METHODS: Twelve relevant manuscripts were sourced from a total of 7288 search results obtained using PubMed, Medline and Google Scholar. The search keywords used were COVID-19, nasopharyngeal, oropharyngeal, swabs, SARS and CoV2. Original manuscripts were obtained and analysed by all authors. The review included manuscripts which have not undergone rigorous peer-review process in view of the magnitude of the topic discussed.
RESULTS: The viral load of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the upper respiratory tract was significantly higher during the first week and peaked at 4-6 days after onset of symptoms, during which it can be potentially sampled. Nasopharyngeal swab has demonstrated higher viral load than oropharyngeal swab, where the difference in paired samples is best seen at 0-9 days after the onset of illness. Sensitivity of nasopharyngeal swab was higher than oropharyngeal swabs in COVID-19 patients. Patient self-collected throat washing has been shown to contain higher viral load than nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab, with significantly higher sensitivity when compared with paired nasopharyngeal swab.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Routine nasopharyngeal swab of suspected COVID-19 infection should take anatomy of the nasal cavity into consideration to increase patient comfort and diagnostic yield. Routine oropharyngeal swab should be replaced by throat washing which has demonstrated better diagnostic accuracy, and it is safe towards others.
METHODS: Based on the best available clinical knowledge and best practices, an eight member multidisciplinary group of clinical and quality experts undertook the development of a clinical algorithm-based toolkit to guide training and practice for the management of patients with COVID-19. The team followed Horabin and Lewis' seven-step approach in developing the algorithms and a five-step method in writing them. Moreover, we applied Rosenfeld et al's five points to each algorithm.
RESULTS: A set of seven clinical algorithms and one illustrative layout diagram were developed. The algorithms were augmented with documentation forms, data-collection online forms and spreadsheets and an indicators' reference sheet to guide implementation and performance measurement. The final version underwent several revisions and amendments prior to approval.
CONCLUSIONS: A large volume of published literature on the topic of COVID-19 pandemic was translated into a user-friendly, algorithm-based toolkit for the management of patients with COVID-19. This toolkit can be used for training and decision-making to improve the quality of care provided to patients with COVID-19.
PURPOSE: Many countries implemented a lockdown to control the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. We explored whether outpatient attendances to the Fracture Clinic for non-hip fragility fracture and inpatient admissions for hip fracture declined during lockdown, among adults aged 50 years and older, in a large secondary care hospital.
METHODS: In our observational study, we analysed the records of 6681 outpatients attending the Fracture Clinic, for non-hip fragility fractures, and those of 1752 inpatients, admitted for hip fracture, during the time frames of interest. These were weeks 1st to 12th in 2020 ("prior to lockdown"), weeks 13th to 19th in 2020 ("lockdown") and corresponding periods over 2015 to 2019. We tested for differences in mean numbers (standard deviation (SD)) of outpatients and inpatients, respectively, per week, during the time frames of interest, across the years.
RESULTS: Prior to lockdown, in 2020, 63.1 (SD 12.6) outpatients per week attended the Fracture Clinic, similar to previous years (p value 0.338). During lockdown, 26.0 (SD 7.3) outpatients per week attended the Fracture Clinic, fewer than previous years (p value < 0.001); similar findings were observed in both sexes and age groups (all p values < 0.001). During lockdown, 16.1 (SD 5.6) inpatients per week were admitted for hip fracture, similar to previous years (p value 0.776).
CONCLUSION: During lockdown, fewer outpatients attended the Fracture Clinic, for non-hip fragility fractures, while no change in inpatient admissions for hip fracture was observed. This could reflect fewer non-hip fractures and may inform allocation of resources during pandemic.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the psychobehavioral responses to the COVID-19 outbreak and examine their associations with mass and social media exposure.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study among medical and health sciences students from the Fujian Medical University in Fuzhou, China, was conducted between April 6-22, 2020.
RESULTS: A total of 2086 completed responses were received. Multivariable analyses demonstrated that four constructs of the Health Belief Model (HBM)-higher perception of susceptibility (odds ratio [OR] 1.44; 95% CI 1.07-1.94), severity (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.10-1.59), self-efficacy (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.21-2.15), and perceived control or intention to carry out prevention measures (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.09-1.59)-were significantly associated with a higher mass media exposure score, whereas only three constructs-higher perception of severity (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.19-1.72), self-efficacy (OR 1.85; 95% CI 1.38-2.48), and perceived control or intention to carry out prevention measures (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.08-1.58)-were significantly associated with a higher social media exposure score. Lower emotional consequences and barriers to carry out prevention measures were also significantly associated with greater mass and social media exposure. Our findings on anxiety levels revealed that 38.1% (n=795; 95% CI 36.0-40.2) of respondents reported moderate-to-severe anxiety. A lower anxiety level was significantly associated with higher mass and social media exposure in the univariable analyses; however, the associations were not significant in the multivariable analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: In essence, both mass and social media are useful means of disseminating health messages and contribute to the betterment of psychobehavioral responses to COVID-19. Our findings stress the importance of the credibility of information shared through mass and social media outlets and viable strategies to counter misinformation during a pandemic.
METHODS: The ECLB-COVID19 electronic survey was designed by a steering group of multidisciplinary scientists, following a structured review of the literature. The survey was uploaded and shared on the Google online-survey-platform and was promoted by thirty-five research organizations from Europe, North-Africa, Western-Asia and the Americas. All participants were asked for their mental wellbeing (SWEMWS) and depressive symptoms (SMFQ) with regard to "during" and "before" home confinement.
RESULTS: Analysis was conducted on the first 1047 replies (54% women) from Asia (36%), Africa (40%), Europe (21%) and other (3%). The COVID-19 home confinement had a negative effect on both mental-wellbeing and on mood and feelings. Specifically, a significant decrease (p < .001 and Δ% = 9.4%) in total score of the SWEMWS questionnaire was noted. More individuals (+12.89%) reported a low mental wellbeing "during" compared to "before" home confinement. Furthermore, results from the mood and feelings questionnaire showed a significant increase by 44.9% (p < .001) in SMFQ total score with more people (+10%) showing depressive symptoms "during" compared to "before" home confinement.
CONCLUSION: The ECLB-COVID19 survey revealed an increased psychosocial strain triggered by the home confinement. To mitigate this high risk of mental disorders and to foster an Active and Healthy Confinement Lifestyle (AHCL), a crisis-oriented interdisciplinary intervention is urgently needed.
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.