Dataset Information

Assessing changes in stethoscope hygiene during COVID-19: a multi-centre cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has increased infection control vigilance across several modes of patient contact. However, it is unknown whether hygiene pertaining to stethoscopes, which carry the potential for pathogenic contamination, has also shifted accordingly.

Aim

To characterize pandemic-related changes in stethoscope hygiene.

Methods

We surveyed healthcare providers at three major medical centres. Questions quantitatively (Likert scale and frequency) assessed stethoscope hygiene beliefs and practices with two components: before and during COVID-19. Participants were grouped based on performance of optimal stethoscope hygiene (after every patient) before and during COVID-19. Groups were compared using χ² and analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Findings

Of the 515 (10%) who completed the survey, 55 were excluded (N = 460). Optimal hygiene increased from 27.4% to 55.0% (P < 0.001). There were significant increases in Likert scores for all questions pertaining to knowledge of stethoscope contamination (P < 0.001). Belief in stethoscope contamination increased (P < 0.001) despite no change in perceived hygiene education. Resident physicians were less likely compared with attending physicians and nurses to have adopted optimal hygiene during COVID-19 (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Despite a positive shift in stethoscope hygiene during COVID-19, optimal hygiene was still only performed by around half of providers. Educational interventions, particularly targeting early-career providers, are encouraged.

SUBMITTER: Vasudevan RS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9167726 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHuman hygiene behaviours influence the transmission of infectious diseases. Changing maladaptive hygiene habits has the potential to improve public health. Parents and teachers can play an important role in disinfecting surface areas and in helping children develop healthful handwashing habits. The current study aims to inform a future intervention that will help parents and teachers take up this role using a theoretically and empirically informed behaviour change model called the Capabilities-Opportunities-Motivations-Behaviour (COM-B) model.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey was designed to measure participants' capabilities, opportunities, and motivations to [1] increase their children's handwashing with soap and [2] increase their cleaning of surface areas. Additional items captured how often participants believed their children washed their hands. The final survey was administered early in the coronavirus pandemic (May and June 2020) to 3975 participants from Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Participants self-identified as mums, dads, or teachers of children 5 to 10 years old. ANOVAs analyses were used to compare participant capabilities, opportunities, and motivations across countries for handwashing and surface disinfecting. Multiple regressions analyses were conducted for each country to assess the predictive relationship between the COM-B components and children's handwashing.ResultsThe ANOVA analyses revealed that India had the lowest levels of capability, opportunity, and motivation, for both hand hygiene and surface cleaning. The regression analyses revealed that for Australia, Indonesia, and South Africa, the capability component was the only significant predictor of children's handwashing. For India, capability and opportunity were significant. For the United Kingdom, capability and motivation were significant. Lastly, for Saudi Arabia all components were significant.ConclusionsThe discussion explores how the Behaviour Change Wheel methodology could be used to guide further intervention development with community stakeholders in each country. Of the countries assessed, India offers the greatest room for improvement, and behaviour change techniques that influence people's capability and opportunities should be prioritised there.

Project description:BackgroundAn important feature of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pathogenesis is COVID-19-associated coagulopathy, characterised by increased thrombotic and microvascular complications. Previous studies have suggested a role for endothelial cell injury in COVID-19-associated coagulopathy. To determine whether endotheliopathy is involved in COVID-19-associated coagulopathy pathogenesis, we assessed markers of endothelial cell and platelet activation in critically and non-critically ill patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19.MethodsIn this single-centre cross-sectional study, hospitalised adult (≥18 years) patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were identified in the medical intensive care unit (ICU) or a specialised non-ICU COVID-19 floor in our hospital. Asymptomatic, non-hospitalised controls were recruited as a comparator group for biomarkers that did not have a reference range. We assessed markers of endothelial cell and platelet activation, including von Willebrand Factor (VWF) antigen, soluble thrombomodulin, soluble P-selectin, and soluble CD40 ligand, as well as coagulation factors, endogenous anticoagulants, and fibrinolytic enzymes. We compared the level of each marker in ICU patients, non-ICU patients, and controls, where applicable. We assessed correlations between these laboratory results with clinical outcomes, including hospital discharge and mortality. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to further explore the association between biochemical markers and survival.Findings68 patients with COVID-19 were included in the study from April 13 to April 24, 2020, including 48 ICU and 20 non-ICU patients, as well as 13 non-hospitalised, asymptomatic controls. Markers of endothelial cell and platelet activation were significantly elevated in ICU patients compared with non-ICU patients, including VWF antigen (mean 565% [SD 199] in ICU patients vs 278% [133] in non-ICU patients; p<0·0001) and soluble P-selectin (15·9 ng/mL [4·8] vs 11·2 ng/mL [3·1]; p=0·0014). VWF antigen concentrations were also elevated above the normal range in 16 (80%) of 20 non-ICU patients. We found mortality to be significantly correlated with VWF antigen (r = 0·38; p=0·0022) and soluble thrombomodulin (r = 0·38; p=0·0078) among all patients. In all patients, soluble thrombomodulin concentrations greater than 3·26 ng/mL were associated with lower rates of hospital discharge (22 [88%] of 25 patients with low concentrations vs 13 [52%] of 25 patients with high concentrations; p=0·0050) and lower likelihood of survival on Kaplan-Meier analysis (hazard ratio 5·9, 95% CI 1·9-18·4; p=0·0087).InterpretationOur findings show that endotheliopathy is present in COVID-19 and is likely to be associated with critical illness and death. Early identification of endotheliopathy and strategies to mitigate its progression might improve outcomes in COVID-19.FundingThis work was supported by a gift donation from Jack Levin to the Benign Hematology programme at Yale, and the National Institutes of Health.

Project description:BackgroundA high prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies has been reported in case series of patients with neurological manifestations and COVID-19; however, the pathogenicity of antiphospholipid antibodies in COVID-19 neurology remains unclear.MethodsThis single-centre cross-sectional study included 106 adult patients: 30 hospitalised COVID-neurological cases, 47 non-neurological COVID-hospitalised controls, and 29 COVID-non-hospitalised controls, recruited between March and July 2020. We evaluated nine antiphospholipid antibodies: anticardiolipin antibodies [aCL] IgA, IgM, IgG; anti-beta-2 glycoprotein-1 [aβ2GPI] IgA, IgM, IgG; anti-phosphatidylserine/prothrombin [aPS/PT] IgM, IgG; and anti-domain I β2GPI (aD1β2GPI) IgG.FindingsThere was a high prevalence of antiphospholipid antibodies in the COVID-neurological (73.3%) and non-neurological COVID-hospitalised controls (76.6%) in contrast to the COVID-non-hospitalised controls (48.2%). aPS/PT IgG titres were significantly higher in the COVID-neurological group compared to both control groups (p < 0.001). Moderate-high titre of aPS/PT IgG was found in 2 out of 3 (67%) patients with acute disseminated encephalomyelitis [ADEM]. aPS/PT IgG titres negatively correlated with oxygen requirement (FiO2 R=-0.15 p = 0.040) and was associated with venous thromboembolism (p = 0.043). In contrast, aCL IgA (p < 0.001) and IgG (p < 0.001) was associated with non-neurological COVID-hospitalised controls compared to the other groups and correlated positively with d-dimer and creatinine but negatively with FiO2.InterpretationOur findings show that aPS/PT IgG is associated with COVID-19-associated ADEM. In contrast, aCL IgA and IgG are seen much more frequently in non-neurological hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Characterisation of antiphospholipid antibody persistence and potential longitudinal clinical impact are required to guide appropriate management.FundingThis work is supported by UCL Queen Square Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) and Moorfields BRC grants (#560441 and #557595). LB is supported by a Wellcome Trust Fellowship (222102/Z/20/Z). RWP is supported by an Alzheimer's Association Clinician Scientist Fellowship (AACSF-20-685780) and the UK Dementia Research Institute. KB is supported by the Swedish Research Council (#2017-00915) and the Swedish state under the agreement between the Swedish government and the County Councils, the ALF-agreement (#ALFGBG-715986). HZ is a Wallenberg Scholar supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council (#2018-02532), the European Research Council (#681712), Swedish State Support for Clinical Research (#ALFGBG-720931), the Alzheimer Drug Discovery Foundation (ADDF), USA (#201809-2016862), and theUK Dementia Research Institute at UCL. BDM is supported by grants from the MRC/UKRI (MR/V007181/1), MRC (MR/T028750/1) and Wellcome (ISSF201902/3). MSZ, MH and RS are supported by the UCL/UCLH NIHR Biomedical Research Centre and MSZ is supported by Queen Square National Brain Appeal.

Project description:ObjectivesThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has prompted many initiatives to identify safe and efficacious treatments, yet little is known regarding where early efforts have focused. We aimed to characterise registered clinical trials assessing drugs or plasma treatments for COVID-19.Design, setting and participantsCross-sectional analysis of clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19 that were registered in the USA or in countries contributing to the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Relevant trial entries of drugs or plasma were downloaded on 26 March 2020, deduplicated, verified with reviews of major medical journals and WHO websites and independently analysed by two reviewers.Main outcomesTrial intervention, sponsorship, critical design elements and specified outcomes RESULTS: Overall, 201 clinical trials were registered for testing the therapeutic benefits of 92 drugs or plasma, including 64 in monotherapy and 28 different combinations. Only eight (8.7%) products or combinations involved new molecular entities. The other test therapies had a wide range of prior medical uses, including as antivirals, antimalarials, immunosuppressants and oncology treatments. In 152 trials (75.7%), patients were randomised to treatment or comparator, including 55 trials with some form of blinding and 97 open-label studies. The 49 (24.4%) of trials without a randomised design included 29 single armed studies and 20 trials with some comparison group. Most trial designs featured multiple endpoints. Clinical endpoints were identified in 134 (66.7%) of trials and included COVID-19 symptoms, death, recovery, required intensive care and hospital discharge. Clinical scales were being used in 33 (16.4%) trials, most often measures of oxygenation and critical illness. Surrogate endpoints or biomarkers were studied in 88 (42.3%) of trials, primarily assays of viral load. Although the trials were initiated in more than 17 countries or regions, 100 (49.8%) were registered in China and 78 (37.8%) in the USA. Registered trials increased rapidly, with the number of registered trials doubling from 1 March to 26 March 2020.ConclusionsWhile accelerating morbidity and mortality from the COVID-19 pandemic has been paralleled by early and rapid clinical investigation, many trials lack features to optimise their scientific value. Global coordination and increased funding of high-quality research may help to maximise scientific progress in rapidly discovering safe and effective treatments.

Project description:Aim: This study aims to investigate Norwegian students' perceptions toward a higher education institution (HEI)'s COVID-19 response strategy, differentiating between three behavioral techniques: informing (i. e., email updates about COVID-19), nudging (i.e., visual cues as reminders), and creating novel opportunities (i.e., provision of antibacterial dispensers). In addition, the study assesses to what extent these perceptions are influenced by COVID-19 related psychological factors: risk perception; attitudes toward infection prevention and control (IPC) behaviors; perceived behavior control; institutional trust. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among a student population. The survey was developed to evaluate the HEI's response strategy, and distinct perceptions of COVID-19 and related practices. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was applied to estimate the effect of the psychological factors on the attitude toward different behavioral techniques. Results: Creating novel opportunities was perceived most positively from the students, secondly, informing the students through email updates about COVID-19, finally, reminders through visual cues. Institutional trust presented the largest positive effect on informing the students through email updates, while no effect was measured for reminders. Attitudes toward IPC behaviors showed the strongest effect on students' perceptions of new opportunities and reminders, whereas providing email updates about COVID-19 is less affected by pre-existing perceptions. Conclusions: A host of factors such as institutional trust, and perceptions concerning IPC measures and risk severity, influence students' perceptions of different behavior change techniques. This type of knowledge can contribute to understanding how perceptions can impact acceptance and adoption of specific preventive measures within a pandemic response. An assessment as such may result in more ethical and relevant future efforts.