Background Antibiotics may be indicated in patients with COVID-19 due to suspected or confirmed bacterial superinfection. Objectives To investigate antibiotic prescribing practices in patients with COVID-19. Methods We performed an international web-based survey and investigated the pattern of antibiotic use as reported by physicians involved in treatment of COVID-19. SPSS Statistics version 25 was used for data analysis. Results The survey was completed by 166 participants from 23 countries and 82 different hospitals. Local guidelines for antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients were reported by 61.8% (n = 102) of participants and for 82.9% (n = 136) they did not differ from local community-acquired pneumonia guidelines. Clinical presentation was recognized as the most important reason for the start of antibiotics (mean score = 4.07 and SD = 1.095 on grading scale from 1 to 5). When antibiotics were started, most respondents rated as the highest the need for coverage of atypical pathogens (mean score = 2.8 and SD = 0.99), followed by Staphylococcus aureus (mean score = 2.67 and SD = 1.05 on bi-modal scale, with values 1 and 2 for disagreement and values 3 and 4 for agreement). In the patients on the ward, 29.1% of respondents chose not to prescribe any antibiotic. Combination of β-lactams and macrolides or fluoroquinolones was reported by 52.4% (n = 87) of respondents. In patients in the ICU, piperacillin/tazobactam was the most commonly prescribed antibiotic. The mean reported duration of antibiotic treatment was 7.12 (SD = 2.44) days. Conclusions The study revealed widespread broad-spectrum antibiotic use in patients with COVID-19. Implementation of antimicrobial stewardship principles is warranted to mitigate the negative consequences of antibiotic therapy.

Objective We aimed to explore anxiety status across a broad range of HCWs supporting patients with COVID-19 in different global regions. Method This was an international online survey in which participation was on voluntary basis and data were submitted via Google Drive, across a two-week period starting from March 18, 2020. The Beck Anxiety Inventory was used to quantify the level of anxiety. Results 1416 HCWs (70.8% medical doctors, 26.2% nurses) responded to the survey from 75 countries. The distribution of anxiety levels was: normal/minimal ( n = 503, 35.5%), low ( n = 390, 27.5%); moderate ( n = 287, 20.3%), and severe ( n = 236, 16.7%). According to multiple generalized linear model, female gender ( p = 0.001), occupation (ie, being a nurse dealing directly with patients with COVID-19 [ p = 0.017]), being younger ( p = 0.001), reporting inadequate knowledge on COVID-19 ( p = 0.005), having insufficient personal protective equipment (p = 0.001) and poor access to hand sanitizers or liquid soaps ( p = 0.008), coexisting chronic disorders (p = 0.001) and existing mental health problems (p = 0.001), and higher income of countries where HCWs lived ( p = 0.048) were significantly associated with increased anxiety. Conclusions Front-line HCWs, regardless of the levels of COVID-19 transmission in their country, are anxious when they do not feel protected. Our findings suggest that anxiety could be mitigated ensuring sufficient levels of protective personal equipment alongside greater education and information .

Background A debate about the scientific quality of COVID-19 themed research has emerged. We explored whether the quality of evidence of COVID-19 publications is lower when compared to nonCOVID-19 publications in the three highest ranked scientific medical journals. Methods We searched the PubMed Database from March 12 to April 12, 2020 and identified 559 publications in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and The Lancet which were divided into COVID-19 (cases, n = 204) and nonCOVID-19 (controls, n = 355) associated content. After exclusion of secondary, unauthored, response letters and non-matching article types, 155 COVID-19 publications (including 13 original articles) and 130 nonCOVID-19 publications (including 52 original articles) were included in the comparative analysis. The hierarchical level of evidence was determined for each publication included and compared between cases and controls as the main outcome. A quantitative scoring of quality was carried out for the subgroup of original articles. The numbers of authors and citation rates were also compared between groups. Results The 130 nonCOVID-19 publications were associated with higher levels of evidence on the level of evidence pyramid, with a strong association measure (Cramer’s V: 0.452, P <0.001). The 155 COVID-19 publications were 186-fold more likely to be of lower evidence (95% confidence interval [CI] for odds ratio, 7.0–47; P <0.001). The quantitative quality score (maximum possible score, 28) was significantly different in favor of nonCOVID-19 (mean difference, 11.1; 95% CI, 8.5–13.7; P <0.001). There was a significant difference in the early citation rate of the original articles that favored the COVID-19 original articles (median [interquartile range], 45 [30–244] vs. 2 [1–4] citations; P <0.001). Conclusions We conclude that the quality of COVID-19 publications in the three highest ranked scientific medical journals is below the quality average of these journals. These findings need to be verified at a later stage of the pandemic.

IntroductionThe unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic has exposed healthcare professionals (HCPs) to exceptional situations that can lead to increased anxiety (ie, infection anxiety and perceived vulnerability), traumatic stress and depression. We will investigate the development of these psychological disturbances in HCPs at the treatment front line and second line during the COVID-19 pandemic over a 12-month period in different countries. Additionally, we will explore whether personal resilience factors and a work-related sense of coherence influence the development of mental health problems in HCPs.Methods and analysisWe plan to carry out a sequential qualitative–quantitative mixed-methods design study. The quantitative phase consists of a longitudinal online survey based on six validated questionnaires, to be completed at three points in time. A qualitative analysis will follow at the end of the pandemic to comprise at least nine semistructured interviews. The a priori sample size for the survey will be a minimum of 160 participants, which we will extend to 400, to compensate for dropout. Recruitment into the study will be through personal invitations and the ‘snowballing’ sampling technique. Hierarchical linear regression combined with qualitative data analysis, will facilitate greater understanding of any associations between resilience and mental health issues in HCPs during pandemics.Ethics and disseminationThe study participants will provide electronic informed consent. All recorded data will be stored on a secured research server at the study site, which will only be accessible to the investigators. The Bern Cantonal Ethics Committee has waiv ed the need for ethical approval (Req-2020–00355, 1 April 2020). There are no ethical, legal or security issues regarding the data collection, processing, storage and dissemination in this project.Trial registration numberISRCTN13694948.

Background: Women make up an increasing proportion of the physician workforce in anaesthesia, but they are consistently under-represented in leadership and governance. Methods: We performed an internet-based survey to investigate career opportunities in leadership and research amongst anaesthesiologists. We also explored gender bias attributable to workplace attitudes and economic factors. The survey instrument was piloted, translated into seven languages, and uploaded to the SurveyMonkey® platform. We aimed to collect between 7800 and 13 700 responses from at least 100 countries. Participant consent and ethical approval were obtained. A quantitative analysis was done with c 2 and Cramer's V as a measure of strength of associations. We used an inductive approach and a thematic content analysis for qualitative data on current barriers to leadership and research. Results: The 11 746 respondents, 51.3% women and 48.7% men, represented 148 countries; 35 respondents identified their gender as non-binary. Women were less driven to achieve leadership positions (P<0.001; Cramer's V: 0.11). Being a woman was reported as a disadvantage for leadership and research (P<0.001 for both; Cramer's V: 0.47 and 0.34, respectively). Women were also more likely to be mistreated in the workplace (odds ratio: 10.6; 95% confidence interval: 9.4e11.9; P<0.001), most commonly by surgeons. Several personal, departmental, institutional, and societal barriers in leadership and research were identified, and strategies to overcome them were suggested. Lower-income countries were associated with a significantly smaller gender gap (P<0.001). Conclusions: Whilst certain trends suggest improvements in the workplace, barriers to promotion of women in key leadership and research positions continue within anaesthesiology internationally.

Background Interprofessional Education (IPE) aims to improve students' attitudes towards collaboration, teamwork, and leads to improved patient care upon graduation. However, the best time to introduce IPE into the undergraduate curriculum is still under debate. Methods We used a mixed-methods design based on a sequential explanatory model. Medical students from all six years at the University of Bern, Switzerland (n = 683) completed an online survey about attitudes towards interprofessional learning using a scale validated for German speakers (G-IPAS). Thirty-one medical students participated in nine semi-structured interviews focusing on their experience in interprofessional learning and on the possible impact it might have on their professional development. Results Women showed better attitudes in the G-IPAS across all years (p = 0,007). Pre-clinical students showed more positive attitudes towards IPE [Year 1 to Year 3 (p = 0.011)]. Students correctly defined IPE and its core dimensions. They appealed for more organized IPE interventions throughout the curriculum. Students also acknowledged the relevance of IPE for their future professional performance. Conclusions These findings support an early introduction of IPE into the medical curriculum. Although students realise that interprofessional learning is fundamental to high-quality patient care, there are still obstacles and stereotypes to overcome.

Pulmonary aspiration of gastric content is a significant cause of anaesthesia-related morbidity and mortality. High-quality prospective randomised evidence to support prevention strategies, such as rapid sequence intubation, is difficult to generate due to well-described practical, ethical and methodological barriers. We aimed to generate an understanding of worldwide practice through surveying clinically practicing anaesthetists and airway experts. Our survey was designed to assess the influence of: departmental standards; patient factors; socio-economic factors; training; and supervision. We surveyed 10,003 anaesthetists who responded to an invitation to participate on LinkedIn. We then surveyed 16 international airway experts on the same content.

Background: There is agreement among educators and professional bodies that interprofessional education needs to be implemented at the pre-registration level. We performed a systematic review assessing interprofessional learning interventions, measuring attitudes towards interprofessional education and involving pre-registration medical students across all years of medical education. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed, PsycINFO, EThOS, EMBASE, PEDro and SCOPUS. Search terms were composed of interprofession*, interprofessional education, inter professional, inter professionally, IPE, and medical student. Inclusion criteria were 1) the use of a validated scale for assessment of attitudes towards IPE, and results for more than 35 medical students; 2) peer-reviewed articles in English and German, including medical students; and 3) results for IPE interventions published after the 2011 Interprofessional Education Collaborative (IPEC) report. We identified and screened 3995 articles. After elimination of duplicates or non-relevant topics, 278 articles remained as potentially relevant for full text assessment. We used a data extraction form including study designs, training methods, participant data, assessment measures, results, and medical year of participants for each study. A planned comprehensive meta-analysis was not possible. Results: This systematic review included 23 articles with a pre-test-post-test design. Interventions varied in their type and topic. Duration of interventions varied from 25 min to 6 months, and interprofessional groups ranged from 2 to 25 students. Nine studies (39%) reported data from first-year medical students, five (22%) from secondyear students, six (26%) from third-year students, two (9%) from fourth-year students and one (4%) from sixth-year students. There were no studies including fifth-year students. The most frequently used assessment method was the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) (n = 6, 26%). About half of study outcomes showed a significant increase in positive attitudes towards interprofessional education after interventions across all medical years.