Search

Background: Ugandan health authorities declared an outbreak of Ebola disease (EBOD), caused by the Sudan virus, in September 2022. A rapid review was conducted to update the Public Health Agency of Canada's guidelines for infection prevention and control measures for EBOD in healthcare settings to prepare for potential introduction of cases., Objective: Summarize the available evidence on personal protective equipment (PPE) use by healthcare workers (HCWs) to prevent exposure to and transmission of viral hemorrhagic fevers (VHFs), including Ebola virus., Methods: Electronic databases were searched to identify peer-reviewed evidence published from July 2014-October 2022. Peer-reviewed primary studies and literature reviews, in English or French, reporting on PPE for VHFs and filoviruses in the healthcare context were eligible for inclusion. Literature review processes were conducted by two reviewers using DistillerSR® systematic review software and the Public Health Agency of Canada's Infection Prevention and Control Critical Appraisal Toolkit. An environmental scan of grey literature was also conducted to inform the rapid review., Results: The database search yielded 417 citations and 29 studies were considered eligible for critical appraisal. In total, 20 studies were included in the narrative synthesis of evidence. The evidence base was limited regarding comparative effectiveness of types of PPE for preventing exposure to and transmission of VHFs to HCWs. Four studies reported on exposure to and transmission of a VHF. Sixteen studies provided data on other relevant topics, such as simulated contamination and lab-based tests of PPE integrity., Conclusion: There is limited evidence with which to draw conclusions on the comparative effectiveness of PPE to prevent exposure to and transmission of VHFs to HCWs. Additional research is required to determine the optimal PPE to protect HCWs from exposure to and transmission of VHFs., Competing Interests: Competing interests None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Objectives: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are often created through collaboration among organizations. The use of inconsistent terminology may cause poor communication and delays. This study aimed to develop a glossary of terms related to collaboration in guideline development., Study Design and Setting: A literature review of collaborative guidelines was performed to develop an initial list of terms related to guideline collaboration. The list of terms was presented to the members of the Guideline International Network Guidelines Collaboration Working Group, who provided presumptive definitions for each term and proposed additional terms to be included. The revised list was subsequently reviewed by an international, multidisciplinary panel of expert stakeholders. Recommendations received during this pre-Delphi review were implemented to augment an initial draft glossary. The glossary was then critically evaluated and refined through two rounds of Delphi surveys and a virtual consensus meeting with all panel members as Delphi participants., Results: Forty-nine experts participated in the pre-Delphi survey, and 44 participated in the two-round Delphi process. Consensus was reached for 37 terms and definitions., Conclusion: Uptake and utilization of this guideline collaboration glossary by key organizations and stakeholder groups may facilitate collaboration among guideline-producing organizations by improving communication, minimizing conflicts, and increasing guideline development efficiency., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The development of rigorous, high-quality clinical guidelines increases the need for resources and skilled personnel within guideline-producing organizations. While collaboration between organizations provides a unique opportunity to pool resources and save time and effort, the collaboration presents its own unique challenges., Objective: To assess the perceived needs and current challenges of guideline producers worldwide related to guideline development and collaboration efforts., Design: Survey questions were developed by the Guidelines International Network and the US GRADE Network, pilot-tested among attendees of a guideline development workshop, and disseminated electronically using convenience and snowball sampling methods., Participants: A total of 171 respondents representing 30 countries and more than 112 unique organizations were included in this analysis., Main Measures: The survey included free-response, multiple-choice, and seven-point Likert-scale questions. Questions assessed respondents' perceived value of guidelines, resource availability and needs, guideline development processes, and collaboration efforts of their organization., Key Results: Time required to develop high-quality systematic reviews and guidelines was the most relevant need (median=7; IQR=5.5-7). In-house resources to conduct literature searches (median=4; IQR=3-6) and the resources to develop rigorous guidelines rapidly (median=4; IQR=2-5) were perceived as the least available resources. Difficulties reconciling differences in guideline methodology (median=6; IQR=4-7) and the time required to establish collaborative agreements (median=6; IQR=5-6) were the most relevant barriers to collaboration between organizations. Results also indicated a general need for improvement in conflict of interest (COI) disclosure policies., Conclusion: The survey identified organizational challenges in supporting rigorous guideline development, including the time, resources, and personnel required. Connecting guideline developers to existing databases of high-quality systematic reviews and the use of freely available online platforms may facilitate guideline development. Guideline-producing organizations may also consider allocating resources to hiring or training personnel with expertise in systematic review methodologies or utilizing resources more effectively by establishing collaborations with other organizations., (© 2021. This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Objective: Collaboration between groups can facilitate the development of high-quality guidelines. While collaboration is often desirable, misunderstandings can occur. One method to minimize misunderstandings is the pre-specification of terms of engagement in a memorandum of understanding (MOU). This study considered when an MOU may be most helpful, and which key elements should be included., Study Design and Setting: An international panel of representatives from guideline groups was convened. A literature review to identify publications and other documents relevant to the establishment of MOUs between two or more guideline groups, supplemented by available source documents, was used to inform development of a draft MOU resource. This was iteratively refined until consensus was achieved., Results: The level of detail in an MOU may vary based on institutional preferences and the particular collaboration. Elements within an MOU include those pertaining to: (1) scope and purpose; (2) leadership and team; (3) methods and commitment; (4) review and endorsement; and (5) publication and dissemination., Conclusion: Since groups may have different expectations regarding how a collaboration will unfold, an MOU may mitigate preventable misunderstandings. The result may be a higher likelihood of producing a guideline without disruption and delay., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Data are limited on the impact of the 2009 H1N1 influenza A pandemic on health care worker (HCW) vaccination, illness, absenteeism, and personal protective equipment (PPE) use., Methods: A survey was completed by HCWs from 14 hospitals participating in the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program who provided direct care to patients with pH1N1 influenza in high-risk units between September and December 2009., Results: Surveys were returned from 986 HCWs (80% nurses, 14% respiratory therapists, and 6% physicians). HCWs working in an intensive care unit (78%) or a designated influenza ward (67%) were more compliant with wearing an N95 respirator for aerosol-generating medical procedures than those working in an emergency department (47%; P < .001). HCWs who worked in health care for >11 years were more compliant with wearing protective eyewear than those who worked for ≤11 years (69% vs 54%; P < .001). A total of 815 HCWs (83%) reported having received the pH1N1 influenza vaccine, and 372 (38%) reported having received the 2009-2010 seasonal influenza vaccine. Influenza-like illness was reported by 236 (24%) HCWs, 170 of whom (72%) reported missing work., Conclusions: Experience working in health care improves PPE use and HCWs in emergency departments should be targeted for interventions to improve PPE compliance. pH1N1 influenza vaccine coverage was high, but seasonal influenza vaccine coverage was low, and significant HCW illness and absenteeism were reported., (Crown Copyright © 2012. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)