Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic had a major impact on nursing and healthcare as well as on research. The aim of this study was to analyse the characteristics of nursing- and SARS-CoV-2-related research in Germany. Methods: A scoping review was conducted. We systematically searched (06/2023) Medline, CINAHL, the German Register of Clinical Trials, abstract books of conferences and conducted a manual literature search. We included empirical studies addressing aspects of nursing and the pandemic and involving German researchers. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. Results were analysed descriptively. Results: We included 131 publications (85 quantitative, 27 qualitative, 6 mixed-/multi-methods studies, 12 systematic reviews, 1 discussion paper); 49 % of the studies were published in 2021. First authors were mostly from medicine, psychology and nursing science, last authors from medicine. Most studies were explorative. Most of the quantitative studies used observational designs, only four were experimental. Nurses and other healthcare professionals were the most common target group; people with care needs or relatives were rarely addressed. The most common topics included health, perceived burden, working conditions, and characteristics of care during the pandemic. A quarter of the studies were not externally funded, 32 % did not provide information on funding. The Federal Ministry of Education and Research (21 %) was the most common funding body. Conclusion: Pandemic-related nursing research was published to a limited extent by nursing scientists; clinical nursing research was particularly underrepresented. Dependable funding and the development of a research infrastructure for nursing research are necessary to ensure evidence-based nursing in times of crisis and to generate findings that are relevant to clinical practice and health policy decision-makers.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted pre-existing weaknesses in health and care systems and services and shortages of health and care workers (HCWs). As a result, policymakers needed to adopt measures to improve the health and care workforce (HCWF) capacity. This review aims to identify countries' range of policies and management interventions implemented to improve HCWs' capacity to address the COVID-19 pandemic response, synthesize their evidence on effectiveness, and identify gaps in the evidence. METHODS: The literature was searched in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, LILACS-BVS, WHO's COVID-19 Research Database and the ILO, OECD and HSRM websites for literature and documents published between January 2020 and March 2022. Eligibility criteria were HCWs as participants and policy and management interventions aiming to improve HCWF capacity to address the COVID-19 pandemic response. Risk of bias was assessed with Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools (CAT) and certainty of the evidence in presented outcomes with GRADE. RESULTS: The searches retrieved 3378 documents. A total of 69 were included, but only 8 presented outcomes of interventions implemented. Most of the selected documents described at least one intervention implemented by countries at the organizational environment level to increase the flexibility and capacity of the HCWF to respond to the pandemic, followed by interventions to attract and retain HCWs in safe and decent working environments. There was a lack of studies addressing social protection, human resources for health information systems, and regarding the role of community health workers and other community-based providers. Regarding the risk of bias, most of documents were rated as medium or high quality (JBI's CAT), while the evidence presented for the outcomes of interventions was classified as mostly low-certainty evidence (GRADE). CONCLUSIONS: Countries have implemented various interventions, some innovative, in response to the pandemic, and others had their processes started earlier and accelerated by the pandemic. The evidence regarding the impact and efficacy of the strategies used by countries during the pandemic still requires further research.

Aims: To identify and synthesize evidence regarding how coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) interventions, including vaccines and outpatient treatments, have impacted healthcare resource use (HCRU) and costs in the United States (US) during the Omicron era. Materials and methods: A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed to identify articles published between 1 January 2021 and 10 March 2023 that assessed the impact of vaccination and outpatient treatment on costs and HCRU outcomes associated with COVID-19. Screening was performed by two independent researchers using predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Results: Fifty-eight unique studies were included in the SLR, of which all reported HCRU outcomes, and one reported costs. Overall, there was a significant reduction in the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization for patients who received an original monovalent primary series vaccine plus booster dose vs. no vaccination. Moreover, receipt of a booster vaccine was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization vs. primary series vaccination. Evidence also indicated a significantly reduced risk of hospitalizations among recipients of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r), remdesivir, sotrovimab, and molnupiravir compared to non-recipients. Treated and/or vaccinated patients also experienced reductions in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, length of stay, and emergency department (ED)/urgent care clinic encounters. Limitations: The identified studies may not represent unique patient populations as many utilized the same regional/national data sources. Synthesis of the evidence was also limited by differences in populations, outcome definitions, and varying duration of follow-up across studies. Additionally, significant gaps, including HCRU associated with long COVID and various high-risk populations and cost data, were observed. Conclusions: Despite evidence gaps, findings from the SLR highlight the significant positive impact that vaccination and outpatient treatment have had on HCRU in the US, including periods of Omicron predominance. Continued research is needed to inform clinical and policy decision-making in the US as COVID-19 continues to evolve as an endemic disease.

BACKGROUND: Tracheostomy is a commonly performed procedure in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) receiving mechanical ventilation (MV). This review aims to investigate the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from patients to healthcare workers (HCWs) when tracheostomies are performed. METHODS: This systematic review used the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis framework. Studies reporting SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs involved in tracheostomy procedures were included. RESULTS: Sixty-nine studies (between 01/11/2019 and 16/01/2022) reporting 3117 tracheostomy events were included, 45.9% (1430/3117) were performed surgically. The mean time from MV initiation to tracheostomy was 16.7 ± 7.9 days. Location of tracheostomy, personal protective equipment used, and anaesthesia technique varied between studies. The mean procedure duration was 14.1 ± 7.5 minutes; was statistically longer for percutaneous tracheostomies compared with surgical tracheostomies (mean duration 17.5 ± 7.0 versus 15.5 ± 5.6 minutes, p = 0.02). Across 5 out of 69 studies that reported 311 tracheostomies, 34 HCWs tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 23/34 (67.6%) were associated with percutaneous tracheostomies. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we found that SARS-CoV-2 transmission to HCWs performing or assisting with a tracheostomy procedure appeared to be low, with all reported transmissions occurring in 2020, prior to vaccinations and more recent strains of SARS-CoV-2. Transmissions may be higher with percutaneous tracheostomies. However, an accurate estimation of infection risk was not possible in the absence of the actual number of HCWs exposed to the risk during the procedure and the inability to control for multiple confounders related to variable timing, technique, and infection control practices.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) has generated a threat to global health, determining the need for healthcare for large numbers of people in an extremely short time. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the management changes in the neurorehabilitation services during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An electronic search was conducted in September 2021 by 2 independent reviewers in the following databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. All studies on organizational and welfare changes resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic in neurorehabilitation services were included. Screening of titles, abstracts, and full texts and data extraction were undertaken independently by pairs of reviewers. RESULTS: The summary of results was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews.Electronic searches after the screening of title and abstract identified 80 studies, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria. A narrative summary of results of all included studies were reported in a tabular format. CONCLUSIONS: Different organizational models were adopted in neurorehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic impacting the therapies time frame, the physical and mental health of healthcare professionals and the caregiver's workload. There is still uncertainty about the effectiveness of these new therapeutic strategies on the management of neurorehabilitation services and future studies should explore the effect on the patients' needs.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a worldwide public health concern. It continues to spread rapidly throughout the world causing multiple physical and psychological consequences in the population. Especially, people affected by severe psychiatric or neurological diseases are highly susceptible to serious health complications not only due to the direct effect of the infection but also to the indirect effect of COVID-19 following social distancing during lockdowns and its general social consequences. Indeed, lockdown and difficulties in using the care services produced psychological consequences in caregivers such as depression, anxiety, and worsening of the quality of life which in turn affected the ability to manage patients. Our aim was to systematically review the psychological consequences of the COVID-19 lockdown in caregivers of patients with cognitive impairment and dementia and the impact on the health of their patients. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted by searching in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science by two independent researchers following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines. Data extraction and quality assessment were also performed. Papers were screened for eligibility by abstract and then those which met inclusion criteria were included in this review. RESULTS: The initial search returned 410 records. After the abstract screening and the inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied, 315 were excluded because they were irrelevant, 30 because they were reviews, meta-analyses, letters to editors, editorials, guidelines, or case reports, and 10 because they were duplicates. Then, 38 out of 55 abstracts/full-text articles were excluded because they did not simultaneously assess mental health of patients and caregivers. In the end, 17 papers were deemed eligible and included in the present review. CONCLUSION: Based on current literature, the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuing lockdown caused severe psychological consequences for caregivers of patients with dementia, worsening their mental health, and increasing the psychological and physical burden, independently from the severity of the disease of their relatives, which resulted also independently globally worsened.

During the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, different technologies, including telehealth, are maximised to mitigate the risks and consequences of the disease. Telehealth has been widely utilised because of its usability and safety in providing healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, a systematic literature review which provides extensive evidence on the impact of COVID-19 through telehealth and which covers multiple directions in a large-scale research remains lacking. This study aims to review telehealth literature comprehensively since the pandemic started. It also aims to map the research landscape into a coherent taxonomy and characterise this emerging field in terms of motivations, open challenges and recommendations. Articles related to telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic were systematically searched in the WOS, IEEE, Science Direct, Springer and Scopus databases. The final set included (n = 86) articles discussing telehealth applications with respect to (i) control (n = 25), (ii) technology (n = 14) and (iii) medical procedure (n = 47). Since the beginning of the pandemic, telehealth has been presented in diverse cases. However, it still warrants further attention. Regardless of category, the articles focused on the challenges which hinder the maximisation of telehealth in such times and how to address them. With the rapid increase in the utilization of telehealth in different specialised hospitals and clinics, a potential framework which reflects the authors' implications of the future application and opportunities of telehealth has been established. This article improves our understanding and reveals the full potential of telehealth during these difficult times and beyond.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has turned into a pandemic and resulted in huge death tolls and burdens. Integrating Chinese and western medicine has played an important role in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Purpose We aimed to develop a living evidence-based guideline of integrating Chinese and western medicine for COVID-19. Study design Living evidence-based guideline. Methods This living guideline was developed using internationally recognized and accepted guideline standards, dynamically monitoring the release of new clinical evidence, and quickly updating the linked living systematic review, evidence summary tables, and recommendations. Modified Delphi method was used to reach consensus for all recommendations. The certainty of the evidence, resources, and other factors were fully considered, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Results The first version of this living guidance focuses on patients who are mild or moderate COVID-19. A multidisciplinary guideline development panel was established. Ten clinical questions were identified based on the status of evidence and a face-to-face experts' consensus. Finally, nine recommendations were reached consensus, and were formulated from systematic reviews of the benefits and harms, certainty of evidence, public accessibility, policy supports, feedback on proposed recommendations from multidisciplinary experts, and consensus meetings. Conclusion This guideline panel made nine recommendations, which covered five traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) prescription granules/decoction (MXXFJD, QFPD, XFBD, TJQW, and JWDY), three Chinese patent medicines (LHQW granules/capsule, JHQG granules, and LHQK granules), and one Chinese herbal injection (XBJ injection). Of them, two were strongly recommended (LHQW granules/capsule and QFPD decoction), and five were weakly recommended (MXXFJD decoction, XFBD decoction, JHQG granules, TJQW granules, and JWDY decoction) for the treatment of mild and moderate COVID-19; two were weakly recommended against (XBJ injection and LHQK granules) the treatment of mild and moderate COVID-19. The users of this living guideline are most likely to be clinicians, patients, governments, ministries, and health administrators.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic general medical complications have received the most attention, whereas only few studies address the potential direct effect on mental health of SARS-CoV-2 and the neurotropic potential. Furthermore, the indirect effects of the pandemic on general mental health are of increasing concern, particularly since the SARS-CoV-1 epidemic (2002–2003) was associated with psychiatric complications. METHODS: We systematically searched the database Pubmed including studies measuring psychiatric symptoms or morbidities associated with COVID-19 among infected patients and among none infected groups the latter divided in psychiatric patients, health care workers and non-health care workers. RESULTS: A total of 43 studies were included. Out of these, only two studies evaluated patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection, whereas 41 evaluated the indirect effect of the pandemic (2 on patients with preexisting psychiatric disorders, 20 on medical health care workers, and 19 on the general public). 18 of the studies were case-control studies/compared to norm, while 25 of the studies had no control groups. The two studies investigating COVID-19 patients found a high level of post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) (96.2%) and significantly higher level of depressive symptoms (p = 0.016). Patients with preexisting psychiatric disorders reported worsening of psychiatric symptoms. Studies investigating health care workers found increased depression/depressive symptoms, anxiety, psychological distress and poor sleep quality. Studies of the general public revealed lower psychological well-being and higher scores of anxiety and depression compared to before COVID-19, while no difference when comparing these symptoms in the initial phase of the outbreak to four weeks later. A variety of factors were associated with higher risk of psychiatric symptoms and/or low psychological well-being including female gender, poor-self-related health and relatives with COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Research evaluating the direct neuropsychiatric consequences and the indirect effects on mental health is highly needed to improve treatment, mental health care planning and for preventive measures during potential subsequent pandemics.

The aim of this systematic review was to identify the challenges imposed on medical and surgical education by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the proposed innovations enabling the continuation of medical student and resident training. A systematic review on the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed on April 18th, 2020, and yielded 1288 articles. Sixty-one of the included manuscripts were synthesized in a qualitative description focused on two major axes, "challenges" and "innovative solutions", and two minor axes, "mental health" and "medical students in the frontlines". Shortage of personal protective equipment, suspension of clinical clerkships and observerships and reduction in elective surgical cases unavoidably affect medical and surgical education. Interesting solutions involving the use of virtual learning, videoconferencing, social media and telemedicine could effectively tackle the sudden cease in medical education. Furthermore, trainee's mental health should be safeguarded, and medical students can be involved in the COVID-19 clinical treatment if needed.