Obstetrical Unit Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: OUR Study

被引:4
|
作者
Pluym, Ilina D. [1 ]
Rao, Rashmi [1 ]
Ballas, Jerasimos [2 ]
Ramos, Gladys A. [2 ]
Cross, Sarah N. [3 ]
Zapata, Mya [1 ]
Srinivas, Sindhu [4 ]
Louis, Judette M. [5 ]
Werner, Erika [6 ]
Afshar, Yalda [1 ]
Han, Christina S. [1 ,7 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Sch Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
[2] Univ Calif San Diego, Sch Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, San Diego, CA 92103 USA
[3] Univ Minnesota, Sch Med, Dept Obstet Gynecol & Womens Hlth, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
[4] Univ Penn, Sch Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[5] Univ S Florida, Morsani Coll Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Tampa, FL 33620 USA
[6] Brown Univ, Alpert Med Sch, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Providence, RI 02912 USA
[7] Ctr Fetal Med & Womens Ultrasound, Los Angeles, CA USA
关键词
COVID-19; pandemic; personal protective equipment; infection prevention; labor and delivery;
D O I
10.1055/s-0040-1715861
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objective This study aimed to describe the response of labor and delivery (L&D) units in the United States to the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and determine how institutional characteristics and regional disease prevalence affect viral testing and personal protective equipment (PPE). Study Design A cross-sectional survey was distributed electronically through the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine e-mail database (n = 584 distinct practices) and social media between April 14 and 23, 2020. Participants were recruited through "snowballing." A single representative was asked to respond on behalf of each L&D unit. Data were analyzed using Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. Multivariable regression was performed to explore characteristics associated with universal testing and PPE usage. Results A total of 301 surveys (estimated 51.5% response rate) was analyzed representing 48 states and two territories. Obstetrical units included academic (31%), community teaching (45%) and nonteaching hospitals (24%). Sixteen percent of respondents were from states with high prevalence, defined as higher "deaths per million" rates compared with the national average. Universal laboratory testing for admissions was reported for 40% (119/297) of units. After adjusting for covariates, universal testing was more common in academic institutions (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23-2.42) and high prevalence states (aOR = 2.68, 95% CI: 1.37-5.28). When delivering asymptomatic patients, full PPE (including N95 mask) was recommended for vaginal deliveries in 33% and for cesarean delivery in 38% of responding institutions. N95 mask use during asymptomatic vaginal deliveries remained more likely in high prevalence states (aOR = 2.56, 95% CI: 1.29-5.09) and less likely in hospitals with universal testing (aOR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.24-0.73). Conclusion Universal laboratory testing for COVID-19 is more common at academic institutions and in states with high disease prevalence. Centers with universal testing were less likely to recommend N95 masks for asymptomatic vaginal deliveries, suggesting that viral testing can play a role in guiding efficient PPE use.
引用
收藏
页码:1301 / 1309
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Rehabilitation Medicine Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic
    Stein, Joel
    Visco, Christopher J.
    Barbuto, Scott
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE & REHABILITATION, 2020, 99 (07) : 573 - 579
  • [42] Design and Evaluation of an Intensive Care Unit Dashboard Built in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Semistructured Interview Study
    Wac, Marceli
    Craddock, Ian
    Chantziara, Sofia
    Campbell, Tabitha
    Santos-Rodriguez, Raul
    Davidson, Brittany
    McWilliams, Chris
    JMIR HUMAN FACTORS, 2023, 10
  • [43] Response: Frailty assessment in the COVID-19 pandemic
    Labenz, Christian
    Schattenberg, Joern M.
    Woerns, Marcus-Alexander
    Sprinzl, Martin F.
    JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE MEDICINE, 2020, 68 (07) : 1302 - 1302
  • [44] Italian Operators' Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic
    Candela, Massimo
    Prado, Antonio
    ACM SIGCOMM COMPUTER COMMUNICATION REVIEW, 2021, 51 (01) : 26 - 31
  • [45] Psychological Types of Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic
    Borisova, A. M.
    Kubrak, T. A.
    Latynov, V. V.
    Makhnach, A. V.
    PSYCHOLOGY-JOURNAL OF THE HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS, 2023, 20 (02): : 300 - 319
  • [46] JACI: In Practice Response to COVID-19 Pandemic
    Angel, Dawn M.
    Zeiger, Robert S.
    Sicherer, Scott H.
    Khan, David A.
    Schatz, Michael
    JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY-IN PRACTICE, 2020, 8 (05): : 1475 - 1476
  • [47] GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC IN DENMARK
    Drugda, Simon
    REVISTA CATALANA DE DRET PUBLIC, 2020, : 205 - 212
  • [48] COVID-19 Pandemic in Mexico: The Response and Reopening
    Isaac De La Cruz-Hernandez, Sergio
    Karen lvarez-Contreras, Ana
    DISASTER MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH PREPAREDNESS, 2023, 16 (06) : 2264 - 2266
  • [49] Innovation in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic Crisis
    Woolliscroft, James O.
    ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2020, 95 (08) : 1140 - 1142
  • [50] RISING TOGETHER IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
    Kaczor, Keri
    Alegado, Rosanna 'Anolani
    Hintzen, Katy
    Ching, Lauren
    Lieberman, Michael
    Chang, Sandra
    Nakano, Eileen
    Sy, Angela
    Horio, David
    Tam, Kaeo
    Nerurkar, Vivek R.
    Smyth, Ashley
    Collins, Angela
    Fallon, Kathleen
    Focazio, Paul
    Kreisler, Samantha
    OCEANOGRAPHY, 2024, 37 (01) : 12 - 18