Search

Background: The rapid authorization and widespread rollout of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States demonstrated a need for additional data on vaccine side effects, both to provide insight into the range and severity of side effects that might be expected in medically-diverse populations as well as to inform decision-making and combat vaccine hesitancy going forward. Here we report the results of a survey of 4825 individuals from southcentral Kentucky who received two doses of either the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) or Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine between December 14, 2020 and May 1, 2021. As new versions of the vaccine are rolled-out, local initiatives such as this may offer a means to combat vaccine hesitancy in reference to COVID-19, but are also important as we face new viral threats that will necessitate a rapid vaccine rollout, and to combat a growing public distrust of vaccines in general., Methods: Individuals that received two doses of either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 between December 14, 2020 and May 1, 2021 were sent a survey, created by the research team. Respondents were asked to rate the incidence and severity of 15 potential side effects and two related outcomes following each of their two doses of the vaccine. All statistical analyses were carried out using SYSTAT, version 13. The data were analyzed utilizing a range of statistical tests, including chi-square tests of association, Cohen's h, Kruskal-Wallis test one-way nonparametric ANOVA, least-squares regression, and Wilcoxon signed-ranks test. Significance was assessed using Bonferroni-adjusted criteria within families of tests., Results: In general, the pattern and severity in side effects was similar to both clinical trial data as well as other published studies. Responses to the mRNA-1273 vaccine were more severe than to BNT162b2, though all were generally in the mild to moderate category. Individuals who reported having previously tested positive for COVID-19 reported stronger responses following the first dose of either vaccine relative to COVID-naïve individuals. The reported severity to the COVID-19 vaccine was positively correlated with self-reported responses to other vaccines., Conclusions: Our findings allow broad-scale estimates of the nature and severity of reactions one might expect following vaccination within a clinically-diverse community, and provide a context for addressing vaccine hesitancy in communities such as ours, where locally-generated data and communication may be more influential than national trends and statistics in convincing individuals to become vaccinated. Further, we argue this community-based approach could be important in the future in three key ways: 1) as new boosters and modified vaccines re-volatilize vaccine hesitancy, 2) as new vaccines receive similar testing and rapid authorization, and 3) to combat vaccine hesitancy in other arenas (e.g., annual vaccines, childhood vaccines)., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Abstract: The pandemic of the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has caused an unprecedented mobilization of the United States' healthcare workforce. In addition to working extended hours under increased duress, healthcare professionals (HCP) of all stations have been making use of various types of personal protective equipment (PPE) with greatly increased frequency and duration. Current data regarding adverse skin reactions as a possible consequence of PPE use are, particularly in the United States, largely insufficient for policy-makers to make informed decisions regarding daily PPE use among HCP.The research vehicle employed by this study is a cross-sectional 25-item survey distributed via email to workers currently employed by a five-hospital system in southcentral Kentucky. This survey was used to collect information from hospital workers of all professional roles about their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on reports of adverse dermatological reactions and associated risk factors.Out of 879 respondents, 54.4% reported some type of skin irritation reaction. Skin irritation was significantly more prevalent among medical and medical support staff than non-medical hospital workers, with the highest prevalence among Certified Nurse Assistant (CNAs). Among clinical workers, those in dedicated COVID-19 units reported the highest prevalence of adverse skin reaction. The most common complaint was dryness/scaling of the skin (306 out of 439, 69.7%), and the most common location was the facial cheeks (305 out of 516, 59.1%). Among those who reported skin irritation, the average self-reported severity of skin reaction (on a scale of 1-5) was 2.00 ± 0.05, and the mean total days of skin reaction per month was 11.70 ± 0.39 days. Total days of irritation per month was found to be significantly related to "total days of PPE use per month," "hours of PPE use per day," "frequency of hand washing," and "use of disinfecting UV irradiation." Severity of skin reaction was found to be significantly related to "hours per day of PPE use," "consecutive days of PPE use," and "female sex."Clinical workers that put in the most face-to-face time with patients, and those in dedicated COVID-19 units, had the highest risk of adverse skin reaction. Overall, skin reactions were found to be mild, even in those hospital workers with the heaviest PPE use. Because the widespread and consistent use of facial masks in public settings has become a key tool in our protracted struggle with SARS-CoV-2, these findings may help to ameliorate concerns that everyday facial mask and/or other PPE usage contributes to significant dermatologic morbidity among both medical professionals and public citizens., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interests to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background and Objectives: During Corona Virus Disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic, it has been estimated that approximately 10% of health care professionals (HCPs) have been diagnosed contacting  COVID-19. Aerosol-generating procedures have led to change in safety practices among HCPs. We thus evaluated the efficacy of the endoscopic safety measures among HCPs posted in the endoscopy unit., Methods: In this retrospective analysis, all endoscopic procedures performed over a period of 4 months, from 1 April to 31 July 2020 were included. We noted indications and number of COVID-positive procedures as well as comprehensive screening of HCPs posted in our endoscopy unit. The aim of the study was to evaluate the incidence and outcome of COVID-19 among HCPs., Results: Three thousand four hundred and sixty procedures were included in the analysis. Indications were divided as urgent (n = 190, 5.49%), semi-urgent (n = 553, 16%) and non-urgent group (n = 2717, 78.52%). Thirty-four procedures (0.98%) were done on diagnosed COVID-19 patients. The most common indications were gastrointestinal bleed (n = 12/34, 35.30%) followed by biliary sepsis (n = 9/34, 26.5%). Among the HCPs, the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 was 6.58% (n = 5/76). All HCPs recovered with excellent outcomes. A comprehensive screening showed 7.90% (n = 6/76) HCPs having Immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody in their sera., Conclusion: Addition of safety measures in endoscopy leads to low risk of transmission among HCPs., (© 2021. Indian Society of Gastroenterology.)

Introduction  The Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has led to drastic change in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy practice. Endoscopy is an aerosol-generating procedure. COVID-19 testing prior to endoscopy can reduce transmission by delaying non-emergency endoscopies in positive patients. There is scarcity of literature to support such protocols. We aimed to study the clinical impact of universal testing for COVID-19 before therapeutic endoscopy. Methods  This is retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained data. All patients requiring therapeutic endoscopy were enrolled between June 15 to July 15, 2020. Clinical profile, indication, endoscopic intervention, and outcome of patients tested positive for COVID-19 real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT PCR) or CT chest suggestive of CO-RADS 3 or more were included for analysis. Results  Out of 772 patients scheduled for endoscopic interventions, 26 (3.34%) patients had COVID-19 infection with mean age (range) of 48.19 (3–75) years. Eight (30.8%) were females. Of them, seven (26.9%) patients underwent emergency endoscopy, and another seven (26.9%) patients underwent endoscopy after minimum of 2 weeks waiting period. Two deaths were seen in patients who underwent emergency interventions which were unrelated to endoscopy. One patient, who was planned for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for choledocholithiasis, developed acute biliary pancreatitis in the waiting period. Conclusion  We suggest use of universal testing for COVID-19 by RT-PCR before endoscopic intervention. Endoscopy can be postponed for 2 weeks with marginal risk of adverse events during the waiting period in nonemergency indications. However, this approach needs to be tailored as per local needs, resources availability, and indication of endoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The rise of COVID-19 and the issue of a mandatory stay-at-home order in March 2020 led to the use of a direct-to-consumer model for cardiology telehealth in Kentucky. Kentucky has poor health outcomes and limited broadband connectivity. Given these and other practice-specific constraints, the region serves as a unique context to explore the efficacy of telehealth in cardiology. Objective: This study aims to determine the limitations of telehealth accessibility, patient satisfaction with telehealth relative to in-person visits, and the perceived advantages and disadvantages to telehealth. Our intent was two-fold. First, we wanted to conduct a rapid postassessment of the mandated overhaul of the health care delivery system, focusing on a representative specialty field, and how it was affecting patients. Second, we intend to use our findings to make suggestions about the future application of a telehealth model in specialty fields such as cardiology. Methods: We constructed an online survey in Qualtrics following the Patient Assessment of Communication During Telemedicine, a patient self-report questionnaire that has been previously developed and validated. We invited all patients who had a visit scheduled during the COVID-19 telehealth-only time frame to participate. Questions included factors for declining telehealth, patient satisfaction ratings of telehealth and in-person visits, and perceived advantages and disadvantages associated with telehealth. We also used electronic medical records to collect no-show data for in-person versus telehealth visits to check for nonresponse bias. Results: A total of 224 respondents began our survey (11% of our sample of 2019 patients). Our recruitment rate was 86% (n=193) and our completion rate was 62% (n=120). The no-show rate for telehealth visits (345/2019, 17%) was nearly identical to the typical no-show rate for in-person appointments. Among the 32 respondents who declined a telehealth visit, 20 (63%) cited not being aware of their appointment as a primary factor, and 15 (47%) respondents cited their opinion that a telehealth appointment was not medically necessary as at least somewhat of a factor in their decision. Both in-person and telehealth were viewed favorably, but in-person was rated higher across all domains of patient satisfaction. The only significantly lower mean score for telehealth (3.7 vs 4.2, P =.007) was in the clinical competence domain. Reduced travel time, lower visit wait time, and cost savings were seen as big advantages. Poor internet connectivity was rated as at least somewhat of a factor by 33.0% (35/106) of respondents. Conclusions: This study takes advantage of the natural experiment provided by the COVID-19 pandemic to assess the efficacy of telehealth in cardiology. Patterns of satisfaction are consistent across modalities and show that telehealth appears to be a viable alternative to in-person appointments. However, we found evidence that scheduling of telehealth visits may be problematic and needs additional attention. Additionally, we include a note of caution that patient satisfaction with telehealth may be artificially inflated during COVID-19 due to external health concerns connected with in-person visits. JMIR Cardio 2021;5(1):e25074 doi:10.2196/25074 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]