RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: While a number of population preventive measures for COVID-19 exist that help to decrease the spread of the virus in the community, there are still many areas in preventative efforts that need improvement or refinement, particularly as new strains of the virus develop. Some of the key issues currently include incorrect and/or inconsistent use of face masks, low acceptance of early screening or vaccination for COVID-19, vaccine hesitance, and misinformation. This is particularly the case in some vulnerable populations, such as older people with chronic illnesses, ethnic minorities who may not speak the mainstream language well and children. The current protocol introduces a large programme of research through five interrelated studies that all focus on social and behavioural interventions to improve different aspects of community-related preventative indicators. Hence, the specific objectives of the overall programme are to (1) increase early testing for COVID-19 and promote the uptake of COVID-19 vaccines in the community (Study 1); (2) increase COVID-19-related health literacy and vaccine literacy and promote improved preventative measures in minority ethnic groups, chronically ill populations and caregivers (Study 2); (3) strengthen the public's motivation to stay at home and avoid nonessential high-risk activities (Study 3); (4) decrease COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (Study 4); and (5) enhance the adherence to COVID-19-related hygiene practices and the uptake of early testing in school children (Study 5). METHODS: We will utilise a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach in the proposed studies. All studies will incorporate an intervention development phase in conjunction with key community stakeholders, a feasibility study and an execution stage. A variety of self-reported and objective-based measures will be used to assess various outcomes, based on the focus of each study, in both the short- and long-term, including, for example, the 8-item self-reported eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEAL) and objective measures such as vaccine uptake. DISCUSSION: Theory-driven interventions will address each study's focus (e.g., social distancing, promotion of vaccine uptake, eHealth education, preventive measures and early detection). Improvements are expected to be seen in the outcomes of vulnerable and high-risk groups. Decreased infection rates are expected due to improved preventative behaviours and increased vaccine uptake. Long-term sustainability of the approach will be achieved through the CBPR model. The publication of this protocol can assist not only in sharing a large-scale and complex community-based design, but will also allow all to learn from this, so that we will have better insight in the future whether sharing of study designs can elicit timely research initiatives.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Vacunas , Niño , Humanos , Anciano , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Investigación Participativa Basada en la Comunidad , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Hong Kong/epidemiología , Prueba de COVID-19 , Enfermedad CrónicaRESUMEN
Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) use personal protective equipment (PPE) in Ebola virus disease (EVD) situations. However, preventing the contamination of HCWs and the environment during PPE removal crucially requires improved strategies. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of three PPE ensembles, namely, Hospital Authority (HA) Standard Ebola PPE set (PPE1), Dupont Tyvek Model, style 1422A (PPE2), and HA isolation gown for routine patient care and performing aerosol-generating procedures (PPE3) to prevent EVD transmission by measuring the degree of contamination of HCWs and the environment. Methods: A total of 59 participants randomly performed PPE donning and doffing. The trial consisted of PPE donning, applying fluorescent solution on the PPE surface, PPE doffing of participants, and estimation of the degree of contamination as indicated by the number of fluorescent stains on the working clothes and environment. Protocol deviations during PPE donning and doffing were monitored. Results: PPE2 and PPE3 presented higher contamination risks than PPE1. Environmental contaminations such as those originating from rubbish bin covers, chairs, faucets, and sinks were detected. Procedure deviations were observed during PPE donning and doffing, with PPE1 presenting the lowest overall deviation rate (%) among the three PPE ensembles (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Contamination of the subjects' working clothes and surrounding environment occurred frequently during PPE doffing. Procedure deviations were observed during PPE donning and doffing. Although PPE1 presented a lower contamination risk than PPE2 and PPE3 during doffing and protocol deviations, the design of PPE1 can still be further improved. Future directions should focus on designing a high-coverage-area PPE with simple ergonomic features and on evaluating the doffing procedure to minimise the risk of recontamination. Regular training for users should be emphasised to minimise protocol deviations, and in turn, guarantee the best protection to HCWs.
Asunto(s)
Personal de Salud/educación , Fiebre Hemorrágica Ebola/transmisión , Transmisión de Enfermedad Infecciosa de Paciente a Profesional/prevención & control , Equipo de Protección Personal/virología , Adulto , Aerosoles/administración & dosificación , Exposición a Riesgos Ambientales/prevención & control , Femenino , Fiebre Hemorrágica Ebola/prevención & control , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Distribución Aleatoria , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The level of patient safety and outcomes accomplished depends on the quality of care provided. Previous studies found that nurse-to-patient ratio, practice environment, and nursing education were significant predictors of patient outcomes. However, the outcomes measured in previous studies were mainly inpatient mortality and failure-to-rescue rates. Few nurse-sensitive patient outcomes have been measured that quantify nurses' contribution to patient care. Selecting appropriate outcomes that reflect the clinically relevant effect of nursing care is important. Moreover previous studies were largely cross-sectional and retrospective. These research designs are limited in their ability to explain the casual links between the variables examined. This study is aimed at determining the associations among staffing levels, skill mix of baccalaureate-prepared registered nurses, and practice environment on nurse-sensitive outcomes for medical and surgical patients in public hospitals in Hong Kong. METHOD/DESIGNS: A multi-method research design will be adopted. The sample includes all medical and surgical wards of four major public hospitals that offer 24-h accident and emergency services. Multiple responses from registered nurses who work in the study wards will be collected over 12 months to examine their individual characteristics and perceptions of the practice environment. A 12-month prospective observational study will be performed to determine the association between nurse staffing levels, the practice environment, and nurse-sensitive patient outcomes including pressure ulcers, falls and restraint prevalence, urinary catheter-associated urinary tract infections, and central line catheter-associated bloodstream infections. Multilevel Cox proportional hazards models will be employed to examine the association between these patient outcomes and the explanatory nursing factors of primary interest (nurse staffing levels, education composition, and practice environment), with adjustment for all patient-, ward- and hospital-level potential confounders (age, sex, diagnosis, comorbidities, level of surgical invasiveness, mortality, length of stay, and type of admission). DISCUSSION: It is anticipated that knowledge of the association between nurse staffing levels, the practice environment, and nurse-sensitive outcomes will inform the provision of quality and timely patient care. This study will provide a landmark report that is of relevance and importance to patients and to hospital stakeholders and managers, health policy makers, nurses, and educators who advocate patient benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Registry CCTCTR CUHK_CCT00460 . Date of trial registration: 02 July 2015.