ObjectivesTo estimate COVID-19 infections and deaths in healthcare workers (HCWs) from a global perspective during the early phases of the pandemic.DesignSystematic review.MethodsTwo parallel searches of academic bibliographic databases and grey literature were undertaken until 8 May 2020. Governments were also contacted for further information where possible. There were no restrictions on language, information sources used, publication status and types of sources of evidence. The AACODS checklist or the National Institutes of Health study quality assessment tools were used to appraise each source of evidence.Outcome measuresPublication characteristics, country-specific data points, COVID-19-specific data, demographics of affected HCWs and public health measures employed.ResultsA total of 152 888 infections and 1413 deaths were reported. Infections were mainly in women (71.6%, n=14 058) and nurses (38.6%, n=10 706), but deaths were mainly in men (70.8%, n=550) and doctors (51.4%, n=525). Limited data suggested that general practitioners and mental health nurses were the highest risk specialities for deaths. There were 37.2 deaths reported per 100 infections for HCWs aged over 70 years. Europe had the highest absolute numbers of reported infections (119 628) and deaths (712), but the Eastern Mediterranean region had the highest number of reported deaths per 100 infections (5.7).ConclusionsCOVID-19 infections and deaths among HCWs follow that of the general population around the world. The reasons for gender and specialty differences require further exploration, as do the low rates reported in Africa and India. Although physicians working in certain specialities may be considered high risk due to exposure to oronasal secretions, the risk to other specialities must not be underestimated. Elderly HCWs may require assigning to less risky settings such as telemedicine or administrative positions. Our pragmatic approach provides general trends, and highlights the need for universal guidelines for testing and reporting of infections in HCWs.

Objectives To estimate COVID-19 infections and deaths in healthcare workers (HCWs) from a global perspective. Design Scoping review. Methods Two parallel searches of academic bibliographic databases and grey literature were undertaken. Governments were also contacted for further information where possible. Due to the time-sensitive nature of the review and the need to report the most up-to-date information for an ever-evolving situation, there were no restrictions on language, information sources utilised, publication status, and types of sources of evidence. The AACODS checklist was used to appraise each source of evidence. Outcome measures Publication characteristics, country-specific data points, COVID-19 specific data, demographics of affected HCWs, and public health measures employed Results A total of 152,888 infections and 1413 deaths were reported. Infections were mainly in women (71.6%) and nurses (38.6%), but deaths were mainly in men (70.8%) and doctors (51.4%). Limited data suggested that general practitioners and mental health nurses were the highest risk specialities for deaths. There were 37.17 deaths reported per 100 infections for healthcare workers aged over 70. Europe had the highest absolute numbers of reported infections (119628) and deaths (712), but the Eastern Mediterranean region had the highest number of reported deaths per 100 infections (5.7). Conclusions HCW COVID-19 infections and deaths follow that of the general world population. The reasons for gender and speciality differences require further exploration, as do the low rates reported from Africa and India. Although physicians working in certain specialities may be considered high-risk due to exposure to oronasal secretions, the risk to other specialities must not be underestimated. Elderly HCWs may require assigning to less risky settings such as telemedicine, or administrative positions. Our pragmatic approach provides general trends, and highlights the need for universal guidelines for testing and reporting of infections in HCWs.

No abstract

There is emerging evidence, although at early stages, of various detrimental health effects after smoking shisha. With regard to the cardiovascular system, there is a signifi cant acute rise in cardiovascular markers, such as heart rate and blood pressure. The long-term effects on the cardiovascular system are yet to be established. Shisha smoking has also been signifi cantly associated with lung cancer. Various other forms of cancer have also been documented, but have not reached statistical signifi cance and require further research. Finally, shisha smoking increases the risk of infection and has been associated with outbreaks in the Middle East. Therefore, with the increasing consumption of shisha in Europe, especially in the UK, more research is required to tackle this potential public health threat.

Background: Injuries remain an important public health concern, resulting in considerable annual morbidity and mortality. In low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), the lack of appropriate infrastructure, equipment and skilled personnel compound the burden of injury, leading to higher mortality rates. As Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) courses remain uneconomical and inappropriate in LMICs, the Primary Trauma Care (PTC) course was introduced to provide an alternative that is both sustainable and appropriate to local resources. Methods: A systematic review was performed in May 2019, utilising MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. All studies reporting patient related outcomes (mortality and morbidity rates) and course participant related outcomes (knowledge, confidence and skills) in LMICs were included. PRISMA guidelines were adhered to throughout. Results: Nine observational studies were identified (Level 3 evidence). Six studies reported improved knowledge in injury management post-PTC course (p < 0.05). Two studies reported improvements in confidence (p < 0.05) and one on skill attainment (p < 0.0001). One study reported a reduction in mortality rates post-PTC course (p < 0.01). 2 Conclusion: Departmental, institutional and personal improvements may occur in clinical practice as a result of formal PTC training of trauma team members in LMICs. Further high-quality research is needed to evaluate this course's effects on observed change in clinical practice and patient outcomes. This may require long-term observational and epidemiological studies to assess improvements in morbidity and mortality.