Hazardous drugs are inherently toxic and present a potential occupational exposure risk to nurses and midwives. Hazardous drugs require special handling to minimise the risk of exposure and adverse health effects. Although the use of hazardous drugs in oncology services is well recognised, they are also used in other healthcare areas where nurses and midwives may be unaware there is a risk.

To investigate what nurses and midwives know and do about their occupational exposure to hazardous drugs, and what factors affect their knowledge and practice.

Mixed methods systematic review.

A systematic review was conducted, and studies were included if the authors described what nurses or midwives knew about hazardous drugs, or what they did in their clinical practice to reduce their risk of occupational exposure (PROSPERO registration CRD42024437493). The databases were searched for any year until the 26th of January 2024.Two independent reviewers extracted data using Covidence and assessed the risk of bias. The data were extracted into the categories of knowledge of risk and safe handling practices, attitude and factors affecting these, and activities that posed the greatest risk of exposure (preparation, administration, and disposal of hazardous drugs, cleaning hazardous drug spills, and handling excreta from patients who had recently been treated with hazardous drugs).

Of the 2702 articles that were identified, 59 quantitative and 3 qualitative studies were included in this review. No studies reported on midwives handling hazardous drugs. Most studies investigated nurses working in oncology services. Nurses reported a lack of education about the risk and safe handling. They were often responsible for preparing hazardous drugs and there was inconsistency in their compliance when using personal protective equipment. Nurses did not always perceive that there was a real risk of exposure, were concerned about the effect of wearing personal protective equipment on their relationship with patients and perceived they lacked the time to don equipment.

The risk of occupational exposure to hazardous drugs outside of oncology services was rarely investigated. There were no studies reporting what midwives knew and did about their risk of occupational exposure to hazardous drugs. When nurses were aware of the risks, this did not necessarily translate into the implementation of safe handling practices or the consistent use of personal protective equipment because of a perceived low risk, lack of personal protective equipment availability, and prioritising personal or patient comfort over safety measures.

Nurses and midwives are often unknowingly exposed to the toxic effects of hazardous drugs when they prepare and administer these drugs for patients, although knowledge does not always equal safe handling practices.

The COVID-19 has had major direct (e.g., deaths) and indirect (e.g., social inequities) effects in the United States. While the public health response to the epidemic featured some important successes (e.g., universal masking ,and rapid development and approval of vaccines and therapeutics), there were systemic failures (e.g., inadequate public health infrastructure) that overshadowed these successes. Key deficiency in the U.S. response were shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) and supply chain deficiencies. Recommendations are provided for mitigating supply shortages and supply chain failures in healthcare settings in future pandemics. Some key recommendations for preventing shortages of essential components of infection control and prevention include increasing the stockpile of PPE in the U.S. National Strategic Stockpile, increased transparency of the Stockpile, invoking the Defense Production Act at an early stage, and rapid review and authorization by FDA/EPA/OSHA of non-U.S. approved products. Recommendations are also provided for mitigating shortages of diagnostic testing, medications and medical equipment.

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted global healthcare systems, causing significant disruptions in various medical practices. This study focuses on the specific effects of the pandemic on pediatric surgical practice in Taiwan, a region known for its effective public health measures and proximity to the initial outbreak.

The study analyzes data from January 2020 to August 2022, comparing it with historical records from January 2017 to August 2019. It examines changes in surgical case volumes, patient demographics, surgical indications, and trends in preoperative evaluations, surgical procedures, and postoperative care.

The study reveals a decrease in total surgical cases from 2,255 to 1,931 during the pandemic. Notable findings include a slight increase in the average age of patients (4.81 to 5.10 years, p = 0.064), a significant shift in gender distribution towards male patients (68.9% to 73.5%, p = 0.0009), and changes in the types of surgical procedures performed, with head and neck and gastrointestinal surgeries seeing an increase. The average hospital stay lengthened, and certain specific surgical diseases, like hypospadias and liver tumors, showed an increase. However, the age distribution of pediatric surgical patients remained stable, and emergency surgical care was resiliently maintained.

The findings demonstrate the adaptability of Taiwan's healthcare system in maintaining pediatric surgical care during the pandemic. The study highlights a significant gender disparity in surgical interventions and a shift towards more urgent and emergent care, reflecting the reorganization of healthcare services during this period. The study's limitations include its retrospective nature and focus on a single institution.

This research contributes valuable insights into the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pediatric surgical practice in Taiwan. It underscores the importance of adaptable healthcare strategies in ensuring continuity and quality of care during public health emergencies. Future research should focus on multi-institutional data and prospective studies to further understand these dynamics.

New and emerging infectious diseases continue to represent a public health threat. Emerging infectious disease threats include pathogens increasing in range (eg, Mpox), zoonotic microbes jumping species lines to cause sustained infections in humans via person-to-person transmission (SARS-CoV-2) and multidrug-resistant pathogens (eg, Candida auris).

We searched the published English literature and reviewed the selected articles on SARS-CoV-2, Mpox, and Candida auris with a focus on environmental survival, contamination of the patient's hospital environment, susceptibility of the pathogen to antiseptics and disinfectants and infection prevention recommendations.

All three pathogens (ie, SARS-CoV-2, Mpox, and Candida auris) can survive on surfaces for minutes to hours and for Mpox and C auris for days. Currently available antiseptics (eg, 70%-90% alcohol hand hygiene products) are active against SARS-CoV-2, Mpox and C auris. The U.S Environmental Protection Agency provides separate lists of surface disinfectants active against SARS-CoV-2, Mpox, and C auris.

The risk of environment-to-patient transmission of SARS-CoV-2, Mpox and Candida auris, is very low, low-moderate and high, respectively. In the absence of appropriate patient isolation and use of personal protection equipment, the risk of patient-to-health care provider transmission of SARS-CoV-2, Mpox, and C auris is high, moderate and low, respectively.

Appropriate patient isolation, use of personal protective equipment by health care personnel, hand hygiene, and surface disinfection can protect patients and health care personnel from acquiring SARS-CoV-2, Mpox, and C auris from infected patients.

The built environment has been integral to response to the global pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). In particular, engineering controls to mitigate risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and other newly emergent respiratory pathogens in the future will be important. Anticipating emergence from this pandemic, or at least adaptation given increasing administration of effective vaccines, and the safety of patients, personnel, and others in health care facilities remain the core goals. This article summarizes known risks and highlights prevention strategies for daily care as well as response to emergent infectious diseases and this parapandemic phase.

Understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers (HCW) is crucial.

Utilizing a health system COVID-19 research registry, we assessed HCW risk for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

Retrospective cohort study with overlap propensity score weighting.

Individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a large academic healthcare system (N = 72,909) from March 8-June 9, 2020, stratified by HCW and patient-facing status.

SARS-CoV-2 test result, hospitalization, and ICU admission for COVID-19 infection.

Of 72,909 individuals tested, 9.0% (551) of 6145 HCW tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 6.5% (4353) of 66,764 non-HCW. The HCW were younger than the non-HCW (median age 39.7 vs. 57.5, p < 0.001) with more females (proportion of males 21.5 vs. 44.9%, p < 0.001), higher reporting of COVID-19 exposure (72 vs. 17%, p < 0.001), and fewer comorbidities. However, the overlap propensity score weighted proportions were 8.9 vs. 7.7 for HCW vs. non-HCW having a positive test with weighted odds ratio (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.38. Among those testing positive, weighted proportions for hospitalization were 7.4 vs. 15.9 for HCW vs. non-HCW with OR of 0.42 (CI 0.26-0.66) and for ICU admission: 2.2 vs. 4.5 for HCW vs. non-HCW with OR of 0.48 (CI 0.20-1.04). Those HCW identified as patient facing compared to not had increased odds of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (OR 1.60, CI 1.08-2.39, proportions 8.6 vs. 5.5), but no statistically significant increase in hospitalization (OR 0.88, CI 0.20-3.66, proportions 10.2 vs. 11.4) and ICU admission (OR 0.34, CI 0.01-3.97, proportions 1.8 vs. 5.2).

In a large healthcare system, HCW had similar odds for testing SARS-CoV-2 positive, but lower odds of hospitalization compared to non-HCW. Patient-facing HCW had higher odds of a positive test. These results are key to understanding HCW risk mitigation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers (HCW) is crucial. Objective: Utilizing a health system COVID-19 research registry, we assessed HCW risk for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Design: Retrospective cohort study with overlap propensity score weighting. Participants: Individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a large academic healthcare system (N=72,909) from March 8-June 9 2020 stratified by HCW and patient-facing status. Main Measures: SARS-CoV-2 test result, hospitalization, and ICU admission for COVID-19 infection. Key Results: Of 72,909 individuals tested, 9.0% (551) of 6,145 HCW tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 6.5% (4353) of 66,764 non-HCW. The HCW were younger than non-HCW (median age 39.7 vs. 57.5, p<0.001) with more females (proportion of males 21.5 vs. 44.9%, p<0.001), higher reporting of COVID-19 exposure (72 vs. 17 %, p<0.001) and fewer comorbidities. However, the overlap propensity score weighted proportions were 8.9 vs. 7.7 for HCW vs. non-HCW having a positive test with weighted odds ratio (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.38. Among those testing positive, weighted proportions for hospitalization were 7.4 vs.15.9 for HCW vs. non-HCW with OR of 0.42 (CI 0.26-0.66) and for ICU admission: 2.2 vs.4.5 for HCW vs. non-HCW with OR of 0.48 (CI 0.20 -1.04). Those HCW identified as patient-facing compared to not had increased odds of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (OR 1.60, CI 1.08-2.39, proportions 8.6 vs. 5.5), but no statistically significant increase in hospitalization (OR 0.88, CI 0.20-3.66, proportions 10.2 vs. 11.4) and ICU admission (OR 0.34, CI 0.01-3.97, proportions 1.8 vs. 5.2). Conclusions: In a large healthcare system, HCW had similar odds for testing SARS-CoV-2 positive, but lower odds of hospitalization compared to non-HCW. Patient-facing HCW had higher odds of a positive test. These results are key to understanding HCW risk mitigation during the COVID-19 pandemic.