The number of COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease of 2019) cases in Jordan is rising rapidly. A serious threat to the healthcare system appears on the horizon. Our study aims to evaluate preparedness of Jordanian frontline doctors to the worsening scenario. It has a questionnaire-based cross-sectional structure. The questionnaire was designed to evaluate preparedness according to knowledge about virus transmission and protective measures, adherence to protection guidelines, and psychological impacts affecting doctors. Institutional factors affecting doctors’ readiness like adopting approach protocols and making protection equipment available were investigated; 308 doctors from different healthcare facilities participated (response rate: 53.9%). Approximately 25% of doctors (n = 77) previously took care of COVID-19 patients, and 173 (56.2%) have institutional COVID-19 approach protocols. Only 57 doctors (18.5%) reported all PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) available. The self-reported score of preparedness to deal with COVID-19 patients was 4.9 ± 2.4. Doctors having institutional protocols for dealing with COVID-19 cases and those with sustained availability of PPE reported higher scores of preparedness (5.5 ± 2.3 and 6.2 ± 2.1 with p < 0.001, respectively). Correlations with knowledge score, adherence to PPE score, and psychological impacts were investigated. The study revealed multiple challenges and insufficiencies that can affect frontline doctors’ preparedness. Policy makers are urged to take these findings into consideration and to act promptly.

Vaccination is the most promising strategy to counter the spread of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Vaccine hesitancy is a serious global phenomenon, and therefore the aim of this cross-sectional study was to explore the effect of educational background, work field, and social media on attitudes towards vaccination in Jordan. We compared between medical personnel who were in direct contact with patients and non-medical individuals at Jordan University Hospital in terms of demographics, knowledge about COVID-19 vaccines, rumors received via social media, their trust in these vaccines, and the encouraging factors for vaccination. 646 individuals were enrolled in this study, of which 287 (44.4%) were from medical field, and 359 (55.6%) from non-medical field. 226 (35%) were planning to take the vaccine once available, with a positive response from 131 (45.6%) medical field workers, compared to 94 (26.2%) non-medical individuals (p < 0.001). The social media rumor that was believed the most was the unsafety of these vaccines (n = 283; 43.8%). Only 163 (56.8%) of medical persons did not believe any of the circulated rumors, compared to 126 (35.1%) of non-medical persons (p < 0.001). The effect of medical personnel advice (OR = 0.83; 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.98; p = 0.026) and social media (OR = 1.21; 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.41; p = 0.012) were significantly associated with the willingness to take COVID-19 vaccine once available. In conclusion, medical personnel and social media play a crucial role in increasing the society’s inclination towards vaccination by providing the community with updated evidence-based information about COVID-19 vaccines as an efficient medical countermeasure and by correcting the previously spread misinformation.

Anxiety in the perioperative period has significant impact on both the flow of surgery and the post-operative recovery process. The aim of this cross-sectional study is to determine the prevalence of preoperative anxiety among adult patients undergoing elective surgical procedures at a tertiary teaching hospital and the effect of COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines on preoperative anxiety. We used the Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale (APAIS) to assess patients’ anxiety toward surgery and their need for more information. Patients with APAIS about anesthesia and surgery (APAIS-A-T) total score <10 were considered as the low preoperative anxiety group, while patients with APAIS-A-T ≥11 were considered as the high preoperative anxiety group. The overall APAIS-A-T score of the 794 included patients was 8.5 ± 4.5. The mean APAIS-A-T score was 7.0 ± 3.8 among males and 9.6 ± 4.6 among female patients (p < 0.001). The APAIS-A-T score for those who had previously underwent surgery under anesthesia was 8.3 ± 4.4, compared to 9.5 ± 4.8 for those who had not (p = 0.002). No significant difference was found between those with a previous history of COVID-19 and those without (p = 0.105), nor between those who were vaccinated and those who were not (p = 0.550). Sixty-four (26.8%) highly anxious patients were afraid of becoming infected with COVID-19 during their hospital stay (p = 0.009). This fear of COVID-19 in-hospital transmission made 19 (7.9%) highly anxious patients and 36 (4.5%) of the total sample hesitant to undergo this surgery (p = 0.002). In conclusion, this study demonstrated that 30.1% of patients had high preoperative anxiety, with fear of pain after surgery being the most common factor related to anxiety on the day of surgery. Controlling the spread of COVID-19 can play a crucial role in decreasing preoperative anxiety during this pandemic.

The aim of this IASP complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) SIG Global Series 2021 was to bring together clinicians including those from developing countries to better understand the clinical presentation of complex regional pain syndrome in countries with less well-published patient populations. The purpose was to learn from each other about the range of treatments, successful outcomes, and challenges experienced. These meeting proceedings comprise abstracts from nine countries that span 4 continents and are summaries of online presentations delivered by speakers representing these countries over the course of 2 symposia. The symposia were attended by a global audience of approximately 360 people. Patients with CRPS were described and treated by clinicians from countries across Asia (Pakistan, Jordan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore), South America (Brazil and Peru), Africa (South Africa), and Europe (Norway). This reflects that CRPS exists across borders, ethnicities, and cultures. These proceedings provide a broader perspective within the international pain community about how we can better understand and treat CRPS across the globe.

Success in integrating artificial intelligence (AI) in anesthesia depends on collaboration with anesthesiologists, respecting their expertise, and understanding their opinions. The aim of this study was to illustrate the confidence in AI integration in perioperative anesthetic care among Jordanian anesthesiologists and anesthesia residents working at tertiary teaching hospitals. This cross-sectional study was conducted via self-administered online questionnaire and includes 118 responses from 44 anesthesiologists and 74 anesthesia residents. We used a five-point Likert scale to investigate the confidence in AI’s role in different aspects of the perioperative period. A significant difference was found between anesthesiologists and anesthesia residents in confidence in the role of AI in operating room logistics and management, with an average score of 3.6 ± 1.3 among residents compared to 2.9 ± 1.4 among specialists (p = 0.012). The role of AI in event prediction under anesthesia scored 3.5 ± 1.4 among residents compared to 2.9 ± 1.4 among specialists (p = 0.032) and the role of AI in decision-making in anesthetic complications 3.3 ± 1.4 among residents and 2.8 ± 1.4 among specialists (p = 0.034). Also, 65 (55.1%) were concerned that the integration of AI will lead to less human–human interaction, while 81 (68.6%) believed that AI-based technology will lead to more adherence to guidelines. In conclusion, AI has the potential to be a revolutionary tool in anesthesia, and hesitancy towards increased dependency on this technology is decreasing with newer generations of practitioners.