Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.

COVID-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, is spreading rapidly worldwide, with devastating consequences for patients, healthcare workers, health systems, and economies. As it reaches low-and middle-income countries, the pandemic puts healthcare workers at high risk and challenges the abilities of healthcare systems to respond to the crisis. This study measured levels of knowledge and preparedness regarding COVID-19 among physicians and nurses. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among healthcare workers in Libya between February 26 and March 10, 2020. We obtained 1,572 valid responses of a possible 2,000 (78.6%) participants from 21 hospitals, of which 65.1% were from physicians and 34.9% from nurses. The majority of participants (70%) used social media as a source of information. A total of 47.3% of doctors and 54.7% of nurses received adequate training on how to effectively use personal protective equipment. Low confidence in managing suspected COVID-19 patients was reported by 83.8% of participants. Furthermore, 43.2% of healthcare workers were aware of proper hand hygiene techniques. Less than 7% of participants received training on how to manage COVID-19 cases, whereas 20.6% of doctors and 26.3% of nurses felt that they were personally prepared for the outbreak. Awareness and preparedness for the pandemic were low among frontline workers during the study. Therefore, an effective educational training program should be implemented to ensure maintenance of appropriate practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04384926 . Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include...

Objective: We aimed to determine the prevalence of burnout among hospital healthcare workers in Libya during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and civil war.Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted from April 18 to May 2, 2020 among Libyan healthcare workers. Data on participant characteristics were collected with a specifically designed questionnaire. Burnout was assessed with the abbreviated Maslach Burnout Inventory (aMBI) comprising three subscales: emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP), and personal accomplishment (PA), with each sub-scale score range from 0 to 18. For EE and DP, scores of 10 to 18 were regarded as “moderate to severe burnout.” PA was scored inversely, where a score ≤ 10 indicated severe burnout.Results: The study yielded a sample size of 532 participants. Of these, 357 (67.1%) reported emotional exhaustion (EE Score ≥ 10), 252 (47.4%) reported depersonalization (DP score ≥ 10), and 121 (22.7%) reported a lower sense of personal accomplishment (PA score ≤ 10). Verbal abuse was experienced by 304 participants (57.1%) and physical abuse in 93 (17.5). Gender was associated with high emotional exhaustion and high depersonalization. Being 35 years or older was associated with high depersonalization. Professional specialty was significantly associated with high emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. Fear of COVID-19 infection was associated with high emotional exhaustion and high depersonalization.Conclusion: The rising prevalence of mental disorders and inadequate availability of health services facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic and civil war demonstrated the need for healthcare policies to address the well-being of healthcare workers to decrease the risk of loss, suicide, and medical negligence.

Objective Healthcare workers, particularly those working in departments that provide care for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), are at a higher risk of this contagious disease than those who work in other departments. The aim of this study was to assess the psychological status of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 outbreak, which has compounded Libya's existing civil war-related problems. Methods A multi-center cross-sectional survey on depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and abuse was conducted. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was used to measure the prevalence of anxiety and depressive symptoms among healthcare workers. Results The data of 745 eligible healthcare workers from 15 hospitals were analyzed. Depressive and anxiety symptoms were compared to the basic characteristics of the participants to determine the association. A total of 420 (56.3%) participants had depressive symptoms, while 348 (46.7%) had anxiety symptoms. Age, residency status, department, stigmatization, and living in a conflict zone were significantly associated with depressive symptoms. Age, department, years of experience, working hours per week, internal displacement, stigmatization, living in a conflict zone, and verbal abuse were significantly associated with anxiety symptoms. Conclusion Our study presents important findings regarding depressive, anxiety symptoms, and abuse among physicians providing care during the COVID-19 outbreak and civil war in Libya. It also demonstrates several factors that can be associated with depressive and anxiety symptoms in this population.