Skip header and navigation

13 records – page 1 of 1.

Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
INF031801v019 RR
Question Submitted
March 18, 2021
Date Completed
December 26, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
Infectious Disease
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
INF031801v019 RR
Question Submitted
March 18, 2021
Date Completed
December 26, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
Infectious Disease
Updated Key Findings
December 14, 2021
Ontario Immunization Advisory Committee recommended that if an 11 and 12-year-old child is inadvertently given a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine that is not authorized for their age, the dose should be considered valid and the series complete.
National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) recommends that a booster dose of an authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccine should be offered to vulnerable population and > 50 years old, =6 months after completion of a primary COVID-19 vaccine series.
Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (ATAGI) recommends COVID-19 booster vaccination with either Pfizer (Comirnaty) or Moderna (Spikevax), which are considered equally acceptable, for anyone aged 18 and older who completed their primary course of COVID-19 vaccination 5 or more months ago.
On December 8th, 2021 in a press release by Pfizer-BioNTech said that preliminary laboratory studies demonstrate that three doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine neutralize the Omicron variant while two doses show significantly reduced neutralization titers. Data indicate that a third dose of BNT162b2 increases the neutralizing antibody titers by 25-fold compared to two doses.
Key Findings
December 3, 2021
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has granted provisional approval to Moderna for the use of its vaccine in children (two 10µg doses) and as booster shot for adults (one 30µg dose) in preparation for the recent emergence of the Omicron variant. This is in addition to Pfizer, which was also recently approved.
The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) recommends that a complete series with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (10 mcg) may be offered to children 5-11 years of age who do not have contraindications to the vaccine, with a dosing interval of at least 8 weeks between the first and second dose.
NNACI also recommends that children aged 5-11 years with a history of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection should be considered no longer infectious and symptoms of an acute illness should be completely resolved prior to vaccination.
Health Canada has authorized Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine (also known as Spikevax) to be used as a booster shot, using a half-dose of the vaccine.
Category
Epidemiology
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Vaccines
Immunity
Infection Prevention and Control
Clinical Presentation
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Community
ICU
Medicine Unit
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Jagwani, M; Lee, S; Shumilak, G; Reeder, B; Groot, G; Hernandez, L; Howell-Spooner, B; Miller, L. How effective are COVID-19 vaccines? 2021 Dec 26. Document no.: INF031801v019 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 93 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Review History
INF031801v17 RR: November 23, 2021
INF031801v16 RR: November 12, 2021
INF031801v15 RR: October 28, 2021
INF031801v014 RR: October 16, 2021
INF031801v013 RR: September 24, 2021
INF031801v012 RR: September 10, 2021
INF031801v010 RR: August 25, 2021
INF031801v9 RR: August 23, 2021
INF031801v8 RR: August 9, 2021
INF031801v7 RR: July 20, 2021
INF031801v6 RR: July 2, 2021
INF031801v5 RR: June 22, 2021
INF031801v4 RR: June 3, 2021
INF031801v3 RR: May 24, 2021
INF031801v2 RR: May 14, 2021
INF031801 RR: March 31, 2021
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC021901v2 RR
Question Submitted
February 19, 2021
Date Completed
October 29, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC021901v2 RR
Question Submitted
February 19, 2021
Date Completed
October 29, 2021
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
EOC
Updated Key Findings
October 29, 2021
In October, WHO released a consensus definition of post COVID-19 condition that includes 12 domains. This development should lead to better standardization of reporting and contribute to more precise prevalence estimates and better understanding of associated risk factors.
The effects of Variants of Concern (VoC) and COVID vaccination on progression of Long COVID symptoms remains unclear.
Risk factors for developing Long COVID symptoms were similar but limited evidence suggests that pre-pandemic psychological distress and poor general health were associated with developing persistent symptoms. Evidence is too limited to determine whether vaccination reduces the risk of developing Long COVID among persons with breakthrough infections.
Given the protean manifestations of Long COVID symptoms, the underlying causes are likely multifactorial; however, strong evidence to substantiate the theories of causation remains limited.
Research related to longer-term consequences of SARS CoV-2 infections in pediatric populations is growing but remains limited.
Key Findings
March 15, 2021
There is a lack of consensus around the clinical definition of Long COVID which in turn causes challenges with understanding the incidence and prevalence as well as the potential impact for the health care system
Information about the natural history of Long COVID is incomplete but limited evidence suggests that the immune response trajectories differ for those with few or no symptoms compared to those with severe disease. Individuals with severe disease are more likely to exhibit immunological marker abnormalities but anyone can experience functional limitations.
The mechanisms underlying the development of persistent symptoms in Long COVID remain an enigma. Despite multiple theories, there is little empirical evidence for specific immunological and or biochemical abnormalities in samples of individuals with symptoms consistent with Long COVID.
Risk factors for Long COVID include female gender, older age, higher body mass index, pre-existing asthma and the number of symptoms.
Few studies explored the short-term impact of Long COVID on health care utilization patterns and found a higher impact for those with severe disease compared with mild disease.
Category
Healthcare Services
Clinical Presentation
Subject
Long Covid
Clinical Presentation
Health Planning
Symptoms
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Ambulatory
Long Term Care
Primary care
Priority Level
Level 5 Four weeks+ (28 days+)
Cite As
Williams-Roberts, H; Groot, G; Mueller, M; Dalidowicz, M. Long COVID: What does it mean for the healthcare system and programs? 2021 Oct 29. Document no.: EOC021901v2 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 14 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EPM210602 RR
Question Submitted
June 22, 2021
Date Completed
July 12, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Epidemiology & Modelling
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EPM210602 RR
Question Submitted
June 22, 2021
Date Completed
July 12, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Epidemiology & Modelling
Key Findings
Long COVID-19 is likely to increase healthcare demands across the health system, including emergency departments, hospital admissions, primary care visits, specialists appointments, and home care and rehabilitation services.
The clinical care burden of long COVID-19 is the greatest in the first 3 months after testing and is likely to place the greatest demand on primary care services.
Patients with severe COVID-19 illness are more likely to place longer-term demands (4-6 months) on specialist care due to respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, metabolic, psychiatric and unspecified conditions.
Category
Clinical Presentation
Epidemiology
Subject
Long Covid
Health Planning
Clinical Presentation
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Ambulatory
Community
Emergency
ICU
Long Term Care
Medicine Unit
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 1 2-3 days
Cite As
McLean, M; Williams-Roberts, H; Reeder, B; Howell-Spooner, B; Ellsworth, C. What are long COVID's demands on the healthcare system, and its severity of the illness? 2021 Jul 12, Document no.: EPM210602 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 23 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EPM210601 RR
Question Submitted
June 22, 2021
Date Completed
July 9, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Epidemiology & Modelling
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EPM210601 RR
Question Submitted
June 22, 2021
Date Completed
July 9, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Epidemiology & Modelling
Key Findings
The frequency of Long COVID symptoms varies widely across studies based on populations studied, duration of follow up and methods of assessment of symptoms.
It is estimated that 1 in 50 persons experience Long COVID symptoms after 12 weeks; however, higher estimates up to 80% have been reported in studies with a greater proportion of persons who were previously hospitalized. A recent study of a mixed cohort of 96 persons found that only 22.9% had no symptoms at 12 months post diagnosis.
A wide range of symptoms affecting multiple organ systems has been reported. For many persons symptoms improve over time while others experience persistent and/or new symptoms. Among studies with the longest duration of follow up, the most frequently reported symptoms included fatigue (up to 65%), dyspnea (up to 50%), headache (up to 45%), anosmia/ageusia (up to 25%), cognitive memory/concentration (up to 39.6%) and sleep disorders (up to 26%).
Few studies estimated the duration of symptoms with estimates ranging from 2.2% for 6 months and 27% for 7-9 months.
The mechanism(s) leading to Long COVID remain unclear but those experiencing post acute sequelae tend to be older, have a greater number of symptoms during the acute phase of illness or manifest specific symptoms and live with multiple comorbid conditions such as obesity.
The lack of consensus on a definition of Long COVID contributes to marked variations in robust prevalence estimates.
Category
Clinical Presentation
Epidemiology
Subject
Long Covid
Symptoms
Clinical Presentation
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Ambulatory
Community
ICU
Long Term Care
Medicine Unit
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 1 2-3 days
Cite As
Williams-Roberts, H; Groot, G; Reeder, B; Howell-Spooner, B; Ellsworth, C. What is the incidence and duration of Long COVID cases? 2021 Jul 09, Document no.: EPM210601 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 19 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210302 RR
Question Submitted
March 30, 2021
Date Completed
April 21, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210302 RR
Question Submitted
March 30, 2021
Date Completed
April 21, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
The group designated in Saskatchewan as Clinically Extremely Vulnerable (CEV) is a heterogenous clinical population with factors that impair their immune response to differing degrees.
Very Limited evidence is currently available to assess the immune response following vaccination is selected clinical populations; no evidence is available to assess vaccine efficacy or effectiveness in these populations. The clinical relevance of measured immune response with respect to protection from disease is still uncertain.
In considering the immune response of the CEV population, it is recommended that the absolute difference in immune response between 1 and 2 doses be considered, as it is possible some patient groups will have lowered protection regardless of vaccine strategy.
In terms of clinical subgroups: oOrgan transplantation recipients on immunosuppressive medication: solid organ transplant recipients receiving anti-metabolite maintenance immunosuppression therapy were less likely to develop an antibody response to an mRNA vaccine, compared to those receiving other types of therapies (37% vs 63%). In a study of 242 kidney transplant recipients on immunosuppressive therapy only 10.8% became seropositive at 28 days after a single dose of mRNA vaccine. oCancer: A study of 151 elderly patients with solid and hematological malignancies and 54 healthy controls who received one or two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine shows approximately 39% of solid cancer patients, 13% of hematological cancer patients, and 97% of healthy controls (p<0.0001) developed anti-S IgG 21 days following a single dose vaccine. However, response in solid cancer patients increased to 95% within 2 weeks of the second dose at 21 days. oOther immunocompromising conditions (e.g., auto-immune disorders and therapy): some level of immunity is generated with vaccination; however, what this means clinically is unknown. It seems that ensuring the dosing is properly timed around biologic therapy is important.
Category
Clinical Management
Healthcare Services
Subject
Vaccines
Vaccination
Risk
Comorbidities
Population
All
Other
vulnerable populations (clinically)
Clinical Setting
Cardiac unit
Community
Dialysis unit
ICU
Long Term Care
Medicine Unit
NICU
Oncology
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Azizian, A; Lee, S; Shumilak, G; Groot, G; Reeder, B; Miller, L; Howell-Spooner, B. What are the risks or benefits of extended intervals between doses of COVID-19 vaccines compared to recommended dosing in extremely vulnerable populations? 2021 Apr 20, Document no.: EOC210302 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 15 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Similar Reviews
INF031801 RR
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PPE120901 RR
Question Submitted
December 9, 2020
Date Completed
December 18, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Personal Protective Equipment
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PPE120901 RR
Question Submitted
December 9, 2020
Date Completed
December 18, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Personal Protective Equipment
Key Findings
Moderate evidence supporting the concept that airway management and certain surgical procedures create aerosols
No definitive evidence for the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during AGMP
Indirect evidence from SARS-CoV-1 indicates that HCW present during AGMP are at higher risk of infection, but evidence quality is very low and very difficult to generalize
The absence of definitive evidence does not equate to the absence of risk and most policy recommendations err on the side of safety for Health Care Workers
Category
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Aerosols
Risk
Transmission
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Ambulatory
Long Term Care
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Fox, L; Mueller, M. What is the risk of COVID-19 transmission during AGMP procedures? 2020 Dec 18; Document no.: PPE120901 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 30 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
INF092801 RR
Question Submitted
September 28, 2020
Date Completed
October 15, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Infectious Disease
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
INF092801 RR
Question Submitted
September 28, 2020
Date Completed
October 15, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Infectious Disease
Key Findings
30-day mortality was consistently higher for surgical patients who tested positive for COVID-19
Advanced age (70+) was a major contributor to poorer post-surgical outcomes in COVID-positive patients
Morbidity, particularly with regard to pulmonary functioning, was higher in COVID-positive surgical patients
Category
Clinical Presentation
Subject
Mortality
Risk
Surgical Procedures
Population
All adults
Clinical Setting
Medicine Unit
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
McCarron, M; Lee, S; Takaya, S; Howell-Spooner, B; Dalidowicz, M. Is there increased morbidity or mortality peri-operatively for symptomatic, asymptomatic, post-COVID patients? 2020 Oct 15; Document no.: INF092801 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 27 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
LTC042403 RR
Question Submitted
April 24, 2020
Date Completed
May 14, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Long Term Care
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
LTC042403 RR
Question Submitted
April 24, 2020
Date Completed
May 14, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Long Term Care
Category
Healthcare Services
Subject
Mental Health
Family
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Cardiac unit
Dialysis unit
ICU
Long Term Care
Medicine Unit
NICU
Oncology
Priority Level
Level 4 completed within 1 week
Cite As
Tupper, S; Ward, H; Howell-Spooner, B; Dalidowicz, M; What are the impacts on the family unit from visitation restrictions during an infectious disease outbreak and how can we support the families? 2020 May 14; Document no.: LTC042403 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 38 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
LTC042401 RR
Question Submitted
April 24, 2020
Date Completed
May 7, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Long Term Care
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
LTC042401 RR
Question Submitted
April 24, 2020
Date Completed
May 7, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Long Term Care
Key Findings
Core concepts of family engagement include dignity and respect, information sharing, participation in care and decision making, and collaboration (Hart 2020).
A careful balance needs to be maintained between attending to patients’ physical and psychological needs and adhering to infection control guidelines, while offering psychological support to family members (Chan 2006).
The word ‘visitation’ does not adequately describe family members’ involvement. Family presence is a more suitable term as it redefines families as partners in care (Hart 2020). However, it is important to recognize that family presence is not a substitute for adequate staffing levels.
Very little guidance is provided in the literature on innovative or specific approaches engage family care providers during a pandemic. The literature mainly focuses on supporting alternate forms of communication such as telephone calls, or technology assisted communication through social media or video/voice calls.
Enhanced communication strategies that provide regular information to a primary family contact on the patient/resident condition and allow chosen care partners to contribute to decision making as much as possible are recommended (Koller 2006).
The negative impact of visitation restrictions places increased stress on patients/residents and families who are unable to provide or receive non-healthcare specific supportive care. Those with neurocognitive disorders or communication barriers are more significantly impacted.
Staff also report increased stress during family visitation restrictions due to the additional time required to take on a “familial role” for the patient/resident. These roles may include providing a supportive environment, social interaction, information sharing, and opportunities for play (Koller 2006a – pediatric hospital setting).
The search question did not specifically look at impact of visitation on infection rates; therefore, there is insufficient information to determine if visitation policies affect infection rates. However, a systematic review in pediatric hospital setting in Ontario found no connection between liberal visiting hours and increased SARS infection rates (Smith 2009).
When facilitating sibling visitation in the NICU, a pre-visit education process is recommended. Maternity settings may wish to consider a 'combination' policy, where the women's partners and/or significant other would have open visiting (all day), with restricted visiting for others. In other general hospital ward settings, open visiting with a 'quiet hour' is suggested (Smith 2009).
Category
Administration
Subject
Facilities
Decision Making
Family
Long Term Care
Population
All
Clinical Setting
ICU
Long Term Care
Medicine Unit
NICU
Oncology
Priority Level
Level 4 completed within 1 week
Cite As
Tupper, S; Ward, H; Dalidowicz, M; Boden, C; Ellsworth, C; What are best practices for engaging family care providers during a pandemic? 2020 Apr 16; Document no.: LTC042401 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 22 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
LTC042402 RR
Question Submitted
April 24, 2020
Date Completed
April 30, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Long Term Care
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
LTC042402 RR
Question Submitted
April 24, 2020
Date Completed
April 30, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Long Term Care
Key Findings
Visitor restrictions in long-term care (LTC) during an outbreak or pandemic are implemented due to the perceived risk of transmission between residents or staff and visitors. · Social isolation and possible loss of care resulting from visitor restrictions in LTC may place residents at risk of poorer outcomes in terms of both physical and mental health, as well as distress to families and staff (see Saskatchewan LTC Network Family Perspective). · Visitor restriction policies typically allow visits for compassionate reasons that include end of life, critical care, and support of persons who require assistance beyond that provided by healthcare e.g. support for feeding, mobility, or behaviors, but specific detail on these is not consistent or clear. · Recent changes to visitation policies in Australia are less restrictive and allow brief visitations (end of table 1, noted in red font). · Although the majority of policies describe a need for flexibility and case-by-case assessment of visits deemed “essential”, the majority of policies are not clear in who is to conduct this analysis or the criteria that should be used to make these decisions. Visitation policies differ in detail regarding the number of visitors allowed at one time, total number of visitors allowed, visit duration, mobility within the home and location of the visit. · Remote and technology assisted visits are to be facilitated by LTC staff. · Infection control practices are enforced for visitors, and may include screening (e.g. temperature, symptoms, travel and contact history), prohibiting ill visitors, use of personal protective equipment (PPE), hand and cough hygiene. · Education of visitors and support for proper infection control practices is encouraged in the majority of policies.
Category
Administration
Healthcare Services
Subject
Facilities
Long Term Care
Palliative Care
Infection Prevention and Control
Family
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Cardiac unit
Emergency
ICU
Long Term Care
Medicine Unit
NICU
Oncology
Priority Level
Level 4 completed within 1 week
Cite As
Tupper, S; Ward, H; Howell-Spooner, B; Dalidowicz, M; Boden, C. How is "compassionate visit" defined and operationalized in the context of an infectious outbreak or pandemic in long-term care? 2020 May 1; Document no.: LTC042402 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 17 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PH042401 RR
Question Submitted
24-Apr-2020
Date Completed
April 28, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PH042401 RR
Question Submitted
24-Apr-2020
Date Completed
April 28, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Key Findings
Screening tools commonly include fever, respiratory symptoms (cough, shortness of breath), and epidemiological risk factors. · The sensitivity and specificity of screening questionnaires depends considerably on the items used in the questionnaire. The limited published literature demonstrates great variability in the performance of different screening tools: sensitivity ranges from 0 – 48.6 – 84.3 – 100%; specificity ranges from 64.8 – 71.3 – 89.6 – 96%). · The standard WHO symptom checklist performs poorly, with a sensitivity of 48.6%, and specificity of 89.6%. As such, half of individuals who have SARS-CoV-2 present at the time of testing will be missed by the symptom questionnaire (being either asymptomatic or presymptomatic). Depending on the population being screened the prevalence of the virus may vary widely. Given the sensitivity and specificity of the WHO symptom checklist in a population with prevalence ranging from 0.1% to 1% to 10% the positive predictive value (PPV) will be poor, range from 0.4% to 4.8% to 35%, respectively. Furthermore, the performance characteristics of the screening questionnaire may be poorer than reported if used in a setting or time of year when other respiratory viruses with similar symptoms are circulating.
Category
Diagnostics
Epidemiology
Subject
Screening
Population
All
Neonates
Infants
All Pediatrics
Clinical Setting
Ambulatory
Emergency
Long Term Care
Other
OR
Priority Level
Level 4 completed within 1 week
Cite As
Fick, F; Neudorf, C; Reeder, B; Dalidowicz, M; Mueller, M. What is the sensitivity and specificity of screening checklists and temperature checks for detecting the presence of COVID-19 in individuals? 2020 Apr 28; Document no.: PH042401 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 20 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Similar Reviews
LAB041401 RR
EPM051201 RR
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC040101 RR
Question Submitted
April 1, 2020
Date Completed
April 1, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC040101 RR
Question Submitted
April 1, 2020
Date Completed
April 1, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
· There are some recommendations and precautions from WHO, CDC, Canada and the UK that there is transmission of the COVID virus from the administration of nebulizer medication. · Some case studies of SARS found few instances that patients may likely be infected after aerosol generating procedures including nebulized medications, and although there are few evidences that demonstrates low risk of viral transmission from nebulizers, possibility of transmission remains
Category
Epidemiology
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Aerosols
Risk
Transmission
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Ambulatory
Priority Level
Level 2 completed within 8 hours
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Fenton, M; Dalidowicz, M; Young, C. What is the degree of COVID-19 transmission through the administration of nebulizer medication either in clinical practice or in animal experiments? 2020 Apr 1; Document no.: EOC040101 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 10 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC033001 RR
Question Submitted
March 30, 2020
Date Completed
March 30, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC033001 RR
Question Submitted
March 30, 2020
Date Completed
March 30, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
· Some countries like Taiwan and Malaysia have created their own intubation hood design as others offered to produce or modify the original design to fit their country’s equipment. · Several countries have also created innovation in airway management such as 3D printed respirator valves for hospitals and 3D printed ventilators. · An Emergency physician in Northern Italy shared that due to influx of patients in the hospitals, “intubation and invasive mechanical ventilators in the ED are reserved for patients not responsive to NIV” although in principle can give a more favorable chance for patients if given before their condition deteriorates.
Category
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Intubation
Aerosols
Population
All
Clinical Setting
Ambulatory
Cardiac unit
Priority Level
Level 2 completed within 8 hours
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Dalidowicz, M. Where and how are they producing and using intubation hoods? 2020 Mar 30; Document no.: EOC033001 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 7 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Similar Reviews
EOC090202 RR
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail

13 records – page 1 of 1.