Project description:BackgroundOccupational dermatoses caused by personal protective equipment (PPE) in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic are emerging occupational health challenges that must be promptly and effectively addressed to ease burden on our health care workers.ObjectiveA systematic review was conducted to determine common PPE-related dermatoses, affected body sites, and implicated occupational contactants. We further proposed solutions to mitigate this problem.MethodsOnline databases were searched for articles on PPE-related dermatoses in health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic written in English and published from January 1, 2020, to January 30, 2021.ResultsSixteen studies, including a total of 3958 participants, were included. The most common dermatoses were xerosis, pressure-related erythema, and contact dermatitis, mainly affecting the face and hands. The most widely implicated contactants were increased frequency of hand hygiene, gloves, N95 masks, and goggles. Proposed solutions were categorized as individual self-care, protection of the workforce, and long-term preventive measures.ConclusionThrough measures such as regular basic skin care education, early access to specialty clinics via telemedicine, and designing of better-fit PPE, the challenges posed by PPE-related occupational dermatoses can be significantly reduced.
Project description:The use of masks for infection control was common in the COVID-19 pandemic. As numerous cross-sectional studies have suggested a link between the use of such masks and various facial dermatoses, a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies was conducted to evaluate this association, as well as potential risk factors for the development of such facial dermatoses. Observational studies were searched for in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register. Thirty-seven observational studies with a total of 29 557 study participants were identified. This study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist and quality was assessed via the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale., Overall prevalence of facial dermatoses was 55%. Individually, acne, facial dermatitis, itch and pressure injuries were consistently reported as facial dermatoses, with a pooled prevalence of 31%, 24%, 30% and 31%, respectively. Duration of mask-wear was the most significant risk factor for the development of facial dermatoses (95% CI: 1.31-1.54, p < 0.001). Overall, facial dermatoses associated with mask wear are common, and consist of distinct entities. They are related to duration of use. Appropriate and tailored treatment is important to improve the outcomes for these affected patients.
Project description:Upper respiratory viral infections can decrease the sense of smell either by inflammatory restriction of nasal airflow that carries the odorant molecules or through interference in olfactory sensory neuron function. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, triggered by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), worldwide reports of severe smell loss (anosmia/hyposmia) revealed a different type of olfactory dysfunction associated with respiratory virus infection. Since self-reported perception of smell is subjective and SARS-CoV-2 exposure is variable in the general population, we aimed to study a population that would be more homogeneously exposed to the virus. Here, we investigated the prevalence of olfactory loss in frontline health professionals diagnosed with COVID-19 in Brazil, one of the major epicenters of the disease. We also analyzed the rate of olfactory function recovery and the particular characteristics of olfactory deficit in this population. A widely disclosed cross-sectional online survey directed to health care workers was developed by a group of researchers to collect data concerning demographic information, general symptoms, otolaryngological symptoms, comorbidities, and COVID-19 test results. Of the 1,376 health professionals who completed the questionnaire, 795 (57.8%) were working directly with COVID-19 patients, either in intensive care units, emergency rooms, wards, outpatient clinics, or other areas. Five-hundred forty-one (39.3%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and 509 (37%) were not tested. Prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19-positive subjects was 83.9% (454 of 541) compared to 12.9% (42 of 326) of those who tested negative and to 14.9% (76 of 509) of those not tested. Olfactory dysfunction incidence was higher in those working in wards, emergency rooms, and intensive care units compared to professionals in outpatient clinics. In general, remission from olfactory symptoms was frequent by the time of responses. Taste disturbances were present in 74.1% of infected participants and were significantly associated with hyposmia. In conclusion, olfactory dysfunction is highly correlated with exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in health care professionals, and remission rates up to 2 weeks are high.
Project description:ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically affected health care delivery, effects that are juxtaposed with health care professional (HCP) burnout and mental distress. The Opioid Use Disorder Provider COVID-19 Survey was conducted to better understand the impact of COVID-19 on clinical practice and HCP well-being.MethodsThe cross-sectional survey was e-mailed to listservs with approximately 157,000 subscribers of diverse professions between July 14 and August 15, 2020. Two dependent variables evaluated HCP functioning and work-life balance. Independent variables assessed organizational practices and HCP experiences. Covariates included participant demographic characteristics, addiction board certification, and practice setting. Multilevel multivariate logistic regression models were used.ResultsAmong 812 survey respondents, most were men, White, and physicians, with 46% located in urban settings. Function-impairing anxiety was reported by 17%, and 28% reported more difficulty with work-life balance. Difficulty with functioning was positively associated with having staff who were sick with COVID-19 and feeling close to patients, and was negatively associated with being male and having no staff changes. Difficulty with work-life balance was positively associated with addiction board certification; working in multiple settings; having layoffs, furloughs, or reduced hours; staff illness with COVID-19; and group well-being check-ins. It was negatively associated with male gender, older age, and no staff changes.ConclusionsDemographic, provider, and organizational-practice variables were associated with reporting negative measures of well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. These results should inform HCPs and their organizations on factors that may lead to burnout, with particular focus on gender and age-related concerns and the role of well-being check-ins.
Project description:This study aimed to compare risk perception, information sources, adoption of protective behaviors against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and levels of general anxiety among affiliated health care professionals, frontline health care professionals, and the general public in Taiwan. We recruited participants via a Facebook advertisement. We determined the risk perception, information sources, adoption of protective behaviors against COVID-19, and levels of general anxiety among 1954 respondents. In total, 269 affiliated healthcare workers, 371 frontline healthcare workers, and 1314 members of the general public were recruited into this study. The results indicated that both affiliated and frontline health care professionals had a higher level of risk perception of COVID-19, and more adopted protective behaviors against COVID-19 than the general public. No significant differences in risk perception or the adoption of protective behaviors were identified between affiliated, and frontline, health care professionals. Affiliated health care professionals had a lower level of general anxiety than the general public, whereas frontline health care professionals exhibited no significant difference in level of general anxiety compared with the general public or affiliated health care professionals. As important members of COVID-19 treatment teams, the need for psychological and educational support in affiliated health care professionals should receive attention.
Project description:Backgroundburnout syndrome is a serious and growing problem among medical staff. Its adverse outcomes not only affect health-care providers' health, but also extend to their patients, resulting in bad-quality care. The COVID-19 pandemic puts frontline health-care providers at greater risk of psychological stress and burnout syndrome.Objectivesthis study aimed to identify the levels of burnout among health-care professionals currently working at Assiut University hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic.Methodsthe current study adopted an online cross-sectional design using the SurveyMonkey® website for data collection. A total of 201 physicians were included and the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) scale was used to assess the three burnout syndrome dimensions: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment.Resultsabout one-third, two-thirds, and one-quarter of the respondents had high emotional exhaustion, high depersonalization, and low personal accomplishment, respectively. Younger, resident, and single physicians reported higher burnout scores. The personal accomplishment score was significantly higher among males. Those working more than eight hours/day and dealing with COVID-19 patients had significantly higher scores.Conclusionduring the COVID-19 pandemic, a high prevalence of burnout was recorded among physicians. Age, job title, working duration, and working hours/day were significant predictors for burnout syndrome subscale results. Preventive and interventive programs should be applied in health-care organizations during pandemics.
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic and pandemic response created novel challenges for abortion services. Canada was uniquely positioned to transition to telemedicine because internationally common restrictions on abortion medication were removed before the pandemic.ObjectiveWe sought to characterize the experiences of abortion health care professionals in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact of the pandemic response on abortion services.MethodsWe conducted a sequential mixed methods study between July 2020 and January 2021. We invited physicians, nurse practitioners and administrators to participate in a cross-sectional survey containing an open-ended question about the impact of the pandemic response on abortion care. We employed an inductive codebook thematic analysis, which informed the development of a second, primarily quantitative survey.ResultsOur initial survey had 307 respondents and our second had 78. Fifty-three percent were family physicians. Our first survey found respondents considered abortion access essential. We identified three key topicss: access to abortion care was often maintained despite pandemic-related challenges (e.g. difficulty obtaining tests, additional costs); change of practice to low-touch medication abortion care and provider perceptions of patient experience, including shifting demand, telemedicine acceptability and increased rural access. The second survey indicated uptake of telemedicine medication abortion among 89% of participants except in Quebec, where regulations meant procedures were nearly exclusively surgical. Restrictions did not delay care according to 76% of participants.ConclusionsCanadian health care professionals report their facilities deemed abortion an essential service. Provinces and territories, except Quebec, described a robust pandemic transition to telemedicine to ensure access to services.PodcastAn accompanying podcast is available in the Supplementary Data, in which the authors Dr Madeleine Ennis and Kate Wahl discuss their research on how family planning care and access to abortion services have changed during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Project description:ObjectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is affecting humankind in unprecedented and monumental ways. Health-care professionals (HCPs) have had to deal with traumatic and complex situations at work. However, the current understanding of the emotional effects on HCPs and their vulnerability during the pandemic is limited. We investigated the effects of HCPs' viral epidemic-related stress, professional quality of life (ProQOL), depression, and anxiety on their health-related quality of life (HRQOL).MethodsWe recruited a convenience sample of 60 HCPs at 2 tertiary hospitals in provinces P and Y, Republic of Korea. We analyzed their demographics, viral epidemic-related distress, ProQOL (compassion satisfaction, burnout, and secondary traumatic stress), depression, anxiety, and HRQOL through self-reported questionnaires.ResultsBurnout had a significant direct effect on depression, anxiety, physical health, and psychological HRQOL and indirectly affected all subcategories of HRQOL. Viral epidemic-related stress had no significant direct effect on any variable, but indirectly affected all subcategories of HRQOL. Depression and anxiety were endogenous variables (mediators). Depression was a pathway that directly and significantly affected all subcategories of HRQOL. Burnout had the most significant effect on physical health and psychological HRQOL, whereas depression had the greatest effect on social relationships and environmental HRQOL.ConclusionsLow compassion satisfaction caused burnout in HCPs, and burnout was significantly associated with depression, anxiety, and HRQOL. Furthermore, HRQOL showed a greater response when affected by indirect burnout through depression and anxiety than when directly affected by burnout.
Project description:BackgroundDuring the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, health care workers (HCWs) have been obliged to wear personal protective equipment (PPE). We assessed the impact of PPE use on HCWs' physical health and we examined factors related to a greater risk of adverse events due to PPE use.MethodsWe applied the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines and the Cochrane criteria. We searched PubMed, Medline, Scopus, ProQuest, CINAHL, and medRxiv from January 1, 2020 to December 27, 2020.ResultsOur review included 14 studies with 11,746 HCWs. The estimated overall prevalence of adverse events among HCWs was 78% with a range from 42.8% to 95.1% among studies. Among others, the following factors were related to the risk of adverse events among HCWs due to PPE use: obesity, diabetes mellitus, smoking, pre-existing headache, longer duration of shifts wearing PPE, increased consecutive days with PPE, and increased exposure to confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients.ConclusionsThe frequency of adverse events among HCWs due to PPE use is very high. Healthcare facilities should take the necessary precautions and change the working conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic to prevent adverse events associated with PPE use and minimize harm to HCWs.