Stopping the Spread of COVID-19

Desai, Angel N.; Patel, Payal

doi:10.1001/jama.2020.4269

Cited by 131 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

106

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Within 8 days, 23 states had followed suit and ordered residents to either shelter at home or to remain at home for an extended duration, where possible (e.g., 3 weeks or more). Sheltering at home is likely to reduce the spread of which, in turn, will reduce the burden on medical personnel, slow consumption of limited medical supplies, and, most importantly, save lives (Desai & Patel, 2020;Ezekiel et al, 2020).…”

Section: Fair Allocation Of Scarce Medical Resources In the Time Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Proposed Process for Risk Mitigation During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Cox¹,

Plavnick²,

Brodhead³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent executive orders have led some Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) providers to interpret themselves as “essential personnel” during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article, we argue against a blanket interpretation that being labeled “essential personnel” means that all in person ABA services for all clients should continue during the COVID-19 pandemic. We believe this argument holds even if ABA providers are not in a jurisdiction currently under an active shelter at home or related order. First, we provide a brief description of risks associated with continued in person ABA service delivery as well as risks associated with the temporary suspension or transition to remote ABA service delivery. For many clients, continued in person service delivery carries a significant risk of severe harm to the client, their family and caregivers, the staff, and a currently overburdened healthcare system. In these situations, ABA providers should temporarily suspend services or transition to telehealth or other forms of remote service delivery until information from federal, state, and local healthcare experts deem in person contact safe. In rare cases, temporary suspension or transition to remote service delivery may place the client or others at risk of significant harm. In these situations in person services should likely continue and ongoing assessment and risk mitigation are essential.

show abstract

Section: Fair Allocation Of Scarce Medical Resources In the Time Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Proposed Process for Risk Mitigation During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Cox¹,

Plavnick²,

Brodhead³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The views and strategies suggested by the articles in this series do not represent the positions of the Association for Behavior Analysis International or Springer Nature. save lives (Desai & Patel, 2020;Emanuel et al, 2020). Though states enacting shelter-at-home orders are consistent in allowing essential personnel to continue working, the definition of essential personnel varies from state to state.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Proposed Process for Risk Mitigation During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Cox

Plavnick

Brodhead

2020

Behav Analysis Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent executive orders have led some applied behavior analysis (ABA) providers to interpret themselves as "essential personnel" during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article, we argue against a blanket interpretation that being labeled "essential personnel" means that all in-person ABA services for all clients should continue during the COVID-19 pandemic. We believe this argument holds even if ABA providers are not in a jurisdiction currently under an active shelter-at-home or related order. First, we provide a brief description of risks associated with continued in-person ABA service delivery, as well as risks associated with the temporary suspension of services or the transition to remote ABA service delivery. For many clients, continued in-person service delivery carries a significant risk of severe harm to the client, family and caregivers, staff, and a currently overburdened health care system. In these situations, ABA providers should temporarily suspend services or transition to telehealth or other forms of remote service delivery until information from federal, state, and local health care experts deems in-person contact safe. In rare cases, temporary suspension of services or a transition to remote service delivery may place the client or others at risk of significant harm. In these situations, in-person services should likely continue, and ongoing assessment and risk mitigation are essential.

show abstract

“…Moreover, when done, the swab results almost never change any final patient care decisions for patients who are stable and are likely to not require hospital admission.. Recognizing the possible high rate of false negative results, providers will offer the exact same precautions to limit contagion, and new or worsened symptoms that warrant return to the ED, even if a swab test fails to identify SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid from the patient's nasopharynx. [7][8][9] Patients who enter the ED can expect evidence-based policies that will protect them, other patients, and providers. 8 The best defense against spread of COVID-19 is double masking, the masking of both patient and provider, particularly for symptomatic patients.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[7][8][9] Patients who enter the ED can expect evidence-based policies that will protect them, other patients, and providers. 8 The best defense against spread of COVID-19 is double masking, the masking of both patient and provider, particularly for symptomatic patients. For their entire stay, patients should expect to be reminded, constantly, to wear their masks over their mouth and nose.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%