Christopher Bowden
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Christopher Bowden has a total of 9 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Ashwin Subramaniam
Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Dandenong Hospital, Monash Health, Dandenong, VIC, Australia
2 shared publications - Ravindranath Tiruvoipati
Department of Intensive Care medicine, Frankston Hospital, Frankston, Vic, Australia
2 shared publications - Vikas Wadhwa
Allergy and Lung Health Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Population and Global Health The University of Melbourne Melbourne Victoria Australia
2 shared publications - Alexander V. Zubarev
Central State Medical Academy of the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation, Moscow; Clinical hospital No1 of the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation, Moscow
1 shared publication - Alexandr Zuberav
Frankston Hospital, Frankston, VIC Australia
1 shared publication Robert Wengritzky
Peninsula Health, Australia
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 14 September 2021
- Published by Elsevier in Australian Critical Care
- Vol. 35 (1) , 34-39
Risk perception and emotional wellbeing in healthcare workers involved in rapid response calls during the COVID-19 pandemic: A substudy of a cross-sectional survey
- 14 September 2021
- Published by Elsevier in Australian Critical Care
- Vol. 35 (1) , 34-39
Risk perception and emotional wellbeing in healthcare workers involved in rapid response calls during the COVID-19 pandemic: A substudy of a cross-sectional survey
- Open Access
- 22 April 2021
- Published by Wiley in Internal Medicine Journal
- Vol. 51 (4) , 494-505
‘Code‐95’ rapid response calls for patients under airborne precautions in the COVID‐19‐era: a cross‐sectional survey of healthcare worker perceptions
Background To allow better allocation of staff and resources, rapid response teams attending to acutely deteriorating or aggressive patients with suspected or confirmed COVID‐19 infection were pre‐warned with the announcement of 'Code‐95' with calls. Aim To assess healthcare worker (HCW) perspectives on pre‐warning rapid response calls (RRC) with ‘Code‐95’ in announcements when attending to deteriorating or aggressive patients with suspected/confirmed COVID‐19 infection. Methods Design: prospective cross‐sectional single‐centre survey of HCW over a 3‐week period. Setting: tertiary public hospital. Participants: HCW caring for deteriorating or aggressive patients. Main outcome measures: the primary outcome was to assess HCW perspectives in attending Code‐95 calls. Secondary outcomes were to identify any differences related to craft group, age, experience or presence of comorbidities. Results A total of 297 responses was analysed; 86.7% of HCW (n = 257) attending Code‐95 calls reported anxiety. Medical staff reported greater anxiety in comparison to nursing staff (93.8% vs 78.5%; P = 0.002). Efferent team reported higher anxiety in contrast to afferent team (92.6% vs 58.8%; P = 0.021). There was no significant difference in perceived anxiety based on age (≤40 vs >40 years of age), years of experience (≤5 vs >5 years), comorbidities or mental illness; 54% reported concerns about adequacy of infection‐control policies and personal protective equipment; 45% were worried about inadequate training for responding to Code‐95 calls. Conclusions Most surveyed HCW supported Code‐95 announcements pre‐warning them of potential COVID‐19 exposure when attending a RRC. However, the majority of HCW reported anxiety when attending these calls. Medical and efferent team HCW perceived greater anxiety compared to nursing and afferent team HCW. The Code‐95 system to pre‐warn rapid response teams may be a useful addition to protecting HCW from infectious diseases, although broader implementation will require greater resourcing, training and support.
- 22 April 2021
- Published by Wiley in Internal Medicine Journal
- Vol. 51 (4) , 494-505
Open Access‘Code‐95’ rapid response calls for patients under airborne precautions in the COVID‐19‐era: a cross‐sectional survey of healthcare worker perceptions
Background To allow better allocation of staff and resources, rapid response teams attending to acutely deteriorating or aggressive patients with suspected or confirmed COVID‐19 infection were pre‐warned with the announcement of 'Code‐95' with calls. Aim To assess healthcare worker (HCW) perspectives on pre‐warning rapid response calls (RRC) with ‘Code‐95’ in announcements when attending to deteriorating or aggressive patients with suspected/confirmed COVID‐19 infection. Methods Design: prospective cross‐sectional single‐centre survey of HCW over a 3‐week period. Setting: tertiary public hospital. Participants: HCW caring for deteriorating or aggressive patients. Main outcome measures: the primary outcome was to assess HCW perspectives in attending Code‐95 calls. Secondary outcomes were to identify any differences related to craft group, age, experience or presence of comorbidities. Results A total of 297 responses was analysed; 86.7% of HCW (n = 257) attending Code‐95 calls reported anxiety. Medical staff reported greater anxiety in comparison to nursing staff (93.8% vs 78.5%; P = 0.002). Efferent team reported higher anxiety in contrast to afferent team (92.6% vs 58.8%; P = 0.021). There was no significant difference in perceived anxiety based on age (≤40 vs >40 years of age), years of experience (≤5 vs >5 years), comorbidities or mental illness; 54% reported concerns about adequacy of infection‐control policies and personal protective equipment; 45% were worried about inadequate training for responding to Code‐95 calls. Conclusions Most surveyed HCW supported Code‐95 announcements pre‐warning them of potential COVID‐19 exposure when attending a RRC. However, the majority of HCW reported anxiety when attending these calls. Medical and efferent team HCW perceived greater anxiety compared to nursing and afferent team HCW. The Code‐95 system to pre‐warn rapid response teams may be a useful addition to protecting HCW from infectious diseases, although broader implementation will require greater resourcing, training and support.