No abstract

This paper analyses the health policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the four Visegrad countries – Czechia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia – in spring and summer 2020. The four countries implemented harsh transmission prevention measures at the beginning of the pandemic and managed to effectively avoid the first wave of infections during spring. Likewise, all four relaxed most of these measures during the summer and experienced uncontrolled growth of cases since September 2020. Along the way, there has been an erosion of public support for the government measures. This was mainly due to economic considerations taking precedent but also likely due to diminished trust in the government. All four countries have been overly reliant on their relatively high bed capacity, which they managed to further increase at the cost of elective treatments, but this could not always be supported with sufficient health workforce capacity. Finally, none of the four countries developed effective find, test, trace, isolate and support systems over the summer despite having relaxed most of the transmission protection measures since late spring. This left the countries ill-prepared for the rise in the number of COVID-19 infections they have been experiencing since autumn 2020.

Although countries in central and eastern Europe (CEE) have relatively younger populations compared to the West, their populations are often affected by higher prevalence of chronic conditions and multi-morbidity and this burden will likely increase as their populations age. Relatively little is known about how these countries cater to the needs of complex patients. This Perspective piece identifies key initiatives to improve coordination of care in Czechia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia, including some pioneering and far-reaching approaches. Unfortunately, some of them have failed to be implemented, but a recent strategic commitment to care coordination in some of these countries and the dedication to rebuilding stronger health systems after the COVID-19 pandemic offer an opportunity to take stock of these past and ongoing experiences and push for more progress in this area.

No abstract

Omicron variant is more invasive against immunity, but it's not more invasive in any change in degree against masks, and indoor air; than previous variants. With its arrival, dentistry is facing another challenge. With a mission to protect both patients and healthcare workers, we are adapting to the current epidemiologic situation and anticipate the incoming change. This article presents an unpublished prospective setting for dental care in the new chapter of pandemics after Omicron variant. Introduced biosafety protocol has been clinically tested for 18 months in the field. Three fundamental pillars of this sustainable biosafety protocol are: (1) UVC air disinfection; (2) air saturation with certified virucidal oils through nebulizing diffusers; (3) telehealth solutions. As a method of evaluation pseudonymous on-line smart form was used. This biosafety protocol is not relying on persons` identification as uninfected; it is designed for environments where healthcare workers or patients are hypothetical asymptomatic carriers. Results from 115 patient feedbacks suggest that with this protocol in place, there was no observed or reported translation of infection from patient to another patient or from patient to doctor or nurse and vice versa, albeit nine of the patients have retrospectively admitted being probably infectious during their dental appointment. The key of this protocol is its clinical sustainability, as full-body protective suits don’t represent sustainable dental care as well as there is no acceptable risk of patients getting infected during dental procedures.