International survey of COVID-19 management strategies

Abstract

Background While individual countries have gained considerable knowledge and experience in coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) management, an international, comparative perspective is lacking, particularly regarding the measures taken by different countries to tackle the pandemic. This paper elicits the views of health system staff, tapping into their personal expertise on how the pandemic was initially handled. Methods From May to July 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional, online, purpose-designed survey comprising 70 items. Email lists of contacts provided by the International Society for Quality in Health Care, the Italian Network for Safety in Health Care and the Australian Institute of Health Innovation were used to access healthcare professionals and managers across the world. We snowballed the survey to individuals and groups connected to these organizations. Key outcome measures were attitudes and information about institutional approaches taken; media communication; how acute hospitals were re-organized; primary health organization; personal protective equipment; and staffing and training. Results A total of 1131 survey participants from 97 countries across the World Health Organization (WHO) regions responded to the survey. Responses were from all six WHO regions; 57.9% were female and the majority had 10 or more years of experience in healthcare; almost half (46.5%) were physicians; and all other major clinical professional groups participated. As the pandemic progressed, most countries established an emergency task force, developed communication channels to citizens, organized health services to cope and put in place appropriate measures (e.g. pathways for COVID-19 patients, and testing, screening and tracing procedures). Some countries did this better than others. We found several significant differences between the WHO regions in how they are tackling the pandemic. For instance, while overall most respondents (71.4%) believed that there was an effective plan prior to the outbreak, this was only the case for 31.9% of respondents from the Pan American Health Organization compared with 90.7% of respondents from the South-East Asia Region (SEARO). Issues with swab testing (e.g. delay in communicating the swab outcome) were less frequently reported by respondents from SEARO and the Western Pacific Region compared with other regions. Conclusion The world has progressed in its knowledge and sophistication in tackling the pandemic after early and often substantial obstacles were encountered. Most WHO regions have or are in the process of responding well, although some countries have not yet instituted widespread measures known to support mitigation, for example, effective swab testing and social control measures.

Strategies for the Psychological Support of the Healthcare Workforce during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The ERNST Study

“…Previous studies found that the interventions put in place during this period to address the impact of the pandemic on healthcare workers have been similar to those described here [22][23][24]. Psychological counseling and measures to prevent burnout have been described by professionals as the most common interventions to support them [25]. However, the professionals themselves decided to use the tools made available to them or did not consider it necessary for them.…”

Digital mHealth and Virtual Care Use During COVID-19 in 4 Countries: Rapid Landscape Review

“…The type of technology used to manage COVID-19 between the high-income and low-middle income countries was similar; however, Kenya and Rwanda had a more comprehensive approach when using novel technology. Studies evaluating the technical efficiency and overall performance of national COVID-19 management have consistently criticized the United Kingdom and Canada as underperforming despite having access to exceptional resources [ 31 - 33 ]. In fact, the Lowy Institute assessed the performance during the first wave of 98 countries by evaluating various parameters including confirmed cases and deaths per million people and confirmed the cases as a proportion of tests [ 32 ].…”

The COVID-19 System Shock Framework: Capturing Health System Innovation During the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…3 Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 4 Department of Global Health and Development, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. 5 Institute for Women and Children's Health, King's College London, London, UK.…”