21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      COVID-19 Awareness Among Healthcare Students and Professionals in Mumbai Metropolitan Region: A Questionnaire-Based Survey

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and objectives

          The rapid and extensive spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has become a major cause of concern for the healthcare profession. The aim of this study is to assess the awareness of COVID-19 disease and related infection control practices among healthcare professionals and students in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region.

          Materials and methods

          A total of 1562 responders from the Mumbai Metropolitan Region completed a questionnaire-based survey on the awareness, knowledge, and infection control practices related to COVID-19 infection in the healthcare setting. The questionnaire was adapted from the current interim guidance and information for healthcare workers published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Convenient sampling method was used for data collection and the distribution of responses was presented as frequencies and percentages. Descriptive statistics were performed for all groups and subgroups based on the percentage of correct responses. Individual pairwise comparisons were done using the median test for the percentage of correct responses.

          Results

          The overall awareness for all subgroups was adequate with 71.2% reporting correct answers. The highest percentage of correct responses were from undergraduate medical students and the lowest was from non-clinical/administrative staff. Less than half of the total respondents could correctly define “close contact.” More than three-fourths of the responders were aware of the various infection control measures like rapid triage, respiratory hygiene, and cough etiquette and having a separate, well ventilated waiting area for suspected COVID-19 patients. However, only 45.4% of the responders were aware of the correct sequence for the application of a mask/respirator, and only 52.5% of the responders were aware of the preferred hand hygiene method for visibly soiled hands.

          Conclusion

          There is a need for regular educational interventions and training programs on infection control practices for COVID-19 across all healthcare professions. Occupational health and safety are of paramount importance to minimize the risk of transmission to healthcare students and professionals and provide optimal care for patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Rational use of face masks in the COVID-19 pandemic

          Since the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that caused coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the use of face masks has become ubiquitous in China and other Asian countries such as South Korea and Japan. Some provinces and municipalities in China have enforced compulsory face mask policies in public areas; however, China's national guideline has adopted a risk-based approach in offering recommendations for using face masks among health-care workers and the general public. We compared face mask use recommendations by different health authorities (panel ). Despite the consistency in the recommendation that symptomatic individuals and those in health-care settings should use face masks, discrepancies were observed in the general public and community settings.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 For example, the US Surgeon General advised against buying masks for use by healthy people. One important reason to discourage widespread use of face masks is to preserve limited supplies for professional use in health-care settings. Universal face mask use in the community has also been discouraged with the argument that face masks provide no effective protection against coronavirus infection. Panel Recommendations on face mask use in community settings WHO 1 • If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. China 2 • People at moderate risk* of infection: surgical or disposable mask for medical use. • People at low risk† of infection: disposable mask for medical use. • People at very low risk‡ of infection: do not have to wear a mask or can wear non-medical mask (such as cloth mask). Hong Kong 3 • Surgical masks can prevent transmission of respiratory viruses from people who are ill. It is essential for people who are symptomatic (even if they have mild symptoms) to wear a surgical mask. • Wear a surgical mask when taking public transport or staying in crowded places. It is important to wear a mask properly and practice good hand hygiene before wearing and after removing a mask. Singapore 4 • Wear a mask if you have respiratory symptoms, such as a cough or runny nose. Japan 5 • The effectiveness of wearing a face mask to protect yourself from contracting viruses is thought to be limited. If you wear a face mask in confined, badly ventilated spaces, it might help avoid catching droplets emitted from others but if you are in an open-air environment, the use of face mask is not very efficient. USA 6 • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not recommend that people who are well wear a face mask (including respirators) to protect themselves from respiratory diseases, including COVID-19. • US Surgeon General urged people on Twitter to stop buying face masks. UK 7 • Face masks play a very important role in places such as hospitals, but there is very little evidence of widespread benefit for members of the public. Germany 8 • There is not enough evidence to prove that wearing a surgical mask significantly reduces a healthy person's risk of becoming infected while wearing it. According to WHO, wearing a mask in situations where it is not recommended to do so can create a false sense of security because it might lead to neglecting fundamental hygiene measures, such as proper hand hygiene. However, there is an essential distinction between absence of evidence and evidence of absence. Evidence that face masks can provide effective protection against respiratory infections in the community is scarce, as acknowledged in recommendations from the UK and Germany.7, 8 However, face masks are widely used by medical workers as part of droplet precautions when caring for patients with respiratory infections. It would be reasonable to suggest vulnerable individuals avoid crowded areas and use surgical face masks rationally when exposed to high-risk areas. As evidence suggests COVID-19 could be transmitted before symptom onset, community transmission might be reduced if everyone, including people who have been infected but are asymptomatic and contagious, wear face masks. Recommendations on face masks vary across countries and we have seen that the use of masks increases substantially once local epidemics begin, including the use of N95 respirators (without any other protective equipment) in community settings. This increase in use of face masks by the general public exacerbates the global supply shortage of face masks, with prices soaring, 9 and risks supply constraints to frontline health-care professionals. As a response, a few countries (eg, Germany and South Korea) banned exportation of face masks to prioritise local demand. 10 WHO called for a 40% increase in the production of protective equipment, including face masks. 9 Meanwhile, health authorities should optimise face mask distribution to prioritise the needs of frontline health-care workers and the most vulnerable populations in communities who are more susceptible to infection and mortality if infected, including older adults (particularly those older than 65 years) and people with underlying health conditions. People in some regions (eg, Thailand, China, and Japan) opted for makeshift alternatives or repeated usage of disposable surgical masks. Notably, improper use of face masks, such as not changing disposable masks, could jeopardise the protective effect and even increase the risk of infection. Consideration should also be given to variations in societal and cultural paradigms of mask usage. The contrast between face mask use as hygienic practice (ie, in many Asian countries) or as something only people who are unwell do (ie, in European and North American countries) has induced stigmatisation and racial aggravations, for which further public education is needed. One advantage of universal use of face masks is that it prevents discrimination of individuals who wear masks when unwell because everybody is wearing a mask. It is time for governments and public health agencies to make rational recommendations on appropriate face mask use to complement their recommendations on other preventive measures, such as hand hygiene. WHO currently recommends that people should wear face masks if they have respiratory symptoms or if they are caring for somebody with symptoms. Perhaps it would also be rational to recommend that people in quarantine wear face masks if they need to leave home for any reason, to prevent potential asymptomatic or presymptomatic transmission. In addition, vulnerable populations, such as older adults and those with underlying medical conditions, should wear face masks if available. Universal use of face masks could be considered if supplies permit. In parallel, urgent research on the duration of protection of face masks, the measures to prolong life of disposable masks, and the invention on reusable masks should be encouraged. Taiwan had the foresight to create a large stockpile of face masks; other countries or regions might now consider this as part of future pandemic plans. © 2020 Sputnik/Science Photo Library 2020 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Use of antiviral drugs to reduce COVID-19 transmission

            As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spreads, efforts are being made to reduce transmission via standard public health interventions based on isolation of cases and tracing of contacts. In their modelling study, Joel Hellewell and colleagues 1 predict that such a strategy could contribute to reducing the overall size of an outbreak, but will still be insufficient to achieve outbreak control of COVID-19 when the basic reproduction number (R 0) is higher than 1·5 or the proportion of contacts traced is lower than 80%. One of the main assumptions of the model by Hellewell and colleagues is that all individuals with symptomatic infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are eventually tested and reported. However, under the guidelines of most countries with low-grade transmission, clinicians will test suspected patients only if they have travelled to an epidemic region since the outbreak began. A second assumption of the model is that isolation of cases is 100% effective in stopping transmission. Yet home confinement of infected individuals and contacts is challenging, efficacy is variable, and the rigorous tracking involved requires a considerable amount of public health resources. The current COVID-19 emergency warrants the urgent development of potential strategies to protect people at high risk of infection—particularly close contacts and health-care workers, among others—even if more robust data on antiviral therapies is yet to come. A key reason for such an approach is the high estimates for the secondary attack rates of SARS-CoV-2 in households (∼15%) and among close contacts (∼10%). 2 Pre-exposure prophylaxis and postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) with antimicrobial drugs are effective in preventing illness before potential exposure or after documented exposure to a variety of microbial pathogens, and in reducing the risk of secondary spread of infection. Based on experiences with PEP for other infections, we recommend starting PEP as soon as possible after a recent possible exposure to SARS-CoV-2. For example, PEP with rifampicin is given to people exposed to index cases of invasive meningococcal infection, and oseltamivir has been recommended by WHO for people at high risk of infection before or after exposure to pandemic influenza. 3 Antiviral drugs administered shortly after symptom onset can reduce infectiousness to others by reducing viral shedding in the respiratory secretions of patients (SARS-CoV-2 viral load in sputum peaks at around 5–6 days after symptom onset and lasts up to 14 days), and targeted prophylactic treatment of contacts could reduce their risk of becoming infected. 3 The implementation of antiviral treatment and prophylaxis has several requirements. The stockpile of drugs must be adequate, the safety of treatment must be very high, and costs should ideally be low. The antimalarial drug, hydroxychloroquine, is licensed for the chemoprophylaxis and treatment of malaria and as a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. It has a history of being safe and well tolerated at typical doses. Notably, the drug shows antiviral activity in vitro against coronaviruses, and specifically, SARS-CoV-2. 4 Pharmacological modelling based on observed drug concentrations and in vitro drug testing suggest that prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine at approved doses could prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection and ameliorate viral shedding. 5 Clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine treatment for COVID-19 pneumonia are underway in China (NCT04261517 and NCT04307693). We are reviewing the results from China as they emerge. The first study (NCT04261517) has showed positive preliminary outcomes (albeit not conclusive because of the small sample size) in terms of clinical management, with published data expected soon. We are planning a multicentre randomised controlled trial (NCT04304053) to evaluate the efficacy of antiviral treatment in anyone found to be infected, and the efficacy of prophylactic hydroxychloroquine in preventing secondary SARS-CoV-2 infections and disease symptoms among all contacts. Our objective is to evaluate the reduction in transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 and in disease progression among the contacts of an index case. The design intervention is based on the design used during the Ebola ça Suffit vaccination trial for Ebola in 2015. 6 A person newly diagnosed with the disease becomes the index case, around whom an epidemiologically defined ring of contacts is formed. This ring is then randomised to either intervention or control in a 1:1 ratio on an open-label basis. The study will be done over the course of the COVID-19 outbreak in the Catalonia region of Spain, with initial results expected in May, 2020. Identifying a treatment for the prevention of COVID-19 would change the course of the outbreak entirely.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviours of Healthcare Workers in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to MERS Coronavirus and Other Emerging Infectious Diseases

              Background: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has experienced a prolonged outbreak of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) coronavirus since 2012. Healthcare workers (HCWs) form a significant risk group for infection. Objectives: The aim of this survey was to assess the knowledge, attitudes, infection control practices and educational needs of HCWs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to MERS coronavirus and other emerging infectious diseases. Methods: 1500 of HCWs from Saudi Ministry of Health were invited to fill a questionnaire developed to cover the survey objectives from 9 September 2015 to 8 November 2015. The response rate was about 81%. Descriptive statistics was used to summarise the responses. Results: 1216 HCWs were included in this survey. A total of 56.5% were nurses and 22% were physicians. The most common sources of MERS-coronavirus (MERS-CoV) information were the Ministry of Health (MOH) memo (74.3%). Only (47.6%) of the physicians, (30.4%) of the nurses and (29.9%) of the other HCWs were aware that asymptomatic MERS-CoV was described. Around half of respondents who having been investigated for MERS-CoV reported that their work performance decreased while they have suspicion of having MERS-CoV and almost two thirds reported having psychological problems during this period. Almost two thirds of the HCWs (61.2%) reported anxiety about contracting MERS-CoV from patients. Conclusions: The knowledge about emerging infectious diseases was poor and there is need for further education and training programs particularly in the use of personal protective equipment, isolation and infection control measures. The self-reported infection control practices were sub-optimal and seem to be overestimated.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cureus
                Cureus
                2168-8184
                Cureus
                Cureus (Palo Alto (CA) )
                2168-8184
                2 April 2020
                April 2020
                : 12
                : 4
                : e7514
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Pulmonary Medicine, D Y Patil Hospital, Navi Mumbai, IND
                [2 ] Pulmonology, D Y Patil Hospital, Navi Mumbai, IND
                [3 ] Oral and Maxilofacial Surgery, Y.M.T. Dental College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, IND
                [4 ] Periodontics, University of Washington School of Dentistry, Seattle, USA
                [5 ] Pharmacology, D Y Patil University - School of Medicine, Navi Mumbai, IND
                Author notes
                Article
                10.7759/cureus.7514
                7198075
                32377462
                ebb4507e-8967-4c71-a829-7da18117c7f8
                Copyright © 2020, Modi et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 25 March 2020
                : 2 April 2020
                Categories
                Medical Education
                Infectious Disease
                Epidemiology/Public Health

                covid-19 india,covid-19 mumbai,coronavirus,health care workers,who coronavirus,cdc coronavirus,covid-19,healthcare professionals,ppe,hand hygiene

                Comments

                Comment on this article