10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Risks and challenges in COVID-19 infection prevention and control in a hospital setting: Perspectives of healthcare workers in Thailand

      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

          Introduction

          In hospital settings, awareness of, and responsiveness to, COVID-19 are crucial to reducing the risk of transmission among healthcare workers and protecting them from infection. Healthcare professionals can offer insights into the practicalities of infection prevention and control (IPC) measures and on how the guideline aimed to ensure adherence to IPC, including use of personal protective equipment (PPE), could best be delivered during the pandemic. To inform future development of such guideline, this study examined the perspectives of healthcare professionals working in a large hospital during the pandemic regarding their infection risks, the barriers or facilitators to implementing their tasks and the IPC measures to protect their safety and health and of their patients.

          Method

          In-depth interviews were conducted with 23 hospital staff coming into contact with possible or confirmed cases of COVID-19, or were at potential risk of contracting the disease, including medical doctors, nurses, virology laboratory staff, and non-medical workers. This qualitative study was carried out as part of a knowledge, attitudes and practice survey to prevent COVID-19 transmission at Ramathibodi Hospital in Thailand. We used content analysis to categorize and code transcribed interview data. Existing IPC guideline and evidence synthesis of organisational, environmental, and individual factors to IPC adherence among healthcare workers were used to guide the development of the interview questions and analysis.

          Finding

          Factors identified as influencing the use of, and adherence to, prevention measures among healthcare workers included knowledge, perceived risk and concerns about the infection. The extent to which these factors were influential varied based on the medical procedures, among other features, that individuals were assigned to perform in the hospital setting. Beyond availability of PPE and physical safety, ease of and readiness to utilize the equipment and implement IPC measures were crucial to motivate hospital staff to follow the practice guideline. Having a ventilated outdoor space for screening and testing, and interaction through mobile technology, facilitated the performance of healthcare workers while reducing the transmission risk for staff and patients. Adequate training, demonstration of guided practices, and streamlined communications are crucial organisational and management support factors to encourage appropriate use of, and adherence to, implementation of infection prevention and control measures among healthcare workers.

          Conclusion

          This finding could help inform the development of recommendations to optimise compliance with appropriate use of these measures, and to improve guidance to reduce HCW’s risk of disease in hospital settings. Further study should explore the perceptions and experiences of health professionals in smaller health facilities and community-based workers during the pandemic, particularly in resource-limited settings.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

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

          Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.

          Content analysis is a widely used qualitative research technique. Rather than being a single method, current applications of content analysis show three distinct approaches: conventional, directed, or summative. All three approaches are used to interpret meaning from the content of text data and, hence, adhere to the naturalistic paradigm. The major differences among the approaches are coding schemes, origins of codes, and threats to trustworthiness. In conventional content analysis, coding categories are derived directly from the text data. With a directed approach, analysis starts with a theory or relevant research findings as guidance for initial codes. A summative content analysis involves counting and comparisons, usually of keywords or content, followed by the interpretation of the underlying context. The authors delineate analytic procedures specific to each approach and techniques addressing trustworthiness with hypothetical examples drawn from the area of end-of-life care.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization

            Saturation has attained widespread acceptance as a methodological principle in qualitative research. It is commonly taken to indicate that, on the basis of the data that have been collected or analysed hitherto, further data collection and/or analysis are unnecessary. However, there appears to be uncertainty as to how saturation should be conceptualized, and inconsistencies in its use. In this paper, we look to clarify the nature, purposes and uses of saturation, and in doing so add to theoretical debate on the role of saturation across different methodologies. We identify four distinct approaches to saturation, which differ in terms of the extent to which an inductive or a deductive logic is adopted, and the relative emphasis on data collection, data analysis, and theorizing. We explore the purposes saturation might serve in relation to these different approaches, and the implications for how and when saturation will be sought. In examining these issues, we highlight the uncertain logic underlying saturation—as essentially a predictive statement about the unobserved based on the observed, a judgement that, we argue, results in equivocation, and may in part explain the confusion surrounding its use. We conclude that saturation should be operationalized in a way that is consistent with the research question(s), and the theoretical position and analytic framework adopted, but also that there should be some limit to its scope, so as not to risk saturation losing its coherence and potency if its conceptualization and uses are stretched too widely.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers and the general community: a prospective cohort study

              Summary Background Data for front-line health-care workers and risk of COVID-19 are limited. We sought to assess risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers compared with the general community and the effect of personal protective equipment (PPE) on risk. Methods We did a prospective, observational cohort study in the UK and the USA of the general community, including front-line health-care workers, using self-reported data from the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application (app) from March 24 (UK) and March 29 (USA) to April 23, 2020. Participants were voluntary users of the app and at first use provided information on demographic factors (including age, sex, race or ethnic background, height and weight, and occupation) and medical history, and subsequently reported any COVID-19 symptoms. We used Cox proportional hazards modelling to estimate multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of our primary outcome, which was a positive COVID-19 test. The COVID Symptom Study app is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04331509. Findings Among 2 035 395 community individuals and 99 795 front-line health-care workers, we recorded 5545 incident reports of a positive COVID-19 test over 34 435 272 person-days. Compared with the general community, front-line health-care workers were at increased risk for reporting a positive COVID-19 test (adjusted HR 11·61, 95% CI 10·93–12·33). To account for differences in testing frequency between front-line health-care workers and the general community and possible selection bias, an inverse probability-weighted model was used to adjust for the likelihood of receiving a COVID-19 test (adjusted HR 3·40, 95% CI 3·37–3·43). Secondary and post-hoc analyses suggested adequacy of PPE, clinical setting, and ethnic background were also important factors. Interpretation In the UK and the USA, risk of reporting a positive test for COVID-19 was increased among front-line health-care workers. Health-care systems should ensure adequate availability of PPE and develop additional strategies to protect health-care workers from COVID-19, particularly those from Black, Asian, and minority ethnic backgrounds. Additional follow-up of these observational findings is needed. Funding Zoe Global, Wellcome Trust, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institutes of Health Research, UK Research and Innovation, Alzheimer's Society, National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SoftwareRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: Formal analysisRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLOS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                19 December 2023
                2023
                : 18
                : 12
                : e0267996
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Mahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
                [2 ] Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
                [3 ] Faculty of Medicine, Srinakharinwirot University, Nakhonnayok, Thailand
                [4 ] Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom
                [5 ] Faculty of Medicine, Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
                [6 ] Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA, United States of America
                [7 ] The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
                Delta State University, NIGERIA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5355-0562
                Article
                PONE-D-22-11355
                10.1371/journal.pone.0267996
                10729973
                38113209
                02441b50-c80b-4b09-acae-e4c3a09926bc
                © 2023 Jongdeepaisal 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
                : 18 April 2022
                : 16 October 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 3, Pages: 18
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100010269, Wellcome Trust;
                Award ID: 220211
                This research was funded in whole, or in part, by the Wellcome Trust [Grant number 220211]. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Viral Diseases
                Covid 19
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Medical Risk Factors
                Engineering and Technology
                Equipment
                Safety Equipment
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Safety
                Safety Equipment
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Medical Personnel
                Nurses
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Providers
                Nurses
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Pandemics
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Medical Personnel
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Facilities
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Diagnostic Medicine
                Virus Testing
                Custom metadata
                The data on which this article is based cannot be shared publicly due to confidentiality of the individuals who participated in the study. The data are available upon reasonable request to the Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit Data Access Committee ( datasharing@ 123456tropmedres.ac ) complying with the data access policy ( https://www.tropmedres.ac/units/moru-bangkok/bioethics-engagement/data-sharing/moru-tropical-network-policy-on-sharing-data-and-other-outputs) for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data.
                COVID-19

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article