Background:Healthcare acquired infections (HCAIs) otherwise call nosocomial infection is associated with increased morbidity and mortality among hospitalized patients and predisposes healthcare workers (HCWs) to an increased risk of infections. The study explores the knowledge and practices of infection control among HCW in a tertiary referral center in North-Western Nigeria.Materials and Methods:This is a cross-sectional study. A self-administered structured questionnaire was distributed to the study group (of doctors and nurses). Data on knowledge and practice of infection control were obtained and analyzed. Study population were selected by convenience sampling.Results:A total of 200 responses were analyzed, 152 were nurses while 48 were doctors. The median age and years of working experience of the respondents were 35 years (interquartile range [IQR] 31–39) and 7 years (IQR 4–12), respectively. Most of the respondents 174/198 (87.9%) correctly identified hand washing as the most effective method to prevent HCAI, with nurses having better knowledge 139/152 (91%) (P = 0.001). Majority agreed that avoiding injury with sharps 172/200 (86%), use of barrier precaution 180/200 (90%) and hand hygiene 184/200 (92%) effectively prevent HCAI. Only 88/198 (44.4%), 122/198 (61.6%), and 84/198 (42.4%) of the respondents were aware of the risks of infection following exposure to human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus-infected blood, respectively. About 52% of doctors and 76% of nurses (P = 0.002) always practice hand hygiene in between patient care.Conclusion:Gaps have been identified in knowledge and practice of infection control among doctors’ and nurses’ in the study; hence, it will be beneficial for all HCW to receive formal and periodic refresher trainings.

BackgroundSnakebite envenoming is a major public health problem throughout the rural tropics. Antivenom is effective in reducing mortality and remains the mainstay of therapy. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of using effective antivenoms for Snakebite envenoming in Nigeria.MethodologyEconomic analysis was conducted from a public healthcare system perspective. Estimates of model inputs were obtained from the literature. Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs) were quantified as deaths and Disability-Adjusted-Life-Years (DALY) averted from antivenom therapy. A decision analytic model was developed and analyzed with the following model base-case parameter estimates: type of snakes causing bites, antivenom effectiveness to prevent death, untreated mortality, risk of Early Adverse Reactions (EAR), mortality risk from EAR, mean age at bite and remaining life expectancy, and disability risk (amputation). End-user costs applied included: costs of diagnosing and monitoring envenoming, antivenom drug cost, supportive care, shipping/freezing antivenom, transportation to-and-from hospital and feeding costs while on admission, management of antivenom EAR and free alternative snakebite care for ineffective antivenom.Principal FindingsWe calculated a cost/death averted of ($2330.16) and cost/DALY averted of $99.61 discounted and $56.88 undiscounted. Varying antivenom effectiveness through the 95% confidence interval from 55% to 86% yield a cost/DALY averted of $137.02 to $86.61 respectively. Similarly, varying the prevalence of envenoming caused by carpet viper from 0% to 96% yield a cost/DALY averted of $254.18 to $78.25 respectively. More effective antivenoms and carpet viper envenoming rather than non-carpet viper envenoming were associated with lower cost/DALY averted.Conclusions/SignificanceTreatment of snakebite envenoming in Nigeria is cost-effective with a cost/death averted of $2330.16 and cost/DALY averted of $99.61 discounted, lower than the country's gross domestic product per capita of $1555 (2013). Expanding access to effective antivenoms to larger segments of the Nigerian population should be a considered a priority.

BackgroundWith reports of surges in COVID-19 case numbers across over 50 countries, country-level epidemiological analysis is required to inform context-appropriate response strategies for containment and mitigation of the outbreak. We aimed to compare the epidemiological features of the first and second waves of COVID-19 in Nigeria.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of the Surveillance Outbreak Response Management and Analysis System data of the first and second epidemiological waves, which were between 27 February and 24 October 2020, and 25 October 2020 to 3 April 2021, respectively. Descriptive statistical measures including frequencies and percentages, test positivity rate (TPR), cumulative incidence (CI) and case fatality rates (CFRs) were compared. A p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were carried out in STATA V.13.ResultsThere were 802 143 tests recorded during the study period (362 550 and 439 593 in the first and second waves, respectively). Of these, 66 121 (18.2%) and 91 644 (20.8%) tested positive in the first and second waves, respectively. There was a 21.3% increase in the number of tests conducted in the second wave with TPR increasing by 14.3%. CI during the first and second waves were 30.3/100 000 and 42.0/100 000 respectively. During the second wave, confirmed COVID-19 cases increased among females and people 30 years old or younger and decreased among urban residents and individuals with travel history within 14 days of sample collection (p value <0.001). Most confirmed cases were asymptomatic at diagnosis during both waves: 74.9% in the first wave; 79.7% in the second wave. CFR decreased during the second wave (0.7%) compared with the first wave (1.8%).ConclusionNigeria experienced a larger but less severe second wave of COVID-19. Continued implementation of public health and social measures is needed to mitigate the resurgence of another wave.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has had a great toll on global health. Frontline healthcare workers (FHCW) directly involved in the treatment of COVID-19 patients have faced some physical and psychological challenges. This study explored the stigma and traumatic experiences of the FHCW during the COVID-19 pandemic in Nigeria. Methods We recruited twenty FHCW directly involved in the treatment of COVID-19 patients through purposive and snowball sampling techniques. Face-to-face in-depth interviews were conducted for all participants, and qualitative analysis of data was done using Colaizzi’s phenomenological method. Results Five themes identified were: Early stage of the pandemic (fear, anxiety, public fright, other countries repatriating their citizens, the socio-economic impact of the pandemic and a call to duty for the FHCW); working with COVID-19 patients (excitement on patients recovery and duty stress); psychological, mental and emotional trauma; stigmatization (stigmatized by colleagues, family, friends or their residential communities, reasons for stigmatization which were fear of infection, limited knowledge of the virus and working at the isolation centre and the effect of stigma); and recommendations (education and awareness creation, government showing more care towards the FHCW and provision of health insurance for FHCW to take care of those that get infected in the line of duty). Conclusion Stigmatization has proven to be a major challenge for FHCW in conducting their duties. The psychological impact experienced by FHCW may affect the quality of the services rendered by these workers. The study reveals the need of education and awareness creation in the ongoing pandemic. There is a need for the government and society to acknowledge and appreciate the efforts of FHCW.