Backgroundand Objectives: COVID-19 is a novel infectious disease caused by a single-stranded RNA coronavirus called severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We aimed to conduct a nationwide multicenter study to determine the characteristics and the clinical prognostic outcome of critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Materials and Methods: This is a nationwide cohort retrospective study conducted in twenty Saudi hospitals. Results: An analysis of 1470 critically ill COVID-19 patients demonstrated that the majority of patients were male with a mean age of 55.9 ± 15.1 years. Most of our patients presented with a shortness of breath (SOB) (81.3%), followed by a fever (73.7%) and a cough (65.1%). Diabetes and hypertension were the most common comorbidities in the study (52.4% and 46.0%, respectively). Multiple complications were observed substantially more among non-survivors. The length and frequency of mechanical ventilation use were significantly greater (83%) in the non-survivors compared with the survivors (31%). The mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was 6 ± 5. The overall mortality rate of the cohort associated with patients that had diabetes, hypertension and ischemic heart disease was 41.8%. Conclusion: Age; a pre-existing medical history of hypertension, diabetes and ischemic heart disease; smoking cigarettes; a BMI ≥ 29; a long mechanical ventilation and ICU stay; the need of ventilatory support; a high SOFA score; fungal co-infections and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use were key clinical characteristics that predicted a high mortality in our population.

Background: Population-based studies from several countries have constantly shown excessively high rates of medication errors and avoidable deaths. An efficient medication error reporting system is the backbone of reliable practice and a measure of progress towards achieving safety. Improvement efforts and system changes of medication error reporting systems should be targeted towards reductions in the likelihood of injury to future patients. However, the aim of this review is to provide a summary of medication errors reporting culture, incidence reporting systems, creating effective reporting methods, analysis of medication error reports, and recommendations to improve medication errors reporting systems. Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, Ovid, EBSCOhost, EMBASE, and ProQuest) were examined from 1 January 1998 to 30 June 2020. 180 articles were found and 60 papers were ultimately included in the review. Data were mined by two reviewers and verified by two other reviewers. The search yielded 684 articles, which were then reduced to 60 after the deletion of duplicates via vetting of titles, abstracts, and full-text papers. Results: Studies were principally from the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Limited studies were from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Korea, Japan, Greece, France, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Detection, measurement, and analysis of medication errors require an active rather than a passive approach. Efforts are needed to encourage medication error reporting, including involving staff in opportunities for improvement and the determination of root cause(s). The National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention taxonomy is a classification system to describe and analyze the details around individual medication error events. Conclusion: A successful medication error reporting program should be safe for the reporter, result in constructive and useful recommendations and effective changes while being inclusive of everyone and supported with required resources. Health organizations need to adopt an effectual reporting environment for the medication use process in order to advance into a sounder practice.

Background The burden of the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted widely on the healthcare providers physically and mentally. Many healthcare providers are exposed to psychological stressors due to their high risk of contracting the virus. Aims This study aimed to measure the level of anxiety among healthcare providers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia. In addition, this study aimed to measure the level of anxiety based on demographic characteristics. Method A cross-sectional survey was employed to recruit a convenience sample of healthcare providers. A pencil and paper self-administered questionnaires were used to collect data from demographic and generalized anxiety disorder GAD-7 data. However, this study received written informed consent from participants of the study. In addition, the study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Dr. Sulaiman Al Habib Medical Group (IRB Log No. RC20.06.88-03). Results A total of 650 participants were recruited, results of GAD-7 showed that 43.5%, 28.9% and 27.5% of healthcare providers in Saudi Arabia experienced mild, moderate and severe anxiety, respectively, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results indicated that age, health specialty, nationality, and sleeping disorders before COVID-19 were associated with anxiety levels. Conclusion The generalized anxiety among healthcare providers in Saudi Arabia was mild. Older healthcare providers were found to have a higher level of anxiety compared to other participating healthcare providers. Several factors may contribute to a higher level of anxiety including age, socioeconomic status, marital status, having chronic conditions, and sleeping disorder before the COVID-19 pandemic. To further understand the level of anxiety among healthcare providers during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia, longitudinal and mixed-method research is needed.

Background Patient safety culture, an important aspect in the field of patient safety, plays an important role in the promotion of healthcare quality. Improved patient safety culture decreases patient readmission rates, lengths of hospital stay, and patient safety issues. Patient safety culture includes a set of dimensions. This review focuses on the differing perceptions of these dimensions among healthcare providers in hospitals. Aims This study aimed to identify studies examining healthcare providers’ perceptions of patient safety culture in hospitals and to summarize the data from these studies. Method Electronic database searching was based on the research question. Two electronic databases were used: CINHAL and Scopus. The search was limited to the period 2005–2012, and studies examining healthcare providers’ perceptions of patient safety culture were identified. Key terms were used to search the articles that were selected on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Articles examining healthcare providers’ perceptions of patient safety culture in hospitals without comparison between nurses and other healthcare professionals were selected. Results Eight articles were reviewed. Several questionnaires were used to assess healthcare providers’ perceptions of patient safety culture in these articles. Our review indicated differences in healthcare providers’ perceptions. In two articles, participants reported a high positive response to teamwork. In addition, participants in the other two articles reported a high positive response to job satisfaction. Conclusion The results of the current review reveal healthcare providers’ perceptions of patient safety culture. The results highlight that careful recognition and committed work on various scales/dimensions of patient safety culture can improve healthcare quality and consequently decrease patient safety issues associated with nursing care. Our findings also encourage hospital management and decision-makers to focus on and establish improvements in areas that will positively affect the quality of healthcare.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic places a high demand on frontline healthcare workers. Healthcare workers are at high-risk of contracting the virus and are subjected to its consequential emotional and psychological effects. This study aimed to measure the level of depression and anxiety among healthcare workers in Saudi Arabia during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods This was a cross-sectional study; data were collected from healthcare workers in Saudi Arabia using a survey that included the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7. A total of 326 participants took part in the study by completing and submitting the survey. Results The vast majority of the participating healthcare workers were Saudi nationals (98.8%) working in a public healthcare facility (89.9%). The results indicated that most of the participants had mild levels of anxiety and depression. A total of 72.5% of the respondents had anxiety, ranging from mild (44.1%) to moderate (16.2%) and severe (12.2%). Moreover, 24.4% of the respondents had depression ranging from mild (21.7%) to moderate (2.1%) and severe (0.6%). The generalized linear models showed that the <30 age group (Beta = 0.556, p = 0.037) and the 30–39-year age group (Beta = 0.623, p = 0.019) were predicted to have anxiety. The analysis revealed that females were more anxious (Beta = 0.241, p = 0.005) than males. Healthcare providers working in primary healthcare centers (Beta = −0.315, p = 0.008) and labs (Beta = −0.845. p = 0.0001 were predicted to be less anxious than those working in other healthcare facilities. The data analysis showed that participants with good economic status had more depression than the participants in the other economic status groups (Beta = 0.067, p = 0.003). Conclusion This study found that the level of anxiety and depression in healthcare workers was mild. The factors that may contribute to anxiety in healthcare workers included being female, being younger than 30 or between the ages of 31 and 39, working in a specialized hospital facility, and the number of COVID-19 cases the workers dealt with. Economic status was associated with depression. A longitudinal study design is needed to understand the pattern of anxiety levels among healthcare workers over time during the COVID-19 pandemic.