Since December 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected over four million people worldwide. There are multiple reports of prolonged viral shedding in people infected with SARS-CoV-2 but the presence of viral RNA on a test does not necessarily correlate with infectivity. The duration of quarantine required after clinical recovery to definitively prevent transmission is therefore uncertain. In addition, asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission may occur, and infectivity may be highest early after onset of symptoms, meaning that contact tracing, isolation of exposed individuals and social distancing are essential public health measures to prevent further spread. This review aimed to summarise the evidence around viral shedding vs infectivity of SARS-CoV-2.

The transmission behaviour of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is still being defined. It is likely that it is transmitted predominantly by droplets and direct contact and it is possible that there is at least opportunistic airborne transmission. In order to protect healthcare staff adequately it is necessary that we establish whether aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) increase the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Where we do not have evidence relating to SARS-CoV-2, guidelines for safely conducting these procedures should consider the risk of transmitting related pathogens. Currently there is very little evidence detailing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 associated with any specific procedures. Regarding AGPs and respiratory pathogens in general, there is still a large knowledge gap that will leave clinicians unsure of the risk to themselves when offering these procedures. This review aimed to summarize the evidence (and gaps in evidence) around AGPs and SARS-CoV-2.

No abstract

The iv to oral switch interventions should tailor strategies to demystify iv versus oral antibiotic efficacy, engage consumers around the negative effects of iv antibiotic overuse and examine strategies to streamline team decision-making. Addressing these issues has the potential to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use and resistance.

No abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has fundamentally disrupted the practice of oncology, shifting care onto virtual platforms, rearranging the logistics and economics of running a successful clinical practice and research, and in some contexts, redefining what treatments patients with cancer should and can receive. Since the start of the pandemic in early 2020, there has been considerable emphasis placed on the implications for patients with cancer in terms of their vulnerability to the virus and potential exposure in healthcare settings. But little emphasis has been placed on the significant, and potentially enduring, consequences of COVID-19 for how cancer care is delivered. In this article, we outline the importance of a focus on the effects of COVID-19 for oncology practice during and potentially after the pandemic, focusing on key shifts that are already evident, including: the pivot to online consultations, shifts in access to clinical trial and definitions of "essential care," the changing economics of practice, and the potential legacy effects of rapidly implemented changes in cancer care. COVID-19 is reshaping oncology practice, clinical trials, and delivery of cancer care broadly, and these changes might endure well beyond the short-to mid-term of the active pandemic. Therefore, shifts in practice brought about by the pandemic must be accompanied by improved training and awareness, enhanced infrastructure, and evidence-based support if they are to harness the positives and offset the potential negative consequences of the impacts of COVID-19 on cancer care.

No abstract

Misuse of antibiotics in hospitals in Australia and internationally is common. The combination of multi-resistant organisms and continued misuse of antibiotics is contributing to a predicted ‘antimicrobial perfect storm’ in the coming decades. Attempts to influence doctors’ use of antibiotics have seen limited success internationally, yet few studies have explored the potential social factors driving current practices within hospitals and the interpersonal processes that underpin persistent ‘suboptimal’ antibiotic use. In this qualitative study of hospital-based Australian doctors we explore some of these dynamics including: the role of clinical uncertainty and ambivalence; experiences of immediate risk; interpersonal and intra-professional pressure; and the role of localised norms and ‘craft groups’ in driving antibiotic practices. We argue that the development of a sociological understanding of antibiotic misuse in the hospital sector (and beyond) is vital for progress to be made in protecting antibiotics for future generations.