Background Healthcare professionals (HCPs) on the front lines against COVID-19 may face increased workload and stress. Understanding HCPs' risk for burnout is critical to supporting HCPs and maintaining the quality of healthcare during the pandemic. Methods To assess exposure, perceptions, workload, and possible burnout of HCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic we conducted a cross-sectional survey. The main outcomes and measures were HCPs' self-assessment of burnout, indicated by a single item measure of emotional exhaustion, and other experiences and attitudes associated with working during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings A total of 2,707 HCPs from 60 countries participated in this study. Fifty-one percent of HCPs reported burnout. Burnout was associated with work impacting household activities (RR = 1�57, 95% CI = 1�39-1�78, P<0�001), feeling pushed beyond training (RR = 1�32, 95% CI = 1�20-1�47, P<0�001), exposure to COVID-19 patients (RR = 1�18, 95% CI = 1�05-1�32, P = 0�005), and making life prioritizing decisions (RR = 1�16, 95% CI = 1�02-1�31, P = 0�03). Adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) was protective against burnout (RR = 0�88, 95% CI = 0�79-0�97, P = 0�01). Burnout was higher in high-income countries (HICs) compared to low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) (RR = 1�18; 95% CI = 1�02-1�36, P = 0�018).

Background Healthcare professionals (HCPs) on the front lines against COVID-19 may face increased workload and stress. Understanding HCPs' risk for burnout is critical to supporting HCPs and maintaining the quality of healthcare during the pandemic. Methods To assess exposure, perceptions, workload, and possible burnout of HCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic we conducted a cross-sectional survey. The main outcomes and measures were HCPs' self-assessment of burnout, indicated by a single item measure of emotional exhaustion, and other experiences and attitudes associated with working during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings A total of 2,707 HCPs from 60 countries participated in this study. Fifty-one percent of HCPs reported burnout. Burnout was associated with work impacting household activities (RR = 1�57, 95% CI = 1�39-1�78, P<0�001), feeling pushed beyond training (RR = 1�32, 95% CI = 1�20-1�47, P<0�001), exposure to COVID-19 patients (RR = 1�18, 95% CI = 1�05-1�32, P = 0�005), and making life prioritizing decisions (RR = 1�16, 95% CI = 1�02-1�31, P = 0�03). Adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) was protective against burnout (RR = 0�88, 95% CI = 0�79-0�97, P = 0�01). Burnout was higher in high-income countries (HICs) compared to low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) (RR = 1�18; 95% CI = 1�02-1�36, P = 0�018).

Background: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) on the front lines against COVID-19 may face increased workload, and stress. Understanding HCPs risk for burnout is critical to supporting HCPs and maintaining the quality of healthcare during the pandemic. Methods: To assess exposure, perceptions, workload, and possible burnout of HCPs during the COVID-19 pandemic we conducted a cross-sectional survey. The main outcomes and measures were HCPs self-assessment of burnout and other experiences and attitudes associated with working during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings: A total of 2,707 HCPs from 60 countries participated in this study. Fifty-one percent of HCPs reported burnout. Burnout was associated with work impacting household activities (RR=1.57, 95% CI=1.39-1.78, P<0.001), feeling pushed beyond training (RR=1.32, 95% CI=1.20-1.47, P<0.001), exposure to COVID-19 patients (RR=1.18, 95% CI=1.05-1.32, P=0.005), making life prioritizing decisions (RR=1.16, 95% CI=1.02-1.31, P=0.03). Adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) was protective against burnout (RR=0.88, 95% CI=0.79-0.97, P=0.01). Burnout was higher in high-income countries (HICs) compared to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (RR=1.18; 95% CI=1.02-1.36, P=0.018). Interpretation: Burnout is prevalent at higher than previously reported rates among HCPs working during the COVID-19 pandemic and is related to high workload, job stress, and time pressure, and limited organizational support. Current and future burnout among HCPs could be mitigated by actions from healthcare institutions and other governmental and non-governmental stakeholders aimed at potentially modifiable factors, including providing additional training, organizational support, support for family, PPE, and mental health resources. Funding: N/A

No abstract

Purpose: Single-port (SP) robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP) through the transvesical approach is a novel surgical option in the management of large prostatic glands. We present the first multi-institutional study to further assess the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of SP RASP. Materials and Methods: From February 2019 to November 2021, 91 consecutive patients of 3 separate institutions underwent transvesical RASP using the da VinciÒ SP robotic surgical system. Surgeries were performed by 3 experienced surgeons. Through a suprapubic incision and transvesical access, the SP robot is docked directly into the bladder, and the prostatic enucleation is performed. Prospective data collection, including baseline characteristics, perioperative and postoperative outcomes, was performed. The mean followup period was 4.6 months. Results: The mean (SD) prostate volume was 156 (62) ml. The mean (SD) total operative time was 159 (45) minutes, and the median (IQR) estimated blood loss was 100 (50, 200) cc. The median (IQR) postoperative hospital stay was 21.0 (6.5, 26.0) hours; however, 42% of all patients were discharged the same day. The median (IQR) Foley catheter duration was 5 (5, 7) days. Only 3 patients (3%) developed Clavien grade 2 postoperative complications. At 9-month followup, the median (IQR) International Prostate Symptom Score and quality of life score were 4 (2, 5) and 0 (0, 1), respectively, with a mean (SD) maximum flow rate and post-void residual of 21 (17) ml/second and 40 (55) ml, respectively. Conclusions: In a multi-institutional setting, the SP RASP promotes a pain-free procedure, same-day discharge, short Foley catheter duration, low complication rate and quick recovery.