of responders indicated they did not use technologies in their practice (e.g. for treatment or assessment). However, depending on the type of technology a low-to-medium percentage of responders declared to use some technologies before Covid-19 crisis (5-55% for RSs and 12-53% for HPs) and a low percentage planned the use after pandemic (0-14% for RSs and 1-10% for HPs). Moreover, for the responders the most feasible interventions deliverable through tele-rehabilitation were psychological support and dietary interventions, with psychological support considered the most necessary intervention to be remotely implemented. Moderate feasibility (30-60%) was reported for hands-off interventions (e.g. aerobic exercise and cognitive rehabilitation) whereas low feasibility (<30%) was reported for hands-on interventions. Feasibility was especially low when tools were used that are not adaptable at-home (e.g. hyperbaric oxygen therapy).ConclusionThe Covid-19 pandemic has stimulated the MS healthcare professionals to find new solutions to deliver alternative interventions to PwMS. In this context, the role of telemedicine is crucial to continue rehabilitation services at home, and limit exposure to infection. However, most of healthcare professionals have not incorporated the use of technologies. Therefore, the implementation of digital health solutions in the clinical practice needs more attention towards education on the potentials of technologies for rehabilitation and simplification of the national healthcare system reimbursement procedures for the rehabilitation technologies use.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has left an indelible effect on healthcare delivery and education system, including residency training. Particularly, neurosurgical departments worldwide had to adapt their operating model to the constantly changing pandemic landscape. This review aimed to quantify the reduction in neurosurgical operative volume and describe the impact of these trends on neurosurgical residency training.MethodsWe performed a comprehensive search of PubMed and EMBASE between December 2019 and October 2022 to identify studies comparing pre-pandemic and pandemic neurosurgical caseloads as well as articles detailing the impact of COVID-19 on neurosurgery residency training. Statistical analysis of quantitative data was presented as pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsA total of 49 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 12 (24.5%) were survey-based. The case volume of elective surgeries and non-elective procedures decreased by 70.4% (OR=0.296, 95%CI 0.210-0.418) and 68.2% (OR=0.318, 95%CI 0.193-0.525), respectively. A significant decrease was also observed in functional (OR=0.542, 95%CI 0.394-0.746), spine (OR=0.545, 95%CI 0.409-0.725), and skull base surgery (OR=0.545, 95%CI 0.409-0.725), whereas the caseloads for tumor (OR=1.029, 95%CI 0.838-1.263), trauma (OR=1.021, 95%CI 0.846-1.232), vascular (OR=1.001, 95%CI 0.870-1.152), and pediatric neurosurgery (OR=0.589, 95%CI 0.344-1.010) remained relatively the same between pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. The reduction in caseloads had caused concerns among residents and program directors in regard to the diminished clinical exposure, financial constraints, and mental well-being. Some positives highlighted were rapid adaptation to virtual educational platforms and increasing time for self-learning and research activities.ConclusionWhile COVID-19 has brought about significant disruptions in neurosurgical practice and training, this unprecedented challenge has opened the door for technological advances and collaboration that broaden the accessibility of resources and reduce the worldwide gap in neurosurgical education.