OBJECTIVE: To investigate the global impact of COVID-19 on urological providers and the provision of urological patient care.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted from March 30, 2020 to April 7, 2020. A 55-item questionnaire was developed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on various aspects of urological services. Target respondents were practising urologists, urology trainees, and urology nurses/advanced practice providers.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the degree of reduction in urological services, which was further stratified by the geographical location, degree of outbreak, and nature and urgency of urological conditions. The secondary outcome was the duration of delay in urological services.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 1004 participants responded to our survey, and they were mostly based in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Worldwide, 41% of the respondents reported that their hospital staff members had been diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, 27% reported personnel shortage, and 26% had to be deployed to take care of COVID-19 patients. Globally, only 33% of the respondents felt that they were given adequate personal protective equipment, and many providers expressed fear of going to work (47%). It was of concerning that 13% of the respondents were advised not to wear a surgical face mask for the fear of scaring their patients, and 21% of the respondents were advised not to discuss COVID-19 issues or concerns on media. COVID-19 had a global impact on the cut-down of urological services, including outpatient clinic appointments, outpatient investigations and procedures, and urological surgeries. The degree of cut-down of urological services increased with the degree of COVID-19 outbreak. On average, 28% of outpatient clinics, 30% of outpatient investigations and procedures, and 31% of urological surgeries had a delay of >8 wk. Urological services for benign conditions were more affected than those for malignant conditions. Finally, 47% of the respondents believed that the accumulated workload could be dealt with in a timely manner after the COVID-19 outbreak, but 50% thought the postponement of urological services would affect the treatment and survival outcomes of their patients. One of the limitations of this study is that Africa, Australia, and New Zealand were under-represented.
CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 had a profound global impact on urological care and urology providers. The degree of cut-down of urological services increased with the degree of COVID-19 outbreak and was greater for benign than for malignant conditions. One-fourth of urological providers were deployed to assist with COVID-19 care. Many providers reported insufficient personal protective equipment and support from hospital administration.
PATIENT SUMMARY: Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) has led to significant delay in outpatient care and surgery in urology, particularly in regions with the most COVID-19 cases. A considerable proportion of urology health care professionals have been deployed to assist in COVID-19 care, despite the perception of insufficient training and protective equipment.
METHODS: Medical records of patients who underwent thoracic surgery from March 18, 2020 to May 17, 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. All patients undergoing thoracic surgery were tested for Covid-19 using the reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction method. Patients with malignancy were observed for 10 to 14 days in the ward after testing negative. The healthcare workers donned personal protective equipment for all the cases, and the number of healthcare workers in the operating room was limited to the minimum required.
RESULTS: A total of 44 procedures were performed in 26 thoracic surgeries. All of these procedures were classified as aerosol generating, and the mean duration of the surgery was 130 ± 43 minutes. None of the healthcare workers involved in the surgery were exposed or infected by Covid-19.
CONCLUSION: Covid-19 will be a threat for a long time and thoracic surgeons must continue to provide their services, despite having to deal with aerosol generating procedures, in the new normal. Covid-19 testing of all surgical candidates, using the reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, donning full personal protective equipment for healthcare workers, and carefully planned procedures are among the measures suggested to prevent unnecessary Covid-19 exposure in thoracic surgery.
METHODS: A cross-sectional population survey using an online questionnaire commenced on 14 February 2020. The study participants were residents of Taiwan ages 20 to 70 years. The 6-item state version of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6) was used to assess anxiety symptoms. The questions about preventive measures asked participants about their personal protection, cough etiquette, contact precautions, voluntary quarantine, and prompt reporting. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the factors influencing an increase in the preventive measures scores.
RESULTS: Of a total of 3555 completed responses, a total of 52.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 50.4-53.7) of the respondents reported moderate to severe levels of anxiety symptoms in the past week, whereas 48.8% (95%CI 47.2-50.5) reported moderate to severe anxiety symptoms at the beginning of the outbreak. With a higher score indicating greater anxiety, the median scores for anxiety symptoms in the past week and at the beginning of the outbreak were 46.7 (IQR [interquartile range] 36.7-53.3) and 43.3 (IQR 36.7-53.3), respectively. The median scores for the preventive measures taken in the past week and at the beginning of the outbreak were 26.0 (IQR 21.0-30.0) and 24.0 (IQR 19.0-28.0), respectively, out of a maximum score of 36. In the multivariable analysis, an increased anxiety symptom score from the beginning of the outbreak to the past week (adjusted OR = 7.38, 95%CI 6.28-8.66) was a strongly significant determinant of an increased preventive measures score in the past week compared with the score at the beginning of the outbreak.
CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety and preventive measures scores were high and increased with the epidemic rate. Higher anxiety was associated with an increased use of preventive measures against COVID-19.
METHODS: We adopted multiple adaptive strategies including changes to stratification of surgeries, out-patient services by urgency and hospital alert status, policy writing involving multidisciplinary teams, and redeployment of manpower. Modifications were made to teaching activities and skills training to observe social distancing and mitigate reduced operative learning opportunities. Roles of academic staff were expanded to include non-surgical duties.
RESULTS: The planned strategies and changes to pre COVID-19 practices were successful in ensuring minimal disruption to the delivery of essential paediatric surgical services and training. Despite the lack of established guidelines and literature outlining strategies to address the impact of this pandemic on surgical services, most of the initial measures employed were consistent with that of other surgical centres.
CONCLUSION: Changes to delivery of surgical services and surgical training warrant a holistic approach and a constant re-evaluation of practices with emergence of new experiences and guidelines.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lethality was calculated as the rate of deaths in a determinate moment from the outbreak of the pandemic out of the total of identified positives for COVID-19 in a given area/nation, based on the COVID-John Hopkins University website. Lethality of countries located within the 5th parallels North/South on 6 April and 6 May 2020, was compared with that of all the other countries. Lethality in the European areas of The Netherlands, France and the United Kingdom was also compared to the territories of the same nations in areas with a non-temperate climate.
RESULTS: A lower lethality rate of COVID-19 was found in Equatorial countries both on April 6 (OR=0.72 CI 95% 0.66-0.80) and on May 6 (OR=0.48, CI 95% 0.47-0.51), with a strengthening over time of the protective effect. A trend of higher risk in European vs. non-temperate areas was found on April 6, but a clear difference was evident one month later: France (OR=0.13, CI 95% 0.10-0.18), The Netherlands (OR=0.5, CI 95% 0.3-0.9) and the UK (OR=0.2, CI 95% 0.01-0.51). This result does not seem to be totally related to the differences in age distribution of different sites.
CONCLUSIONS: The study does not seem to exclude that the lethality of COVID-19 may be climate sensitive. Future studies will have to confirm these clues, due to potential confounding factors, such as pollution, population age, and exposure to malaria.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an observational study that will use anonymised online surveys to estimate the prevalence of burnout symptoms at two time points: during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and in 2022 (assumed to be after the pandemic). Gastroenterologists from Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines and Brunei will be invited to participate in the online survey through their national gastroenterology and endoscopy societies. Burnout will be assessed using the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey tool. Supplementary questions will collect demographic and qualitative data. Associations between demographic characteristics and burnout will be tested by multiple regression.
RESULTS: The prevalence of burnout symptoms in gastroenterology during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the baseline prevalence after COVID-19, will be established in the above-mentioned countries. Work-related stressors commonly associated with burnout will be identified, allowing the introduction of preventative measures to reduce burnout in the future.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by the Singhealth Centralised Institutional Review Board (2020/2709). Results will be submitted for publication.
OUTBREAK SITUATION: A stringent screening process at all airports in Malaysia was enforced after the first case outside China was reported in Thailand. Up to April 14, 2020, Malaysia had reported two waves of COVID-19 cases, with the first wave ending successfully within less than 2 months. In early March 2020, the second wave occurred, with worrying situations.
ACTIONS TAKEN: The Government of Malaysia enforced a Movement Control Order starting on March 18, 2020 to break the chain of COVID-19. The media actively spread the hashtag #stayhome. Non-governmental organizations, as well as prison inmates, started to produce personal protective equipment for frontliners. Various organizations hosted fundraising events to provide essentials mainly to hospitals. A provisional hospital was set up and collaborations with healthcare service providers were granted, while additional laboratories were assigned to enhance the capabilities of the Ministry of Health.
ECONOMIC DOWNTURN: An initial financial stimulus amounting to RM 20.0 billion was released in February 2020, before the highlighted PRIHATIN Package, amounting to RM 250 billion, was announced. The PRIHATIN Package has provided governmental support to society, covering people of various backgrounds from students and families to business owners.