PMC:7457008 / 14120-15574 JSONTXT

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-FMA-UBERON","denotations":[{"id":"T4","span":{"begin":325,"end":333},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T5","span":{"begin":858,"end":862},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T6","span":{"begin":863,"end":866},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T7","span":{"begin":1005,"end":1008},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T8","span":{"begin":1009,"end":1013},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T9","span":{"begin":1050,"end":1054},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T10","span":{"begin":1067,"end":1071},"obj":"Body_part"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A4","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T4","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma14542"},{"id":"A5","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T5","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma24728"},{"id":"A6","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T6","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma54448"},{"id":"A7","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T7","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma54448"},{"id":"A8","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T8","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma24728"},{"id":"A9","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T9","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma9712"},{"id":"A10","pred":"fma_id","subj":"T10","obj":"http://purl.org/sig/ont/fma/fma256135"}],"text":"PPE utilization during redeployment\nAs part of our survey, we evaluated the PPE provision of redeployed staff as advised by Public Health England (PHE) on hospital wards with or without confirmed or suspected Coronavirus disease, and for tasks that may be classed as an aerosol generating procedure. The guidance is shown in Appendix 1. We also specifically asked each survey respondent whether they felt that they had adequate PPE for the area they worked.\nA total of 71% of survey respondents subjectively reported that they had adequate PPE for the area that they were assigned to. Table 5 illustrates the analysis of the PPE that was reported to be provided by each of the respondents. 71% of respondents were found to fulfill the specifications as published by Public Health England for the area they worked. The least adequate provision of PPE was for face/eye protection in wards with patients who had Coronovirus disease (59%).\nTable 5. Reported PPE provision in different areas of redeployment.\nEye/face protection Respiratory protection Hand protection Body protection Percentage fully met PPE criteria (PHE)\nCOVID Ward (n = 29) (%) 17 (59%) 27 (93%) 28 (97%) 27 (93%) 16 (55%)\nED (n = 2) (%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%)\nITU/ICU (n = 18) (%) 16 (89%) 17 (94%) 18 (100%) 15 (89%) 15 (83%)\nNon COVID (n = 9) 9 (100%) 9 (100%) 8 (89%) 9 (100%) 8 (89%)\nALL 44 (76%) 55 (95%) 56 (97%) 54 (93%) 41 (71%)"}

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-UBERON","denotations":[{"id":"T4","span":{"begin":858,"end":862},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T5","span":{"begin":863,"end":866},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T6","span":{"begin":1009,"end":1013},"obj":"Body_part"},{"id":"T7","span":{"begin":1050,"end":1054},"obj":"Body_part"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A4","pred":"uberon_id","subj":"T4","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0001456"},{"id":"A5","pred":"uberon_id","subj":"T5","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0000970"},{"id":"A6","pred":"uberon_id","subj":"T6","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0001456"},{"id":"A7","pred":"uberon_id","subj":"T7","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0002398"}],"text":"PPE utilization during redeployment\nAs part of our survey, we evaluated the PPE provision of redeployed staff as advised by Public Health England (PHE) on hospital wards with or without confirmed or suspected Coronavirus disease, and for tasks that may be classed as an aerosol generating procedure. The guidance is shown in Appendix 1. We also specifically asked each survey respondent whether they felt that they had adequate PPE for the area they worked.\nA total of 71% of survey respondents subjectively reported that they had adequate PPE for the area that they were assigned to. Table 5 illustrates the analysis of the PPE that was reported to be provided by each of the respondents. 71% of respondents were found to fulfill the specifications as published by Public Health England for the area they worked. The least adequate provision of PPE was for face/eye protection in wards with patients who had Coronovirus disease (59%).\nTable 5. Reported PPE provision in different areas of redeployment.\nEye/face protection Respiratory protection Hand protection Body protection Percentage fully met PPE criteria (PHE)\nCOVID Ward (n = 29) (%) 17 (59%) 27 (93%) 28 (97%) 27 (93%) 16 (55%)\nED (n = 2) (%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%)\nITU/ICU (n = 18) (%) 16 (89%) 17 (94%) 18 (100%) 15 (89%) 15 (83%)\nNon COVID (n = 9) 9 (100%) 9 (100%) 8 (89%) 9 (100%) 8 (89%)\nALL 44 (76%) 55 (95%) 56 (97%) 54 (93%) 41 (71%)"}

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-CLO","denotations":[{"id":"T69","span":{"begin":458,"end":459},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001020"},{"id":"T70","span":{"begin":469,"end":471},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0054055"},{"id":"T71","span":{"begin":690,"end":692},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0054055"},{"id":"T72","span":{"begin":858,"end":862},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0001456"},{"id":"T73","span":{"begin":863,"end":866},"obj":"http://www.ebi.ac.uk/efo/EFO_0000827"},{"id":"T74","span":{"begin":1005,"end":1008},"obj":"http://www.ebi.ac.uk/efo/EFO_0000827"},{"id":"T75","span":{"begin":1009,"end":1013},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/UBERON_0001456"},{"id":"T76","span":{"begin":1159,"end":1161},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0050509"},{"id":"T77","span":{"begin":1179,"end":1181},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0050509"},{"id":"T78","span":{"begin":1272,"end":1278},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0007919"},{"id":"T79","span":{"begin":1272,"end":1278},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0007920"},{"id":"T80","span":{"begin":1299,"end":1301},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0001527"},{"id":"T81","span":{"begin":1305,"end":1307},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0050510"},{"id":"T82","span":{"begin":1446,"end":1448},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0053794"},{"id":"T83","span":{"begin":1450,"end":1452},"obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CLO_0054055"}],"text":"PPE utilization during redeployment\nAs part of our survey, we evaluated the PPE provision of redeployed staff as advised by Public Health England (PHE) on hospital wards with or without confirmed or suspected Coronavirus disease, and for tasks that may be classed as an aerosol generating procedure. The guidance is shown in Appendix 1. We also specifically asked each survey respondent whether they felt that they had adequate PPE for the area they worked.\nA total of 71% of survey respondents subjectively reported that they had adequate PPE for the area that they were assigned to. Table 5 illustrates the analysis of the PPE that was reported to be provided by each of the respondents. 71% of respondents were found to fulfill the specifications as published by Public Health England for the area they worked. The least adequate provision of PPE was for face/eye protection in wards with patients who had Coronovirus disease (59%).\nTable 5. Reported PPE provision in different areas of redeployment.\nEye/face protection Respiratory protection Hand protection Body protection Percentage fully met PPE criteria (PHE)\nCOVID Ward (n = 29) (%) 17 (59%) 27 (93%) 28 (97%) 27 (93%) 16 (55%)\nED (n = 2) (%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%)\nITU/ICU (n = 18) (%) 16 (89%) 17 (94%) 18 (100%) 15 (89%) 15 (83%)\nNon COVID (n = 9) 9 (100%) 9 (100%) 8 (89%) 9 (100%) 8 (89%)\nALL 44 (76%) 55 (95%) 56 (97%) 54 (93%) 41 (71%)"}

{"project":"LitCovid-PD-CHEBI","denotations":[{"id":"T18","span":{"begin":147,"end":150},"obj":"Chemical"},{"id":"T19","span":{"begin":1119,"end":1122},"obj":"Chemical"},{"id":"T20","span":{"begin":1198,"end":1200},"obj":"Chemical"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A18","pred":"chebi_id","subj":"T18","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_28044"},{"id":"A19","pred":"chebi_id","subj":"T19","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_28044"},{"id":"A20","pred":"chebi_id","subj":"T20","obj":"http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_73503"}],"text":"PPE utilization during redeployment\nAs part of our survey, we evaluated the PPE provision of redeployed staff as advised by Public Health England (PHE) on hospital wards with or without confirmed or suspected Coronavirus disease, and for tasks that may be classed as an aerosol generating procedure. The guidance is shown in Appendix 1. We also specifically asked each survey respondent whether they felt that they had adequate PPE for the area they worked.\nA total of 71% of survey respondents subjectively reported that they had adequate PPE for the area that they were assigned to. Table 5 illustrates the analysis of the PPE that was reported to be provided by each of the respondents. 71% of respondents were found to fulfill the specifications as published by Public Health England for the area they worked. The least adequate provision of PPE was for face/eye protection in wards with patients who had Coronovirus disease (59%).\nTable 5. Reported PPE provision in different areas of redeployment.\nEye/face protection Respiratory protection Hand protection Body protection Percentage fully met PPE criteria (PHE)\nCOVID Ward (n = 29) (%) 17 (59%) 27 (93%) 28 (97%) 27 (93%) 16 (55%)\nED (n = 2) (%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%)\nITU/ICU (n = 18) (%) 16 (89%) 17 (94%) 18 (100%) 15 (89%) 15 (83%)\nNon COVID (n = 9) 9 (100%) 9 (100%) 8 (89%) 9 (100%) 8 (89%)\nALL 44 (76%) 55 (95%) 56 (97%) 54 (93%) 41 (71%)"}

{"project":"LitCovid-PubTator","denotations":[{"id":"123","span":{"begin":209,"end":228},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"126","span":{"begin":892,"end":900},"obj":"Species"},{"id":"127","span":{"begin":909,"end":928},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"130","span":{"begin":1124,"end":1129},"obj":"Disease"},{"id":"131","span":{"begin":1339,"end":1344},"obj":"Disease"}],"attributes":[{"id":"A123","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"123","obj":"MESH:D018352"},{"id":"A126","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"126","obj":"Tax:9606"},{"id":"A127","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"127","obj":"MESH:D003141"},{"id":"A130","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"130","obj":"MESH:C000657245"},{"id":"A131","pred":"tao:has_database_id","subj":"131","obj":"MESH:C000657245"}],"namespaces":[{"prefix":"Tax","uri":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/taxonomy/"},{"prefix":"MESH","uri":"https://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/"},{"prefix":"Gene","uri":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/"},{"prefix":"CVCL","uri":"https://web.expasy.org/cellosaurus/CVCL_"}],"text":"PPE utilization during redeployment\nAs part of our survey, we evaluated the PPE provision of redeployed staff as advised by Public Health England (PHE) on hospital wards with or without confirmed or suspected Coronavirus disease, and for tasks that may be classed as an aerosol generating procedure. The guidance is shown in Appendix 1. We also specifically asked each survey respondent whether they felt that they had adequate PPE for the area they worked.\nA total of 71% of survey respondents subjectively reported that they had adequate PPE for the area that they were assigned to. Table 5 illustrates the analysis of the PPE that was reported to be provided by each of the respondents. 71% of respondents were found to fulfill the specifications as published by Public Health England for the area they worked. The least adequate provision of PPE was for face/eye protection in wards with patients who had Coronovirus disease (59%).\nTable 5. Reported PPE provision in different areas of redeployment.\nEye/face protection Respiratory protection Hand protection Body protection Percentage fully met PPE criteria (PHE)\nCOVID Ward (n = 29) (%) 17 (59%) 27 (93%) 28 (97%) 27 (93%) 16 (55%)\nED (n = 2) (%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%)\nITU/ICU (n = 18) (%) 16 (89%) 17 (94%) 18 (100%) 15 (89%) 15 (83%)\nNon COVID (n = 9) 9 (100%) 9 (100%) 8 (89%) 9 (100%) 8 (89%)\nALL 44 (76%) 55 (95%) 56 (97%) 54 (93%) 41 (71%)"}

{"project":"LitCovid-sentences","denotations":[{"id":"T128","span":{"begin":0,"end":35},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T129","span":{"begin":36,"end":299},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T130","span":{"begin":300,"end":336},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T131","span":{"begin":337,"end":457},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T132","span":{"begin":458,"end":584},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T133","span":{"begin":585,"end":689},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T134","span":{"begin":690,"end":813},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T135","span":{"begin":814,"end":935},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T136","span":{"begin":936,"end":944},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T137","span":{"begin":946,"end":1004},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T138","span":{"begin":1005,"end":1123},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T139","span":{"begin":1124,"end":1197},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T140","span":{"begin":1198,"end":1262},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T141","span":{"begin":1263,"end":1334},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T142","span":{"begin":1335,"end":1400},"obj":"Sentence"},{"id":"T143","span":{"begin":1401,"end":1454},"obj":"Sentence"}],"namespaces":[{"prefix":"_base","uri":"http://pubannotation.org/ontology/tao.owl#"}],"text":"PPE utilization during redeployment\nAs part of our survey, we evaluated the PPE provision of redeployed staff as advised by Public Health England (PHE) on hospital wards with or without confirmed or suspected Coronavirus disease, and for tasks that may be classed as an aerosol generating procedure. The guidance is shown in Appendix 1. We also specifically asked each survey respondent whether they felt that they had adequate PPE for the area they worked.\nA total of 71% of survey respondents subjectively reported that they had adequate PPE for the area that they were assigned to. Table 5 illustrates the analysis of the PPE that was reported to be provided by each of the respondents. 71% of respondents were found to fulfill the specifications as published by Public Health England for the area they worked. The least adequate provision of PPE was for face/eye protection in wards with patients who had Coronovirus disease (59%).\nTable 5. Reported PPE provision in different areas of redeployment.\nEye/face protection Respiratory protection Hand protection Body protection Percentage fully met PPE criteria (PHE)\nCOVID Ward (n = 29) (%) 17 (59%) 27 (93%) 28 (97%) 27 (93%) 16 (55%)\nED (n = 2) (%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%)\nITU/ICU (n = 18) (%) 16 (89%) 17 (94%) 18 (100%) 15 (89%) 15 (83%)\nNon COVID (n = 9) 9 (100%) 9 (100%) 8 (89%) 9 (100%) 8 (89%)\nALL 44 (76%) 55 (95%) 56 (97%) 54 (93%) 41 (71%)"}

{"project":"LitCovid-PMC-OGER-BB","denotations":[{"id":"T31","span":{"begin":209,"end":220},"obj":"NCBITaxon:11118"},{"id":"T32","span":{"begin":858,"end":862},"obj":"UBERON:0001456"},{"id":"T33","span":{"begin":863,"end":866},"obj":"UBERON:0000970"},{"id":"T78012","span":{"begin":209,"end":220},"obj":"NCBITaxon:11118"},{"id":"T54786","span":{"begin":858,"end":862},"obj":"UBERON:0001456"},{"id":"T19269","span":{"begin":863,"end":866},"obj":"UBERON:0000970"}],"text":"PPE utilization during redeployment\nAs part of our survey, we evaluated the PPE provision of redeployed staff as advised by Public Health England (PHE) on hospital wards with or without confirmed or suspected Coronavirus disease, and for tasks that may be classed as an aerosol generating procedure. The guidance is shown in Appendix 1. We also specifically asked each survey respondent whether they felt that they had adequate PPE for the area they worked.\nA total of 71% of survey respondents subjectively reported that they had adequate PPE for the area that they were assigned to. Table 5 illustrates the analysis of the PPE that was reported to be provided by each of the respondents. 71% of respondents were found to fulfill the specifications as published by Public Health England for the area they worked. The least adequate provision of PPE was for face/eye protection in wards with patients who had Coronovirus disease (59%).\nTable 5. Reported PPE provision in different areas of redeployment.\nEye/face protection Respiratory protection Hand protection Body protection Percentage fully met PPE criteria (PHE)\nCOVID Ward (n = 29) (%) 17 (59%) 27 (93%) 28 (97%) 27 (93%) 16 (55%)\nED (n = 2) (%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%) 2 (100%)\nITU/ICU (n = 18) (%) 16 (89%) 17 (94%) 18 (100%) 15 (89%) 15 (83%)\nNon COVID (n = 9) 9 (100%) 9 (100%) 8 (89%) 9 (100%) 8 (89%)\nALL 44 (76%) 55 (95%) 56 (97%) 54 (93%) 41 (71%)"}