Search

BackgroundMonkeypox re-emerged in May 2022 as another global health threat. This study assessed the public’s perception, worries, and vaccine acceptance for Monkeypox and COVID-19 during the first month of WHO announcement.MethodsA national cross-sectional survey was conducted between May 27 and June 5, 2022, in Saudi Arabia. Data were collected on sociodemographic characteristics, previous infection with COVID-19, worry levels regarding Monkeypox compared to COVID-19, awareness, and perceptions of Monkeypox, and vaccine acceptance.ResultsAmong the 1546 participants, most respondents (62%) were more worried about COVID-19 than Monkeypox. Respondents aged 45 years and above and those with a university degree or higher had lower odds of agreement with Monkeypox vaccination (OR .871, p-value .006, OR .719, p-value ConclusionWorry levels amongst the public are higher from COVID-19 than Monkeypox. Perception of Monkeypox as a dangerous and virulent disease, worry from contracting the disease, and high commitment to infection precautionary measures were predictors of agreement with Monkeypox vaccination. While advanced age and high education level are predictors of low agreement with vaccination.

Monkeypox re-emerged in May 2022 as another global health threat. This study assessed the public's perception, worries, and vaccine acceptance for Monkeypox and COVID-19 during the first month of WHO announcement.A large-scale, cross-sectional survey was conducted between May 27 and June 5, 2022, in Saudi Arabia. Data were collected on sociodemographic characteristics, previous infection with COVID-19, worry levels regarding Monkeypox compared to COVID-19, awareness, and perceptions of Monkeypox, and vaccine acceptance.Among the 1546 participants, most respondents (62%) were more worried about COVID-19 than Monkeypox. Respondents aged 45 years and above and those with a university degree or higher had lower odds of agreement with Monkeypox vaccination (OR 0.871, p-value 0.006, OR 0.719, p-value0.001), respectively. Respondents with moderate to a high level of self and family commitment to infection control precautionary measures and those who expressed self and family worry of Monkeypox infection had significantly higher odds of vaccination agreement (OR 1.089 p-value = 0.047, OR1.395 p-value = 0.003) respectively. On the other hand, respondents who previously developed COVID-19 were significantly more worried about the Monkeypox disease (1.30 times more, p-value = 0.020).Worry levels amongst the public are higher from COVID-19 than Monkeypox. Perception of Monkeypox as a dangerous and virulent disease, worry from contracting the disease, and high commitment to infection precautionary measures were predictors of agreement with Monkeypox vaccination. While advanced age and high education level are predictors of low agreement with vaccination.

Objectives : To investigate whether the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic has had any effects on pediatric vaccination rates at the main university hospital in Saudi Arabia. Methods : A retrospective study conducted at King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia using electronic health records. The vaccination statuses of all children who were scheduled for vaccinations at birth and at 2, 4, 6, 9, and 12 months during March, April and May between 2017 and 2020 were included in the study with total sample of 15,870 children, and comparisons between the cohorts were performed. Results : All vaccination visits during April and May 2020 were below the lower extremes except for the birth vaccinations. In March, April, and May 2020 there were respective drops in vaccination visits of 49.93%, 71.90% and 68.48% compared with the mean numbers of vaccination visits during the same months from 2017 to 2019. In comparisons of mean numbers of visits from March 2017 to May 2019 and March to May in 2020, the respective reductions in visits for birth and 2, 4, 6, 9 and 12-month vaccinations were 16.5%, 80.5%, 74.7%, 72.9%, 80.0% and 74.1%. Conclusions : The huge impact of the coronavirus disease-2019 pandemic on childhood vaccinations will require urgent vaccination recovery plans with innovative approaches and future action plans to maintain vaccination coverage during any subsequent pandemics. Saudi Med J 2020; Vol. 41 (11): 1197-1203 doi: 10.15537/smj.2020.11.25457 How to cite this article: Alrabiaah AA, Alshaer AH, Estrella SMC, Inclan KAS, Aljammaz HA, Almoosa KM, Alshuraym NF, Temsah MA, Alsohime FM, Alsubaie SS, Bukhari EE, Somily AM, Alzamil FA. Effects of the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on routine pediatric immunization coverage rates at the main University Hospital in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med J. 2020 Nov;41(11):1197-1203. doi: 10.15537/smj.2020.11.25457.

BackgroundAs the SARS-CoV2 Omicron variant spreads in several countries, healthcare workers’ (HCWs) perceptions and worries regarding vaccine effectiveness and boosters warrant reassessment.MethodsAn online questionnaire among HCWs in Saudi Arabia (KSA) was distributed from Dec 1st to 6th 2021 to assess their perceptions, vaccine advocacy to the Omicron variant, and their perception of the effectivness of infection prevention measures and vaccination to prevent its spread, their Omicron variant related worries in comparison to the other variants, and their agreement with mandatory vaccination in general for adults.ResultsAmong the 1285 HCW participants, two-thirds were female, 49.8 % were nurses, 46.4% were physicians, and 50.0% worked in tertiary care hospitals. 66.9% considered vaccination to be the most effective way to prevent the spread of the Omicron variant and future variants. The respondents however perceived social distancing (78.0%), universal masking (77.8%), and avoiding unnecessary travel (71.4%) as slightly superior to vaccination to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 variants. HCWs aging 55 or older agreed singficanlty with vaccine ineffictivness to control Omicron spread, while those who believed in non-pharmacolgical infection prevention measures agreed signifcantly with vaccination for that purpose. Male HCWs had a significant agreement with mandatory vaccination of all eligible adult populations. On the other hand, unwilling HCWs to receive the vaccine had strong disagreements with mandatory vaccination.ConclusionsThe current study in the first week of Omicron showed that only two-thirds of HCWs felt that vaccination was the best option to prevent the spread of the Omicron variant, indicating the need for further motivation campaigns for vaccination and booster dose. HCWs had a strong belief in infection prevention measures to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2 variants that should be encouraged and augmented.

Introduction: Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) continues to cause frequent outbreaks in hospitals in Saudi Arabia. Since healthcare workers (HCWs) have a higher risk of acquiring and spreading MERS-CoV, we aimed to evaluate the perceived risk and anxiety level of HCWs in Saudi Arabia regarding MERS. Methodology: An anonymous, self-administered questionnaire was sent online to HCWs at King Khalid University Hospital in Saudi Arabia. The total knowledge and anxiety scores were calculated. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify predictors of high anxiety scores. Results: Of 591 (70%) HCWs that responded, 284 (55%), 164 (32%), and 68 (13.2%) were physicians, nurses, and technicians, respectively. Physicians obtained a lower median knowledge score (6/9) compared to other professions (7/9). The mean anxiety score was similar for physicians and other HCWs (3/5); however, non-physicians expressed higher levels of anxiety toward the risk of transmitting MERS-CoV to their families, with an anxiety score of 4/5. The ability of the virus to cause severe disease or death was the most frequently reported reason for worry by physicians (89.7%) and non-physicians (87.2%). Overall, 80% of physicians and 90% of non-physicians reported improvement in adherence to hand hygiene and standard precautions while in hospital (p = 0.002). Concern over transmitting MERS-CoV to family members was the most predictive factor for anxiety among non-physician HCWs. Conclusion: A significant proportion of HCWs expressed anxiety about the risk of acquiring MERS-CoV infection. Healthcare institutions need to develop an integrated psychological response for HCWs to the occupational and psychological challenge of MERS-CoV outbreaks.

Objective This study aimed to clarify the clinical presentations, acute complications, and long-term sequelae of Salmonella meningitis in Saudi infants and children. Methods This retrospective study, conducted from 1999 to 2016, evaluated the neurological complications and long-term outcomes of children 14 years of age and younger diagnosed with Salmonella meningitis at King Khalid University Hospital. All affected children had 3 years of follow-up to assess neurologic complications and mortality. Results Invasive Salmonella infection occurred in 141 patients. Of those, 14 (10%) had meningitis. The median age of onset of infection was 4.7 months. The most frequent symptoms at presentation included fever (100%), seizures (71%), diarrhea, and vomiting (43%). Nontyphoidal Salmonella species were isolated in all (but one) cerebrospinal fluid samples. Relapse occurred in four patients owing to inadequate antibiotic duration, although the organisms were susceptible to ceftriaxone. The majority of patients (86%) developed acute neurologic complications, including subdural empyema and multiple cerebral infarcts (57%), hydrocephalus (36%), ventriculitis (29%), and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (21%). Four patients (28.5%) died due to Salmonella meningitis complications. Four patients survived with full recovery. Six patients (60%) had long-term neurologic complications. Hydrocephalus, cerebral palsy, developmental delay, and epilepsy occurred in five, four, three, and three patients, respectively. Conclusion Salmonella meningitis results in significant mortality and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes. The probability of relapse after an apparent recovery should be considered. Consensus on antibiotic treatment for Salmonella meningitis is needed.

Background: The educational process in different medical schools has been negatively affected by the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide. As a part of the Saudi government’s attempts to contain the spread of the virus, schools’ and universities’ educational activities and face-to-face lectures have been modified to virtual classrooms. The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions of the faculty and the students of an electronic objective structured clinical examination (E-OSCE) activity that took place during the COVID-19 pandemic in the oldest medical school in Saudi Arabia. Methods: An e-OSCE style examination was designed for the final-year medical students by the pediatrics department, College of Medicine at King Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The examination was administered by Zoom™ video conferencing where both students and faculty participated through their laptop or desktop computers. In order to explore the students’ and the faculty’s perceptions about this experience, a newly designed 13-item online questionnaire was administered at the end of the e-OSCE. Results: Out of 136 participants (23 faculty and 112 students), 73 respondents (e.g., 54% response rate) filled out the questionnaire. Most of the respondents (69.8%) were very comfortable with this new virtual experience. Most participants (53.4%) preferred the e-OSCE compared to the classic face-to-face clinical OSCE during the pandemic. Regarding the e-OSCE assessment student tool, 46.6% reported that it is similar to the classic face-to-face OSCE, however, 38.4% felt it was worse. Conclusions: The e-OSCE can be a very effective alternative to the classic face-to-face OSCE due to the current circumstances that still pose a significant risk of infection transmission. Future studies should examine different virtual strategies to ensure effective OSCE delivery from the perspective of both faculty and students.

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the perception, confidence, hesitancy and acceptance rate of various COVID-19 vaccine types among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Saudi Arabia, a nation with Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus experience.DesignNational cross-sectional, pilot-validated questionnaire.SettingOnline, self-administered questionnaire among HCWs.ParticipantsA total of 2007 HCWs working in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia participated; 1512 (75.3%) participants completed the survey and were included in the analysis.InterventionData were collected through an online survey sent to HCWs during 1–15 November 2020. The main outcome measure was HCW acceptance of COVID-19 candidate vaccines. The associated factors of vaccination acceptance were identified through a logistic regression analysis and via measurement of the level of anxiety, using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 scale.ResultsAmong the 1512 HCWs who were included, 62.4% were women, 70.3% were between 21 and 40 years of age, and the majority (62.2%) were from tertiary hospitals. In addition, 59.5% reported knowing about at least one vaccine; 24.4% of the participants were sure about their willingness to receive the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, and 20.9% were willing to receive the RNA BNT162b2 vaccine. However, 18.3% reported that they would refuse to receive the Ad5-vectored vaccine, and 17.9% would refuse the Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine. Factors that influenced the differential readiness of HCWs included their perceptions of the vaccine’s efficiency in preventing the infection (33%), their personal preferences (29%) and the vaccine’s manufacturing country (28.6%).ConclusionsAwareness by HCWs of the several COVID-19 candidate vaccines could improve their perceptions and acceptance of vaccination. Reliable sources on vaccine efficiency could improve vaccine uptake, so healthcare authorities should use reliable information to decrease vaccine hesitancy among frontline healthcare providers.

To study the varying presentations, risk factors, and treatment outcomes among patients with physician-diagnosed brucellosis. This retrospective analysis evaluated all cases of brucellosis reported at King Khalid University Hospital during 2003-2013. Data were retrieved from patient records and a laboratory information system. Descriptive statistics were generated to summarize the study variables. Fisher's exact test or Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare categorical variables. Out of 163 patients identified with brucellosis, 76.7% of patients were culture positive. Fever was the most frequent symptom (85.9%), followed by arthralgia (46.6%). The most common clinical signs was splenomegaly (12.9%), followed by hepatomegaly (11.0%). Laboratory investigations revealed lymphocytosis and anemia in 66.3% and 55.2% of the patients, respectively. Approximately half of the patients (47.8%) had high erythrocyte sedimentation rates, and 56.4% had neutrophilia. Raw milk consumption and direct contact with animals were reported by 45.4% and 16.0% of patients, respectively. Treatment failure and relapse were observed in 8 (5.7%) cases. All treatment failures and relapses occurred among children= 10 years of age or adults45 years old (11.0% vs. 0%; p = 0.006). Our findings demonstrate that raw milk consumption can be a substantial factor in brucellosis prevention in Saudi Arabia. Laboratory findings, along with the observed pattern in clinical signs and symptoms, can potentially mean underdiagnosis of mild cases. Age was the only factor associated with unfavorable treatment outcomes.

Objectives This study aimed to identify coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine perception, acceptance, confidence, hesitancy, and barriers among health care workers (HCWs). Methods An online national cross-sectional pilot-validated questionnaire was self-administered by HCWs in Saudi Arabia, which is a nation with MERS-CoV experience. The main outcome variable was HCWs’ acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine candidates. The factors associated with vaccination acceptance were identified through a logistic regression analysis, and the level of anxiety was measured using a validated instrument to measure general anxiety levels. Results Out of the 1512 HCWs who completed the study questionnaire—of which 62.4% were women—70% were willing to receive COVID-19 vaccines. A logistic regression analysis revealed that male HCWs (ORa = 1.551, 95% CI: 1.122–2.144), HCWs who believe in vaccine safety (ORa = 2.151; 95% CI: 1.708–2.708), HCWs who believe that COVID vaccines are the most likely way to stop the pandemic (ORa = 1.539; 95% CI: 1.259–1.881), and HCWs who rely on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website for COVID 19 updates (ORa = 1.505, 95% CI: 1.125–2.013) were significantly associated with reporting a willingness to be vaccinated. However, HCWs who believed that the vaccines were rushed without evidence-informed testing were found to be 60% less inclined to accept COVID-19 vaccines (ORa = 0.394, 95% CI: 0.298–0.522). Conclusion Most HCWs are willing to receive COVID-19 vaccines once they are available; the satisfactoriness of COVID-19 vaccination among HCWs is crucial because health professionals’ knowledge and confidence toward vaccines are important determining factors for not only their own vaccine acceptance but also recommendation for such vaccines to their patients.

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the perception, confidence, hesitancy, and acceptance rate of various COVID-19 vaccine types among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Saudi Arabia, a nation with MERS-CoV experience.DesignNational cross-sectional, pilot-validated questionnaire.SettingOnline, self-administered questionnaire among HCWs.ParticipantsA total of 2,007 HCWs working in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia participated; 75.3% completed the survey and were included in the analysis.InterventionData were collected through an online survey sent to HCWs during November 1-15, 2020. The main outcome measure was HCW acceptance of COVID-19 candidate vaccines. The associated factors of vaccination acceptance were identified through a logistic regression analysis and via measurement of the level of anxiety, using the generalized anxiety disorder 7 (GAD7) scale.ResultsAmong the 1512 HCWs who were included, 62.4% were women, 70.3% were between 21 and 40 years of age, and the majority (62.2%) were from tertiary hospitals. In addition, 59.5% reported knowing about at least one vaccine; 24.4% of the participants were sure about their willingness to receive the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, and 20.9% were willing to receive the RNA BNT162b2 vaccine. However, 18.3% reported that they would refuse to receive the Ad5-vectored vaccine, and 17.9% would refuse the Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine. Factors that influenced the differential readiness of HCWs included their perceptions of the vaccine’s efficiency in preventing the infection (33%), their personal preferences (29%), and the vaccine’s manufacturing country (28.6%).ConclusionsAwareness by HCWs of the several COVID-19 candidate vaccines could improve their perceptions and acceptance of vaccination. Reliable sources on vaccine efficiency could improve vaccine uptake, so healthcare authorities should use reliable information to decrease vaccine hesitancy among frontline healthcare providers.

IntroductionMany healthcare systems initiated rapid training with COVID-19 simulations for their healthcare workers (HCWs) to build surge capacity and optimize infection control measures. This study aimed to describe COVID-19 simulation drills in international healthcare centers.MethodsThis is cross-sectional, international survey among simulation team leaders and HCWs, based on each center’s debriefing reports from simulation centers from 30 countries in all WHO regions where COVID-19 simulation drills were conducted. The main outcome measures were the COVID-19 simulations characteristics, outcomes, facilitators, obstacles and challenges encountered during the simulation sessions.ResultsInvitation was sent to 500 simulation team leaders and HCWs, 343 responded, and 121 completed the survey. Those who completed the study were from East Mediterranean (EMRO) countries (41.3%); Southeast Asian countries (SERO) (25.6%); and Europe (12.4%) and the remainder from other regions. The frequency of simulation sessions was monthly (27.1%), weekly (24.8%), twice weekly (19.8%), or daily (21.5%). Among participants, 55.6% reported team’s full engagement in the simulation sessions. The average session length was 30–60 minutes. The most commonly reported debriefing leaders were ICU staff, simulation lab staff, and ER facilitators, and the least common were infection control staff. A total of 80% reported “a lot” to “a great improvement” in terms of clinical preparedness after simulation sessions, and 70% were satisfied with the COVID-19 simulation sessions and thought they were better than expected. Most of the perceived issues reported were related to infection control measures, followed by team dynamics, logistics, and patient transport issues.ConclusionSimulation centers team leaders and HCWs reported positive feedback on COVID- 19 simulation sessions. The presence of multiprofessional personnel during drills is warranted. These drills are a valuable tool for rehearsing safe dynamics of HCWs on the frontline of COVID-19.Summary boxexplaining the significance of their study by providing each of the following key questions:What is already known?Simulation enhances healthcare systems safety.Preparedness to potential disasters includes training for personal protection techniques, environmental contamination, medical management, and training of HCWs.What are the new findings?Many hospitals conducted COVID-19 simulations in all WHO regions.Most of the team leaders and HCWs reported full engagement and significant clinical preparedness improvement after the COVID-19 simulation sessions.What do the new findings imply?The presence of multiprofessional personnel, including infection control experts, during COVID-19 drills is warranted.Simulation are a valuable tool for rehearsing safe dynamics of HCWs on the frontline of COVID-19.

ObjectivesThis study aimed to identify COVID-19 vaccine perception, acceptance, confidence, hesitancy, and barriers among healthcare workers (HCW).MethodsAn online national cross-sectional pilot-validated questionnaire was self-administered by HCW in Saudi Arabia, a nation with MERS-CoV experience. The main outcome variable was HCW’s acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine candidates. The associated factors of vaccination acceptance were identified through a logistic regression analysis and the level of anxiety using generalized anxiety disorder 7.ResultOut of 1512 HCWs who completed the study questionnaire—944 (62.4%) women and 568 (37.6%) men—1058 (70%) were willing to receive COVID-19 vaccines. Logistic regression analysis revealed that male HCWs (ORa=1.551, 95% CI: 1.122–2.144), HCWs who believe in vaccine safety (ORa=2.151; 95% CI:1.708–2.708), HCWs who believe that COVID vaccines are the most likely way to stop the pandemic (ORa=1.539; 95% CI: 1.259–1.881), and HCWs who rely on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website for COVID 19 updates (ORa=1.505, 95% CI: 1.125–2.013) were significantly associated with reporting willingness to be vaccinated. However, HCWs who believed vaccines were rushed without evidence-informed testing were found to be 60% less inclined to accept COVID-19 vaccines (ORa=0.394, 95% CI: 0.298– 0.522).ConclusionMost HCWs are willing to receive COVID-19 vaccines once available; yet, satisfactoriness of COVID-19 vaccination among HCWs is crucial because health professionals’ knowledge and confidence toward vaccines are important determining factors for their own vaccine acceptance and recommendation to their patients.

Background and objectives: Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus (MERS-CoV) outbreak in 2014 was associated with high public anxiety in the affected countries. Media speculations may have increased this psychological distress. The healthcare community was the most distressed because they were at the highest risk of infection. This study is the first to explore MERS-CoV epidemic impact on medical students’ perception and determinants of their psychological distress during this outbreak. Methods: We randomly selected and surveyed 200 students from the College of Medicine at King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A predesigned questionnaire was answered by participants, and the collected data were statistically analyzed. Results: One hundred and seventy-four (87%) responded. Female students had a significantly higher mean stress level than males (P < 0.001). Participants had a mean GAD score of 2.7 ± 3.1 and a median of 2. Perceived sufficiency of information score was the highest mean and median (17.4 ± 4.2 and 18 respectively). College and hospital announcements were the most common source of information (25.4%). One hundred and thirty-four (77%) reported minimal anxiety, thirty-two (18.4%) reported mild anxiety, 8 (4.6%) reported moderate anxiety, and none of them reported severe anxiety (score >14). The stress level (as reported on 1–10 scale) shows significant correlation with Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) score. We found in this study that significant predictors in our model, in terms of more significant to the least, were: an increased self-report on hygienic habits, self-reported social avoidance, the generalized anxiety score and finally being female gander while other variables including numbers of resources access, agreeing with public fear and knowledge score on MERS-CoV all were found to be non-significant. However, the number of accessed resources, as per students, has borderline significant correlation with higher self-reported anxiety from MERS-CoV. Conclusions: Medical students’ psychological needs during the MERS-CoV outbreak should be addressed appropriately. Our results highlight the need to establish psychological support programs for medical students during an infectious disease outbreak. Keywords: MERS-CoV, Psychological stress, Medical students, Saudi Arabia

Background: As the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant emerged and spread globally at an alarming speed, healthcare workers’ (HCWs) uncertainties, worries, resilience, and coping strategies warranted assessment. The COVID-19 pandemic had a severe psychological impact on HCWs, including the development of Post-Traumatic Stress symptoms. Specific subgroups of HCWs, such as front-line and female workers, were more prone to poor mental health outcomes and difficulties facing stress. Methods: The responses to an online questionnaire among HCWs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) were collected from 1 December 2021 to 6 December 2021, aiming to assess their uncertainties, worries, resilience, and coping strategies regarding the Omicron variant. Three validated instruments were used to achieve the study’s goals: the Brief Resilient Coping Scale (BRCS), the Standard Stress Scale (SSS), and the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS)—Short Form. Results: The online survey was completed by 1285 HCWs. Females made up the majority of the participants (64%). A total of 1285 HCW’s completed the online survey from all regions in KSA. Resilient coping scored by the BRCS was negatively and significantly correlated with stress as scored by the SSS (r = −0.313, p < 0.010). Moreover, intolerance of uncertainty scored by the IUS positively and significantly correlated with stress (r = 0.326, p < 0.010). Increased stress levels were linked to a considerable drop in resilient coping scores. Furthermore, being a Saudi HCW or a nurse was linked to a significant reduction in resilient coping ratings. Coping by following healthcare authorities’ preventative instructions and using the WHO website as a source of information was linked to a considerable rise in resilient coping. Conclusions: The negative association between resilient coping and stress was clearly shown, as well as how underlying intolerance of uncertainty is linked to higher stress among HCWs quickly following the development of a new infectious threat. The study provides early insights into developing and promoting coping strategies for emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants.

Background Recently, new types of community-onset bacteremia have been introduced as healthcare associated (HCA) in which the infection onset started outside the hospital and there were interactions with the healthcare system. Little data exist differentiating community-acquired (CA) and HCA bacteremia from hospital-acquired bacteremia (HA). Objectives This article determines differences in the epidemiological characteristics and bacteriology of community-onset (i.e., CA and HCA) and HA gram-negative bacteremia in Saudi pediatric patients. Methods We conducted a prospective cohort of all pediatric patients diagnosed with gram-negative bacteremia at the King Khalid University Hospital over a year (2015). We received daily electronic notifications of all blood culture positive cases for gram-negative bacilli. Results A total of 92 children were hospitalized with gram-negative bacteremia; among these 64 (71.1%) were with HA bacteremia, 20 (21.1%) with CA bacteremia, and 8 (7.8%) with HCA bacteremia. Urinary tract infection was common clinical presentation (50%) in the patients diagnosed with CA and HCA bacteremia. Up to 92% of HA bacteremia and 2% of CA bacteremia were presented with septic shock. The most common gram-negative bacteria causing bacteremia is Klebsiella pneumoniae, constituting almost 29.3% of all organisms, and was only isolated from HA bacteremia. The antimicrobial susceptibility among the 92 isolates showed that the organisms were nonextended spectrum β-lactamase (non-ESBL) in 90%, and 10% of the isolates were ESBL. There was a significant difference in the total frequency of isolates between CA and HA incidences, regardless of ESBL or non-ESBL (p Conclusion The most common type of gram-negative bacteremia is HA bacteremia followed by the CA and HCA bacteremia.