Dataset Information

Mass Critical Care Surge Response During COVID-19: Implementation of Contingency Strategies - A Preliminary Report of Findings From the Task Force for Mass Critical Care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

After the publication of a 2014 consensus statement regarding mass critical care during public health emergencies, much has been learned about surge responses and the care of overwhelming numbers of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gaps in prior pandemic planning were identified and require modification in the midst of ongoing surges throughout the world.

Methods

The Task Force for Mass Critical Care (TFMCC) adopted a modified version of established rapid guideline methodologies from the World Health Organization and the Guidelines International Network-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist. With a consensus development process incorporating expert opinion to define important questions and extract evidence, the TFMCC developed relevant pandemic surge suggestions in a structured manner, incorporating peer-reviewed literature, "gray" evidence from lay media sources, and anecdotal experiential evidence.

Results

Ten suggestions were identified regarding staffing, load-balancing, communication, and technology. Staffing models are suggested with resilience strategies to support critical care staff. ICU surge strategies and strain indicators are suggested to enhance ICU prioritization tactics to maintain contingency level care and to avoid crisis triage, with early transfer strategies to further load-balance care. We suggest that intensivists and hospitalists be engaged with the incident command structure to ensure two-way communication, situational awareness, and the use of technology to support critical care delivery and families of patients in ICUs.

Conclusions

A subcommittee from the TFMCC offers interim evidence-informed operational strategies to assist hospitals and communities to plan for and respond to surge capacity demands resulting from COVID-19.

SUBMITTER: Dichter JR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8420082 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:A 24/7 telemedicine respiratory therapist (eRT) service was set up as part of the established University of Pennsylvania teleICU (PENN E-LERT®) service during the COVID-19 pandemic, serving five hospitals and 320 critical care beds to deliver effective remote care in lieu of a unit-based RT. The eRT interventions were components of an evidence-based care bundle and included ventilator liberation protocols, low tidal volume protocols, tube patency, and an extubation checklist. In addition, the proactive rounding of patients, including ventilator checks, was included. A standardized data collection sheet was used to facilitate the review of medical records, direct audio-visual inspection, or direct interactions with staff. In May 2020, a total of 1548 interventions took place, 93.86% of which were coded as "routine" based on established workflows, 4.71% as "urgent", 0.26% "emergent", and 1.17% were missing descriptors. Based on the number of coded interventions, we tracked the number of COVID-19 patients in the system. The average intervention took 6.1 ± 3.79 min. In 16% of all the interactions, no communication with the bedside team took place. The eRT connected with the in-house respiratory therapist (RT) in 66.6% of all the interventions, followed by house staff (9.8%), advanced practice providers (APP; 2.8%), and RN (2.6%). Most of the interaction took place over the telephone (88%), secure text message (16%), or audio-video telemedicine ICU platform (1.7%). A total of 5115 minutes were spent on tasks that a bedside clinician would have otherwise executed, reducing their exposure to COVID-19. The eRT service was instrumental in several emergent and urgent critical interventions. This study shows that an eRT service can support the bedside RT providers, effectively monitor best practice bundles, and carry out patient-ventilator assessments. It was effective in certain emergent situations and reduced the exposure of RTs to COVID-19. We plan to continue the service as part of an integrated RT service and hope to provide a framework for developing similar services in other facilities.

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 surges led to significant challenges in ensuring critical care capacity. In response, some centers leveraged neurocritical care (NCC) capacity as part of the surge response, with neurointensivists providing general critical care for patients with COVID-19 without neurologic illness. The relative outcomes of NCC critical care management of patients with COVID-19 remain unclear and may help guide further surge planning and provide broader insights into general critical care provided in NCC units.MethodsWe performed an observational cohort study of all patients requiring critical care for COVID-19 across four hospitals within the Emory Healthcare system during the first three surges. Patients were categorized on the basis of admission to intensive care units (ICUs) staffed by general intensivists or neurointensivists. Patients with primary neurological diagnoses were excluded. Baseline demographics, clinical complications, and outcomes were compared between groups using univariable and propensity score matching statistics.ResultsA total of 1141 patients with a primary diagnosis of COVID-19 required ICU admission. ICUs were staffed by general intensivists (n = 1071) or neurointensivists (n = 70). Baseline demographics and presentation characteristics were similar between groups, except for patients admitted to neurointensivist-staffed ICUs being younger (59 vs. 65, p = 0.027) and having a higher PaO2/FiO2 ratio (153 vs. 120, p = 0.002). After propensity score matching, there was no correlation between ICU staffing and the use of mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, and vasopressors. The rates of in-hospital mortality and hospice disposition were similar in neurointensivist-staffed COVID-19 units (odds ratio 0.9, 95% confidence interval 0.31-2.64, p = 0.842).ConclusionsCOVID-19 surges precipitated a natural experiment in which neurology-trained neurointensivists provided critical care in a comparable context to general intensivists treating the same disease. Neurology-trained neurointensivists delivered comparable outcomes to those of general ICUs during COVID-19 surges. These results further support the role of NCC in meeting general critical care needs of neurocritically ill patients and as a viable surge resource in general critical care.

Project description:BackgroundIn the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), veterans who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and similar gender and sexual minoritized people (LGBTQ+) experience health disparities compared to cisgender, heterosexual veterans. VA's LGBTQ+ Health Program created two healthcare policies on providing LGBTQ+ affirming care (healthcare that is inclusive, validating, and understanding of the LGBTQ+ population). The current project examines providers' barriers and facilitators to providing LGBTQ+ affirming care and LGBTQ+ veterans' barriers and facilitators to receiving LGBTQ+ affirming care.MethodsData collection and analysis were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, which was adapted to include three health equity domains. Data collection involved telephone interviews conducted with 11 VA providers and 12 LGBTQ+ veterans at one rural and one urban VA medical center, and one rural VA community clinic. Qualitative data were rapidly analyzed using template analysis, a data reduction technique.ResultsProviders described limited education, limited time, lack of experience with the population, and a lack of awareness of resources as barriers. Providers discussed comfort with consulting trusted peers, interest in learning more about providing LGBTQ+ affirming care, and openness and acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community as facilitators. LGBTQ+ veterans described a lack of provider awareness of their needs, concerns related to safety and discrimination, and structural discrimination as barriers. LGBTQ+ veterans described positive relationships with providers, knowledge of their own healthcare needs, and ability to advocate for their healthcare needs as facilitators. Although VA's LGBTQ+ affirming care policies are in place, providers and veterans noted a lack of awareness regarding specific healthcare processes.ConclusionAllowing more time and capacity for education and engaging LGBTQ+ veterans in determining how to improve their healthcare may be the path forward to increase adherence to LGBTQ+ affirming care policies. Engaging patients, especially those from marginalized backgrounds, in strategies focused on the uptake of policy may be a path to improve policy implementation. It is possible that creating truly collaborative structures in which patients, staff, providers, leadership, and policymakers can work together towards policy implementation may be a useful strategy. In turn, improved policy implementation would result in increased physical and mental health for LGBTQ+ veterans.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of point-of-care ultrasound as a diagnostic and interventional tool is rapidly becoming standard of care in critical care medicine; a standardized training curriculum is needed to ensure provider proficiency.ObjectiveThis study aimed to describe a longitudinal critical care ultrasound (CCUS) curriculum in a pulmonary critical care medicine (PCCM) fellowship training program. It evaluated the curriculum's impact on fellows' knowledge, skills, and self-reported confidence and retention of these attributes.MethodsWe conducted a prospective observational study of a longitudinal CCUS training program within a single PCCM fellowship training program. Knowledge, skills, and confidence of 22 fellows were assessed at baseline; after initial training; and at 6, 12, and 18 months in five domains (ultrasound basics, vascular, lung/pleural, abdomen, and cardiac). We quantified changes in CCUS knowledge, confidence, and skills by fellowship class and assessed for longitudinal retention of these three attributes. The difference in scores between new first-year fellows undergoing formal training and second-year fellows with previous informal training was compared at matched time points.ResultsAfter the initial formal training, there was a significant increase in knowledge, skills, and confidence scores, which were maintained or continued to increase up to 18 months. Fellows with 1 year of formal training also had a higher level of knowledge and skills than fellows with 1 year of informal training, although they had similar levels of self-reported confidence in their skills.ConclusionA formal, longitudinal CCUS curriculum implemented in a PCCM fellowship program improves trainees' knowledge and skills in various ultrasound domains in addition to their confidence in using ultrasound for patient care. A longitudinal curriculum results in retention of all three attributes and appeared to be more effective than an informal training program based on teaching during rounds, but this needs to be replicated in a larger cohort.

Project description:STUDY OBJECTIVE: We sought to measure the self-reported implementation of the crowding solutions outlined in the 2008 American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Boarding Task Force report "Emergency Department Crowding: High-Impact Solutions." We also tested the hypothesis that the self-reported crowding of emergency departments (EDs) was positively associated with the implementation of these solutions. METHODS: In early 2009, we mailed a survey to all medical or nursing directors from EDs in four US states asking for information regarding their EDs in 2008. Geographic information about the EDs was included in the analysis, along with survey responses about their ED capacity status and implementation of specific ACEP crowding solutions. RESULTS: A total of 284 of 351 EDs responded (81%). The majority of EDs were in urban areas (56%), non-teaching hospitals (93%), and not critical access hospitals (76%). The percentage of EDs "over capacity" ranged from 10-49% in each state. The mean number of crowding solutions used in EDs that were at or over capacity ranged from 3.6-4.6 in each state. EDs with visit volumes greater than or equal to three patients/hour were more likely to be over capacity than at capacity or at a good balance (46% vs. 31% and 15%, respectively). In terms of the use of high-impact crowding solutions, hospitals over capacity were more likely to utilize inpatient full capacity protocols (40% vs. 25% and 25%) but not inpatient discharge coordination (29% vs. 27% and 34%) or surgical schedule smoothing (31% vs. 28% and 32%). Hospitals over capacity were also more likely to have fast track units (44% vs. 32% and 16%) and physicians at triage (48% vs. 29% and 17%). CONCLUSION: Less than half of EDs in each state reported operation above capacity. Implementation of some crowding solutions was more common in the above-capacity EDs, although these solutions were not consistently used across geographic locations and hospitals. Given that the majority of EDs were not over capacity, the implementation of these solutions does not seem to be universally necessary.