Suchergebnisse

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has proved to be a severe global public health threat, causing high infection rates and mortality worldwide. Burundi was not spared the adverse health outcomes of COVID-19. Although Burundi's initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic was criticized, hope arose in June 2020 when the new government instituted a plan to slow virus transmission that included public health campaigns, international travel restrictions, and mass testing, all of which proved effective. Burundi has faced many challenges in containing the virus, the first of which was the lack of initial preparedness and appropriate response to COVID-19. This was exacerbated by factors including shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), limited numbers of life-saving ventilators (around 12 ventilators as of April 2020), and the presence of only one COVID-19 testing center with less than ten technicians in July 2020. Moreover, as Burundi is amongst the poorest countries in the world, some citizens were unable to access necessities such as water and soap, required for compliance with government recommendations regarding hygiene. Interestingly, Burundi did not implement a nationwide lockdown, allowing mass gatherings and public services to continue as usual due to a firm belief in God's protection. As the daily confirmed cases have tripled since December 2020, Burundi must prepare itself for the threat of a new wave. Establishing precautionary measures to contain the virus and strengthening the health surveillance system in Burundi would significantly positively impact the prevention and management of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate COVID-19 infections and deaths in healthcare workers (HCWs) from a global perspective during the early phases of the pandemic. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Two parallel searches of academic bibliographic databases and grey literature were undertaken until 8 May 2020. Governments were also contacted for further information where possible. There were no restrictions on language, information sources used, publication status and types of sources of evidence. The AACODS checklist or the National Institutes of Health study quality assessment tools were used to appraise each source of evidence. OUTCOME MEASURES: Publication characteristics, country-specific data points, COVID-19-specific data, demographics of affected HCWs and public health measures employed. RESULTS: A total of 152 888 infections and 1413 deaths were reported. Infections were mainly in women (71.6%, n=14 058) and nurses (38.6%, n=10 706), but deaths were mainly in men (70.8%, n=550) and doctors (51.4%, n=525). Limited data suggested that general practitioners and mental health nurses were the highest risk specialities for deaths. There were 37.2 deaths reported per 100 infections for HCWs aged over 70 years. Europe had the highest absolute numbers of reported infections (119 628) and deaths (712), but the Eastern Mediterranean region had the highest number of reported deaths per 100 infections (5.7). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 infections and deaths among HCWs follow that of the general population around the world. The reasons for gender and specialty differences require further exploration, as do the low rates reported in Africa and India. Although physicians working in certain specialities may be considered high risk due to exposure to oronasal secretions, the risk to other specialities must not be underestimated. Elderly HCWs may require assigning to less risky settings such as telemedicine or administrative positions. Our pragmatic approach provides general trends, and highlights the need for universal guidelines for ...