To investigate the knowledge, attitudes and practices (K-A-P) about food safety and nutrition in Chinese adults who were recruited to the online survey during the epidemic of corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Participants were recruited by an online snowball sampling method. An electronic questionnaire was sent to our colleagues, students, friends, other professionals and their referrals helped us recruit more participants. The questionnaire included socio-demographic information, the attention paid to COVID-19, K-A-P about food safety and nutrition. Multiple and logistic regression analyses were used to explore related factors of K-A-P.

Totally, 2272 participants aged 24·09 ± 9·14 years, from twenty-seven provinces, autonomous districts or municipalities, with 18·3 % male and 83·4 % with a medical background.

The total possible knowledge score was 8·0, the average score was 5·2 ± 1·6 and 4·2 % obtained 8·0. The total possible attitudes score was 8·0, the average score was 6·5 ± 1·4 and 36·1 % obtained 8·0. The total possible food safety practices score was 5·0, the average score was 3·7 ± 1·0 and 20·7 % obtained 5·0. During this public emergency, 79·4 % participants changed diet habits, including increasing vegetables, fruit and water intake and reducing sugary drinks and snacks. Gender, age, educational and professional background, disease history, the attention paid to COVID-19 and related knowledge were associated with K-A-P.

There was room for the improvement of K-A-P in participants during this public health emergency and further strengthening education about food safety and nutrition is needed. Findings indicate that education should address biased or misleading information and promote nutritious food choices and safe food practices.

In this study, we aimed to capture perspectives of healthcare workers (HCWs) on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and infection prevention and control (IPAC) measures implemented during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A cross-sectional survey of HCWs.

HCWs from the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada.

A self-administered survey was distributed to HCWs. We analyzed factors influencing HCW knowledge and self-reported use of personal protective equipment (PPE), concerns about contracting COVID-19 and acceptance of the recommended IPAC precautions for COVID-19.

In total, 175 HCWs completed the survey between March 6 and March 10: 35 staff physicians (20%), 24 residents or fellows (14%), 72 nurses (41%), 14 respiratory therapists (8%), 14 administration staff (8%), and 14 other employees (8%). Most of the respondents were from the emergency department (n = 58, 33%) and the intensive care unit (n = 58, 33%). Only 86 respondents (50%) identified the correct donning order; only 60 (35%) identified the correct doffing order; but the majority (n = 113, 70%) indicated the need to wash their hands immediately prior to removal of their mask and eye protection. Also, 91 (54%) respondents felt comfortable with recommendations for droplet and/or contact precautions for routine care of patients with COVID-19. HCW occupation and concerns about contracting COVID-19 outside work were associated with nonacceptance of the recommendations (P = .016 and P = .036 respectively).

As part of their pandemic response plans, healthcare institutions should have ongoing training for HCWs that focus on appropriate PPE doffing and discussions around modes of transmission of COVID-19.

To report feasibility, early outcomes and challenges of implementing a 14-day threshold for undertaking surgical tracheostomy in the critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patient.

Twenty-eight coronavirus disease 2019 patients underwent tracheostomy. Demographics, risk factors, ventilatory assistance, organ support and logistics were assessed.

The mean time from intubation to tracheostomy formation was 17.0 days (standard deviation = 4.4, range 8–26 days). Mean time to decannulation was 15.8 days (standard deviation = 9.4) and mean time to intensive care unit stepdown to a ward was 19.2 days (standard deviation = 6.8). The time from intubation to tracheostomy was strongly positively correlated with: duration of mechanical ventilation (r(23) = 0.66; p < 0.001), time from intubation to decannulation (r(23) = 0.66; p < 0.001) and time from intubation to intensive care unit discharge (r(23) = 0.71; p < 0.001).

Performing a tracheostomy in coronavirus disease 2019 positive patients at 8–14 days following intubation is compatible with favourable outcomes. Multidisciplinary team input is crucial to patient selection.

The aim of this study was to determine how the early stages of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic affected the use of the pediatric emergency department (PED).

Cross-sectional study of PED visits during January through April, 2016-2020. Data included: total PED visits, emergency severity index (ESI), disposition, chief complaint, age (months), time from first provider to disposition (PTD), and PED length of stay (PED-LOS). P-value <0.01 was statistically significant.

In total, 67,499 visits were reported. There was a significant decrease in PED visits of 24-71% from March to April 2020. Chief complaints for fever and cough were highest in March 2020; while April 2020 had a shorter mean PED-LOS (from 158 to 123 min), an increase of admissions (from 8% to 14%), a decrease in ESI 4 (10%), and an increase in ESI 3 (8%) (P < 0.001). There was no difference in mean monthly PTD time.

Patient flow in the PED was negatively affected by a decrease in PED visits and increase in admission rate that may be related to higher acuity. By understanding the interaction between hospital processes on PEDs and patient factors during a pandemic, we are able to anticipate and better allocate future resources.

To clarify the pandemic status in Western Pacific countries or territories.

The WHO’s daily situation reports of COVID-19 were reviewed from January 20, 2020, to March 24, 2020. Changes in the infections, deaths, and the case fatality rate (CFR) in Western Pacific countries or territories were counted.

As of March 24, a total of 17 countries or territories had reported the presence of COVID-19 in the Western Pacific Region, 96,580 people have been infected and a total of 3502 deaths. Fifty-three percent (9/17) of these countries or territories had their first case within 2 wk since the WHO’s first report, most are China’s neighbors with a large and dense population. No other country or territory in this region reported a new infection from January 30 to February 28. However, 8 (47.0%) countries or territories have reported the first cases in 3 wk since February 28, almost all are islands. Many countries maintained a small number of infections for a long time after the first report, but a rapid increase occurred later. Deaths occurred in 8 countries with a total CFR of 3.63%, and the CFR varies widely, from 0.39% (Singapore) to 7.14% (Philippines).

The regional spread of COVID-19 urgently requires an aggressive preparedness for the Western Pacific Islands.

Awareness and attentiveness have implications for the acceptance and adoption of disease prevention and control measures. Social media posts provide a record of the public’s attention to an outbreak. To measure the attention of Chinese netizens to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a pre-established nationally representative cohort of Weibo users was searched for COVID-19-related key words in their posts.

COVID-19-related posts (N = 1101) were retrieved from a longitudinal cohort of 52 268 randomly sampled Weibo accounts (December 31, 2019–February 12, 2020).

Attention to COVID-19 was limited prior to China openly acknowledging human-to-human transmission on January 20. Following this date, attention quickly increased and has remained high over time. Particularly high levels of social media traffic appeared around when Wuhan was first placed in quarantine (January 23–24, 8–9% of the overall posts), when a scandal associated with the Red Cross Society of China occurred (February 1, 8%), and, following the death of Dr Li Wenliang (February 6–7, 11%), one of the whistleblowers who was reprimanded by the Chinese police in early January for discussing this outbreak online.

Limited early warnings represent missed opportunities to engage citizens earlier in the outbreak. Governments should more proactively communicate early warnings to the public in a transparent manner.

The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic has had significant impact on human lives as well as economic and social stability. The United States has a complicated history with biosecurity as policy making, biodefense activities, and government transparency have historically been in contention. The terror attacks of September 11, 2001 uncovered various weaknesses in the national public health infrastructure that have persisted into the current pandemic.

This study explores the biodefense and public health preparedness landscape for trends in federal support and capacity building. It also investigates the applicability of public health emergency management principles to the biodefense structure. A mixed method was utilized in this study to investigate the qualitative and quantitative factors of the research inquiry. Braun and Clarke’s six phase framework for thematic analysis will assist with defining the important information from a review of the literature. The concurrent triangulation design permits that use of qualitative and quantitative data to more accurately define and analyze the relationship among the variables of interest

The results included the identification of 8 common themes of failure during the COVID-19 response: (1) accountable leadership, (2) statutory authorities and policies, (3) inter-agency coordination, (4) coherent data system for situational awareness, (5) strategic national stockpile and supply chain, (6) testing and surveillance, (7) health care system surge capacity and resilience, and (8) federal funds and the role of public health emergency management in the evolving landscape of biothreats, both intentional and natural.

To counter the increasing biothreats, the United States must invest in revamping the biodefense infrastructure to mimic and support public health emergency preparedness initiatives which will increase our resilience to various biothreats.

To describe the pattern of transmission of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during 2 nosocomial outbreaks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with regard to the possibility of airborne transmission.

Contact investigations with active case finding were used to assess the pattern of spread from 2 COVID-19 index patients.

A community hospital and university medical center in the United States, in February and March, 2020, early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Two index patients and 421 exposed healthcare workers.

Exposed healthcare workers (HCWs) were identified by analyzing the electronic medical record (EMR) and conducting active case finding in combination with structured interviews. Healthcare coworkers (HCWs) were tested for COVID-19 by obtaining oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal specimens, and RT-PCR testing was used to detect SARS-CoV-2.

Two separate index patients were admitted in February and March 2020, without initial suspicion for COVID-19 and without contact or droplet precautions in place; both patients underwent several aerosol-generating procedures in this context. In total, 421 HCWs were exposed in total, and the results of the case contact investigations identified 8 secondary infections in HCWs. In all 8 cases, the HCWs had close contact with the index patients without sufficient personal protective equipment. Importantly, despite multiple aerosol-generating procedures, there was no evidence of airborne transmission.

These observations suggest that, at least in a healthcare setting, most SARS-CoV-2 transmission is likely to take place during close contact with infected patients through respiratory droplets, rather than by long-distance airborne transmission.

To describe the infection control preparedness measures undertaken for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) due to SARS-CoV-2 (previously known as 2019 novel coronavirus) in the first 42 days after announcement of a cluster of pneumonia in China, on December 31, 2019 (day 1) in Hong Kong.

A bundled approach of active and enhanced laboratory surveillance, early airborne infection isolation, rapid molecular diagnostic testing, and contact tracing for healthcare workers (HCWs) with unprotected exposure in the hospitals was implemented. Epidemiological characteristics of confirmed cases, environmental samples, and air samples were collected and analyzed.

From day 1 to day 42, 42 of 1,275 patients (3.3%) fulfilling active (n = 29) and enhanced laboratory surveillance (n = 13) were confirmed to have the SARS-CoV-2 infection. The number of locally acquired case significantly increased from 1 of 13 confirmed cases (7.7%, day 22 to day 32) to 27 of 29 confirmed cases (93.1%, day 33 to day 42; P < .001). Among them, 28 patients (66.6%) came from 8 family clusters. Of 413 HCWs caring for these confirmed cases, 11 (2.7%) had unprotected exposure requiring quarantine for 14 days. None of these was infected, and nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was not observed. Environmental surveillance was performed in the room of a patient with viral load of 3.3 × 106 copies/mL (pooled nasopharyngeal and throat swabs) and 5.9 × 106 copies/mL (saliva), respectively. SARS-CoV-2 was identified in 1 of 13 environmental samples (7.7%) but not in 8 air samples collected at a distance of 10 cm from the patient’s chin with or without wearing a surgical mask.

Appropriate hospital infection control measures was able to prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination effectiveness in healthcare personnel (HCP) has been established. However, questions remain regarding its performance in high-risk healthcare occupations and work locations. We describe the effect of a COVID-19 HCP vaccination campaign on SARS-CoV-2 infection by timing of vaccination, job type, and work location.

We conducted a retrospective review of COVID-19 vaccination acceptance, incidence of postvaccination COVID-19, hospitalization, and mortality among 16,156 faculty, students, and staff at a large academic medical center. Data were collected 8 weeks prior to the start of phase 1a vaccination of frontline employees and ended 11 weeks after campaign onset.

The COVID-19 incidence rate among HCP at our institution decreased from 3.2% during the 8 weeks prior to the start of vaccinations to 0.38% by 4 weeks after campaign initiation. COVID-19 risk was reduced among individuals who received a single vaccination (hazard ratio [HR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40–0.68; P < .0001) and was further reduced with 2 doses of vaccine (HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.09–0.32; P < .0001). By 2 weeks after the second dose, the observed case positivity rate was 0.04%. Among phase 1a HCP, we observed a lower risk of COVID-19 among physicians and a trend toward higher risk for respiratory therapists independent of vaccination status. Rates of infection were similar in a subgroup of nurses when examined by work location.

Our findings show the real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in HCP. Despite these encouraging results, unvaccinated HCP remain at an elevated risk of infection, highlighting the need for targeted outreach to combat vaccine hesitancy.

To determine if the initial COVID-19 societal restrictions, introduced in Ireland in March 2020, impacted on the number and nature of psychiatry presentations to the emergency department (ED) of a large academic teaching hospital.

We examined anonymised clinical data of psychiatry presentations to the ED during the initial 8-week period of COVID-19 restrictions. Data from corresponding 8-week periods in 2018 and 2019 were also extracted for comparison.

Psychiatry presentations to ED reduced by 21% during the COVID-19 restrictions, from 24/week to 19/week when compared with corresponding periods in 2018/2019 (Poisson’s Rate Test estimate of difference −5.2/week, 95% CI 1.3–9.1, p = 0.012). Numbers attending for out-of-hours assessment remained unchanged (81 v. 80), but numbers seeking assessment during normal hours decreased (71 v. 114). We observed increased presentations from the <18 age group, but decreased presentations from the 18 to 29 age group (Pearson’s Chi-Square 20.363, df = 6, p = 0.002). We recorded an increase in anxiety disorders during the initial COVID-19 restrictions (31 v. 23), and a reduction in alcohol disorders (28 v. 52). The proportion of presentations with suicidal ideation (SI) or self-harm as factors remained unchanged.

Rates of emergency presentation with mental illness reduced during the initial COVID-19 restrictions. This may represent an unmet burden of mental health needs. Younger people may be experiencing greater distress and mental illness during the current crisis. More people sought help for anxiety disorders during the COVID-19 restrictions compared with corresponding data from 2018 and 2019.

The pressures exerted by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic pose an unprecedented demand on healthcare services. Hospitals become rapidly overwhelmed when patients requiring life-saving support outpace available capacities.

We describe methods used by a university hospital to forecast case loads and time to peak incidence.

We developed a set of models to forecast incidence among the hospital catchment population and to describe the COVID-19 patient hospital-care pathway. The first forecast utilized data from antecedent allopatric epidemics and parameterized the care-pathway model according to expert opinion (ie, the static model). Once sufficient local data were available, trends for the time-dependent effective reproduction number were fitted, and the care pathway was reparameterized using hazards for real patient admission, referrals, and discharge (ie, the dynamic model).

The static model, deployed before the epidemic, exaggerated the bed occupancy for general wards (116 forecasted vs 66 observed), ICUs (47 forecasted vs 34 observed), and predicted the peak too late: general ward forecast April 9 and observed April 8 and ICU forecast April 19 and observed April 8. After April 5, the dynamic model could be run daily, and its precision improved with increasing availability of empirical local data.

The models provided data-based guidance for the preparation and allocation of critical resources of a university hospital well in advance of the epidemic surge, despite overestimating the service demand. Overestimates should resolve when the population contact pattern before and during restrictions can be taken into account, but for now they may provide an acceptable safety margin for preparing during times of uncertainty.

The seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) IgG antibody was evaluated among employees of a Veterans Affairs healthcare system to assess potential risk factors for transmission and infection.

All employees were invited to participate in a questionnaire and serological survey to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 as part of a facility-wide quality improvement and infection prevention initiative regardless of clinical or nonclinical duties. The initiative was conducted from June 8 to July 8, 2020.

Of the 2,900 employees, 51% participated in the study, revealing a positive SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence of 4.9% (72 of 1,476; 95% CI, 3.8%–6.1%). There were no statistically significant differences in the presence of antibody based on gender, age, frontline worker status, job title, performance of aerosol-generating procedures, or exposure to known patients with coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) within the hospital. Employees who reported exposure to a known COVID-19 case outside work had a significantly higher seroprevalence at 14.8% (23 of 155) compared to those who did not 3.7% (48 of 1,296; OR, 4.53; 95% CI, 2.67–7.68; P < .0001). Notably, 29% of seropositive employees reported no history of symptoms for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among employees was not significantly different among those who provided direct patient care and those who did not, suggesting that facility-wide infection control measures were effective. Employees who reported direct personal contact with COVID-19–positive persons outside work were more likely to have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Employee exposure to SARS-CoV-2 outside work may introduce infection into hospitals.