Purpose This study explores the prevalence and patterns of the use of pharmacologic sleep aids and stimulants among Saudi Arabia’s emergency physicians (EPs) and emergency medical services (EMS) providers. Patients and Methods We adopted a descriptive, cross-sectional design. To collect data on the types and frequencies of sleep aids and stimulants used, we distributed a semi-structured, anonymous, web-based questionnaire to registered EPs, paramedics, and emergency medicine technicians (EMTs) in the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties. An internal consistency analysis showed good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha=0.667) of the questionnaire. A subscale analysis confirmed the results—alpha values were 0.720 and 0.618 for the use of sleep aids and stimulants, respectively. Results Males and females represented 81.8% and 18.2%, respectively, of the valid sample of 669 participants. Respondents aged 25–34, 35–44, and 45–55 years represented 51.9%, 32.7%, and 10.2% of the sample, respectively. Results showed that a majority of the respondents (67.1%) used stimulants. Caffeine was the most common stimulant; caffeine and energy drinks were used by 65.9% and 17.2% of the respondents, respectively. Caffeine, energy drinks, nicotine, and ephedrine were used by 65.9%, 17.2%, 18.5%, and 17.3% of the respondents, respectively. The respondents who used at least one sleeping aid and those using only one and two sleeping aids accounted for 36.6%, 15.6%, and 9.7%, respectively. The most common sleeping aids antihistamines and marijuana were used on most days by 13.4% and 13.3% of the respondents, respectively. The average monthly number of night shifts (P = 0.025) significantly influenced sleep aid use. Respondents working in night shifts for 3–5 months or more than 7 days were more likely to use sleeping aids. Conclusion Future research should enhance health workers’ knowledge of the efficacy and safety of these medications and guide strategies to organize and reduce night shift work.

Objective: To assess the effects of using a smartphone-based push-to-talk (PTT) application on communication, safety, and clinical performance of emergency department (ED) workers during the COVID-19 outbreak. Design: An observational, cross-sectional study. Setting: ED in an academic medical center. Participants: All ED staff members, including physicians (consultants, specialists, residents, and interns), nurses, emergency medical services staff, technicians (X-ray), and administration employees. Interventions: Eligible participants (n=128) were invited to fill out an online questionnaire 30 days after using a PTT application for sharing instant voice messages during the COVID-19 outbreak. Main Outcome Measures: Self-reported data related to communication, implementation of personal protective measures, and clinical performance at the ED were collected and analyzed on a 5-item Likert scale (from 5 [strongly agree] to 1 [strongly disagree]). Also, the proportions of favorable responses (agree or strongly agree) were calculated. Results: Responses of 119 participants (51.3% females, 58.8% nurses, and 34.5% physicians; 90.4% received at least one notification per day) were analyzed. The participants had favorable responses regarding all domains of communication (between 63.0% and 81.5%), taking precautionary infection control measures (between 49.6% and 79.0%), and performance (between 55.5% and 72.3%). Receiving fake and annoying alerts and application breakdowns were the lowest perceived limitations (between 12.5% and 21.0%). Conclusion:The assessed PTT application can be generalized to other departments and hospitals dealing with patients with COVID-19 to optimize staff safety and institutional preparedness.

Objective This study investigated the role of objective olfactory dysfunction (OD) and gustatory dysfunction (GD) testing among patients with suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who presented with respiratory symptoms. Methods A prospective, blinded, observational study was conducted in the emergency units of two tertiary hospitals. Participants were asked to identify scents in the pocket smell test (PST) and flavors in four different solutions in the gustatory dysfunction test (GDT). We assessed the level of agreement between objective findings and self-reported symptoms. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of chemosensory dysfunction for diagnosing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Results Of 250 participants, 74 (29.6%) were SARS-CoV-2-positive. There was slight agreement between self-reported symptoms and objective findings (kappa = 0.13 and 0.10 for OD and GD, respectively). OD assessed by the PST was independently associated with COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio = 1.89, 95% confidence interval, 1.04–3.46). This association was stronger when OD was combined with objective GD, cough, and fever (adjusted odds ratio = 7.33, 95% confidence interval, 1.17–45.84). Conclusions Neither the PST nor GDT alone are useful screening tools for COVID-19. However, a diagnostic scale based on objective OD, GD, fever, and cough may help triage patients with suspected COVID-19.