Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.

SARS-CoV-2 has been associated with an increased rate of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients. Since surgical patients are already at higher risk of venous thromboembolism than general populations, this study aimed to determine if patients with peri-operative or prior SARS-CoV-2 were at further increased risk of venous thromboembolism. We conducted a planned sub-study and analysis from an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study of elective and emergency patients undergoing surgery during October 2020. Patients from all surgical specialties were included. The primary outcome measure was venous thromboembolism (pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis) within 30 days of surgery. SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was defined as peri-operative (7 days before to 30 days after surgery); recent (1-6 weeks before surgery); previous (≥7 weeks before surgery); or none. Information on prophylaxis regimens or pre-operative anti-coagulation for baseline comorbidities was not available. Postoperative venous thromboembolism rate was 0.5% (666/123,591) in patients without SARS-CoV-2; 2.2% (50/2317) in patients with peri-operative SARS-CoV-2; 1.6% (15/953) in patients with recent SARS-CoV-2; and 1.0% (11/1148) in patients with previous SARS-CoV-2. After adjustment for confounding factors, patients with peri-operative (adjusted odds ratio 1.5 (95%CI 1.1-2.0)) and recent SARS-CoV-2 (1.9 (95%CI 1.2-3.3)) remained at higher risk of venous thromboembolism, with a borderline finding in previous SARS-CoV-2 (1.7 (95%CI 0.9-3.0)). Overall, venous thromboembolism was independently associated with 30-day mortality ). In patients with SARS-CoV-2, mortality without venous thromboembolism was 7.4% (319/4342) and with venous thromboembolism was 40.8% (31/76). Patients undergoing surgery with peri-operative or recent SARS-CoV-2 appear to be at increased risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism compared with patients with no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment are unknown in this cohort of patients, and these data should be interpreted accordingly.

Objectives The COVID-19 pandemic created unique stressors for caregivers of persons with dementia living in long-term care (LTC) facilities. The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify the challenges associated with caring for a relative with dementia in LTC during the pandemic, as well as resources, strategies, and practices caregivers found helpful in coping with COVID-19. Design This study was conducted within the context of an ongoing randomized controlled trial of a psychosocial intervention to support caregivers. Open-ended survey responses (n = 125) and semistructured interviews with a subset of the sample (n = 20) collected between June 2020 and June 2021 explored caregivers' experiences during COVID-19. Setting and Participants Participants included 125 family caregivers of persons with dementia living in residential LTC. Methods Thematic analysis was used to identify themes capturing caregivers' experiences. Results In addition to concerns about COVID-19 infection, participants reported key challenges such as the difficulty of maintaining contact with relatives because of visiting restrictions, lack of information about relatives' health and well-being, worries about overburdened LTC staff, impossibility of returning relatives home from the LTC facility, and fears about relatives dying alone. Participants also identified resources, strategies, and practices that they perceived as helpful, including effective infection prevention within the LTC facility, good communication with LTC staff, and creative strategies for connecting with their relatives. Conclusions and Implications This qualitative analysis informs recommendations for practice within LTC facilities, as well as supports that may help caregivers manage stressful situations in the context of COVID-19. Vaccination and testing protocols should be implemented to maximize family caregivers' opportunities for in-person contact with relatives in LTC, as alternative visiting modalities were often unsatisfactory or unfeasible. Informing caregivers regularly about individual residents' needs and status is crucial. Supports for bereaved caregivers should address complicated grief and feelings of loss.

In Canada, the participation of Indigenous communities in research and monitoring is growing in response to calls for partnerships and heightened interest in bridging Indigenous and Western science-based knowledge. Yet, as settler scholars, we have noted inconsistencies in the articulation and operationalization of community participation in peer-reviewed literature. We conducted a scoping review of community participation in coastal and marine research and monitoring across Inuit Nunangat. This resulted in 72 studies, most of which were undertaken in Nunavut. Fourteen terms were used to articulate community participation, the most common being: participate, collaborate, community-based, consult, or variations of these terms. Among the studies that used community participation terms, we found that authors only defined terms 10% of the time. Community participation was operationalized primarily through interviews, mapping, and field observations. We assessed studies across a spectrum of community participation levels and found that most studies (81%) reflected minimal levels of participation (i.e., consultative, contractual, and less than contractual). Our results highlight the need for clarity in language use, transparency in reporting research practices, and stronger efforts to support Indigenous leadership and decision-making authority, all of which must be defined on a community or project basis.

Public health and safety concerns around the SARS-CoV-2 novel coronavirus and the COVID-19 pandemic have greatly changed human behaviour. Such shifts in behaviours including travel patterns, consumerism, and energy use, are variously impacting biodiversity during the human-dominated geological epoch known as the Anthropocene. Indeed, the dramatic reduction in human mobility and activity has been termed the "Anthropause". COVID-19 has highlighted the current environmental and biodiversity crisis and has provided an opportunity to redefine our relationship with nature. Here we share 10 considerations for conservation policy makers to support and rethink the development of impactful and effective policies in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. There are opportunities to leverage societal changes as a result of COVID-19, focus on the need for collaboration and engagement, and address lessons learned through the development of policies (including those related to public health) during the pandemic. The pandemic has had devastating impacts on humanity that should not be understated, but it is also a warning that we need to redefine our relationship with nature and restore biodiversity. The considerations presented here will support the development of robust, evidence-based, and transformative policies for biodiversity conservation in a post-COVID-19 world.