No abstract

Introduction: The novel coronavirus was first reported in December 2019, from Wuhan, China, and it has been declared as a pandemic by World Health Organization on 7 January 2020, and from that time till now the disease transmitted across the world. Hospitals need to be prepared for the overwhelming COVID-19 cases in their respective hospitals. Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess the level of hospital preparedness for COVID-19 in South Gondar Zone Governmental Hospitals, 2020. Methods: The institutionally based survey was conducted in South Gondar Zone Hospitals from 20 July to 25 July 2020. We used the World Health Organization preparedness checklist for COVID-19, and the checklist has three options for eight hospitals (not started, in progress, and started), so each hospital evaluated out of 208 points (104 items × 2) to assess each hospital their preparedness based on the checklist. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Version 21, is used for the analysis of the data. We used descriptive statistics and explained by using text and tables. Results: We evaluated all eight hospitals in these zone hospitals and only one hospital was in an acceptable level of preparation (>146 points), three hospitals were in an insufficient level of preparation (73–145 points), and the other four hospitals were grouped under the unacceptable level of preparation (<72 points) for COVID-19. And in all hospitals, there was no laboratory diagnostic method and treatment center for the COVID-19 virus. Conclusion: From the level of COVID-19 pandemic preparation from eight hospitals, only one hospital reaches the level of an acceptable level of preparedness. Mobilizing the community and other stakeholders to equip the hospital with resources and prioritization is recommended to mitigate the impact of COVID-19.

No abstract

Introduction: Blood is arranged into four groups based on their surface antigen (A, B, AB, and O). In addition to this classification based on the Rhesus factor, each blood group clustered into RH positive and RH negative. This study was done to identify the distribution of blood group and rhesus factors on the local blood bank. Objective: To identify the frequency of ABO blood group and RH factors distribution on voluntary blood donator at Debre Tabor blood bank from May 2014 to May 2020. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional survey was conducted to identify the frequency of ABO and Rh factor distribution on voluntary blood donors at Debre Tabor town blood bank. The data was collected at Debre Tabor blood bank. A six-year data and a total of 19,901 bags collected blood samples were used for summarization of the data. The data was analysed by using SPSS version 21. Results: Blood group "O" was the dominated one with 39.6% followed by blood group "A", "B" and "AB" with 29.48%, 24.06%, and 6.7%, respectively. When we see the RH classifications, RH positive accounts the highest percentage 92.77% and the remaining 7.23% was Rh negatives. Conclusion: In this survey, the majority of blood groups were found "O" followed by "A", "B", and "AB". Among the collected blood unities, 92.77% was RH positive. The leading blood donators were male.

Objective: To assess the level of preparedness of health professionals working in South Gondar Zone public hospital, Debre Tabor Comprehensive specialized Hospital for coronavirus. Methods: An institutional-based cross-sectional survey was conducted with a self-administered questionnaire from April 20 to May 20. Descriptive statistics, chi-square test, bivariable, and multivariable logistic analysis were done. Bivariable and multivariable regression was held to determine significant predictors for preparedness. For all statistical analyses, a p value ⩽ 0.05 was considered as significant. Results: From a total health professionals, 301 health professionals with a response rate of 86% participated in the study. Among these, 206 were males while 95 participants were females with a mean age of 29.71 ± 5.84 years. To determine the preparedness level, we use the mean preparedness score of the respondents. Around 64.1% of health professionals were well prepared. Among 20 respondents who had a chronic illness, 80% of them think their illness is risky for the pandemic. The majority of the respondents (229/76.1%) responded as they were working without protective equipment. From the multivariable analysis male sex (adjusted odds ratio = 2.07, 95% confidence interval = 1.193–3.590), family living with them (adjusted odds ratio = 4.507, 95% confidence interval = 1.863–10.90), and involvement of other previous outbreak (adjusted odds ratio = 2.245, 95% confidence interval = 1.176–4.286) were the predictors for good preparedness. Conclusion: Most of the health professionals were well prepared. Being male, living within a family, and involvement of other outbreaks leads to good preparation. Governmental bodies and hospital managers have to help health professionals to be prepared enough to combat the pandemic.