Background: Knowledge of infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures among healthcare workers (HCWs) is crucial for effective IPC. Compliance with IPC measures has critical implications for HCWs safety, patient protection and the care environment.Aims: To discuss the body of available literature regarding HCWs' knowledge of IPC and highlight potential factors that may influence compliance to IPC precautions.Design: A systematic review. A protocol was developed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis [PRISMA] statement.Data sources: Electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Proquest, Wiley online library, Medline, and Nature) were searched from 1 January 2006 to 31 January 2021 in the English language using the following keywords alone or in combination:knowledge, awareness, healthcare workers, infection, compliance, comply, control, prevention, factors. 3417 papers were identified and 30 papers were included in the review.Results: Overall, the level of HCW knowledge of IPC appears to be adequate, good, and/or high concerning standard precautions, hand hygiene, and care pertaining to urinary catheters. Acceptable levels of knowledge were also detected in regards to IPC measures for specific diseases including TB, MRSA, MERS-CoV, COVID-19 and Ebola. However, gaps were identified in several HCWs' knowledge concerning occupational vaccinations, the modes of transmission of infectious diseases, and the risk of infection from needle stick and sharps injuries. Several factors for noncompliance surrounding IPC guidelines are discussed, as are recommendations for improving adherence to those guidelines.Conclusion: Embracing a multifaceted approach towards improving IPC-intervention strategies is highly suggested. The goal being to improve compliance among HCWs with IPC measures is necessary.

The Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) has been reported to have a high case-fatality rate. Currently, there is no specific therapy or vaccine with proven effectiveness for MERS-CoV infections. A combination of ribavirin and interferon therapy was used for the treatment of five MERS-CoV-positive patients. We reviewed the therapeutic schedule and the outcome of these patients. All patients were critically ill with acute respiratory distress syndrome treated with adjunctive corticosteroids and were on mechanical ventilation at the time of initiation of therapy. The median time from admission to therapy with ribavirin and interferon was 19 (range 10-22) days. None of the patients responded to the supportive or therapeutic interventions and all died of their illness. While ribavirin and interferon may be effective in some patients, our practical experience suggests that critically ill patients with multiple comorbidities who are diagnosed late in the course of their illness may not benefit from combination antiviral therapy as preclinical data suggest. There is clearly an urgent need for a novel effective antiviral therapy for this emerging global threat.

Background. There is a paucity of data regarding the differentiating characteristics of patients with laboratory-confirmed and those negative for Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). Methods. This is a hospital-based case-control study comparing MERS-CoV–positive patients (cases) with MERS-CoV–negative controls. Results. A total of 17 case patients and 82 controls with a mean age of 60.7 years and 57 years, respectively (P = .553), were included. No statistical differences were observed in relation to sex, the presence of a fever or cough, and the presence of a single or multilobar infiltrate on chest radiography. The case patients were more likely to be overweight than the control group (mean body mass index, 32 vs 27.8; P = .035), to have diabetes mellitus (87% vs 47%; odds ratio [OR], 7.24; P = .015), and to have end-stage renal disease (33% vs 7%; OR, 7; P = .012). At the time of admission, tachypnea (27% vs 60%; OR, 0.24; P = .031) and respiratory distress (15% vs 51%; OR, 0.15; P = .012) were less frequent among case patients. MERS-CoV patients were more likely to have a normal white blood cell count than the control group (82% vs 52%; OR, 4.33; P = .029). Admission chest radiography with interstitial infiltrates was more frequent in case patients than in controls (67% vs 20%; OR, 8.13; P = .001). Case patients were more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit (53% vs 20%; OR, 4.65; P = .025) and to have a high mortality rate (76% vs 15%; OR, 18.96; P < .001). Conclusions. Few clinical predictors could enhance the ability to predict which patients with pneumonia would have MERS-CoV. However, further prospective analysis and matched case-control studies may shed light on other predictors of infection.

This study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and intended practices of healthcare workers (HCWs) in Saudi Arabia towards ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) Chatbot, within the first three months after its launch. We also aimed to identify potential barriers to AI Chatbot adoption among healthcare professionals. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 1057 HCWs in Saudi Arabia, distributed electronically via social media channels from 21 February to 6 March 2023. The survey evaluated HCWs’ familiarity with ChatGPT-3.5, their satisfaction, intended future use, and perceived usefulness in healthcare practice. Of the respondents, 18.4% had used ChatGPT for healthcare purposes, while 84.1% of non-users expressed interest in utilizing AI Chatbots in the future. Most participants (75.1%) were comfortable with incorporating ChatGPT into their healthcare practice. HCWs perceived the Chatbot to be useful in various aspects of healthcare, such as medical decision-making (39.5%), patient and family support (44.7%), medical literature appraisal (48.5%), and medical research assistance (65.9%). A majority (76.7%) believed ChatGPT could positively impact the future of healthcare systems. Nevertheless, concerns about credibility and the source of information provided by AI Chatbots (46.9%) were identified as the main barriers. Although HCWs recognize ChatGPT as a valuable addition to digital health in the early stages of adoption, addressing concerns regarding accuracy, reliability, and medicolegal implications is crucial. Therefore, due to their unreliability, the current forms of ChatGPT and other Chatbots should not be used for diagnostic or treatment purposes without human expert oversight. Ensuring the trustworthiness and dependability of AI Chatbots is essential for successful implementation in healthcare settings. Future research should focus on evaluating the clinical outcomes of ChatGPT and benchmarking its performance against other AI Chatbots.