Dataset Information

COVID-19 response by New Zealand general surgical departments in tertiary metropolitan hospitals.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Worldwide, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has significantly challenged the delivery of healthcare. New Zealand (NZ) faced similar potential challenges despite being geographically isolated. Given the rapid change in the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals in NZ were tasked with formulating their own COVID-19 responses based on the Ministry of Health's (MoH) recommendations.

Methods

This paper evaluates how six metropolitan general surgical departments in NZ had responded to COVID-19 in terms of changes made to rosters, theatres, clinics, acute admissions as well as additional measures taken to reduce the risk of staff exposure. It also explores how NZ fared in comparison with international guidelines and recommendations. Data from each centre were provided by an appointed clinician.

Results

All centres had adapted new rosters and a restructuring of teams. Handovers, multidisciplinary team meetings and educational sessions were held virtually. Different strategies were implemented to ration hospital resources and reduce the risk of staff exposure. Non-urgent operations, endoscopies and clinics were deferred with allocation of dedicated COVID-19 operating theatres. Potential COVID-19 suspects were screened prior to admission and treated separately. Various admission and imaging pathways were utilised to increase efficiency.

Conclusion

General surgical departments in NZ had implemented a comprehensive COVID-19 response but there is room to work towards a more unified national response. Our analysis shows that these centres across NZ had taken a similar approach which was aligned with international practices.

SUBMITTER: Toh KHQ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8420382 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDuring the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, German health care centres were restructured for the treatment of COVID-19 patients. This was accompanied by the suspension of the surgical programme. The aim of the survey was to determine the effects of COVID-19 on surgical care in non-university hospitals in Germany.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was based on an anonymous online survey, which was accessible from April 24th to May 10th, 2020 for surgeons of the Konvent der leitenden Krankenhauschirurgen (Convention of leading Hospital Surgeons) in Germany. The analysis comprised of 22.8% (n = 148/649) completed surveys.ResultsCommunication and cooperation with authorities, hospital administration and other departments were largely considered sufficient. In the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, 28.4% (n = 42/148) of the respondents complained about a short supply of protective equipment available for the hospital staff. 7.4% (n = 11/148) of the participants stated that emergency operations had to be postponed or rescheduled. A decreased quantity of emergency surgical procedures and a decreased number of surgical emergency patients treated in the emergency room was reported in 43.9% (n = 65/148) and 63.5% (n = 94/148), respectively. Consultation and treatment of oncological patients in the outpatient clinic was decreased in 54.1% (n = 80/148) of the surveyed hospitals. To increase the capacity for COVID-19 patients, a reduction of bed and operating room occupancy of 50.8 ± 19.3% and 54.2 ± 19.1% were reported, respectively. Therefore, 90.5% (n = 134/148) of all participants expected a loss of revenue of 28.2 ± 12.9% in 2020.ConclusionThe first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on surgical care in Germany. The reduction in the bed and the operating room capacity may have lead to considerable delays in urgent and semi-elective surgical interventions. In addition to the risk of worsening patient care, we anticipate severe financial damage to the clinics in 2020 and beyond. National and supranational planning is urgently needed to ensure the surgical care of patients during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Project description:While the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (the Checklist) can improve patient outcomes, variable administration can erode benefits. We sought to understand and improve how operating room (OR) staff use the Checklist. Our specific aims were to: determine if OR staff can discriminate between good and poor quality of Checklist administration using a validated audit tool (WHOBARS); to determine reliability and accuracy of WHOBARS self-ratings; determine the influence of demographic variables on ratings and explore OR staff attitudes to Checklist administration. DESIGN:Mixed methods study using WHOBARS ratings of surgical cases by OR staff and two independent observers, thematic analysis of staff interviews. PARTICIPANTS:OR staff in three New Zealand hospitals. OUTCOME MEASURES:Reliability of WHOBARS for self-audit; staff attitudes to Checklist administration. RESULTS:Analysis of scores (243 participants, 2 observers, 59 cases) supported tool reliability, with 87% of WHOBARS score variance attributable to differences in Checklist administration between cases. Self-ratings were significantly higher than observer ratings, with some differences between professional groups but error variance from all raters was less than 10%. Key interview themes (33 interviewees) were: Team culture and embedding the Checklist, Information transfer and obstacles, Raising concerns and 'A tick-box exercise'. Interviewees felt the Checklist could promote teamwork and a safety culture, particularly enabling speaking up. Senior staff were of key importance in setting the appropriate tone. CONCLUSIONS:The WHOBARS tool could be useful for self-audit and quality improvement as OR staff can reliably discriminate between good and poor Checklist administration. OR staff self-ratings were lenient compared with external observers suggesting the value of external audit for benchmarking. Small differences between ratings from professional groups underpin the value of including all members of the team in scoring. We identified factors explaining staff perceptions of the Checklist that should inform quality improvement interventions.

Project description:ObjectivesTo explore genetic/genomic nursing competency and associated factors among nurses from tertiary general and specialist cancer hospitals in mainland China and compare the competencies of nurses from the two types of hospitals.Design and settingA cross-sectional survey was conducted from November 2019 to January 2020, wherein 2118 nurses were recruited from 8 tertiary general hospitals and 4 cancer hospitals in mainland China. We distributed electronic questionnaires to collect data on nurses' demographics, work-related variables and genomic nursing competency.Participants2118 nurses were recruited via a three-stage stratified cluster sampling method.ResultsMore than half (59.1%, 1252/2118) of the participants reported that their curriculum included genetics/genomics content. The mean nurses' genomic knowledge score was 8.30/12 (95% CI=8.21 to 8.39). Only 5.4% had always collected a complete family history in the past 3 months. Compared with general hospital nurses, slightly more cancer hospital nurses (75.6% vs 70.6%, p=0.010) recognised the importance of genomics, while there was no significant difference in the knowledge scores (8.38 vs 8.21, p>0.05). Gender (β=0.06, p=0.005), years of clinical nursing (β=-0.07, p=0.002), initial level of nursing education (β=0.10, p<0.001), membership of the Chinese Nursing Association (β=0.06, p=0.004), whether their curriculum included genetics/genomics content (β=0.08, p=0.001) and attitude towards becoming more educated in genetics/genomics (β=0.25, p<0.001) were significantly associated with the nurses' genomic knowledge score.ConclusionThe levels of genomic knowledge among mainland Chinese nurses in tertiary hospitals were moderate. The overall genomic competency of cancer hospital nurses was comparable to that of general hospital nurses. Further genomic training is needed for nurses in China to increase their genomic competency and accelerate the integration of genomics into nursing practice.

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify priority medicines policy issues for New Zealand.SettingStakeholders from a broad range of healthcare and policy institutions including primary, secondary and tertiary care.ParticipantsExploratory, semistructured interviews were conducted with 20 stakeholders throughout New Zealand.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and coded into INVIVO 10, then compared and grouped for similarity of theme. Perceptions, experiences and opinions regarding New Zealand's medicines policy issues were recorded.ResultsA large proportion of stakeholders appeared to be unaware of New Zealand's (NZ) medicines policy. In general, the policy was considered to offer consistency to guide decision-making. In the context of Pharmaceutical Management Agency's (PHARMAC's) fixed budget for procuring and subsidising medicines, there was reasonable satisfaction with the range of medicines available-rare disorder medicines being the clear exception. Concerns raised were by whom and how decisions are made and whether desired health outcomes are being measured. Other concerns included inconsistencies in evidence and across health technologies. Despite attempts to improve the situation, lower socioeconomic groups (including rural residents) Māori and Pacific ethnicities and people with rare disorders face challenges with regards to accessing medicines. Other barriers include, convenience to and affordability of prescribers and the increase of prescription fees from NZ$3 to NZ$5. Concerns related to the PHARMAC of New Zealand included: a constraining budget; non-transparency of in-house analysis; lack of consistency in recommendations between the Pharmacology and Therapeutics Advisory Committee. Constraints and inefficiencies also exist in the submission process to access high-cost medicines.ConclusionsThe results suggest reasonable satisfaction with the availability of subsidised medicines. However, some of the major challenges include access to medicines in vulnerable groups, increasing costs and demand for new medicines, access to prescribers, budgetary constraints, cultural and health literacy, patient affordability and evidence requirement for gaining subsidy for medicines.