Dataset Information

Provider attitudes and satisfaction with rapid preoperative point-of-care COVID-19 testing using ID NOW™.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Healthcare workers have experienced high levels of anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly when caring for patients with unknown infection status. We trialled rapid preoperative point-of-care COVID-19 testing using the Abbott ID NOW™ COVID-19 for clinical validation in an urgent surgical population at a single centre in British Columbia, Canada. Here, we sought to determine the opinions and beliefs of operating room (OR) staff on the usefulness and effectiveness of point-of-care tests on workflow and wellbeing in the OR.

Methods

This descriptive study used a mixed-methods cross-sectional survey of all OR staff (nurses, anesthesiologists, surgeons, and ancillary staff) at a single centre after using the ID NOW for three months. Outcomes of interest included healthcare worker satisfaction with the ID NOW, effects on OR workflow, and worries about COVID-19 transmission.

Results

The overall response rate was 56% (n = 133), and was highest among anesthesiologists (100%, n = 38). Respondents were satisfied with the performance of the ID NOW for rapid COVID-19 testing in preoperative patients, giving it a mean (standard deviation [SD]) rate of 4.4 [1.4] on a five-point scale. Most (115/128, 90%) recommended continued use of the ID NOW on asymptomatic patients while there are active cases of COVID-19 in the community. Respondents felt that preoperative COVID-19 testing with the ID NOW made the OR safer for staff (mean [SD] rate, 4.2 [0.8]) and patients (mean [SD] rate, 4.0 [0.9]).

Conclusion

During the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to maintain the physical and mental wellbeing of hospital staff. Rapid point-of-care testing increased the sense of workplace safety, improved morale, and reduced worry associated with COVID-19 without excessive disruption of OR workflow.

SUBMITTER: Lee SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8296831 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe strong association between family history and prostate cancer (PCa) suggests a significant genetic contribution, yet specific highly penetrant PCa susceptibility genes have not been identified. Certain single-nucleotide-polymorphisms have been found to correlate with PCa risk; however uncertainty remains regarding their clinical utility and how to best incorporate this information into clinical decision-making. Genetic testing is available directly to consumers and both patients and healthcare providers are becoming more aware of this technology. Purchasing online allows patients to bypass their healthcare provider yet patients may have difficulty interpreting test results and providers may be called upon to interpret results. Determining optimal ways to educate both patients and providers, and strategies for appropriately incorporating this information into clinical decision-making are needed.MethodsA mixed-method study was conducted in Utah between October 2011 and December 2011. Eleven focus group discussions were held and surveys were administered to 23 first-degree relatives of PCa patients living in Utah and 24 primary-care physicians and urologists practicing in Utah to present specific information about these assessments and determine knowledge and attitudes regarding health implications of using these assessments.ResultsData was independently coded by two researchers (relative Kappa = .88; provider Kappa = .77) and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Results indicated differences in attitudes and behavioral intentions between patient and provider. Despite the test's limitations relatives indicated interest in genetic testing (52%) while most providers indicated they would not recommend the test for their patients (79%). Relatives expected providers to interpret genetic test results and use results to provide personalized healthcare recommendations while the majority of providers did not think the information would be useful in patient care (92%) and indicated low-levels of genetic self-efficacy.ConclusionsAlthough similarities exist, discordance between provider and patient attitudes may influence the effective translation of novel genomic tests into clinical practice suggesting both patient and provider perceptions and expectations be considered in development of clinical decision-support tools.