Perceptions of postoutbreak management by management and healthcare workers of a Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreak in a tertiary care hospital: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study examines perceptions of the operational and organisational management of a major outbreak of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) caused by a novel coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Perspectives were sought from key decision-makers and clinical staff about the factors perceived to promote and inhibit effective and rapid control of the outbreak. SETTING: A large teaching tertiary healthcare centre in KSA; the outbreak lasted 6 weeks from June 2015. PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected via individual and focus group interviews with 28 key informant participants (9 management decision-makers and 19 frontline healthcare workers). DESIGN: We used qualitative methods of process evaluation to examine perceptions of the outbreak and the factors contributing to, or detracting from successful management. Data were analysed using qualitative thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Five themes and 15 subthemes were found. The themes were related to: (1) the high stress of the outbreak, (2) factors perceived to contribute to outbreak occurrence, (3) factors perceived to contribute to success of outbreak control, (4) factors inhibiting outbreak control and (5) long-term institutional gains in response to the outbreak management. CONCLUSION: Management of the MERS-CoV outbreak at King Abdulaziz Medical City-Riyadh was widely recognised by staff as a serious outbreak of local and national significance. While the outbreak was controlled successfully in 6 weeks, progress in management was inhibited by a lack of institutional readiness to implement infection control (IC) measures and reduce patient flow, low staff morale and high anxiety. Effective management was promoted by greater involvement of all staff in sharing learning and knowledge of the outbreak, developing trust and teamwork and harnessing collective leadership. Future major IC crises could be improved via measures to strengthen these areas, better coordination of media management and proactive staff counselling and support.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".