Temporary COVID-19 Specialized Hospital: Management Strategies for Public Health Emergencies

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in Shanghai with the Omicron variant in March 2022, locally accessible hospitals and healthcare centres encountered difficulties quickly responding to a demand for hospitals that were rapidly increasing, optimizing clinical results and controlling the infection. In this commentary, we summarize the management strategies of patients in a temporary COVID-19 specialized hospital during the outbreak in Shanghai, China. The present commentary was considered eight characteristics of management system, including general idea, infection prevention team, and efficient time management, and preventive and protective measures management, strategies for the management of infected patients, disinfection management, drug supply management strategies, and medical waste management. Following eight characteristics, the temporary COVID-19 specialized hospital operated effectively for 21 days. A total of 9674 patients were admitted, 7127 cases (73.67%) were cured and discharged, and 36 were transferred to designate hospitals for better treatment. Twenty-five management staff, 1130 medical, nursing staff, 565 logistics staff, and 15 volunteers participated in the temporary COVID-19 specialized hospital, and no infection prevention team member was infected. We speculated that these management strategies could be potential references for public health emergencies.

Prevalence of Fatigue and Associated Factors Among Cancer Patients Attending Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Background

Fatigue is a subjective and distressing symptom in cancer patients and has profound effects on daily life. The rates of fatigue during treatment are reported to be 25-90%. Its causes are secondary to their treatment course, cancer itself and associated factors.

Purpose

To assess the prevalence of fatigue and associated factors among cancer patients at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2019.

Patients and Methods

A cross-sectional study design was conducted on cancer patients undergoing treatment in Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital. A sample of 278 was selected using systematic random sampling technique and Brief Fatigue Inventory questionnaire was used for data collection. The data were entered into EPI data version 3.1 and transferred to SPSS version 24 for analysis. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression were conducted to summarize the data. The significant statistical test was determined at 95% confidence interval and at p<0.05.

Results

The mean age of the participants was 44.9 ± 14 years. The prevalence of fatigue identified by this study was 208 (74.8%). Age, stage of cancer, presence of infection, type of cancer, and type of treatment had shown a significant association with fatigue [AOR = 3.15, 95% CI: (1.35-7.34)], [AOR = 0.02, 95% CI: (0.003-0.172)], [AOR = 4.15, 95% CI: (1.06-16.07)], [AOR = 5.19, 95% CI: (1.59-16.90)], [AOR = 0.18, 95% CI: (0.07-0.462)] respectively.

Conclusion

The prevalence of fatigue in cancer patients in this study was high. Risk factors were age of the patients, stage of cancer, presence of infection, cervical cancer and radiation therapy.

Drug-related problems in medical wards of Tikur Anbessa specialized hospital, Ethiopia

Objective:

This study was aimed to determine the prevalence of drug-related problems (DRPs), identify the most common drugs, and drug classes involved in DRPs as well as associated factors with the occurrence of DRPs.

Methods:

A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted on 225 patients admitted to medical wards of Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa from March to June 2014. Data regarding patient characteristics, medications, diagnosis, length of hospitalization, investigation, and laboratory results were collected using data abstraction forms through review of patients’ medical card and medication charts. Identified DRPs were recorded and classified using DRP registration forms. The possible intervention measures for the identified DRPs were proposed and communicated to either the physician or the patient. Data were entered into Epi Info 7 and analyzed using SPSS version 21 (IBM Corp. Released 2012, Armonk, NY: IBM Corp).

Findings:

DRPs were found in 52% of study subjects. A drug-drug interaction (48% of all DRPs) was the most common DRP followed by adverse drug reaction (23%). Anti-infectives and gastrointestinal medicines were commonly involved in DRPs. Drugs with the highest drug risk ratio were gentamycin, warfarin, nifedipine, and cimetidine. The number of drugs taken by the patient per day is an important risk factor for DRPs.

Conclusion:

DRPs are common among medical ward patients. Polypharmacy has a significant association with the occurrence of DRP. Drugs such as gentamycin, warfarin, nifedipine, and cimetidine have the highest probability of causing DRP. So, patients who are taking either of these drugs or polypharmacy should be closely assessed for identification and timely correction of DRPs.