COVID-19 has been here for a while now, and while most of us have been taking precautionary measures to curb the spread of the infection, it seems that people are still getting infected.
In fact, the Ministry of Health (MOH) has warned us all to be mentally prepared for even more COVID-19 cases, and to prepare to fight a long battle against the highly contagious infection.
And the beginning of the battle started yesterday.
Just yesterday, 13 new cases were confirmed in Singapore, with 9 of them linked to the private dinner function at the Joy Garden restaurant in Safra Jurong.
But there was one particular case that caught the attention of a lot of people.
One 77-year-old man, known as Case 126, had apparently got infected with COVID-19 after having been in the same ward in Singapore General Hospital (SGH) as Case 109, a 70-year-old man, from 29 February to 1 March before the latter tested positive for COVID-19 on 2 March.
Oh shit, what now?
MOH Investigating if There Are Any Lapses in SGH That Could Have Caused COVID-19 Transmission in a Ward
According to the head of infectious diseases at SGH, Associate Professor Tan Thuan Tong, both men were placed in a three-bed acute respiratory isolation ward after they went to SGH with respiratory symptoms.
The incident has also caught the attention of the MOH, and as such, they are currently investigating to see if there were any lapses in SGH that could have caused a COVID-19 transmission in a ward.
MOH director of medical services Associate Professor Kenneth Mak said, “We are investigating for that possibility, but that is obviously a concern that we have, when two patients in the same ward are diagnosed with the infection over a short period of time.”
SGH has been asked to look through its processes to ensure that there were no lapses, no breaches of hospital processes and to ensure that the safety of patients is not compromised.
It was also revealed by Assoc Prof Mak that the patients who were warded were not bed-bound.
He added, “While every due diligence could have been made by staff in the ward to advise them not to move around, to mix, there’s always a theoretical possibility that they could have mingled. Somewhere therefore in that period in time when they were admitted in the same ward, possibly, some sort of transmission could have taken place.
“The instruction given to the hospital is to investigate this further, to examine their processes and we hope that as they complete their review, we would then be able to have more information.”
In other words, they could have close contact with each other
But why, when Case 109 is a COVID-19 patient?
Well, because he wasn’t during that time.
Patients Did Not Exhibit COVID-19 Risk Factors
Assoc Prof Tan commented that the patients did not exhibit any COVID-19 risk factors, and were placed in the same ward after displaying normal respiratory tract infections.
Remember: the source of infection for Case 109 is still unknown.
Assoc Prof Tan said, “The reason why (Case 126) was in the same ward was (that) as part of the enhanced precautions, patients who have acute respiratory infection will be placed in wards with greater separation between patients to minimise the risk of infection.”
However, it is to be noted that beds are placed 3m apart from one another, and patients have to take precautionary measures as well, like putting on a mask and practising social distancing.
While Case 109 did go to SGH with a “series of symptoms”, including respiratory symptoms, he did not meet any case definition for COVID-19.
Assoc Prof Tan also shared that the ward can “in some way” be seen as isolation as patients with respiratory symptoms are not able to pass on any respiratory infections they have, but of course, this kind of isolation was not the same required for COVID-19 patients.
He said, “The case is still being investigated, but we do tell patients upfront they should not mingle, they should not go around.”
Apparently, the third patient who shared the same ward as Case 109 and Case 126 is well and has no symptoms, but he will be under home quarantine.
For fear that there could be more cases like this, MOH has told all hospitals to exercise a higher degree of suspicion and test patients who have respiratory symptoms, especially if they have pneumonia, so that no COVID-19 cases get missed.
Assoc Prof Mak added, “So I understand in that context, perhaps the first patient (Case 109) was tested. The second patient (announced) today did not fulfill even those circumstance, so was therefore not originally tested.”
Advertisements
What We Know About Case 109 And Case 126 So Far
As mentioned previously, Case 109 is a 70-year-old man who works at Fishmart Sakuraya at 154 West Coast Road and according to MOH, he has not travelled to any affected countries and regions recently.
It is still not clear as to where he contracted COVID-19 from because he has not been found to be linked to any of the existing clusters.
Before he was admitted into SGH on 29 February, he had gone to work but did not serve customers or handle any food.
He stays at Everton Park.
He is currently in critical condition and is in the intensive care unit as of 6 March..
Advertisements
Case 126 is a 77-year-old man and just like Case 109, he has not travelled to any affected countries and regions recently. He is currently in an isolation room at the National Centre for Infectious Diseases.
