Risk management during the initial phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic in the largest city in Thailand
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study was to describe risk management in response to the COVID-19 epidemic in Bangkok and analyze its outcomes in terms of early access to the SARS-COV-2 testing and disease severity. This cross-sectional study was conducted from 21 January 2020 to 21 March 2020 and used a mixed method. Qualitative data were from documents related to risk management at Institute for Urban Disease Control and Prevention (IUDC), while quantitative inputs were secondary data of 4,638 people whom hospitals in Bangkok identified as possibly infected with COVID-19 and reported IUDC. Data analysis used content analysis and descriptive. Findings were grouped into the Plan-Do-Check-Act Cycle. In Step 1 (Plan), risk assessment indicated the epidemic as the limited local transmission scenario and capacity assessment identified strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to guide the planning. In Step 2 (Do), planned activities with multisectoral response effort were implemented. In the data processing Step 3 (Check), 55.5% of people who met the testing criteria accessed SARS-CoV-2 testing within one week after symptom onset. Proportion of confirmed cases was 8.4% (389/4,638), and 49.9% of these had cough. The final Step 4 (Act), multisectoral response and EOC leadership were recommended as part of the epidemic response when public and private establishments are reopened because they helped the eligible to have access to early testing and prevent disease severity.
Article Details
บทความที่พิมพ์ในวารสารสถาบันป้องกันควบคุมโรคเขตเมือง ถือว่าเป็นผลงานวิชาการ งานวิจัยและวิเคราะห์ ตลอดจนเป็นความเห็นส่วนตัวของผู้เขียนเอง ไม่ใช่ความเห็นของสถาบันป้องกันควบคุมโรคเขตเมือง หรือคณะบรรณาธิการแต่ประการใด ผู้เขียนจำต้องรับผิดชอบต่อบทความของตน
References
2. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report–53 [Internet]. [cited 2020 Mar 18]. Available from: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200313-sitrep-53-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=adb3f72_2
3. World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report–62 (21 March 2020) [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200322-sitrep-62-covid-19.pdf?sfvrsn=f7764c46_2
4. Pongpirul WA, Pongpirul K, Ratnarathon AC. Journey of a Thai taxi driver and novel coronavirus. N Eng J Med 2020; 382, 1067-8.
5. Department of Disease Control. Coronavirus disease 2019 situation report-78 (21 March 2020) [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Apr 18]. Available from: https://ddc.moph.go.th/viralpneumonia/file/situation/situation-no78-210363_1.pdf
6. World Health Organization. Health emergency and disaster risk management framework [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 Apr 18]. Available from: https://www.who.int/hac/techguidance/preparedness/health-emergency-and-disaster-risk-management-framework-eng.pdf?ua=1
7. Lo S, Chan E, Chan G, Murry V, Abrahams J, Ardalan A, et al. Health emergency and disaster risk management (Health-EDRM): developing the research field within the Sendai Framework Paradigm. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 2017; 8: 145-149.
8. Taylor MJ, McNicholas C, Nicolay C, Darzi A, Bell D, Reed JE. Systematic review of the application of the plan-do-study-act method to improve quality in health care. BMJ Quality and Safety 2014; 23: 290-298.
9. Li Y, Wang H, Jiao J. The application of strong matrix management and PDCA cycle in the management of severe COVID-19 patients. Critical care 2020; 24: 157.
10. Wood LM, Sebar B, Vecchio N. Application of rigor and credibility in qualitative document analysis: lessons learnt from a case study. The Qualitative Report 2020; 25 (2), 456-470.
11. กรมควบคุมโรค (2563). แนวทางเวชปฏิบัติ การวินิจฉัย ดูแล รักษา และป้องกันการติดเชื้อในโรงพยาบาล กรณีโรคติดเชื้อไวรัสโคโรนา 2019. สืบค้นจาก https://ddc.moph.go.th/viralpneumonia/file/g_health_care/g05_010563.pdf
12. World Health Organization (2020a). Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) situation report-1 (21 January 2020). Retrieved from https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200121-sitrep-1-2019-ncov.pdf?sfvrsn=20a99c10_4
13. World Health Organization. Joint External Evaluation of IHR Core Capacities of Kingdom of Thailand [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2020 Apr 18]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/272493/WHO-WHE-CPI-REP-2017.38-tha.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y
14. Global Health Security Agenda. GHS Index map [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2020 June 6]. Available from: https://www.ghsindex.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Thailand.pdf
15. Genereux M, Lafontaine M, & Eykelbosh A. From science to policy and practice: a critical assessment of knowledge management before, during, and after environmental public health disasters. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019; 15: 587.
16. Lee KM, Jung K. Factors influencing the response to infectious diseases: focusing on the case of SARS and MERS in South Korea. Int J of Environ Res Public Health. 2019; 16: 1432.
17. Park PG, Kim CH, Heo Y, Kim TS, Part CW, Kim CH. Out-of-hospital cohort treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 patients with mild symptoms in Korea: an experience from a single community treatment center. J Korean Med Sci 2020; 35 (13): e140.
18. Gostic K, Gomez AC, Mummah RO, Kuchaski A, Lloyd-Smith JO. Estimated effectiveness of symptom and risk screening to prevent the spread of COVID-19. eLife 2020; 9: e55570.