What we do when a COVID-19 patient needs an operation: operating room preparation and guidance.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ti LK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7090746 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic poses a critical global public health crisis. Operating room (OR) best practice in this crisis is poorly defined. This systematic review was performed to identify contemporary evidence relating to OR practice in the context of COVID-19.MethodsMEDLINE was searched systematically using PubMed (search date 19 March 2020) for relevant studies in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Documented practices and guidance were assessed to determine Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) levels of evidence, and recommendations for practice within five domains were extracted: physical OR, personnel, patient, procedure, and other factors.ResultsThirty-five articles were identified, of which 11 met eligibility criteria. Nine articles constituted expert opinion and two were retrospective studies. All articles originated from the Far East (China, 9; Singapore, 2); eight of the articles concerned general surgery. Common themes were identified within each domain, but all recommendations were based on low levels of evidence (median OCEBM level 5 (range 4-5)). The highest number of overlapping recommendations related to physical OR (8 articles) and procedural factors (13). Although few recommendations related to personnel factors, consensus was high in this domain, with all studies mandating the use of personal protective equipment.ConclusionThere was little evidence to inform this systematic review, but there was consensus regarding many aspects of OR practice. Within the context of a rapidly evolving pandemic, timely amalgamation of global practice and experiences is needed to inform best practice.
| S-EPMC7272923 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The first microbial environment of infants born by C-section: The operating room microbes
| PRJEB11484 | ENA
Project description:IntroductionThe ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated the reallocation of healthcare resources, and a minimization of elective activities. Healthcare personnel involved in COVID-19 care have been negatively affected by the associated excess stress. The existing COVID-19 research has focused on the experiences among healthcare personnel in general, and not particularly on the operating room team members, who have often been relocated to overburdened workplaces. Therefore, we aimed to explore the experiences in this particular group.MethodsThis study has a qualitative inductive design based on interviews with a strategic sample of 12 operating room team members: surgeons, anesthesiologist, specialist nurses, and nurse assistants. The interviews were analyzed using content analysis.ResultsThree themes were identified: "Feeling safe in the familiar and anxiety in the unknown", "To be the ones left behind", and "The possibility for recuperation in a seemingly everlasting situation". The participants described working hard, although their efforts were experienced as not enough according to their moral ideals. We interpreted this as feelings and signs of moral distress, a commonly described concept in previous studies during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a risk for burn out.ConclusionsThe operating room team members emphasized the negative stress of being in the unknown, performing work tasks in an unfamiliar place and situation, and experiencing conflicting feelings of relief and guilt. Organizational strategies toward a functional leadership and support should be emphasized. Such strategies might reduce the risk of psychological consequences such as burn out.
| S-EPMC8692083 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOperating room (OR) practice during the COVID-19 pandemic is driven by basic principles, shared experience and nascent literature. This study aimed to identify the knowledge needs of the global OR workforce, and characterize supportive evidence to establish consensus.MethodsA rapid, modified Delphi exercise was performed, open to all stakeholders, informed via an online international collaborative evaluation.ResultsThe consensus exercise was completed by 339 individuals from 41 countries (64·3 per cent UK). Consensus was reached on 71 of 100 statements, predominantly standardization of OR pathways, OR staffing and preoperative screening or diagnosis. The highest levels of consensus were observed in statements relating to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and risk distribution (96-99 per cent), clear consent processes (96 per cent), multidisciplinary decision-making and working (97 per cent). Statements yielding equivocal responses predominantly related to technical and procedure choices, including: decontamination (40-68 per cent), laminar flow systems (13-61 per cent), PPE reuse (58 per cent), risk stratification of patients (21-48 per cent), open versus laparoscopic surgery (63 per cent), preferential cholecystostomy in biliary disease (48 per cent), and definition of aerosol-generating procedures (19 per cent).ConclusionHigh levels of consensus existed for many statements within each domain, supporting much of the initial guidance issued by professional bodies. However, there were several contentious areas, which represent urgent targets for investigation to delineate safe COVID-19-related OR practice.
| S-EPMC7273074 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical decision support systems and telemedicine for remote monitoring can together support clinicians' intraoperative decision-making and management of surgical patients' care. However, there has been limited investigation on patient perspectives about advanced health information technology use in intraoperative settings, especially an electronic OR (eOR) for remote monitoring and management of surgical patients.PurposeOur study objectives were: (1) to identify participant-rated items contributing to patient attitudes, beliefs, and level of comfort with eOR monitoring; and (2) to highlight barriers and facilitators to eOR use.MethodsWe surveyed 324 individuals representing surgical patients across the United States using Amazon Mechanical Turk, an online platform supporting internet-based work. The structured survey questions examined the level of agreement and comfort with eOR for remote patient monitoring. We calculated descriptive statistics for demographic variables and performed a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test to assess whether participants were more comfortable with familiar clinicians from local hospitals or health systems monitoring their health and safety status during surgery than clinicians from hospitals or health systems in other regions or countries. We also analyzed open-ended survey responses using a thematic approach informed by an eight-dimensional socio-technical model.ResultsParticipants' average age was 34.07 (SD = 10.11). Most were white (80.9%), male (57.1%), and had a high school degree or more (88.3%). Participants reported a higher level of comfort with clinicians they knew monitoring their health and safety than clinicians they did not know, even within the same healthcare system (z = -4.012, p < .001). They reported significantly higher comfort levels with clinicians within the same hospital or health system in the United States than those in a different country (z = -10.230, p < .001). Facilitators and barriers to eOR remote monitoring were prevalent across four socio-technical dimensions: 1) organizational policies, procedures, environment, and culture; 2) people; 3) workflow and communication; and 4) hardware and software. Facilitators to eOR use included perceptions of improved patient safety through a safeguard system and perceptions of streamlined care. Barriers included fears of incorrect eOR patient assessments, decision-making conflicts between care teams, and technological malfunctions.ConclusionsParticipants expressed significant support for intraoperative telemedicine use and greater comfort with local telemedicine systems instead of long-distance telemedicine systems. Reservations centered on organizational policies, procedures, environment, culture; people; workflow and communication; and hardware and software. To improve the buy-in and acceptability of remote monitoring by an eOR team, we offer a few evidence-based guidelines applicable to telemedicine use within the context of OR workflow. Guidelines include backup plans for technical challenges, rigid care, and privacy standards, and patient education to increase understanding of telemedicine's potential to improve patient care.
| S-EPMC10627166 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Education is a cornerstone strategy to prevent health-associated infections. Trainings benefit from being interactive, simulation-based, team-orientated, and early in professional socialization. We conceived an innovative inter-professional peer-teaching module with operating room technician trainees (ORTT) teaching infection prevention behavior in the operating room (OR) to medical students (MDS). Methods:ORTT delivered a 2-h teaching module to small groups of MDS in a simulated OR setting with 4 posts: 'entering OR'; 'surgical hand disinfection'; 'dressing up for surgery and preparing a surgical field', 'debriefing'. MDS and ORTT evaluated module features and teaching quality through 2 specific questionnaires. Structured field notes by education specialist observers were analyzed thematically. Results:On Likert scales from - 2 to + 2, mean overall satisfaction was + 1.91 (±0.3) for MDS and + 1.66 (±0.6 SD) for ORTT while teaching quality was rated + 1.89 (±0.3) by MDS and self-rated with + 1.34 (±0.5) by ORTT. Students and observers highlighted that the training fostered mutual understanding and provided insight into the corresponding profession. Conclusions:Undergraduate inter-professional teaching among ORTT and MDS in infection prevention and control proved feasible with high educational quality. Inducing early mutual understanding between professional groups might improve professional collaboration and patient safety.
| S-EPMC6518629 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Little is known about the impact of COVID-19 on the outcomes of patients undergoing surgery and intervention. This study was conducted between 20 March and 20 May 2020 in six hospitals in Istanbul, and aimed to investigate the effects of surgery and intervention on COVID-19 disease progression, intensive care (ICU) need, mortality and virus transmission to patients and healthcare workers. Patients were examined in three groups: group I underwent emergency surgery, group II had an emergency non-operating room intervention, and group III received inpatient COVID-19 treatment but did not have surgery or undergo intervention. Mortality rates, mechanical ventilation needs and rates of admission to the ICU were compared between the three groups. During this period, patient and healthcare worker transmissions were recorded. In total, 1273 surgical, 476 non-operating room intervention patients and 1884 COVID-19 inpatients were examined. The rate of ICU requirement among patients who had surgery was nearly twice that for inpatients and intervention patients, but there was no difference in mortality between the groups. The overall mortality rates were 2.3% in surgical patients, 3.3% in intervention patients and 3% in inpatients. COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction positivity among hospital workers was 2.4%. Only 3.3% of infected frontline healthcare workers were anaesthesiologists. No deaths occurred among infected healthcare workers. We conclude that emergency surgery and non-operating room interventions during the pandemic period do not increase postoperative mortality and can be performed with low transmission rates.
| S-EPMC8485005 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Coronavirus and the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 have significantly impacted hospital care, including surgery practice. Hospitals must balance patient care, staff safety, resource availability, and medical ethics. Differences in community infection trends, national policies, availability of resources and technology, plus local circumstances may make uniform management impossible globally. This paper described the practical workflow of emergency COVID-19 surgery in a tertiary referral national hospital in Indonesia.MethodThis study focused on the process of preparation for COVID-19 surgery from March 2020-March 2021. We also described the available facilities in terms of equipment and human resources.ResultsSteps of COVID-19 surgery preparations were described, such as the setup of general and infectious triage in the emergency department, development of preoperative screening protocol for COVID-19, designation of a specialized COVID-19 operating room and surgical staff, changes in preoperative surgery and anesthesia workflow, development of checklists and postoperative monitoring on staff health.ConclusionsChanges in the workflow are essential during the pandemic for safe surgery. These changes require a multidisciplinary approach, communication, and a continued willingness to adapt. We recommend local adaptation of our general workflow for emergency surgery during an epidemic or pandemic.
| S-EPMC8268678 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOn March 17, 2020 the Association of American Medical Colleges recommended dismissal of medical students from clinical settings due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Third-year (M3) and fourth-year (M4) medical students were at home, M4s were interested in teaching, and residents and faculty had fewer clinical responsibilities due to elective surgery cancellations. To continue M3 access to education, we created a virtual surgery elective (VSE) that aimed to broaden students' exposure to, and elicit interest in, general surgery (GS).MethodsFaculty, surgical residents, and M4s collaborated to create a 2-wk VSE focusing on self-directed learning and direct interactions with surgery faculty. Each day was dedicated to a specific pathology commonly encountered in GS. A variety of teaching methods were employed including self-directed readings and videos, M4 peer lectures, case-based learning and operative video review with surgery faculty, and weekly surgical conferences. A VSE skills lab was also conducted to teach basic suturing and knot-tying. All lectures and skills labs were via Zoom videoconference (Zoom Video Communications Inc). A post-course anonymous survey sent to all participants assessed changes in their understanding of GS and their interest in GS and surgery overall.ResultsFourteen M3s participated in this elective over two consecutive iterations. The survey response rate was 79%. Ninety-one percent of students believed the course met its learning objectives "well" or "very well." Prior to the course, 27% reported a "good understanding" and 0% a "very good" understanding of GS. Post-course, 100% reported a "good" or "very good" understanding of GS, a statistically significant increase (P = 0.0003). Eighty-two percent reported increased interest in GS and 64% reported an increase in pursuing GS as a career.ConclusionsAs proof of concept, this online course successfully demonstrated virtual medical student education can increase student understanding of GS topics, increase interest in GS, and increase interest in careers in surgery. To broaden student exposure to GS, we plan to integrate archived portions of this course into the regular third-year surgery clerkship and these can also be used to introduce GS in the preclinical years.
| S-EPMC8403665 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStudies have estimated that a large backlog of procedures was generated by emergency measures implemented in Ontario, Canada, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, when nonessential and scheduled procedures were postponed. Understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the time needed to perform a procedure may help to determine the resources needed to tackle the substantial backlog caused by the deferral of cases. The purpose of this study was to examine the duration of operating room (OR) procedures before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic to inform planning around changes in required resources.MethodsA population-based, retrospective cohort study was conducted using Ontario Health Insurance Plan claims data and other administrative health care data from Apr. 1, 2019, to Sept. 30, 2020. Statistical analysis was conducted using multivariate regression, with procedure duration as the outcome variable.ResultsResults showed that the average duration of nonelective procedures increased by 34 minutes during the COVID-19 period and by 19 minutes after the resumption of scheduled procedures. Controlling for physician, patient and hospital characteristics, and the procedure code submitted, procedure duration increased by 12 minutes in the nonelective COVID-19 period and by 5 minutes when scheduled procedures resumed, compared with the pre-COVID-19 period.ConclusionProcedures may take longer in the COVID-19 period. This will affect wait times, which had already increased because of the deferral of procedures at the beginning of the pandemic, and will have an impact on Ontario's ability to provide patients with timely care.
| S-EPMC9564191 | biostudies-literature