Patient and staff experiences of remote kidney healthcare: lessons learnt from COVID-19.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lightfoot CJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8494161 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Patient and staff experiences of remote kidney healthcare: lessons learnt from COVID-19.
Lightfoot Courtney J CJ Wilkinson Thomas J TJ Palmer Jared J Kanavaki Archontissa M AM Smith Alice C AC
Journal of nephrology 20211006 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, has been characterized by unprecedented rates of spatio-temporal spread. Here, we summarize the main events in the pandemic's timeline and evaluate what has been learnt by the public health community. We also discuss the implications for future public health policy and, specifically, the practice of epidemic control. We critically analyze this ongoing pandemic's timeline and contrast it with the 2002-2003 SARS outbreak. We identify specific areas (e.g., pathogen identification and initial reporting) wherein the international community learnt valuable lessons from the SARS outbreak. However, we also identify the key areas where international public health policy failed leading to the exponential spread of the pandemic. We outline a clear agenda for improved pandemic control in the future.
| S-EPMC8365337 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic causes moral challenges and moral distress for healthcare professionals and, due to an increased work load, reduces time and opportunities for clinical ethics support services. Nevertheless, healthcare professionals could also identify essential elements to maintain or change in the future, as moral distress and moral challenges can indicate opportunities to strengthen moral resilience of healthcare professionals and organisations. This study describes 1) the experienced moral distress, challenges and ethical climate concerning end-of-life care of Intensive Care Unit staff during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and 2) their positive experiences and lessons learned, which function as directions for future forms of ethics support.MethodsA cross-sectional survey combining quantitative and qualitative elements was sent to all healthcare professionals who worked at the Intensive Care Unit of the Amsterdam UMC - Location AMC during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey consisted of 36 items about moral distress (concerning quality of care and emotional stress), team cooperation, ethical climate and (ways of dealing with) end-of-life decisions, and two open questions about positive experiences and suggestions for work improvement.ResultsAll 178 respondents (response rate: 25-32%) showed signs of moral distress, and experienced moral dilemmas in end-of-life decisions, whereas they experienced a relatively positive ethical climate. Nurses scored significantly higher than physicians on most items. Positive experiences were mostly related to 'team cooperation', 'team solidarity' and 'work ethic'. Lessons learned were mostly related to 'quality of care' and 'professional qualities'.ConclusionsDespite the crisis, positive experiences related to ethical climate, team members and overall work ethic were reported by Intensive Care Unit staff and quality and organisation of care lessons were learned. Ethics support services can be tailored to reflect on morally challenging situations, restore moral resilience, create space for self-care and strengthen team spirit. This can improve healthcare professionals' dealing of inherent moral challenges and moral distress in order to strengthen both individual and organisational moral resilience.Trial registrationThe trial was registered on The Netherlands Trial Register, number NL9177.
| S-EPMC10249541 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIn sub-Saharan Africa, there is a need to better understand and guide the practice of primary care physicians (PCPs), especially in a crisis context like the COVID-19 pandemic. This study analyses the experiences of PCPs facing COVID-19 in Benin and draws policy lessons.MethodsThe study followed a fully mixed sequential dominant status design. Data were collected between April and August 2020 from a sample of PCPs in Benin. We performed descriptive analyses on the quantitative data. We also performed bivariate analyses for testing associations between various outcomes and the public/private status of the PCPs, their localization within or outside the cordon sanitaire put in place at the beginning of COVID-19, and their practice' category. A thematic content analysis was done on qualitative data. Results from both analyses were triangulated.ResultsNinety PCPs participated in the quantitative strand, and 14 in the qualitative. The median percentage of the COVID-19 control measures implemented in the health facilities, as reported by the PCPs, was 77.8% (interquartile range = 16.7%), with no difference between the various groups. While 29.4% of the PCPs reported being poorly/not capable of helping the communities to deal with COVID-19, 45.3% felt poorly/not confident in dealing with an actual case. These percentages were bigger in the private sector. The PCP's experiences were marked by anxiety and fear, with 80.2% reporting stress. Many PCPs (74.1%) reported not receiving support from local health authorities, and 75.3% felt their concerns were not adequately addressed. Both percentages were higher in the private sector. The PCPs especially complained of insufficient training, insufficient coordination, and less support to private providers than the public ones. For 72.4 and 79.3% of the PCPs, respectively, the pandemic impacted services utilization and daily work. There were negative impacts (like a decrease in the services utilization or the quality of care), but also positive ones (like improved compliance to hygiene measures and new opportunities).ConclusionOur study highlighted the need for more structured support to PCPs for optimizing their contribution to epidemics control and good primary healthcare in Benin. Efforts in this direction can build on several good practices and opportunities.
| S-EPMC10012796 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 became a global pandemic within weeks, as every country including small states and islands experienced a surge in cases. Small islands are known to face several challenges in the quest to curb the viral spread, but with the absence of land boarders and small population size, these factors should have played to their advantage to minimize the spread. The aim of this article was to compare and contrast the COVID-19 situation, restrictions, preparedness, management and the healthcare systems between the small population island states of Cyprus, Iceland and Malta.MethodsData were obtained from Ministry of Health websites and COVID dashboards of the three respective Island states in Europe. Comparisons were made between the reported cases, deaths, excess deaths, years of life lost, swabbing rates, restrictive measures, vaccination roll-out and healthcare system structures.ResultsCyprus and Malta contained the COVID-19 spread better than Iceland during the first wave. However, a significantly higher viral spread and mortality rates were observed in Malta during the second waves. Similar healthcare preparedness and services, restrictions and relaxation measures were implemented across the three islands with some exceptions. Covid-19 vaccination has initiated across all Islands with Malta leading the vaccination roll-out.ConclusionThe small population size and island status proved to be an asset during the first wave of COVID-19, but different governance approaches led to a different COVID-19 outcomes, including high mortality rates during the transition phases and the subsequent waves.
| S-EPMC8755372 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Background: Outcomes with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been worse in those with comorbidities and amongst minorities. In our study, we describe outcomes amongst cancer patients in Detroit, a major COVID-19 hotspot with a predominant inner-city population. (2) Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 85 patients with active invasive cancers who were infected with COVID-19. The primary outcome was death or transition to hospice. (3) Results: The majority were males (55.3%, n = 47), ≤70 years old (58.5%, n = 50), and African Americans (65.5%, n = 55). The most common primary site was prostate (18.8%, n = 16). Inpatient admission was documented in 85.5% (n = 73), ICU admission in 35.3% (n = 30), and primary outcome in 43.8% (n = 32) of hospitalized patients. On a multivariate analysis, factors associated with increased odds of a primary outcome included an age of >70 years versus ≤70 years (OR 4.7, p = 0.012) and of male gender (OR 4.8, p = 0.008). Recent cancer-directed therapy was administered in 66.7% (n = 20) of ICU admissions versus 39.5% (n = 17) of general floor admissions (Chi-square p-value of 0.023). (4) Conclusions: High rates of mortality/transition to hospice and ICU utilization were noted amongst our patients with active invasive cancer, following a COVID-19 infection. Men and those of >70 years of age had a greater than four-fold increase in odds of death or transition to hospice.
| S-EPMC7565165 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic strained healthcare systems around the world. This study aims to understand the preparedness of private remote hospitals in Lebanon to respond to the pandemic and evaluate the impact of inter-hospital collaborations on the hospitals' readiness.MethodsA multi-centered study was conducted between August 2020 and June 2021 in ten Lebanese private remote hospitals based on a mixed-methods embedded approach where the quantitative supported the qualitative. Through the AUB-USAID (American University of Beirut-United States Agency for International Development) COVID-19 project, these hospitals received personal protective equipment and medical equipment in addition to COVID-19-related training using the Train-the-Trainer model. The quantitative part used knowledge and evaluation questionnaires and a pre-post-intervention hospital preparedness checklist. The qualitative approach adopted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample from key hospital personnel. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS version 27, and a p-value of <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. For the qualitative data, a thematic analysis was performed by adopting the six-phase process described by Braun and Clarke.ResultsOf the 393 healthcare workers who attended the training and completed the evaluation questionnaire, 326 completed the pre- and post-training knowledge questionnaire. A significant improvement was observed in mean knowledge scores following training for infection control, nursing, and polymerase chain reaction sampling staff (p-value < 0.001, p-value < 0.001, and p-value = 0.006, respectively), but not for housekeeping staff. More than 93% of the participants showed high trainer and content evaluation scores. As for the hospitals' preparedness assessments, there was a clear improvement in the pre- and post-assessment scores for each hospital, and there was a significant difference in the mean of the total scores of partner hospitals pre- and post-USAID-AUB project (p-value = 0.005). These findings were supported by the qualitative analysis, where nine hospitals expressed the positive impact of the USAID-AUB intervention in improving their preparedness to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic at a critical time when it was highly needed. Despite the intervention, persistent challenges remained.ConclusionsA timely and proactive collaborative program between academic/tertiary care centers and remote community hospitals that includes sharing supplies and expertise is feasible and highly effective during public health emergencies.
| S-EPMC10855495 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRapid antigen-detection tests for SARS-CoV-2 self-testing represent a useful tool for pandemic control and expanding access to community-level case screening. COVID-19 self-tests have been extensively used in high-income countries since 2021; however, their introduction and programmatic implementation in low- and middle-income countries was delayed. We aimed to identify and continuously improve a weekly COVID-19 self-testing model among staff at healthcare facilities and schools.MethodsThis mixed-methods, observational prospective study was conducted in 5 healthcare centres and 24 schools in Georgia, between June and December 2022. The study comprised the integration of COVID-19 self-testing into the national mandatory testing programme for high-risk groups, with primary distribution of self-tests among staff performed weekly, plus secondary distribution to their household members. These use cases were selected because NCDC was seeking to strengthen their already strong weekly testing programme, by investigating self-testing to ease the burden of testing in the healthcare system. Online surveys and semi-structured interviews were used for data collection.ResultsIn total, 2156 participants were enrolled (1963 female, 72%). At baseline and mid- and end-points, 88%, 97% and 99%, respectively, of participants agreed/strongly agreed they would self-test. Similarly, the majority were willing to report their self-testing results (88%, 98% and 96% at baseline and mid- and end-points, respectively). Weekly reporting of test results to the national COVID-19 database was high during all the implementation. There were 622 COVID-19 positive results reported, and linked to care, from 601 individuals (282 participants and 319 household members). Findings from qualitative interviews showed great satisfaction with self-testing for its convenience, ease of use, trust in the results, no need to travel for diagnostics, and increased perception of safety.ConclusionsOur findings contribute to the evidence-base regarding self-testing strategies conducted via workplaces and secondary distribution to households. Willingness to perform a COVID-19 self-test increased after implementation. This pilot enhanced pandemic preparedness through expansion of the national self-testing reporting system, development of communications materials, changes in the national legal framework and coordination mechanisms, and improved perceptions around self-care in the community. The lessons learnt can inform operational aspects of the introduction and scale-up of self-care strategies.
| S-EPMC10874527 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST563 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly challenged societies and healthcare systems in particular. To prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2, infection prevention and control (IPC) strategies had to be developed on the local, national and international level. The aim of this study is to provide details of the COVID-19 experience at the Vienna General Hospital (VGH) in the context of the national and international COVID-19 response for learning and improvement.MethodsThis is a retrospective report, outlining the evolution of IPC measures and challenges encountered at the health facility (VGH), the national (Austria) and global level between February 2020 and October 2022.ResultsThe IPC strategy at the VGH has been continuously adapted to changes in the epidemiological setting, new legal directives and Austrian by-laws. The current strategy, nationally and internationally, focuses on endemicity rather than maximum transmission risk reduction. For the VGH, this has recently resulted in an increase in COVID-19 clusters. To protect our particularly vulnerable patients, many COVID-19 precautions have been maintained. Barriers to adequate IPC implementation at the VGH and other hospitals include a lack of sufficient isolation options and non-adherence with universal face mask regulations. Globally, misinformation on COVID-19 hampered an effective response.ConclusionsThis retrospective analysis of the COVID-19 response at the VGH and international reports underline the need for pandemic preparedness, readiness and response by improving future hospital design and infrastructure, conducting regular trainings for protective attire and increasing health literacy as now recently published in a concise document by WHO.
| S-EPMC10066952 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) describes the active involvement of patients and the public in the research process. Through PPI, patients and members of the public are increasingly involved in the design and conduct of clinical trials. PPI has been shown to improve the quality and relevance of research. During the COVID-19 pandemic, clinical trials have been playing a vital role in helping us find ways to prevent and treat the infection and improve our understanding of the virus. It is important that patients and the public are actively involved in deciding how COVID-19 research is carried out. Unfortunately, Research Ethics Committees in the UK have seen far less PPI for COVID-19 research studies compared with research before the pandemic. A key reason for this is that research is being designed much faster than normal and researchers may feel they do not have time to properly involve patients and the public. In this paper, we share our experiences of PPI for a COVID-19 clinical trial. We show that it is possible to rapidly involve patients and the public in COVID-19 clinical trials. We also explain how the design of the clinical trial was changed in response to feedback from public contributors. Lastly, we discuss the wider learning from this process which might be useful for researchers planning PPI activities for COVID-19 clinical trials in the future.BackgroundClinical trials are playing a critical role in the global public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the increasing recognition of the value of PPI in clinical trials, just 22% of the COVID-19 research proposals reviewed by Research Ethics Committees in the UK at the start of the pandemic reported PPI. There is a perception that PPI might result in delays in delivering research and therefore delays in obtaining important results. In this paper, we report our experience of rapid PPI for a COVID-19 clinical trial.MethodsRAPID-19 is a COVID-19 clinical trial which was planned to be submitted for fast-track ethics review in the United Kingdom. During the development of the trial protocol, the PPI Panel at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Clinical Trials Unit was involved in the design of the study. The meeting with the PPI Panel lasted just over 1 h and was conducted by teleconference.ResultsAlthough we only had a short period of time to explore the study with the PPI Panel, we were able to gain valuable insight into how the trial would be perceived by potential trial participants. Substantive changes were made to the trial to improve the acceptability of the research without compromising the study timelines. Having access to public contributors with relevant lived experience is an important resource for a Clinical Trials Unit and is critical for rapid PPI. The move to remote working due to lockdown required virtual discussions which helped to overcome some of the barriers to organising face-to-face meetings at short notice.ConclusionsPPI for clinical trials can be conducted in a time-efficient manner within the pressured environment of a pandemic. Involving PPI contributors at an early stage in protocol development maximised the opportunity to shape and influence the trial as well as limited potential delays which could occur if changes to the protocol had to be made at a later stage.
| S-EPMC7938674 | biostudies-literature