Background: Year 2020 started with global health crisis known as COVID-19. In lack of established tools and management protocols, COVID-19 had become breeding ground for fear and confusion, leading to stigma toward affected individuals. Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted to estimate prevalence of stigma in discharged COVID-19 patients from a COVID hospital in India. Participants were approached telephonically using a semistructured questionnaire to record their experiences. Questions were asked regarding stigma at six major domains of daily life. Among total 1,673 discharged participants, 600 were conveniently selected and out of them 311 responded on telephonic interviews. Result: We found that 182 (58.52%) participants (95% CI: 53.04–64.00) have self-perceived stigma, 163 (52.41%) participants (95% CI: 46.86–57.96) experienced quarantine-related stigma, 222 (71.38%) participants (95% CI: 66.36–76.40) experienced neighborhood stigma, 214 (68.81%) participants (95% CI: 63.66–73.95) experienced stigma while going out in marketplaces, 180 (57.88%) participants (95% CI: 52.39–63.37) experienced stigma at their work place, and 207 (66.56%) participants (95% CI: 61.31–71.80) reported stigma experienced by their family members. With a total of 84.5% (95% CI: 80.06–88.39) participants experiencing stigma at some domain and about 42.8% of participants facing stigma at all six domains. The commonest noted cause of stigma was fear of getting infected, reported by 184 (59.2%) participants. Conclusion: This study shows high prevalence of stigma in COVID-19 patients suffering in their common domains of daily lives.

Context: The coronavirus pandemic has put an unprecedented burden on the health-care workers who are the cornerstone of the work system, preparing to mitigate its effects. Due to the lack of protective equipments, guidelines for managing patients, or proper training and education regarding the same, health care professionals (HCPs) working in non-COVID areas may face even greater problems than those working in COVID areas of a hospital. Our aim was to find out the concerns of HCPs working in non-COVID areas. Subjects and Methods: After obtaining institutional ethics approval, a descriptive cross-sectional study was planned. An online Google-based questionnaire was rolled out to all doctors through various social media platforms who were dealing with COVID-negative patients. Results: We received a total of 110 responses. 84.5% of participants were concerned about the risk of infection to self and family, 67.3% were concerned by the disruption of their daily activities. 56.4% of HCPs were disturbed by the lack of any concrete protocol for patient management. Less staff availability, delay in discharging duties toward their patients, and increased workload were other concerns. More than half of the doctors received N-95 masks whenever required and were trained in donning and doffing of Personal protective equipment. Sixty-eight percemt of our respondents labeled their current quality of life as stressful. Conclusion: It is the need of the hour to develop a comprehensive strategy focussing on the above challenges that HCPs working in non-COVID areas are facing. This will go a long way in not only providing holistic care to the patients but also in controlling this pandemic.

Objective: Health-care professionals (HCPs) are the frontline warriors in the time of this uncertain and unpredictable crisis of COVID. They face many challenges while caring for these patients, yet they are expected to cope with it and deliver their duties for the betterment of humankind. Our primary aim was to identify and assess the concerns of HCPs working in COVID area in a tertiary institutional isolation center. Methodology: An online Google-based questionnaire survey was distributed through various social media platforms after approval of the institutional review board to a total of 100 HCPs who were treating and managing COVID-positive patients. Results: Of 100 responses, 72% were concerned about the risk of infection to self and family, while 46% reported disruption of their daily activities at a personal level. At the institutional level, 17% were concerned about inadequate personal protective equipment-related challenges. 20% had inadequate knowledge and training about COVID. 16% of participants were anxious all the time, 11% feared all the time, and 12% had stress all the time while treating COVID patients. Connectedness and communication with family and friends, word of appreciation, music, and TV were few strategies to cope up with these challenges. Conclusion: There is a need to identify and address the concerns and challenges faced by HCPs and to develop a comprehensive strategy and guideline to provide a holistic care and to ensure their security in the workplace.

Background: Nasotracheal intubation (NTI) is commonly performed in oromaxillofacial surgeries. We did this metanalysis to ascertain whether use of video laryngoscopy (VL) provided better NTI characteristics as compared to direct laryngoscopy (DL) in patients undergoing oromaxillofacial surgeries.Methods: We performed a systematic search to identify randomized controlled trials comparing VL with DL for NTI in adults undergoing elective oromaxillofacial surgery. The primary outcome was time to intubation. Secondary outcomes included the first attempt success, overall success, incidence of nasal bleeding, Cormack and Lehane grade, and maneuvers required. Results: Of the 456 studies identified following a systematic search, 10 were included. Meta-analysis showed a significantly lower time to tracheal intubation favoring VL (mean difference: –9.04, 95% CI [–12.71, –5.36], P < 0.001; I2 = 59%). VL was also associated with a greater first attempt success (relative risk [RR]: 1.10, 95% CI [1.04, 1.16], P = 0.001). Maneuvers to facilitate intubation were less with VL (RR: 0.22, 95% CI [0.10, 0.51], P < 0.001). There was no difference in overall intubation success (RR: 1.04, 95% CI [0.98, 1.10], P = 0.17). The incidence of bleeding did not differ between the DL and VL groups (RR: 0.59, 95% CI [0.32, 1.08], P = 0.09).Conclusions: Evidence as per this meta-analysis suggests VL leads to a shorter time to NTI, a greater first attempt success rate, and reduced need for maneuvers when compared to DL. The present study supports use of VL as a first line device for NTI in oral-maxillofacial surgeries in experienced hands.

No abstract