The novel coronavirus outbreak began in late December 2019 and rapidly spread worldwide, critically impacting public health systems. A number of already approved and marketed drugs are being tested for repurposing, including Favipiravir. We aim to investigate the efficacy and safety of Favipiravir in treatment of COVID-19 patients through a systematic review and meta-analysis. This systematic review and meta-analysis were reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement. We registered the protocol in the PROSPERO (CRD42020180032). All clinical trials which addressed the safety and efficacy of Favipiravir in comparison to other control groups for treatment of patients with confirmed infection with SARS-CoV2 were included. We searched electronic databases including LitCovid/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, Cochrane, and Scientific Information Database up to 31 December 2020. We assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using Cochrane Collaboration criteria. All analyses were performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 2, and the risk ratio index was calculated. Egger and Begg test was used for assessing publication bias. Nine studies were included in our meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis revealed a significant clinical improvement in the Favipiravir group versus the control group during seven days after hospitalization (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09–1.41; P = 0.001). Viral clearance was more in 14 days after hospitalization in Favipiravir group than control group, but this finding marginally not significant (RR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.98–1.25; P = 0.094). Requiring supplemental oxygen therapy in the Favipiravir group was 7% less than the control group, (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.67–1.28; P = 0.664). Transferred to ICU and adverse events were not statistically different between two groups. The mortality rate in the Favipiravir group was approximately 30% less than the control group, but this finding not statistically significant. Favipiravir possibly exerted no significant beneficial effect in the term of mortality in the general group of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. We should consider that perhaps the use of antiviral once the patient has symptoms is too late and this would explain their low efficacy in the clinical setting.

Objectives: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is one of the most important outcome measures for patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate HRQoL and related factors in Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Methods: A total of 420 COVID-19 patients who had been discharged from hospital were selected using a systematic sampling. The EuroQol 5-dimensional-5 levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire along with medical records of the patients were used to gather the data. The t test and analysis of variance were employed to test the difference between mean EQ-5D-5L scores, and the BetaMix model was used to investigate factors associated with EQ-5D-5L scores. Results: The mean score for the patients who completed the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire (n = 409) was 0.6125. The EQ-5D-5L scores were significantly higher in males, patients with younger age , those with a low level of education, the employed, patients who worked in uncrowded workplaces, patients without diabetes, and those who were not admitted to intensive care unit. The BetaMix model showed that gender, age, education, employment status, having diabetes, heart failure, and admission to the intensive care unit were significant independent predictors of the EQ-5D-5L index values. Conclusion: The mean score for EQ-5D-5L in COVID-19 patients was low in this study. Some of the factors, especially aging and having diabetes, should be considered in the aftercare of patients to improve their HRQoL.

Objective: Competent managers are vital to the productivity and service quality of healthcare organizations and the sustainability of the healthcare system. To improve their management competence, understanding of management competency requirements is important. The purpose of this study was to synthesize the evidence related to the leadership and management competencies in healthcare organizations through the best-fit method. Methods: A systematic review of literature published between 2000 and 2020 was performed to identify studies focusing on confirming and/or identifying the competency requirements of hospital managers. The best-fit framework synthesis method was used to map the identified competencies and associated behavioral items against the validated management competency assessment program (MCAP) management competency framework. Results: Twelve studies were identified for inclusion in the review. The mapping of the identified competencies and behavioral items generated a competency model for hospital managers that can apply for different healthcare context. The new competency model includes the following seven core leadership and management competencies: evidence-informed decision-making, operations, administration and resource management, knowledge of healthcare environment and the organization, interpersonal, communication qualities and relationship management, leading people and organisation, enabling and managing change, and professionalism. Conclusion: This review and the mapping of the competencies identified in previous studies against the validated MCAP framework has resulted in the recommendation for an extended leadership and management competency framework for health service managers. It provides guidance for the formulation of training and development directions for the health service management workforce in a different healthcare context.

Aim: With the rise in frequency and severity of disasters in recent decades, it is essentially important that nurses must be adequately prepared to handle them. This study was aimed to evaluate the levels of disaster core competencies and preparedness of nurses in the emergency department.Design: A cross‐sectional survey design was used.Methods: This cross‐sectional research was conducted from August 2020 to December 2020 among 271 nurses in the emergency departments of six hospitals in Qazvin, Iran. The participants completed the “Nurses Perceptions of Disaster Core Competencies Scale” (NPDCC) (45 items) and the disaster preparedness (a single‐item visual scale). Data were analysed by one‐way analysis of variance, independent t‐tests and multiple linear regression analysis.Results: The mean scores of disaster preparedness and core competencies of nurses were 6.75 out of 10 (SD = 1.63) and 2.88 out of 5 (SD = 0.80), respectively. "Technical skills" (mean = 3.24, SD = 0.91) were the highest and "communication skills" (mean = 2.57, SD = 0.95) were the lowest across the subscales of the scale. A significant association was found between disaster core competencies and preparedness of nurses (p < .001). Regression analysis results indicated that nursing disaster core competencies were perceived betted by older nurses (B = −0.405) who had experience in the disaster stage (B = 0.228) and nurses with disaster response experience (B = 0.223) and lower professional experience (B = 0.309). Nurses with a postdiploma degree (B = −0.480) and bachelor's degree (B = −0.416) were perceived to have lower disaster core competency than nurses with a master's or PhD degree.Conclusion: There are still gaps in disaster preparedness and core competencies for emergency nurses that need to be addressed. Nursing managers must support an improvement in nursing disaster core competencies. This may be done by conducting sessions for routine disaster scenarios and providing formal disaster preparedness training.

Medical errors are considered as a major threat to patient safety. To clarify medical errors’ status in Iran, a review was conducted to estimate the accurate prevalence of medical errors. A comprehensive search was conducted in international databases (MEDLINE, Scopus and the Web of Science), national databases (SID, Magiran, and Barakat) and Google Scholar search engine. The search was performed without time limitation up to January 2017 using the MeSH terms of Medical “error(s)” and “Iran” in Endnote X5. Article in English and Persian which estimated the prevalence of medical errors in Iran were eligible to be included in this review. The JBI appraisal instrument was used to assess the quality of included studies, by two independent reviewers. The prevalence of medical errors was calculating using random effect model. Stata software was used for data analysis. In 40 included studies, the most frequent occupational group observed were nursing staff and nursing students (21 studies; 52% of studies). The most reported type of error was medication error (25 studies; 62% of studies, with prevalence ranged from 10 to 80%). University or teaching hospitals (30 studies; 75% of studies) as well as, internal/intensive care wards (10 studies; 25% of studies) were the most frequent hospitals and wards detected. Based on the result of the random effect model, the overall estimated prevalence of medical errors was 50% (95% confidence interval: 0.426, 0.574). Result of the comprehensive literature review of the current studies, found a wide variation in the prevalence of medical errors based on the occupational group, type of error, and health care setting. In this regards, providing enough education to nurses, improvement of patient safety culture and quality of services and attention to special wards, especially in teaching hospitals are suggested.