Control of coronavirus disease through vaccination is not merely dependent on vaccine efficacy and safety. Professional and general public acceptance is vital for the successful control of the virus. This study aimed (1) to assess health professionals' attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine acceptance; (2) to identify factors associated with health professional’s attitude towards COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. An Institutional based cross-sectional study was conducted on health professionals working at Debre Tabor Comprehensive Specialized Hospital. A structured questionnaire containing 16 items was used to assess the attitude of health professionals on vaccine acceptance. Bivariable and multivariable logistic analysis was done to identify factors associated with the attitude of health professionals. In this study, 42.3% [95% CI (36.7–47.6)] participants had positive attitude to COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Age 30–39 years [AOR 2.23; (CI 1.23–4.04)] and ≥ 40 years [AOR 5.51; (CI 2.47–12.30)] of respondents have positive attitude than their counterparts. Also physicians [AOR 3.67; (CI 1.90–7.09)], pharmacists [AOR 4.27; (CI 1.39–13.09)] and laboratory professionals [AOR 4.56; (CI 1.34–15.39)] have higher attitude to COVID vaccine acceptance than nurses. In conclusion, the attitude level of health professionals on COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was poor. Age and profession were factors significantly associated with the attitude level of health professionals for COVID-19 vaccine acceptance.

Introduction: Emergency laparotomy patients are different in pathology and surgical urgency. Mortality rates following emergency laparotomy ranges from 13% to 18% which is five times greater than high-risk elective surgery. In addition, major complication rates are as high as 50%. Limited data is available in our country regarding outcomes of emergency laparotomy. This study aimed to assess outcome of emergency laparotomy. Objective: To determine outcomes and associated factors among patients undergone emergency laparotomy. Methods: A four years institutional based retrospective observational study was conducted for patients who undergone emergency laparotomy from January 2016 to January 2020.A total of 518 patient charts were enrolled in this study. All consecutive patient charts during the study period were included. Data was entered and analyzed using SPSS version 20. Descriptive statistics, cross-tabs and logistic regression analysis were performed to identify the association between dependant and independent variables. The strength of the association was presented using adjusted odds ratio with 95% confidence interval and p-value≤0.05 was considered as statistically significant with mortality. Results: Mortality rate was 42 (8.1%) and 70(13.5%) patients were developed complication which needed surgical intervention under general anesthesia. The mean length of hospital stay was 8 ± 5.9 days. Patients age ≥65 (AOR = 9.6, CI = 3.4–27.1), ASA status of ≥III (AOR = 7.4, CI = 1.9–29.3), presence of preoperative sepsis (AOR = 6.7,(95% CI: 2.0–22.6) and intraoperative use of vasopressor (AOR = 10.5,(95% CI: 3.8–29.5) were significantly associated with mortality of emergency laparotomy patients. Conclusion: Emergency laparotomy possesses high mortality. Preoperative resuscitation and sepsis management may improve outcome following emergency laparotomy. Highlights

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Rapid sequence induction and intubation (RSII) is a medical procedure involving a prompt induction of general anesthesia by using cricoid pressure that prevents regurgitation of gastric contents. The factors affecting RSII are prophylaxis for aspiration, preoxygenation, drug and equipment preparation for RSII, ventilation after induction till intubation and patient condition. We sometimes saw diffi culties with the practice of this technique in our hospital operation theatres. The aim of this study was to assess the techniques of rapid sequence induction and intubation.METHODS: Hospital based observational study was conducted with a standardized checklist. All patients who were operated upon under general anesthesia during the study period were included. The techniques of RSII were observed during the induction of anesthesia by trained anesthetists. RESULTS:Altogether 140 patients were included in this study with a response rate of 95.2%. Prophylaxis was not given to 130 patients (92.2%), and appropriate drugs were not used for RSII in 73 patients (52.1%), equipments for diffi cult intubation in 21 (15%), suction machines with catheter not connected and turned on in 122 (87.1%), ventilation for patients after induction and before intubation in 41 (29.3%), cricoid pressure released before cuff inflation in 12 (12.1%), and difficult intubation in 8 (5.7%), respectively. RSII with cricoid pressure was applied appropriately in 94 (67.1%) patients, but cricoid pressure was not used in 46 (32.9%) patients. CONCLUSIONS:The techniques of rapid sequence induction and intubation was low. Training should be given for anesthetists about the techniques of RSII.

ObjectivesTo assess the patients’ awareness of their rights, associated factors and the practice of these rights by the medical team from the patients’ perspective at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital.DesignAn institution-based prospective cross-sectional study was carried out.SettingThe research was conducted from January to May 2021 in a specialised hospital in central Ethiopia.Participants392 people who had elective surgery were included in this study; 217 men and 175 women responded. Systematic random sampling was employed to choose the research subjects, and K (skip interval) was calculated using the 3-month surgical waiting list at the hospital. Patients under the age of 18, those with severe illnesses, those who were not inpatients, and those who had diagnosable mental conditions were not eligible.Primary and secondary outcome measuresA structured questionnaire was administered in a face-to-face interview by trained data collectors after surgery at the surgical ward and analysed by using SPSS V.24. Bivariate and multivariable regression analyses were used to identify the associated factors. A p<0.05 was used to judge the significance of the association.ResultPatients’ awareness about their rights was 76%. Educational level, place of residency and the number of hospital admission were significantly associated with patients’ awareness. The majority (83.2%) of patients reported that health providers had poor practices regarding patient rights.ConclusionMost patients were unaware of most of their rights, and the majority of patients reported that healthcare providers did a poor job of protecting their patients’ rights. To advance the application and understanding of patient rights, access to various facilities, patient and healthcare provider education programmes, and patient rights information technology must be improved.