Dataset Information

Risks to healthcare workers following tracheal intubation of patients with COVID-19: a prospective international multicentre cohort study.

ABSTRACT: Healthcare workers involved in aerosol-generating procedures, such as tracheal intubation, may be at elevated risk of acquiring COVID-19. However, the magnitude of this risk is unknown. We conducted a prospective international multicentre cohort study recruiting healthcare workers participating in tracheal intubation of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Information on tracheal intubation episodes, personal protective equipment use and subsequent provider health status was collected via self-reporting. The primary endpoint was the incidence of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis or new symptoms requiring self-isolation or hospitalisation after a tracheal intubation episode. Cox regression analysis examined associations between the primary endpoint and healthcare worker characteristics, procedure-related factors and personal protective equipment use. Between 23 March and 2 June 2020, 1718 healthcare workers from 503 hospitals in 17 countries reported 5148 tracheal intubation episodes. The overall incidence of the primary endpoint was 10.7% over a median (IQR [range]) follow-up of 32 (18-48 [0-116]) days. The cumulative incidence within 7, 14 and 21 days of the first tracheal intubation episode was 3.6%, 6.1% and 8.5%, respectively. The risk of the primary endpoint varied by country and was higher in women, but was not associated with other factors. Around 1 in 10 healthcare workers involved in tracheal intubation of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 subsequently reported a COVID-19 outcome. This has human resource implications for institutional capacity to deliver essential healthcare services, and wider societal implications for COVID-19 transmission.

SUBMITTER: El-Boghdadly K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7300828 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe aimed to study the associations between pre- and in-hospital tracheal intubation and outcomes in traumatic brain injury (TBI), and whether the association varied according to injury severity.MethodsData from the international prospective pan-European cohort study, Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research for TBI (CENTER-TBI), were used (n=4509). For prehospital intubation, we excluded self-presenters. For in-hospital intubation, patients whose tracheas were intubated on-scene were excluded. The association between intubation and outcome was analysed with ordinal regression with adjustment for the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI variables and extracranial injury. We assessed whether the effect of intubation varied by injury severity by testing the added value of an interaction term with likelihood ratio tests.ResultsIn the prehospital analysis, 890/3736 (24%) patients had their tracheas intubated at scene. In the in-hospital analysis, 460/2930 (16%) patients had their tracheas intubated in the emergency department. There was no adjusted overall effect on functional outcome of prehospital intubation (odds ratio=1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.79-1.28; P=0.96), and the adjusted overall effect of in-hospital intubation was not significant (odds ratio=0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-1.13; P=0.28). However, prehospital intubation was associated with better functional outcome in patients with higher thorax and abdominal Abbreviated Injury Scale scores (P=0.009 and P=0.02, respectively), whereas in-hospital intubation was associated with better outcome in patients with lower Glasgow Coma Scale scores (P=0.01): in-hospital intubation was associated with better functional outcome in patients with Glasgow Coma Scale scores of 10 or lower.ConclusionThe benefits and harms of tracheal intubation should be carefully evaluated in patients with TBI to optimise benefit. This study suggests that extracranial injury should influence the decision in the prehospital setting, and level of consciousness in the in-hospital setting.Clinical trial registrationNCT02210221.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Healthcare professionals are particularly at risk of developing numerous physical and psychological health problems. The experiences of emotional burden associated with providing healthcare, notably care-related regret, have been associated with these health problems, but only using cross-sectional data so far. Evidence of a causal impact of regret has not been assessed. The Impact of CAre-related Regret Upon Sleep (ICARUS) study is the first prospective and international cohort study established to examine how newly practising healthcare professionals adapt to their challenging job by assessing the impact of care-related regret on sleep and job quitting. METHOD AND ANALYSIS:The ICARUS cohort study will include newly practising healthcare professionals working in acute care hospitals and clinics recruited between May 2017 and November 2019. Data collection, which will begin as soon as the participant starts working with patients, will consist of a 1-year weekly assessment using a secure web survey. Follow-up data will be collected at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after the end of the first year. We will collect detailed information on the experience of care-related regret (ie, highest regret intensity, accumulation of regrets and coping strategies related to regrets), sleep problems and job quitting. Moreover, quality of life, health status and burnout will be assessed during the follow-up. Several confounders factors, including sociodemographic characteristics, personality, night shifts and work environment characteristics, will be assessed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Geneva Canton, Switzerland (CCER2016-02041), the Ethics Committee of London South Bank University (HSCSEP/17/06) and the University Research Ethics Committee of Bedfordshire (UREC106). Other study centres deemed local ethical approval unnecessary since the main ethics committee (Geneva) had already accepted the project. Results will be published in relevant scientific journals and be disseminated in international conferences. Fully anonymised data and questionnaires will be freely accessible to everyone (scientists and general public).

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To prospectively assess the construct and criterion validity of ClassIntra version 1.0, a newly developed classification for assessing intraoperative adverse events. DESIGN:International, multicentre cohort study. SETTING:18 secondary and tertiary centres from 12 countries in Europe, Oceania, and North America. PARTICIPANTS:The cohort study included a representative sample of 2520 patients in hospital having any type of surgery, followed up until discharge. A follow-up to assess mortality at 30 days was performed in 2372 patients (94%). A survey was sent to a representative sample of 163 surgeons and anaesthetists from participating centres. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Intraoperative complications were assessed according to ClassIntra. Postoperative complications were assessed daily until discharge from hospital with the Clavien-Dindo classification. The primary endpoint was construct validity by investigating the risk adjusted association between the most severe intraoperative and postoperative complications, measured in a multivariable hierarchical proportional odds model. For criterion validity, inter-rater reliability was evaluated in a survey of 10 fictitious case scenarios describing intraoperative complications. RESULTS:Of 2520 patients enrolled, 610 (24%) experienced at least one intraoperative adverse event and 838 (33%) at least one postoperative complication. Multivariable analysis showed a gradual increase in risk for a more severe postoperative complication with increasing grade of ClassIntra: ClassIntra grade I versus grade 0, odds ratio 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 1.42); grade II versus grade 0, 1.39 (0.97 to 2.00); grade III versus grade 0, 2.62 (1.31 to 5.26); and grade IV versus grade 0, 3.81 (1.19 to 12.2). ClassIntra showed high criterion validity with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.91) in the survey (response rate 83%). CONCLUSIONS:ClassIntra is the first prospectively validated classification for assessing intraoperative adverse events in a standardised way, linking them to postoperative complications with the well established Clavien-Dindo classification. ClassIntra can be incorporated into routine practice in perioperative surgical safety checklists, or used as a monitoring and outcome reporting tool for different surgical disciplines. Future studies should investigate whether the tool is useful to stratify patients to the appropriate postoperative care, to enhance the quality of surgical interventions, and to improve long term outcomes of surgical patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03009929.

Dataset Information

Risks to healthcare workers following tracheal intubation of patients with COVID-19: a prospective international multicentre cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure