[ad_1]
We publish an excerpt from The black book of the coronavirus (Historica Edizioni, 350 pages, 20 euros), written by Giuseppe De Lorenzo and Andrea Indini.
Leafing through the chronicles of those first days of March, it almost seems that no one has pointed out that to avoid thousands of deaths it was necessary to act more incisively in the structures for the elderly. If people on the street were asked to reduce their contacts, it might have been necessary to immediately ban family visits in Rsa. If in hospitals doctors and nurses were invited to carry the More expensive in suspicious cases, it might have been useful to enforce the use of IPR also in the corridors of the RSA. But it didn’t happen that way.
The first “strict limitation” on visitor access to nursing homes is included only in the Dpcm of March 1 and refers exclusively to some regions. The general indication to residences throughout Italy to limit “access for relatives and visitors” will only arrive with the Dpcm of March 4. Therefore, for almost two weeks, family members continue to come and go from structures, risking bringing the infection. Wouldn’t it have been better to act across the country now? Not to mention that the first ISS report dedicated to RSA infection prevention and control will arrive on March 16, two months after the declaration of the state of emergency. Couldn’t it have been fixed earlier?
The indications of the ISS deserve to be cited not only for the moment but also for the content. These too broadly suggest wearing “appropriate personal protective equipment” in “relation to risk assessment”. There is never talk of wearing IPR to “prevent” the entry of the disease. Rather. Even for patients, masks are only suggested “in the presence of symptoms of acute respiratory infection.” The ISS document will be revised on April 17 in an updated and much more detailed version. Why not do it right away? When the massacre in the RSA is now the central issue of political debate, in fact, the Institute makes it difficult to direct directions to health structures. Among the rules not included in the first version, for example, it is written to “avoid as far as possible the sending of hospital residents for specialist visits and instrumental examinations” and it asks providers, maintenance technicians and others operators wearing the surgical mask. Too bad it was too late.
“The first signs told us that the mask should not be used,” says a health worker from an Emilian RSA. In fact, the first report addressed to health workers (March 14) explains that, given the scarce availability of Dpi, it is good to “optimize its use” to “guarantee the greatest possible availability to the operators most exposed to risk. contagion “. Translated: Minimize the use of masks if you do not agree to treat an infected person. In the transit areas of a hospital, in the absence of Covid patients, the use of Dpi is considered “unnecessary”.
The report will be reviewed on March 28. “In some healthcare areas – it is added – the possibility of using the surgical mask as a device to be used within the tout court of the hospital by all health professionals should be evaluated.” The example fits perfectly with the RSA. The question is: why not propose it immediately and write it in the instructions dedicated to operators of facilities for the elderly?
