Aggression, micro-aggression, and abuse against Health Care Providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. A Latin American Survey.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Garcia-Zamora S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9239921 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the acceptance rate of treatment alternatives for women with either preinvasive conditions or gynecologic cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic among Latin American gynecological cancer specialists.MethodsTwelve experts in gynecological cancer designed an electronic survey, according to recommendations from international societies, using an online platform. The survey included 22 questions on five topics: consultation care, preinvasive cervical pathology, and cervical, ovarian, and endometrial cancer. The questionnaire was distributed to 1052 specialists in 14 Latin American countries. A descriptive analysis was carried out using statistical software.ResultsA total of 610 responses were received, for an overall response rate of 58.0%. Respondents favored offering teleconsultation as triage for post-cancer treatment follow-up (94.6%), neoadjuvant chemotherapy in advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer (95.6%), and total hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy and defining adjuvant treatment with histopathological features in early stage endometrial cancer (85.4%). Other questions showed agreement rates of over 64%, except for review of pathology results in person and use of upfront concurrent chemoradiation for early stage cervical cancer (disagreement 56.4% and 58.9%, respectively).ConclusionLatin American specialists accepted some alternative management strategies for gynecological cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may reflect the region's particularities. The COVID-19 pandemic led Latin American specialists to accept alternative management strategies for gynecological cancer care, especially regarding surgical decisions.
| S-EPMC9087623 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly altered the provision of rehabilitation services, especially pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). Our objective was to assess the provision of PR services in Latin America 18 months after the COVID-19 pandemic was declared.MethodsA cross-sectional study that included professionals dedicated to PR in centres in Latin America was applied. Responses to an online questionnaire were collected from May to September 2021. The following data were included for the analysis: demographic data, evaluation strategies, program structure, PR intervention in post-COVID-19 patients, and perception of strategies therapies for the care of post-COVID-19 patients. The questionnaire was distributed in Spanish and Portuguese languages.ResultsResponses were received from 196 PR centres. Exercise tolerance was predominantly measured with the six-minute walk test. Less than 50% of the institutions evaluate quality of life, physical qualities, symptoms, and lung function. Most of the programmes have physiotherapists (90.8%), as well as pulmonologists (60%), and psychologists (35%), among other professionals.ConclusionPR services in Latin America have adapted in their way to the requirements of the pandemic, and most continued to provide face-to-face services. It was identified that the application of the programs is heterogeneous both in evaluations and interventions.
| S-EPMC9149608 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe emergence of COVID-19 and its vertiginous spreading speed represents a unique challenge to neurologists managing multiple sclerosis (MS) and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD). The need for data on the impact of the virus on these patients grows rapidly. There is an urgent necessity of sharing information to enable evidence-based decision making on the clinical management. There are no data on what physicians are doing on clinical practice in Latin American countries.Aimto investigate current management opinion of Latin American MS and/or NMOSD expert neurologists based on their experience and recommendations.Methodswe developed a voluntary web-based survey based on hypothetical situations that these patients may encounter, while taking into account the potential risk of developing severe COVID-19 infection.Results60% of the experts had the possibility of monitoring their patients by telemedicine. Most neurologists postpone magnetic resonance. Laboratory blood tests delay is associated with the type of treatment. Platform therapies, dimethyl-fumarate and natalizumab are considered safe options to initiate in naive patients.Conclusiondecision-making about MS and NMOSD patients has become even more complex in order to adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic. Risks and benefits should be taken into consideration throughout the patient follow-up.
| S-EPMC7837246 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Latin American radiation therapy services has not yet been widely assessed. In comparison to centers in Europe or the United States, the scarcity of data on these terms might impair design of adequate measures to ameliorate the pandemic's potential damage. The first survey-based analysis revealing regional information is herein presented.Methods and materialsFrom May 6 to May 30, 2020, the American Society for Radiation Oncology's COVID-19 Survey was distributed across Latin America with support of the local national radiation therapy societies. Twenty-six items, including facility demographic and financial characteristics, personnel and patient features, current and expected impact of the pandemic, and research perspectives, were included in the questionnaire.ResultsComplete responses were obtained from 115 (50%) of 229 practices across 15 countries. Only 2.6% of centers closed during the pandemic. A median of 4 radiation oncologists (1-27) and 9 (1-100) radiation therapists were reported per center. The median number of new patients treated in 2019 was 600 (24-6200). A median 8% (1%-90%) decrease in patient volume was reported, with a median of 53 patients (1-490) remaining under treatment. Estimated revenue reduction was 20% or more in 53% of cases. Shortage of personal protective equipment was reported in 51.3% of centers, and 27% reported personnel shortage due to COVID-19. Reported delays in treatment for low-risk entities included early stage breast cancer (42.6%), low-risk status prostate cancer (67%), and nonmalignant conditions (42.6%). Treatment of COVID-19 patients at designated treatment times and differentiated bunkers were reported in 22.6% and 10.4% of centers, respectively. Telehealth initiatives have been started in 64.3% of facilities to date for on-treatment (29.6%) and posttreatment (34.8%) patients.ConclusionsRegional information regarding COVID-19 pandemic in Latin America may help elucidate suitable intervention strategies for personnel and patients. Follow-up surveys will be performed to provide dynamic monitoring the pandemic's impact on radiation therapy services and adoption of ameliorating measures.
| S-EPMC7462756 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 outbreak has resulted in collision between patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and those with cancer on different fronts. Patients with cancer have been impacted by deferral, modification, and even cessation of therapy. Adaptive measures to minimize hospital exposure, following the precautionary principle, have been proposed for cancer care during COVID-19 era. We present here a consensus on prioritizing recommendations across the continuum of sarcoma patient care.Material and methodsA total of 125 recommendations were proposed in soft-tissue, bone, and visceral sarcoma care. Recommendations were assigned as higher or lower priority if they cannot or can be postponed at least 2-3 months, respectively. The consensus level for each recommendation was classified as "strongly recommended" (SR) if more than 90% of experts agreed, "recommended" (R) if 75%-90% of experts agreed and "no consensus" (NC) if fewer than 75% agreed. Sarcoma experts from 11 countries within the Sarcoma European-Latin American Network (SELNET) consortium participated, including countries in the Americas and Europe. The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of clinical benefit scale was applied to systemic-treatment recommendations to support prioritization.ResultsThere were 80 SRs, 35 Rs, and 10 NCs among the 125 recommendations issued and completed by 31 multidisciplinary sarcoma experts. The consensus was higher among the 75 higher-priority recommendations (85%, 12%, and 3% for SR, R, and NC, respectively) than in the 50 lower-priority recommendations (32%, 52%, and 16% for SR, R, and NC, respectively).ConclusionThe consensus on 115 of 125 recommendations indicates a high-level of convergence among experts. The SELNET consensus provides a tool for sarcoma multidisciplinary treatment committees during the COVID-19 outbreak.Implications for practiceThe Sarcoma European-Latin American Network (SELNET) consensus on sarcoma prioritization care during the COVID-19 era issued 125 pragmatical recommendations distributed as higher or lower priority to protect critical decisions on sarcoma care during the COVID-19 pandemic. A multidisciplinary team from 11 countries reached consensus on 115 recommendations. The consensus was lower among lower-priority recommendations, which shows reticence to postpone actions even in indolent tumors. The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit scale was applied as support for prioritizing systemic treatment. Consensus on 115 of 125 recommendations indicates a high level of convergence among experts. The SELNET consensus provides a practice tool for guidance in the decisions of sarcoma multidisciplinary treatment committees during the COVID-19 outbreak.
| S-EPMC7543334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHigh levels of aggression towards staff in healthcare settings have been reported. It seems likely that workers in Opioid Substitution Therapy (OST) would be at increased risk of adverse events and their consequences.ObjectivesThis study aimed to establish if practitioners who provide OST are experiencing negative outcomes, specifically aggression, distress, and burnout, and to identify if workload and professional affiliation were associated with these risks.MethodsA survey was conducted of OST practitioners in a single geographical region of New Zealand (population approx. 344,000). The survey asked for demographics (including caseloads), Perception of Patient Aggression Scale New Zealand Revision (POPAS-NZ), Kessler 10 (K10), Short Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Rating Interview (SPRINT), and Abbreviated Maslach Burnout Inventory (aMBI) and two qualitative questions asking about the best and worst aspects of working in OST.ResultsAll recorded OST workers in the region (n = 181) were invited to participate, 95 practitioners responded to the survey (52.4%). This group included pharmacists, doctors, nurses, social workers and addiction workers. Results indicated aggression, distress, and burnout were being experienced by practitioners. Number of patients seen by a practitioner significantly increased risk of aggression (F(1,90) = 14.14, p < 0.001). Psychiatrists were the most at risk profession (p = 0.016). Burnout responses were high for around 20% of practitioners, with low numbers meeting criteria for distress and PTSD. Positive things about working in OST were relationships with patients, appreciating patient outcomes and positive team environments. Negative aspects were patient behaviours, maintaining empathy, and, administration tasks.ConclusionsAggression was a workplace hazard for OST clinicians. Low rates of distress and PTSD symptoms were reported and some evidence of practitioner burnout. Practitioners reported positive relationships, making a difference and teamwork may have been improving this area of mental health work.
| S-EPMC9029918 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPoint prevalence surveys (PPSs) on antibiotic use are useful for understanding different aspects related to prescription patterns in hospitals.MethodsAn adaptation of the WHO methodology for a PPS on antibiotic use was applied. Hospital wards were divided into medical (MED), surgical (SUR), ICUs, gynaecology and obstetrics (GO), high-risk (HR) and mixed wards (MIX). A web application (RedCap©) through a mobile device was used for data collection.ResultsBetween December 2018 and August 2019, 5444 patients in 33 hospitals in five countries were included (10 hospitals in Cuba, 7 in Paraguay, 6 in El Salvador, 5 in Mexico and 5 in Peru). Of these patients, 54.6% received at least one antibiotic, with variations between and within hospitals and countries. Antibiotics were more frequently used in ICUs (67.2%), SUR (64.5%) and MED wards (54.2%), with 51.2% of antibiotics prescribed for community-acquired infections (CAIs), 22.9% for healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), 11.1% for surgical prophylaxis and 6.1% for unknown reasons. Adherence to guidelines was observed in 68.6% of cases (72.8% for CAIs, 72.4% for HAIs and 44.3% for prophylaxis). Third-generation cephalosporins were the class of antibiotics most frequently used (26.8%), followed by carbapenems (10.3%) and fluoroquinolones (8%). Targeted treatments were achieved in 17.3% of cases.ConclusionsAntibiotic use was generally higher than that published in other studies. There is an urgent need to promote and strengthen the antimicrobial stewardship programmes in Latin America.
| S-EPMC9092443 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Telemedicine provides a gateway to specialty care that, otherwise, patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) could have difficulty accessing. Studies have shown that telemedicine provides a valid alternative to in-person visits. There are limited data on the strengths and limitations of telemedicine from the perspective of MS providers. After reviewing the literature and pilot testing questions about telemedicine in provider focus groups, a 34-question survey was created on the Qualtrics web platform. A stratified sample of MS providers throughout the United States was recruited to participate. The survey initiated in November 2019 and closed in November 2020. Survey participants (N = 94) included neurologists (43.0%), advanced practice providers (28.0%), nurses (14.0%), mental health providers (7.0%), social workers (3.0%), rehabilitation providers (4.0%), and pharmacists (1.0%). Clinical video telemedicine (CVT) was the most commonly used platform, and 76.6% of respondents indicated that they used telemedicine to care for patients with MS. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the rate of telemedicine use increased from 44.4% to 84.2%. Most health care providers (93.0%) were "very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied" with their most recent telemedicine visit, and 94.4% of providers reported a desire to continue using telemedicine, although 84.6% found it difficult to perform a full examination. There was a large uptick in the use of telemedicine when the COVID-19 pandemic forced clinics to cease in-person visits. Providers predominantly used CVT; store-and-forward telemedicine and remote patient monitoring have fewer technical issues than CVT and seem to be underused.
| S-EPMC9749831 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCorona pandemic has resulted in a high mortality rate among health care professionals. The purpose of this study was to assess the knowledge and practices of health care providers during this pandemic in Punjab, Pakistan.MethodsA web based cross sectional survey was conducted during 2nd of April to 20th April 2020 targeting health care professionals working in Punjab, Pakistan. A sample of 540 participants was collected using non probability, convenient sampling technique. Data was generated by using on line google forms after taking IRB approval from institution.ResultsAdequate knowledge was found among health care providers regarding diagnostic tests, modes of transmission, incubation period and preventive strategies. Significant association was seen in knowledge of post graduate and MBBS doctors (Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery) regarding viral etiology (p = 0.006), sign and symptoms (p = 0.000), risk factors (p = 0.000) and mortality rates (p = 0.001). Hand washing was considered as best preventive measure by 95% of the health care providers.ConclusionPost graduate doctors have better knowledge regarding corona virus disease transmission, risk factors, incubation period and preventive strategies as compared to undergraduate doctors.
| S-EPMC7505782 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Recent data about clinical features, triggers and management of anaphylaxis in Latin America is lacking. Objective To provide updated and extended data on anaphylaxis in this region. Method An online questionnaire was used, with 67 allergy units involved from 12 Latin-American countries and Spain. Among data recorded, demographic information, clinical features, severity, triggering agents, and treatment were received. Results Eight hundred and seventeen anaphylactic reactions were recorded. No difference in severity, regardless of pre-existing allergy or asthma history was found. Drug induced anaphylaxis (DIA) was most frequent (40.6%), followed by food induced anaphylaxis (FIA) (32.9%) and venom induced anaphylaxis (VIA) (12%). FIA and VIA were more common in children-adolescents. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and beta-lactam antibiotics (BLA) were the most frequent drugs involved. Milk (61.1% of FIA) and egg (15.4% of FIA) in children, and shellfish (25.5% of FIA), fresh fruits (14.2% of FIA), and fish (11.3% of FIA) in adults were the most common FIA triggers. Fire ants were the most frequent insect triggers, and they induced more severe reactions than triggers of FIA and DIA (p < 0.0001). Epinephrine was used in 43.8% of anaphylaxis episodes. After Emergency Department treatment, epinephrine was prescribed to 13% of patients. Conclusions Drugs (NSAIDs and BLA), foods (milk and egg in children and shellfish, fruits and fish in adults) and fire ants were the most common inducers of anaphylaxis. Epinephrine was used in less than half of the episodes emphasizing the urgent need to improve dissemination and implementation of anaphylaxis guidelines.
| S-EPMC9936519 | biostudies-literature