Search

BackgroundRegulated breathing facilitates ventilation and reduces breathlessness. However, the effect of Yogic breathing on patients with COVID remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of two breathing protocols, i.e., short breathing technique (SBT) and long duration breathing technique (LBDT).MethodsThree groups including COVID-positive patients, COVID-recovered patients, and healthcare workers (HCWs) were included in the study and segregated into Yoga and control groups. SBT was administered to COVID-positive patients. Both SBT and LBDT were administered to COVID-recovered patients and HCWs. A total of 18 biochemical parameters, a 6-min walk test (6MWT), and a 1-min sit-stand test (1MSST) were assessed on 0th, 7th, and 15th days, where biochemical parameters were the primary outcome. Pre-post estimation of neuropsychological parameters (nine questionnaires) and heart rate variability (HRV) were carried out. The paired t-test or Wilcoxon rank test was applied for pre-post comparison and the Student's t-test or Mann–Whitney U test was used for group comparison. Repeated measures test was applied for data recorded at three time points.ResultsA significant elevation in white blood cell (WBC) count was observed in COVID-positive intervention (p < 0.001) and control groups (p = 0.003), indicating no role of intervention on change in WBC number. WBC count (p = 0.002) and D-dimer (p = 0.002) significantly decreased in the COVID-recovered intervention group. D-dimer was also reduced in HCWs practicing Yogic breathing as compared to controls (p = 0.01). D-dimer was the primary outcome, which remained below 0.50 μg/ml (a cutoff value to define severity) in the COVID-positive yoga group (CYG) and decreased in the COVID-recovered yoga group (RYG) and the HCW yoga group (HYG) after intervention. A 6-min walk test (6MWT) showed an increase in distance covered among the COVID-positive patients (p = 0.01) and HCWs (p = 0.002) after intervention. The high-frequency power (p = 0.01) was found to be reduced in the COVID-positive intervention group. No significant change in neuropsychological parameters was observed.ConclusionYogic breathing lowered D-dimer, which is helpful in reducing thrombosis and venous thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19 besides lowering the chances of vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia in vaccinated individuals. The breathing intervention improved exercise capacity in mild to moderate cases of COVID-19. Further studies can show if such breathing techniques can influence immunity-related genes, as reported recently in a study. We suggest that Yogic breathing may be considered an integrative approach for the management of patients with COVID.Trial registrationhttp://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/login.php, identifier: CTRI/2020/10/028195.

Pandemics like the coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 can cause a significant strain on the healthcare system. Healthcare organizations must be ready with their contingency plans for managing many patients with contagious infectious disease. Ideally, every large hospital should have a facility that can function as a high-level isolation unit. An isolation unit ensures that the healthcare staff and the hospital are equipped to deal with infectious disease outbreaks. Unfortunately, such facilities do not exist in several hospitals, especially in resource-limited settings. In such a scenario, healthcare setups need to convert their existing general structure into an infectious disease facility. Herein, we describe our experience in transforming a general hospital into a functional infectious disease isolation unit.

Background: Health care personnel (HCP) are at an increased risk of acquiring COVID infection during this pandemic especially in developing countries like India, where they work in resource restricted healthcare settings and return to homes, unfit for safe self-isolation. Thus, many HCP were reluctant to accept COVID-19 duty as they were apprehensive about their safety and concerned about carrying the infection home to their families. Methods: We describe a novel multidimensional HCP-centric evidence-based, dynamic policy to address the expressed concerns of HCPs. The hospital was divided into three zones: high, medium, and low risk zones. In the high risk and medium risk zones, we organized pre-duty holistic training, provided on-duty support, ensured post duty HCP welfare, and send them all home after they tested negative for COVID-19. To minimize transmission, we provided appropriate PPE, ensured its proper use, kept all communication paperless. To reduce morbidity, we recruited only willing low risk HCP, aged

Background: Cleanliness is one of the main reasons for poor satisfaction among the patients and their attendants visiting healthcare facilities. Objective: To elevate and transform the sanitation in public sector facilities, a committee was constituted by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India to study the existing system of Housekeeping in Central Government Hospitals and draft the Guidelines for house-keeping services, since no such literature is available in context of the healthcare facilities in India. Methods: The committee ascertained the housekeeping services in three tertiary care hospitals of Central Government and simultaneously conducted the literature review of the best practices in hospital sanitation and housekeeping. Results: Formulated national guidelines focus on various aspects of sanitation services in health facilities, i.e., hospital infrastructure; organization of sanitation services; human resource requirements; qualification, experience and training needs of sanitation staff; roles and responsibilities of different personnel; risk categorization of hospital areas; mechanized cleaning; cleaning agents; cleaning standards and standard operating procedures; effective supervision and monitoring; procurement of these services, etc. Conclusion: Formulated guidelines can be adopted by developing countries aiming for standardizing cleaning practices in public health facilities.

PurposeOutpatient departments (OPDs) need to monitor the quality of care and patient satisfaction for continuous quality improvement. Additionally, there is a need for an increase in focused literature on patient satisfaction and quality of health care at a tertiary care level. The purpose of this paper is to attempt to fulfil this need.Design/methodology/approachA cross‐sectional hospital‐based study among OPD patients was undertaken, where investigators conducted interviews with 120 patients at entry (registration), 120 patients at the OPD clinic (60 doctor‐patient interactions and 60 exit interviews), and a further 120 patients at investigation facilities. Patient satisfaction, client convenience facilities, prescription quality, doctor‐patient interaction and other quality elements as described in the study were given score of 0 or 1.FindingsAt exit, 52 (86.6 percent) patients were satisfied with the OPD care. The mean total quality score was 80.9 percent of the total scores. It was above 90 percent of the total score for patient convenience facilities and for doctor‐patient interaction, 76 percent for the prescription quality of the doctors and 43.3 percent for signage display. The mean score for patient‐doctor interaction was found to be significantly lower (3.6/5) among dissatisfied patients compared to the satisfied patients (4.7/5). Satisfied patients reported a significantly higher consultation time (12.4 minutes) with a doctor compared to dissatisfied patients (8.5 minutes) (p=0.04).Research limitations/implicationsNot using a Likert scale to measure patient satisfaction could be considered a limitation. However, the authors also arrived at similar conclusions with their tools as with the use of Likert scales in other studies. Furthermore, findings are limited to medicine and surgery general OPDs in a tertiary care setting. Any interpretation beyond this frame may be done with caution.Practical implicationsHospitals should encourage good patient‐doctor interaction as it has emerged as the key factor associated with patient satisfaction.Social implicationsQuality improvements in public sector health institutes can lead to better utilization of health care by the poor and compromised sections of society and can lead to a reduction in the inequity associated with health care.Originality/valueThis paper fulfils the need to evaluate quality of hospital care in public sector hospitals at the tertiary care level. The methods and tools used are simple and extensive enough to capture information at multiple service points.