Impact of personal protective equipment use on health care workers’ physical health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundDuring the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, health care workers (HCWs) have been obliged to wear personal protective equipment (PPE). We assessed the impact of PPE use on HCWs’ physical health and we examined factors related to a greater risk of adverse events due to PPE use.MethodsWe applied the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines and the Cochrane criteria. We searched PubMed, Medline, Scopus, ProQuest, CINAHL, and medRxiv from January 1, 2020 to December 27, 2020.ResultsOur review included 14 studies with 11,746 HCWs. The estimated overall prevalence of adverse events among HCWs was 78% with a range from 42.8% to 95.1% among studies. Among others, the following factors were related to the risk of adverse events among HCWs due to PPE use: obesity, diabetes mellitus, smoking, pre-existing headache, longer duration of shifts wearing PPE, increased consecutive days with PPE, and increased exposure to confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients.ConclusionsThe frequency of adverse events among HCWs due to PPE use is very high. Healthcare facilities should take the necessary precautions and change the working conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic to prevent adverse events associated with PPE use and minimize harm to HCWs.     

COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy among health care workers,communication, and policy-making

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy in health care workers (HCWs) contributes to personal and patient risk in contracting COVID-19. Reasons behind hesitancy and how best to improve vaccination rates in HCWs are not clear.MethodsWe adapted a survey using the Health Belief Model framework to evaluate HCW vaccine hesitancy and reasons for choosing for or against COVID-19 vaccination. The survey was sent to 3 large academic medical centers in the Chicagoland area between March and May 2021.ResultsWe received 1974 completed responses with 85% of HCWs receiving or anticipating receiving COVID-19 vaccination. Multivariable logistic regression found HCWs were less likely to receive COVID-19 vaccination if they were Black (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.15-0.80), Republican (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.91), or allergic to any vaccine component (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10-0.70) and more likely to receive if they believed people close to them thought it was important for them to receive the vaccine (OR 5.2, 95% CI 3-8).ConclusionsA sizable number of HCWs remain vaccine hesitant 1 year into the COVID-19 pandemic. As HCWs are positively influenced by colleagues who believe in COVID-19 vaccination, development of improved communication across HCW departments and roles may improve vaccination rates.     

The global impact of COVID-19 on gastrointestinal endoscopy units: An international survey of endoscopists

Background & study aimsCorona virus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has markedly impacted routine medical services including gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. We aim to report the real-life performance in high volume GI endoscopy units during the pandemic.Patients and methodsA web-based survey covering all aspects of daily performance in GI endoscopy units was sent to endoscopy units worldwide. Responses were collected and data were analyzed to reveal the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on endoscopy practice.ResultsParticipants from 48 countries (n = 163) responded to the survey with response rate of 67.35%. The majority (85%) decreased procedure volume by over 50%, and four endoscopy units (2.45%) completely stopped. The top three indications for procedures included upper GI bleeding (89.6%), lower GI bleeding (65.6%) and cholangitis (62.6%). The majority (93.9%) triaged patients for COVID-19 prior to procedure. N95 masks were used in (57.1%), isolation gowns in (74.2%) and head covers in (78.5%). Most centers (65%) did not extend use of N95 masks, however 50.9% of centers reused N95 masks. Almost all (91.4%) centers used standard endoscopic decontamination and most (69%) had no negative pressure rooms. Forty-two centers (25.8%) reported positive cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients and 50 (30.7%) centers reported positive cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection among their healthcare workers.ConclusionsMost GI endoscopy centers had a significant reduction in their volume and most procedures performed were urgent. Most centers used the recommended personal protective equipment (PPE) by GI societies however there is still a possibility of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection in GI endoscopy units.     

SARS-CoV-2 Infection among Medical Institution Faculty and Healthcare Workers in Tokyo,Japan

Objective To consider effective measures against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in medical institutions, this study estimated the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Tokyo, Japan, and determined the specific findings for mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. Methods This study analyzed the results of serologic tests to detect immunoglobulin G antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and evaluated the demographic and clinical characteristics of the faculty and HCWs at a Tokyo medical institution in August 2020. The demographic and clinical characteristics of participants with antibody-positive results were compared to those of participants with antibody-negative results. Materials This study recruited 2,341 faculty and HCWs at a Tokyo medical institution, 21 of whom had a COVID-19 history. Results Of the 2,320 participants without a COVID-19 history, 20 (0.862%) had positive serologic test results. A fever and dysgeusia or dysosmia occurred with greater frequency among the participants with positive test results than in those with negative results [odds ratio (OR), 5.475; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.960-15.293 and OR, 24.158; 95% CI, 2.693-216.720, respectively]. No significant difference was observed in the positivity rate between HCWs providing medical care for COVID-19 patients using adequate protection and other HCWs (OR, 2.514; 95% CI, 0.959-6.588). Conclusion To reduce the risk of COVID-19 spread in medical institutions, faculty and HCWs should follow standard and necessary transmission-based precautions, and those with a fever and dysgeusia or dysosmia should excuse themselves from work as soon as possible.     

Are health care workers following preventive practices in the COVID-19 pandemic properly? - A cross-sectional survey from India

Background and aimsHealth care workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of getting infected with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and suboptimal preventive practices have been identified as an important risk factor in this regard. This study was done to evaluate the preventive practices being followed by health care workers and identify reasons for suboptimal compliance.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was done in HCWs belonging to various occupational roles and socio-cultural backgrounds across India through online platforms and telephonic interviews from July 30, 2020 to August 30, 2020. A scientifically designed and pre-validated questionnaire with good validity (CVR = 0.87, S-CVI/Av = 0.978) and internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient = 0.85) was used.ResultsThe responses of 956 participants were analysed. Various suboptimal practices like touching outer surface of masks, lack of social distancing in cafeteria and duty rooms, inability to wash hands for adequate duration and properly follow steps of hand hygiene, inability to don and doff PPE properly, carrying PPE to duty rooms before completely doffing, use of personal mobile phones during duty and improper sleep were identified. Lack of knowledge, long duty hours, shortage of PPE, high patient workload, and casual attitude regarding own safety were identified as important barriers. Resident doctors and paramedical staff in the age group 18–30 years reported lower adherence.ConclusionsSuboptimal compliance in preventive practices like handling PPE, distancing in cafeteria/duty rooms and hand hygiene is not uncommon in HCWs. Certain barriers are identified which should be addressed to ensure adequate safety of HCWs against COVID-19.     

The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain: characterisation of cases and risk factors for severe outcomes,as at 27 April 2020

BackgroundThe first wave of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic spread rapidly in Spain, one of Europe’s most affected countries. A national lockdown was implemented on 15 March 2020.AimTo describe reported cases and the impact of national lockdown, and to identify disease severity risk factors.MethodsNational surveillance data were used to describe PCR-confirmed cases as at 27 April 2020. We compared case characteristics by severity categories (hospitalisation, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), death) and identified severity risk factors using multivariable regression.ResultsThe epidemic peaked on 20 March. Of 218,652 COVID-19 cases, 45.4% were hospitalised, 4.6% were admitted to ICU and 11.9% died. Among those who died, 94.8% had at least one underlying disease. Healthcare workers (HCWs) represented 22.9% of cases. Males were more likely to have severe outcomes than females. Cardiovascular disease was a consistent risk factor. Patients with pneumonia had higher odds of hospitalisation (odds ratio (OR): 26.63; 95% confidence interval (CI): 25.03–28.33). The strongest predictor of death was age ≥ 80 years (OR: 28.4; 95% CI: 19.85–40.78). Among underlying diseases, chronic renal disease had highest odds of death (OR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.29–1.68).ConclusionsCOVID-19 case numbers began declining 6 days after the national lockdown. The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain had a severe impact on elderly people. Patients with cardiovascular or renal conditions were at higher risk for severe outcomes. A high proportion of cases were HCWs. Enhanced surveillance and control measures in these subgroups are crucial during future COVID-19 waves.     

Calidad de la visión en endoscopia en tiempos de pandemia: ¿Influyen los EPP en la calidad visual durante la endoscopia digestiva?

IntroductionIn the midst of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19) pandemic, health professionals, specifically gastroenterologists, have had to use personal protective equipment (PPE) to reduce contact with droplets and aerosols generated during gastrointestinal endoscopy.ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of the use of two types of PPE on quality of vision during gastrointestinal endoscopy.MethodsA cross-sectional observational pilot study in gastroenterologists who undergo an ophthalmological examination of visual acuity and quality of vision when using two types of PPE. Type #1: 3M N95 1860 green respirator + 3M mono safety glasses + protective screen. Type #2: 3M 6800 full facepiece + 3M NIOSH 7093C HF/P100 filters.ResultsVisual acuity and quality of vison parameters while using the PPE that is routinely used when performing gastrointestinal endoscopy during the pandemic were evaluated. It was found that Modality #1 was associated with decreases of up to 37% in visual acuity, 25% in colour visualisation and 75% in contrast sensitivity among digestive endoscopists within minutes of placement. These figures worsened over the course of the procedure, rising to 75%, 60% and 100%, respectively. Modality #2 was not associated with any deterioration in quality of vision.ConclusionsThe different PPE modalities used during gastrointestinal endoscopy could have an impact on the quality of endoscopy studies performed during the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic.     

SARS-CoV-2 Incidence,signs and symptoms and main risk factors for COVID-19 infection in Health Care Workers: A hospital-wide survey in Salvador,Brazil

BackgroundBrazil is the third country most affected by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the world. Health care workers (HCWs) are at higher risk of infection. Despite the increasing numbers of studies on the topic, There are gaps in the knowledge of characteristics and risk factors for infection of HCWS. This information is important to design preventive strategies and to mitigate the disease impact. The objective of this study was to estimate the incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, to identify factors associated, and to describe symptoms reported by healthcare workers at a tertiary hospital in Salvador, Brazil.MethodsAll HCWs were evaluated in a cross-sectional study conducted between May and September 2020, using self-administered questionnaires, and screening all participants for SARS-COV-2 IgG and IgM antibodies by rapid tests. Reactive IgG samples were retested by ELISA and IgM-positive test had a saliva sample retest by RT-PCR. Univariate associations were estimated by a non-adjusted incidence proportion ratio. Variables associated with COVID-19 incidence at p < 0.20 were selected for inclusion in a binary logistic regression model.ResultsA total of 2083 HCWs were included, mean age 41±10 years, 71.8% women, and 77.8% non-white. Of these, 271 (13.0%) and 25 (1.2%) HCWs tested positive for IgG and IgM SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, respectively, and three had a positive RT-PCR. Ancillary work [Odds Ratio (OR): 4.96], elementary education (OR: 2.91), high school education (OR: 2.89), and catholic religion (OR: 2.16) were associated with an increased likelihood of a positive IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Anosmia [Incidence Proportion Ratio (IPR): 7.41] and ageusia (IPR:8.51) were the most frequent associated symptoms.ConclusionHCWs with low mean family income, lower level of schooling, ancillary workor being black had a significantly higher likelihood of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Social vulnerability was an important risk factor for COVID-19 infection.     

Risk of COVID-19 in healthcare workers working in intensive care setting

BackgroundThe higher risk of COVID-19 in health care workers (HCWs) is well-known. However, the risk within HCWs is not fully understood. The objective was to compare the COVID-19 risk in intensive care unit (ICU) vs non-ICU locations.MethodsA prospective surveillance study was conducted among HCWs at a large tertiary care facility in Riyadh between March 1st to November 30th, 2020. HCWs included both clinical (provide direct patient care) and nonclinical positions (do not provide direct patient care).ResultsA total 1,594 HCWs with COVID-19 were included; 103 (6.5%) working in ICU and 1,491 (93.5%) working in non-ICU locations. Compared with non-ICU locations, ICU had more nurses (54.4% vs 22.1%, P < .001) and less support staff (2.9% vs 53.1%, P < .001). COVID-19 infection was similar in ICU and non-ICU locations (9.0% vs 9.8%, P = .374). However, it was significantly higher in ICU nurses (12.3% vs 6.5%, P < .001). Support staff had higher risk than other HCWs, irrespective of ICU working status (15.1% vs 7.2%, P < 0.001). The crude relative risk of COVID-19 in ICU vs non-ICU locations was 0.92, 95% confidence interval ( was 0.76-1.11 (P = .374). However, relative risk adjusted for professional category was significantly increased to 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.50 (P = .036).ConclusionsICU had a significantly higher risk of COVID-19 infection only after adjusting for the distribution and risk of different professional categories. The latter is probably determined by both exposure level and protection practices. The finding underscores the importance of strict implementation of preventive measures among all HCWs, including those performing nonclinical services.     

COVID-19 in the endoscopy unit: How likely is transmission of infection? Results from an international,multicenter study

BACKGROUND Coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19) significantly affected endoscopy practice,as gastrointestinal endoscopy is considered a risky procedure for transmission of infection to patients and personnel of endoscopy units(PEU).AIM To assess the impact of COVID-19 on endoscopy during the first European lockdown(March-May 2020).METHODS Patients undergoing endoscopy in nine endoscopy units across six European countries during the period of the first European lockdown for COVID-19(MarchMay 2020) were included. Prior to the endoscopy procedure, participants were stratified as low-or high-risk for potential COVID-19 infection according to the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy(ESGE) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates(ESGENA) joint statement, and contacted 7-14 d later to assess COVID-19 infection status. PEU were questioned regarding COVID-19 symptoms and/or infection via questionnaire, while information regarding hospitalizations, intensive care unitadmissions and COVID-19-related deaths were collected. The number of weekly endoscopies at each center during the lockdown period was also recorded.RESULTS A total of 1267 endoscopies were performed in 1222 individuals across nine European endoscopy departments in six countries. Eighty-seven(7%) were excluded because of initial positive testing. Of the 1135 pre-endoscopy low risk or polymerase chain reaction negative for COVID-19, 254(22.4%) were tested post endoscopy and 8 were eventually found positive, resulting in an infection rate of 0.7% [(95%CI: 0.2-0.12]. The majority(6 of the 8 patients, 75%) had undergone esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Of the 163 PEU, 5 [3%;(95%CI: 0.4-5.7)] tested positive during the study period. A decrease of 68.7%(95%CI: 64.8-72.7) in the number of weekly endoscopies was recorded in all centers after March 2020. All centers implemented appropriate personal protective measures(PPM) from the initial phases of the lockdown.CONCLUSION COVID-19 transmission in endoscopy units is highly unlikely in a lockdown setting, provided endoscopies are restricted to emergency cases and PPM are implemented.     

Risk of COVID 19 in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases compared to a control population

BackgroundIt is unclear whether patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at increased risk of COVID-19.ObjectivesThis observational study compared the prevalence of COVID-19 symptoms, diagnosis and hospitalization in IBD patients with a control population with non-inflammatory bowel disorders.MethodsThis multicentre study, included 2733 outpatients (1397 IBD patients and 1336 controls), from eight major gastrointestinal centres in Lombardy, Italy. Patients were invited to complete a web-based questionnaire regarding demographic, historical and clinical features over the previous 6 weeks. The prevalence of COVID-19 symptoms, diagnosis and hospitalization for COVID-19 was assessed.Results1810 patients (64%) responded to the questionnaire (941 IBD patients and 869 controls). IBD patients were significantly younger and of male sex than controls. NSAID use and smoking were more frequent in controls. IBD patients were more likely treated with vitamin-D and vaccinated for influenza. Highly probable COVID-19 on the basis of symptoms and signs was less frequent in the IBD group (3.8% vs 6.3%; OR:0.45, 95%CI:0.28–0.75). IBD patients had a lower rate of nasopharyngeal swab-PCR confirmed diagnosis (0.2% vs 1.2%; OR:0.14, 95%CI:0.03–0.67). There was no difference in hospitalization between the groups (0.1% vs 0.6%; OR:0.14, 95%CI:0.02–1.17).ConclusionIBD patients do not have an increased risk of COVID-19 specific symptoms or more severe disease compared with a control group of gastroenterology patients.     

Vaccination Hesitancy among Health-Care-Workers in Academic Hospitals Is Associated with a 12-Fold Increase in the Risk of COVID-19 Infection: A Nine-Month Greek Cohort Study

Health-Care-Workers (HCWs) are considered at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection. We sought to compare rates and severity of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs conducting a retrospective cohort study in two tertiary Academic Hospitals, namely Laiko and Attikon, in Athens, Greece. Vaccinated by BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA vaccine and unvaccinated HCWs were included and data were collected between 1 January 2021 and 15 September 2021. Overall, 2921 of 3219 HCWs without a history of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection were fully vaccinated during the study period (90.7% at each Hospital). Demographic characteristics were comparable between 102/2921 (3.5%) vaccinated and 88/298 (29.5%) unvaccinated HCWs with COVID-19, although age and occupation differed significantly. None were in need of hospital admission in the vaccinated Group, whereas in the unvaccinated Group 4/88 (4.5%) were hospitalized and one (1.1%) died. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that lack of vaccination was an independent risk factor for COVID-19 with an odds ratio 11.54 (95% CI: 10.75–12.40). Vaccination hesitancy among HCWs resulted to highly increased COVID-19 rates; almost one in three unvaccinated HCWs was SARS-CoV-2 infected during the 9-month period. The absolute need of vaccination of HCWs, including boosting dose, is highlighted. Evidence should be used appropriately to overcome any hesitancy.     

COVID-19 vaccine uptake and hesitancy opinions from frontline health care and social care workers: Survey data from 37 countries

Background and aimsVaccine hesitancy is an ongoing major challenge. We aimed to assess the uptake and hesitancy of the COVID-19 vaccination.MethodsA short online survey was posted between April 12 to July 31, 2021 targeted at health and social care workers (HCWs) across the globe.Results275 from 37 countries responded. Most were hospital or primary care physicians or nurses, 59% women, aged 18–60 years, and 21% had chronic conditions with most prevalent being diabetes, hypertension, and asthma. We found that most HCWs (93%) had taken or willing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. While 7% were vaccine hesitant (mainly women aged 30–39 years), respondents main concerns was the safety or potential side effects. Vaccine willing respondents raised concerns of unequal access to the COVID-19 vaccination in some countries, and highlighted that the only solution to overcoming COVID-19 infections was the vaccine booster doses given annually and free mass vaccination.ConclusionsThis study found that the majority of the frontline HCWs are willing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Further promotion of the COVID-19 vaccine would reassure and persuade HCWs to become vaccinated.     

The impact of endoscopy and specialist care on 30-day mortality among patients with acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: An Italian population-based study

ObjectiveTo analyze the effects of endoscopy and care in a gastroenterology ward on 30-day mortality among Italian patients hospitalized for acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH).MethodsWe conducted a population-based study based on administrative data contained in the Regional Hospital Information System (RHIS) for the Lazio Region (Italy). We identified all hospitalizations with a main diagnosis of UGIH during period 2000–2005. Discharge data were analyzed for procedures performed, ward where the patient was cared for, comorbidities, vital status at discharge. Vital status 30 days after admission was cross-checked with the Regional Registry of Causes of Death. Logistic regression models were performed taking into account patients’ risk factors (OR and C.I. 95%).ResultsA total of 13,427 hospitalizations for UGIH (mean patient age, 68 years; 60% males) were identified. The 30-day mortality was 6.9%. Significantly lower rates were observed among hospitalizations that included endoscopy (OR 0.30, 95% C.I. 0.26–0.34), specialist care (OR 0.55, 95% C.I. 0.37–0.82), or both (OR 0.12, 95% C.I. 0.07–0.22). The protective effects of endoscopy and specialist care remained strong after adjustment for potential risk factors.ConclusionsEndoscopy, per se, reduces mortality among patients hospitalized for UGIH, and care in a gastroenterology ward may offer additional protective effects.     

新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情期间全国儿科消化内镜开展情况调查

目的总结新型冠状病毒肺炎（coronavirus disease 2019,COVID-19）疫情期间全国儿科消化内镜开展诊疗经验,为下一步临床诊疗工作提供防控指导。方法中华医学会消化内镜学分会儿科协作组对全国47所儿科消化内镜中心2020年1月24日—3月1日内镜诊治开展情况以问卷调查表的形式进行了调查。结果疫情期间,儿科消化内镜中心采用了停止常规内镜诊疗、严格术前流行病学排查、增加特殊术前检查、术前内镜医师会诊制度、候诊区管理、精简工作人员、不同岗位不同防护级别、特殊麻醉管理、重视诊疗区域消毒、加强内镜清洗消毒及医疗废物管理等防控措施。47所医院在2020年1月24日—3月1日38 d内共完成536例儿科消化内镜诊疗,其中治疗210例（39.2%）,诊断326例（60.8%）,未发生一例院内感染。结论COVID-19疫情期间,全国儿科消化内镜中心根据国家疫情防控政策及相关指南要求,结合儿科特点及医院实际情况,在严格把握内镜诊疗指征、严密防护的前提下,安全开展了儿科消化内镜诊疗。     

The impact of covid-19 pandemic on urgent endoscopy in Italy: a nation-wide multicenter study

Abstract

Objective: COVID-19 pandemic has seriously affected Italy. Radical changes occurred in the Italian NHS and thus in GI departments, as only urgent endoscopies were guaranteed. The study aimed to report how the demand for urgent endoscopy changed during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy and to evaluate the appropriateness of urgent referrals in the Endoscopy Unit.

Material and methods: Nation-wide, cross-sectional survey study in 54 Italian GI Units. Data were collected regarding urgent endoscopies (EGD, CS, ERCP) in two different time periods: March 2019 and March 2020.

Results: Thirty-five (64.8%) GI endoscopy Units responded to the survey. The entity of reduction of overall urgent EGDs and CSs performed in March 2020 versus March 2019 was statistically significant: 541 versus 974 (?80%), p?<?.001 for EGD and 171 versus 265 (?55%), p?<?.008, for CS, respectively. No statistically significant reduction of urgent ERCP performed in March 2020 versus March 2019 was found. The increase in overall diagnostic yield for urgent EGD in March 2020 versus March 2019 was 7.3% (CI [0.028–0.117], p?=?.001). No statistically significant difference in diagnostic yield for CS between 2019 and 2020 was found.

Conclusion: The study showed a statistically significant reduction of urgent EGD and CS performed during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, in March 2020, compared to March 2019. The diagnostic yield of urgent EGD performed in March 2020 was significantly higher than that of March 2019. No statistically significant difference was found in terms of diagnostic yield of urgent CS between March 2020 and March 2019.     

Endoscopy mitigation strategy with telemedicine and low-cost device use for COVID-19 prevention: A fourth-level Colombian center experience

Background and study aimsThe COVID-19 outbreak has reorganized surgical team conditions regarding endoscopy. The number of interventions has been reduced, the number of healthcare professionals must be limited, and both the patients and physicians are more protected than ever.Patients and MethodsIn the highest peak of contagion in Colombia, endoscopy, colonoscopy, and esophagogastroduodenoscopy were performed using a low-cost disposable device. A total of 1388 procedures were performed. Every patient was assessed for symptoms via a telephone call, at the health center, and after the procedure, following specific attention routes.ResultsAfter procedure follow-up, no positive cases of COVID-19 were noted.ConclusionThe methodology reduced the risk of infection during the COVID-19 pandemic.     

Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) position paper on the non-anaesthesiologist administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy

Propofol sedation by non-anesthesiologists in GI endoscopy, despite generally considered a safe procedure, is still a matter of debate. Benefits of propofol sedation include rapid onset of action, greater patient comfort and fast recovery with prompt discharge from the endoscopy unit.The use of propofol for sedation in GI endoscopy, preceded by dedicated training courses, has been approved by several anaesthesiologist and gastroenterologist societies but an Italian position paper taking into account the Italian law is lacking.In the present document, the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) Sedation Group, on behalf of the SIED, presents a series of updated position statements concerning propofol sedation in GI endoscopy. The paper summarizes the advantages of propofol, how it should be administered and how patients should be monitored. Moreover, details concerning proper training of non-anaesthesiologist personnel involved in its use are provided. Protocols concerning propofol use s must be shared with the hospital's anaesthesiology staff and approved by the hospital’s Executive Director.     

Hand hygiene compliance of healthcare workers before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A long-term follow-up study

BackgroundInformation about the long-term effects of hand hygiene (HH) interventions is needed. We aimed to investigate the change in HH compliance (HHC) of healthcare workers (HCWs) once a data-driven feedback intervention was stopped, and to assess if the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the HH behavior.MethodsWe conducted an observational, extension trial in a surgical department between January 2019–December 2020. Doctors (n = 19) and nurses (n = 53) were included and their HHC was measured using an electronic HH monitoring system (EHHMS). We compared the changes in HHC during 3 phases: (1) Intervention (data presentation meetings), (2) Prepandemic follow-up and (3) Follow-up during COVID-19.ResultsThe HHC during phase 1 (intervention), phase 2 (prepandemic follow-up) and phase 3 (follow-up during COVID-19) was 58%, 46%, and 34%, respectively. Comparison analyses revealed that the HHC was significantly lower in the prepandemic follow-up period (46% vs 58%, P < .0001) and in the follow-up period during COVID-19 (34% vs 58%, P < .0001) compared with the intervention period (phase 1).ConclusionsDespite the COVID-19 pandemic, the HHC of the HCWs significantly decreased over time once the data presentation meetings from management stopped. This study demonstrates that HCWs fall back into old HH routines once improvement initiatives are stopped.