INTRODUCTION: Paediatric sexual assault (SA) victims should be assessed for post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) to mitigate the risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). We describe the clinical characteristics of children and young persons (CYPs) presenting with SA at KK Women's and Children's Hospital in Singapore, viral PEP (human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] and hepatitis B virus [HBV]) prescribing practices, and STI evaluation at follow-up. METHOD: Medical records of CYPs ≤16 years who presented with SA between January 2022 and August 2023 were reviewed, including assault and assailant characteristics, baseline and follow-up STI screening, PEP prescription, adherence and follow-up attendance. CYPs with SA in the preceding 72 hours by HIV-positive or HIV-status unknown assailants with high-risk characteris-tics were eligible for HIV PEP. RESULTS: We analysed 278 CYPs who made 292 SA visits. There were 40 (13.7%) CYPs eligible for HIV PEP, of whom 29 (82.9%) received it. Among those tested at baseline, 9% and 34.9% of CYPs tested positive for Chlamydia trachomatis and Gardnerella vaginalis, respectively. None tested positive for Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Trichomonas vaginalis, HIV, HBV or hepatitis C. Majority of CYPs tested were HBV non-immune (n=167, 67.6%); only 77 (46.1%) received the vaccine. Out of 27 CYPs eligible for HBV PEP with immunoglobulin, only 21 (77.7%) received immunoglobulin. A total of 37 CYPs received HIV PEP, including 8 who were retrospectively deemed ineligible. Only 10 (27%) completed the course. Overall, 153 (57.7%) CYPs attended follow-up, and none seroconverted for HIV or HBV. CONCLUSION We report suboptimal rates of HBV post-exposure vaccination, and low compliance to HIV PEP and follow-up among paediatric SA victims. Factors contri-buting to poor compliance should be examined to optimise care for this vulnerable population.
Humans ; Post-Exposure Prophylaxis/methods* ; Female ; Child ; Adolescent ; Singapore/epidemiology* ; HIV Infections/prevention & control* ; Male ; Sexually Transmitted Diseases/epidemiology* ; Retrospective Studies ; Hepatitis B/prevention & control* ; Follow-Up Studies ; Child, Preschool ; Sex Offenses/statistics & numerical data* ; Child Abuse, Sexual

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged health systems globally and prompted the publication of several guidelines. The experiences of our international colleagues should be utilized to protect patients and healthcare workers. The primary aim of this article is to appraise national guidelines for the perioperative anesthetic management of patients with COVID-19 so that they can be enhanced for the management of any resurgence of the epidemic. PubMed and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for guidelines related to SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, the World Federation Society of Anesthesiologists COVID-19 resource webpage was searched for national guidelines; the search was expanded to include countries with a high incidence of SARS-CoV. The guidelines were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Guidelines from Australia, Canada, China, India, Italy, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America were evaluated. All the guidelines focused predominantly on intubation and infection control. The scope and purpose of guidelines from China were the most comprehensive. The UK and South Africa provided the best clarity. Editorial independence, the rigor of development, and applicability scored poorly. Heterogeneity and gaps pertaining to preoperative screening, anesthesia technique, subspecialty anesthesia, and the lack of auditing of guidelines were identified. Evidence supporting the recommendations was weak. Early guidelines for the anesthetic management of COVID-19 patients lacked quality and a robust reporting framework. As new evidence emerges, national guidelines should be updated to enhance rigor, clarity, and applicability.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged health systems globally and prompted the publication of several guidelines. The experiences of our international colleagues should be utilized to protect patients and healthcare workers. The primary aim of this article is to appraise national guidelines for the perioperative anesthetic management of patients with COVID-19 so that they can be enhanced for the management of any resurgence of the epidemic. PubMed and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for guidelines related to SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, the World Federation Society of Anesthesiologists COVID-19 resource webpage was searched for national guidelines; the search was expanded to include countries with a high incidence of SARS-CoV. The guidelines were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Guidelines from Australia, Canada, China, India, Italy, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America were evaluated. All the guidelines focused predominantly on intubation and infection control. The scope and purpose of guidelines from China were the most comprehensive. The UK and South Africa provided the best clarity. Editorial independence, the rigor of development, and applicability scored poorly. Heterogeneity and gaps pertaining to preoperative screening, anesthesia technique, subspecialty anesthesia, and the lack of auditing of guidelines were identified. Evidence supporting the recommendations was weak. Early guidelines for the anesthetic management of COVID-19 patients lacked quality and a robust reporting framework. As new evidence emerges, national guidelines should be updated to enhance rigor, clarity, and applicability.