SARS-CoV-2 has been implicated in the largest recorded coronavirus outbreak to date. Initially, most COVID-19 cases were in China, but the virus has spread to more than 184 countries worldwide, and the United States currently has more cases than any other country.

With person-to-person spread expanding in the United States, we describe hospital preparedness for managing suspected and confirmed COVID-19 patients.

Cross-sectional survey focused on various elements of respiratory disease preparedness.

Critical access hospitals (CAHs) and acute-care hospitals (ACHs) in Idaho.

The electronic survey was sent to infection preventionists (IPs) and nurse administrators in 44 hospitals in Idaho.

Overall, 32 (73%) hospitals responded to the survey. Participating facilities reported their preparedness with respect to existing, formalized structures for managing infectious disease incidents—specifically COVID-19—as well as availability of resources, such as isolation rooms and personal protective equipment, for safely managing suspected and confirmed COVID-19 cases.

Hospitals covered by the survey had varying levels of preparedness for managing COVID-19 cases, with differences across the various categories of interest in this study. Although the study reveals strengths, including in application of emergency management and infection control frameworks, it also suggests that other areas, such as consistent implementation of federal guidelines and requirements for infection prevention, are potential areas for strengthening preparedness for SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory pathogens with pandemic potential.

This study aims to assess the perception and attitude of emergency medical services (EMS) providers toward working during disease outbreaks, and the factors that may influence their decisions to ultimately work or not.

This is a cross-sectional study assessing the attitude of EMS providers to work during disease outbreaks. Descriptive statistics and regression analyses were performed to assess attitudes toward reporting for duty and factors that influence providers’ decisions.

Of the 500 surveys distributed, 466 (93.2%) were complete and included for analysis. The majority of participants (70.2%) are male with a mean age of 27 (SD 4.3) years. The study found that the majority (71.1%) of participants are willing to come to work during disease outbreaks. The study found 7 predictors of reporting for duty. Confidence that employer will provide adequate protective gear was the most significant predictor (odds ratio [OR], 3.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.31-5.42). Concern for family safety was the most important barrier against coming to work (OR, 0.40; 95% CI = 0.21-0.73).

Providing adequate supplies of protective gear along with knowledge and training for disease outbreak are the main factors that enhance providers to fulfill their work expectations.

Staff surveillance is crucial during the containment phase of a pandemic to help reduce potential healthcare-associated transmission and sustain good staff morale. During an outbreak of SARS-COV-2 with community transmission, our institution used an integrated strategy for early detection and containment of COVID-19 cases among healthcare workers (HCWs).

Our strategy comprised 3 key components: (1) enforcing reporting of HCWs with acute respiratory illness (ARI) to our institution’s staff clinic for monitoring; (2) conducting ongoing syndromic surveillance to obtain early warning of potential clusters of COVID-19; and (3) outbreak investigation and management.

Over a 16-week surveillance period, we detected 14 cases of COVID-19 among HCWs with ARI symptoms. Two of the cases were linked epidemiologically and thus constituted a COVID-19 cluster with intrahospital HCW–HCW transmission; we also detected 1 family cluster and 2 clusters among HCWs who shared accommodation. No transmission to HCWs or patients was detected after containment measures were instituted. Early detection minimized the number of HCWs requiring quarantine, hence preserving continuity of service during an ongoing pandemic.

An integrated surveillance strategy, outbreak management, and encouraging individual responsibility were successful in early detection of clusters of COVID-19 among HCWs. With ongoing local transmission, vigilance must be maintained for intrahospital spread in nonclinical areas where social mingling of HCWs occurs. Because most individuals with COVID-19 have mild symptoms, addressing presenteeism is crucial to minimize potential staff and patient exposure.

Personal protective equipment (PPE) is worn by prehospital providers (PHPs) for protection from hazardous exposures. Evidence regarding the ability of PHPs to perform resuscitation procedures has been described in adult but not pediatric models. This study examined the effects of PPE on the ability of PHPs to perform resuscitation procedures on pediatric patients.

This prospective study was conducted at a US simulation center. Paramedics wore normal attire at the baseline session and donned full Level B PPE for the second session. During each session, they performed timed sets of psychomotor tasks simulating clinical care of a critically ill pediatric patient. The difference in time to completion between baseline and PPE sessions per task was examined using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

A total of 50 paramedics completed both sessions. Median times for task completion at the PPE sessions increased significantly from baseline for several procedures: tracheal intubation (+4.5 s; P = 0.01), automated external defibrillator (AED) placement (+9.5 s; P = 0.01), intraosseous line insertion (+7 s; P < 0.0001), tourniquet (+8.5 s; P < 0.0001), intramuscular injection (+21-23 s, P < 0.0001), and pulse oximetry (+4 s; P < 0.0001). There was no significant increase in completion time for bag-mask ventilation or autoinjector use.

PPE did not have a significant impact on PHPs performing critical tasks while caring for a pediatric patient with a highly infectious or chemical exposure. This information may guide PHPs faced with the situation of resuscitating children while wearing Level B PPE.

Due to the drastic surge of COVID-19 patients, many countries are considering or already graduating health professional students early to aid professional resources. We aimed to assess outbreak-related psychological distress and symptoms of acute stress reaction (ASR) in health professional students and to characterize individuals with potential need for interventions.

We conducted a prospective cohort study of 1442 health professional students at Sichuan University, China. At baseline (October 2019), participants were assessed for childhood adversity, stressful life events, internet addiction, and family functioning. Using multivariable logistic regression, we examined associations of the above exposures with subsequent psychological distress and ASR in response to the outbreak.

Three hundred and eighty-four (26.63%) participants demonstrated clinically significant psychological distress, while 160 (11.10%) met the criterion for a probable ASR. Individuals who scored high on both childhood adversity and stressful life event experiences during the past year were at increased risks of both distress (ORs 2.00–2.66) and probable ASR (ORs 2.23–3.10), respectively. Moreover, internet addiction was associated with elevated risks of distress (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.60–2.64) and probable ASR (OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.50–3.10). By contrast, good family functioning was associated with decreased risks of distress (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.33–0.55) and probable ASR (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33–0.69). All associations were independent of baseline psychological distress.

Our findings suggest that COVID-19 related psychological distress and high symptoms burden of ASR are common among health professional students. Extended family and professional support should be considered for vulnerable individuals during these unprecedented times.

To determine whether ambient air pollutants and meteorological variables are associated with daily COVID-19 incidence.

A retrospective cohort from January 25 to February 29, 2020.

Cities of Wuhan, Xiaogan, and Huanggang, China.

The COVID-19 cases detected each day.

We collected daily data of COVID-19 incidence, 8 ambient air pollutants (particulate matter of ≤2.5 µm [PM2.5], particulate matter ≤10 µm [PM10], sulfur dioxide [SO2], carbon monoxide [CO], nitrogen dioxide [NO2], and maximum 8-h moving average concentrations for ozone [O3-8h]) and 3 meteorological variables (temperature, relative humidity, and wind) in China’s 3 worst COVID-19–stricken cities during the study period. The multivariate Poisson regression was performed to understand their correlation.

Daily COVID-19 incidence was positively associated with PM2.5 and humidity in all cities. Specifically, the relative risk (RR) of PM2.5 for daily COVID-19 incidences were 1.036 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.032–1.039) in Wuhan, 1.059 (95% CI, 1.046–1.072) in Xiaogan, and 1.144 (95% CI, 1.12–1.169) in Huanggang. The RR of humidity for daily COVID-19 incidence was consistently lower than that of PM2.5, and this difference ranged from 0.027 to 0.111. Moreover, PM10 and temperature also exhibited a notable correlation with daily COVID-19 incidence, but in a negative pattern The RR of PM10 for daily COVID-19 incidence ranged from 0.915 (95% CI, 0.896–0.934) to 0.961 (95% CI, 0.95–0.972, while that of temperature ranged from 0.738 (95% CI, 0.717–0.759) to 0.969 (95% CI, 0.966–0.973).

Our data show that PM2.5 and humidity are substantially associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 and that PM10 and temperature are substantially associated with a decreased risk of COVID-19.

Patients with COVID-19 may present with respiratory syndromes indistinguishable from those caused by common viruses. Early isolation and containment is challenging. Although screening all patients with respiratory symptoms for COVID-19 has been recommended, the practicality of such an effort has yet to be assessed.

Over a 6-week period during a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, our institution introduced a “respiratory surveillance ward” (RSW) to segregate all patients with respiratory symptoms in designated areas, where appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) could be utilized until SARS-CoV-2 testing was done. Patients could be transferred when SARS-CoV-2 tests were negative on 2 consecutive occasions, 24 hours apart.

Over the study period, 1,178 patients were admitted to the RSWs. The mean length-of-stay (LOS) was 1.89 days (SD, 1.23). Among confirmed cases of pneumonia admitted to the RSW, 5 of 310 patients (1.61%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. This finding was comparable to the pickup rate from our isolation ward. In total, 126 HCWs were potentially exposed to these cases; however, only 3 (2.38%) required quarantine because most used appropriate PPE. In addition, 13 inpatients overlapped with the index cases during their stay in the RSW; of these 13 exposed inpatients, 1 patient subsequently developed COVID-19 after exposure. No patient–HCW transmission was detected despite intensive surveillance.

Our institution successfully utilized the strategy of an RSW over a 6-week period to contain a cluster of COVID-19 cases and to prevent patient–HCW transmission. However, this method was resource-intensive in terms of testing and bed capacity.