Search

Hospital-acquired infections, including central line associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI), are an ongoing source of cost, morbidity, and mortality worldwide. This article presents a summary of the impact of the recent SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on CLABSI incidence, an overview of current standard-of-care practices for reduction of CLABSI, and a look toward future changes in bacteremia metrics and challenges in prevention., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr C.J. Torres has no conflict of interest to disclose. Dr M.E. Rupp notes potential conflicts of interest in the form of clinical research support from ContraFect, Magnolia Medical Technology, DCRI-NIH; serving as consultant for 3M, Becton Dickinson, and Teleflex; Scientific advisory board for Citius pharmaceuticals; clinical trial adjudication committee for Armata Pharmaceuticals. Dr Cawcutt has no conflict of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: COVID-19 is a highly challenging infectious disease. Research ethics committees (RECs) have challenges reviewing research on this new pandemic disease under a tight timeline and public pressure. This study aimed to assess RECs' responses and review during the outbreak in seven Asian countries where the Strategic Initiative for Developing Capacity in Ethical Review (SIDCER) networks are active., Methods: The online survey was conducted in seven Asian countries from April to August 2021. Two sets of online questionnaires were developed, one set for the chairs/secretaries and another set for the REC members.The REC profiles obtained from the REC members are descriptive in nature. Data from the chairs/secretaries were compared between the RECs with external quality assessment (SIDCER-Recognized RECs, SR-RECs) and non-external quality assessment (Non-SIDCER-Recognized RECs, NSR-RECs) and analyzed using a Chi-squared test., Results: A total of 688 REC members and 197 REC chairs/secretaries participated in the survey. Most RECs have standard operating procedures (SOPs), and have experience in reviewing all types of protocols, but 18.1% had no experience reviewing COVID-19 protocols. Most REC members need specific training on reviewing COVID-19 protocols (93%). In response to the outbreak, RECs used online reviews, increased meeting frequency and single/central REC. All SR-RECs had a member composition as required by the World Health Organisation ethics guidelines, while some NSR-RECs lacked non-affiliated and/or layperson members. SR-RECs reviewed more COVID-related product development protocols and indicated challenges in reviewing risk/benefit and vulnerability (0.010), informed consent form (0.002), and privacy and confidentiality (P = 0.020) than NSR-RECs., Conclusions: Surveyed RECs had a general knowledge of REC operation and played a significant role in reviewing COVID-19-related product development protocols. Having active networks of RECs across regions to share updated information and resources could be one of the strategies to promote readiness for future public health emergencies., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2024 Karbwang J et al.)

With disparate rates of morbidity and mortality among minoritized communities, COVID-19 illuminated the need for equity-informed practices in public health. Pacia et al posit FQHCs as entities that addressed inequity when others failed. This commentary further situates how FQHCs address the public health crisis of institutional racism and related health inequities every day and presents a FQHC-led Ethics and Equity Framework and Workflow Checklist to guide ethical and equitable engagement with FQHCs.

Objectives: The large number of infected patients requiring mechanical ventilation has led to the postponement of scheduled neurosurgical procedures during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The aims of this study were to investigate the factors that influence the decision to postpone scheduled neurosurgical procedures and to evaluate the effect of the restriction in scheduled surgery adopted to deal with the first outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in Spain on the outcome of patients awaiting surgery., Design: This was an observational retrospective study., Settings: A tertiary-level multicentre study of neurosurgery activity between 1 March and 30 June 2020., Participants: A total of 680 patients awaiting any scheduled neurosurgical procedure were enrolled. 470 patients (69.1%) were awaiting surgery because of spine degenerative disease, 86 patients (12.6%) due to functional disorders, 58 patients (8.5%) due to brain or spine tumours, 25 patients (3.7%) due to cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) disorders and 17 patients (2.5%) due to cerebrovascular disease., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was mortality due to any reason and any deterioration of the specific neurosurgical condition. Second, we analysed the rate of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection., Results: More than one-quarter of patients experienced clinical or radiological deterioration. The rate of worsening was higher among patients with functional (39.5%) or CSF disorders (40%). Two patients died (0.4%) during the waiting period, both because of a concurrent disease. We performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis to determine independent covariates associated with maintaining the surgical indication. We found that community SARS-CoV-2 incidence (OR=1.011, p<0.001), degenerative spine (OR=0.296, p=0.027) and expedited indications (OR=6.095, p<0.001) were independent factors for being operated on during the pandemic., Conclusions: Patients awaiting neurosurgery experienced significant collateral damage even when they were considered for scheduled procedures., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Access to COVID-19 testing has been inequitable and misaligned with community need. However, community health centers have played a critical role in addressing the COVID-19 testing needs of historically disadvantaged communities. The aim of this paper is to explore the perceptions of COVID-19 testing barriers in six Massachusetts communities that are predominantly low income and describe how these findings were used to build tailored clinical-community strategies to addressing testing inequities., Methods: Between November 2020 and February 2021, we conducted 84 semi-structured qualitative interviews with 107 community health center staff, community partners, and residents. Resident interviews were conducted in English, Spanish, Vietnamese, and Arabic. We used a 2-phase framework analysis to analyze the data, including deductive coding to facilitate rapid analysis for action and an in-depth thematic analysis applying the Social Ecological Model., Results: Through the rapid needs assessment, we developed cross-site suggestions to improve testing implementation and communications, as well as community-specific recommendations (e.g., locations for mobile testing sites and local communication channels). Upstream barriers identified in the thematic analysis included accessibility of state-run testing sites, weak social safety nets, and lack of testing supplies and staffing that contributed to long wait times. These factors hindered residents' abilities to get tested, which was further exacerbated by individual fears surrounding the testing process and limited knowledge on testing availability., Discussion: Our rapid, qualitative approach created the foundation for implementing strategies that reached underserved populations at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in winter 2021. We explored perceptions of testing barriers and created actionable summaries within 1-2 months of data collection. Partnering community health centers in Massachusetts were able to use these data to respond to the local needs of each community. This study underscores the substantial impact of upstream, structural disparities on the individual experience of COVID-19 and demonstrates the utility of shifting from a typical years' long research translation process to a rapid approach of using data for action., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Lee, Handunge, Augenbraun, Nguyen, Torres, Ruiz, Emmons and for the RADx-MA Research Partnership.)

Clinicians, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), contend with limited economic and healthcare resources in deciding appropriate and feasible care for their patients. Some of the LMICs affected by COVID-19 implemented convalescent plasma therapy without sufficient regulatory guidance. Based on this experience, there are several requirements going forward, including: the need for an immediately accessible data gathering and processing system; the necessity of establishing regulatory pathways for early access to experimental treatment during emergency situations; and the accompanying reporting and monitoring requirements must be set. The different stakeholders must also be properly incorporated in the system that such a pathway will create, without neglecting to properly inform the public of the patient rights especially during an emergency situation., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the effect of the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on the outcome of neurosurgical patients in Spain., Settings: The initial flood of COVID-19 patients overwhelmed an unprepared healthcare system. Different measures were taken to deal with this overburden. The effect of these measures on neurosurgical patients, as well as the effect of COVID-19 itself, has not been thoroughly studied., Participants: This was a multicentre, nationwide, observational retrospective study of patients who underwent any neurosurgical operation from March to July 2020., Interventions: An exploratory factorial analysis was performed to select the most relevant variables of the sample., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of mortality and postoperative SARS-CoV-2 infection., Results: Sixteen hospitals registered 1677 operated patients. The overall mortality was 6.4%, and 2.9% (44 patients) suffered a perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of those infections, 24 were diagnosed postoperatively. Age (OR 1.05), perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 4.7), community COVID-19 incidence (cases/10 5 people/week) (OR 1.006), postoperative neurological worsening (OR 5.9), postoperative need for airway support (OR 5.38), ASA grade ≥3 (OR 2.5) and preoperative GCS 3-8 (OR 2.82) were independently associated with mortality. For SARS-CoV-2 postoperative infection, screening swab test <72 hours preoperatively (OR 0.76), community COVID-19 incidence (cases/10 5 people/week) (OR 1.011), preoperative cognitive impairment (OR 2.784), postoperative sepsis (OR 3.807) and an absence of postoperative complications (OR 0.188) were independently associated., Conclusions: Perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection in neurosurgical patients was associated with an increase in mortality by almost fivefold. Community COVID-19 incidence (cases/10 5 people/week) was a statistically independent predictor of mortality., Trial Registration Number: CEIM 20/217., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)