Many affected counties have had experienced a shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. We aimed to investigate the needs of healthcare professionals and the technical difficulties faced by them during the initial outbreak. A cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted among the healthcare workforce in the most populous cities from three Latin American countries in April 2020. In total, 1,082 participants were included. Of these, 534 (49.4%), 263 (24.3%), and 114 (10.5%) were physicians, nurses, and other professionals, respectively. At least 70% of participants reported a lack of PPE. The most common shortages were shortages in gown coverall suits (643, 59.4%), N95 masks (600, 55.5%), and face shields (569, 52.6%). Professionals who performed procedures that generated aerosols reported shortages more frequently (p<0.05). Professionals working in the emergency department and primary care units reported more shortages than those working in intensive care units and hospital-based wards (p<0.001). Up to 556 (51.4%) participants reported the lack of sufficient knowledge about using PPE. Professionals working in public institutions felt less prepared, received less training, and had no protocols compared with their peers in working private institutions (p<0.001). Although the study sample corresponded to different hospital centers in different cities from the participating countries, sampling was non-random. Healthcare professionals in Latin America may face more difficulties than those from other countries, with 7 out of 10 professionals reporting that they did not have the necessary resources to care for patients with COVID-19. Technical and logistical difficulties should be addressed in the event of a future outbreak, as they have a negative impact on healthcare workers. Clinical trial registration: NCT04486404

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to consolidate studies to determine whether root cause analysis (RCA) is an adequate method to decrease recurrence of avoidable adverse events (AAEs). Methods: A systematic search of databases from creation until December 2018 was performed using PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE. We included articles published in scientific journals describing the practical usefulness in and impact of RCA on the reduction of AAEs and whether professionals consider it feasible. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of studies. Results: Twenty-one articles met the inclusion criteria. Samples included in these studies ranged from 20 to 1,707 analyses of RCAs, AAEs, recommendations, audits or interviews with professionals. The most common setting was hospitals (86%; n = 18), and the type of incident most analysed was AAEs, in 71% (n = 15) of the cases; 47% (n = 10) of the studies stated that the main weakness of RCA is its recommendations. The most common causes involved in the occurrence of AEs were communication problems among professionals, human error and faults in the organisation of the health care process. Despite the widespread implementation of RCA in the past decades, only 2 studies could to some extent establish an improvement in patient safety due to RCAs. Conclusions: RCA is a useful tool for the identification of the remote and immediate causes of safety incidents, but not for implementing effective measures to prevent their recurrence.

Objectives To determine the volume of health professionals who suffered distress due to their care of patients with COVID-19 and to analyse the direction in which the response capacity of the professionals to face future waves of COVID-19 is evolving. Design A cross-sectional study. Setting Primary care and hospitals in Spain. Participants A non-randomised sample of 685 professionals (physicians, nurses and other health staff). Primary and secondary outcome measures Frequency and intensity of stress responses measured by the Acute Stress of Health Professionals Caring COVID-19 Scale (EASE). Variation of stress responses according to the number of deaths per day per territory and the evolutionary stage of the COVID-19 outbreak measured by the Kruskal-Wallis and the Mann-Whitney U tests. Results The average score on the EASE Scale was 11.1 (SD 6.7) out of 30. Among the participants, 44.2% presented a good emotional adjustment, 27.4% a tolerable level of distress, 23.9% medium–high emotional load and 4.5% extreme acute stress. The stress responses were more intense in the most affected territories (12.1 vs 9.3, p=0.003) and during the disillusionment phase (12.7 vs 8.5 impact, 10.2 heroic and 9.8 honeymoon, p=0.000). Conclusions The pandemic has affected the mental health of a significant proportion of health professionals which may reduce their resilience in the face of future waves of COVID-19. The institutional approaches to support the psychological needs of health professionals are essential to ensure optimal care considering these results.

Background: COVID-19 became a major public health concern in March 2020. Due to the high rate of hospitalizations for COVID-19 in a short time, health care workers and other involved staff are subjected to a large workload and high emotional distress. Objective: The objective of this study is to develop a digital tool to provide support resources that might prevent and consider acute stress reactions in health care workers and other support staff due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The contents of the digital platform were created through an evidence-based review and consensus conference. The website was built using the Google Blogger tool. The Android version of the app was developed in the Java and XML languages using Android Studio version 3.6, and the iOS version was developed in the Swift language using Xcode version 11.5. The app was evaluated externally by the Andalusian Agency for Healthcare Quality. Results: We detected the needs and pressing situations of frontline health care workers, and then, we proposed a serial of recommendations and support resources to address them. These resources were redesigned using the feedback received. A website in three different languages (Spanish, English, and Portuguese) and a mobile app were developed with these contents, and the AppSaludable Quality Seal was granted to the app. A specific self-report scale to measure acute stress and additional tools were included to support the health care workforce. This instrument has been used in several Latin American countries and has been adapted considering cultural differences. The resources section of the website was the most visited with 18,516 out of 68,913 (26.9%) visits, and the “Self-Report Acute Stress Scale” was the most visited resource with 6468 out of 18,516 (34.9%) visits. Conclusions: The Be + against COVID platform (website and app) was developed and launched to offer a pool of recommendations and support resources, which were specifically designed to protect the psychological well-being and the work morale of health care workers. This is an original initiative different from the usual psychological assistance hotlines.

Background Diabetes mellitus is a global public health concern, with over 463 million people living with this chronic disease. Pathology complexity, management difficulty, and limited participation in care has resulted in healthcare systems seeking new strategies to engage people living with diabetes. Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were developed to address the gap between the healthcare system expectation and patient preference. Objective This study aimed to review the existing literature on PREMs and PROMs specific to type 1 and 2 diabetes, and report the dimensions report the dimensions they have measured. Methods A scoping review was conducted from January 1985 to March 2020 of six databases, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINHAL, Scopus, and BiblioPro, to identify PREM and PROM instruments specific for type 1 and 2 diabetes. Results Overall, 34 instruments were identified, 32 PROMs and two PREMs. The most common instrument included outcomes related to quality of life at 44% (n = 15), followed by satisfaction (whether with treatment, device, and healthy habits) at 26% (n = 9). Furthermore, instruments regarding personal well-being accounted for 15% (n = 5). For instruments that measure experiences of persons with diabetes, there were two scales of symptoms, and one related to the attitude patients have toward the disease. Conclusions Diabetes-specific validated instruments mainly focus on quality of life, education, and treatment, and sometimes overlap each other, in their subscales and assessment dimensions. Constructs such as cultural and religious beliefs, leisure, and work life may need more attention. There appears to be a gap in instruments to measure experiences of individuals who “live with diabetes” and seek to lead a “normal life.”

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Patient-Reported Indicator Surveys (PaRIS) initiative aims to support countries in improving care for people living with chronic conditions by collecting information on how people experience the quality and performance of primary and (generalist) ambulatory care services. This paper presents the development of the conceptual framework that underpins the rationale for and the instrumentation of the PaRIS survey. Methods The guidance of an international expert taskforce and the OECD Health Care Quality Indicators framework (2015) provided initial specifications for the framework. Relevant conceptual models and frameworks were then identified from searches in bibliographic databases (Medline, EMBASE and the Health Management Information Consortium). A draft framework was developed through narrative review. The final version was codeveloped following the participation of an international Patient advisory Panel, an international Technical Advisory Community and online international workshops with patient representatives. Results 85 conceptual models and frameworks were identified through searches. The final framework maps relationships between the following domains (and subdomains): patient-reported outcomes (symptoms, functioning, self-reported health status, health-related quality of life); patient-reported experiences of care (access, comprehensiveness, continuity, coordination, patient safety, person centeredness, self-management support, trust, overall perceived quality of care); health and care capabilities; health behaviours (physical activity, diet, tobacco and alcohol consumption), sociodemographic characteristics and self-reported chronic conditions; delivery system characteristics (clinic, main healthcare professional); health system, policy and context. Discussion The PaRIS conceptual framework has been developed through a systematic, accountable and inclusive process. It serves as the basis for the development of the indicators and survey instruments as well as for the generation of specific hypotheses to guide the analysis and interpretation of the findings.