Project description:Background15% of COVID-19 patients develop severe pneumonia. Non-invasive mechanical ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula can reduce the rate of endotracheal intubation in adult respiratory distress syndrome, although failure rate is high.ObjectiveTo describe the rate of endotracheal intubation, the effectiveness of treatment, complications and mortality in patients with severe respiratory failure due to COVID-19.MethodsProspective cohort study in a first-level hospital in Madrid. Patients with a positive polymerase chain reaction for SARS-CoV-2 and admitted to the Intermediate Respiratory Care Unit with tachypnea, use of accessory musculature or SpO2 <92% despite FiO2> 0.5 were included. Intubation rate, medical complications, and 28-day mortality were recorded. Statistical analysis through association studies, logistic and Cox regression models and survival analysis was performed.ResultsSeventy patients were included. 37.1% required endotracheal intubation, 58.6% suffered medical complications and 24.3% died. Prone positioning was independently associated with lower need for endotracheal intubation (OR 0.05; 95% CI 0.005 to 0.54, p = 0.001). The adjusted HR for death at 28 days in the group of patients requiring endotracheal intubation was 5.4 (95% CI 1.51 to 19.5; p = 0.009).ConclusionsThe rate of endotracheal intubation in patients with severe respiratory failure from COVID-19 was 37.1%. Complications and mortality were lower in patients in whom endotracheal intubation could be avoided. Prone positioning could reduce the need for endotracheal intubation.
Project description:To understand and analyse the global impact of COVID-19 on outpatient services, inpatient care, elective surgery, and perioperative colorectal cancer care, a DElayed COloRectal cancer surgery (DECOR-19) survey was conducted in collaboration with numerous international colorectal societies with the objective of obtaining several learning points from the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on our colorectal cancer patients which will assist us in the ongoing management of our colorectal cancer patients and to provide us safe oncological pathways for future outbreaks.
Project description:AimDescribe the strategy, efficacy and preferred mechanisms of training used to rapidly upskill intermediate care nursing staff to provide critical care during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignDescriptive study.MethodsThe strategy used from March through December 2020 to upskill nurses in an intermediate care unit to administer critical care upon rapid conversion of the intermediate care unit to an intensive care unit for coronavirus disease 2019 is described. Training and education included paired staffing models, interdisciplinary education, skills days and self-directed learning. Nurses engaged in this upskilling process were surveyed to evaluate their confidence in new critical care competencies and educational preferences.ResultsOf 38 intermediate care nurses, 35 completed training and began independent intensive care practice. Nursing confidence in critical care competencies increased steadily. Nurses demonstrated the greatest preference for peer education models, particularly those incorporating the hospital's pre-existing medical intensive care nurses.Patient and public contributionsNo patient or public contributions were made to this manuscript.
Project description:Severe acidosis can cause noninvasive ventilation (NIV) failure in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF). NIV is therefore contraindicated outside of intensive care units (ICUs) in these patients. Less is known about NIV failure in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE) and obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS). Therefore, the objective of the present study was to compare NIV failure rates between patients with severe and non-severe acidosis admitted to a respiratory intermediate care unit (RICU) with AHRF resulting from ACPE, COPD or OHS.We prospectively included acidotic patients admitted to seven RICUs, where they were provided NIV as an initial ventilatory support measure. The clinical characteristics, pH evolutions, hospitalization or RICU stay durations and NIV failure rates were compared between patients with a pH???7.25 and a pH?<?7.25. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the independent risk factors contributing to NIV failure.We included 969 patients (240 with ACPE, 540 with COPD and 189 with OHS). The baseline rates of severe acidosis were similar among the groups (45 % in the ACPE group, 41 % in the COPD group, and 38 % in the OHS group). Most of the patients with severe acidosis had increased disease severity compared with those with non-severe acidosis: the APACHE II scores were 21?±?7.2 and 19?±?5.8 for the ACPE patients (p?<?0.05), 20?±?5.7 and 19?±?5.1 for the COPD patients (p?<?0.01) and 18?±?5.9 and 17?±?4.7 for the OHS patients, respectively (NS). The patients with severe acidosis also exhibited worse arterial blood gas parameters: the PaCO2 levels were 87?±?22 and 70?±?15 in the ACPE patients (p?<?0.001), 87?±?21 and 76?±?14 in the COPD patients, and 83?±?17 and 74?±?14 in the OHS patients (NS)., respectively Further, the patients with severe acidosis required a longer duration to achieve pH normalization than those with non-severe acidosis (patients with a normalized pH after the first hour: ACPE, 8 % vs. 43 %, p?<?0.001; COPD, 11 % vs. 43 %, p?<?0.001; and OHS, 13 % vs. 51 %, p?<?0.001), and they had longer RICU stays, particularly those in the COPD group (ACPE, 4?±?3.1 vs. 3.6?±?2.5, NS; COPD, 5.1?±?3 vs. 3.6?±?2.1, p?<?0.001; and OHS, 4.3?±?2.6 vs. 3.7?±?3.2, NS). The NIV failure rates were similar between the patients with severe and non-severe acidosis in the three disease groups (ACPE, 16 % vs. 12 %; COPD, 7 % vs. 7 %; and OHS, 11 % vs. 4 %). No common predictive factor for NIV failure was identified among the groups.ACPE, COPD and OHS patients with AHRF and severe acidosis (pH???7.25) who are admitted to an RICU can be successfully treated with NIV in these units. These results may be used to determine precise RICU admission criteria.
Project description:Background: To meet coronavirus disease (COVID-19) demands in the spring of 2020, many intensive care (IC) units (ICUs) required help of redeployed personnel working outside their regular scope of practice, causing an expansion and change of staffing ratios. Objective: How did this composite alternative ICU workforce experience supervision, interprofessional collaboration, and quality and safety of care under the unprecedented clinical circumstances at the height of the first pandemic wave as lived experiences uniquely captured during the first peak of the pandemic? Methods: An international, cross-sectional survey was conducted among physicians, nurses, and allied personnel deployed or redeployed to ICUs in Utrecht, New York, and Dublin from April to May of 2020. Data were analyzed separately for the three sites. Quantitative data were treated for descriptive statistics; qualitative data were analyzed thematically and combined for general interpretations. Results: On the basis of 234, 83, and 34 responses (response rates of 68%, 48%, and 41% in Utrecht, New York, and Dublin, respectively), we found that the amount of supervision and the quality and safety of care were perceived as being lower than usual but still acceptable. The working atmosphere was overwhelmingly felt to be collaborative and supportive. Where IC-certified nurse-to-patient ratios had decreased most (Utrecht), nurses voiced criticism about supervision and quality of care. Continuity within the work environment, team composition, and informal ("curbside") consultations were critical mediators of success. Conclusion: In the exceptional circumstances encountered during the COVID-19 pandemic, many ICUs were managed by a composite workforce of IC-certified and redeployed personnel. Although supervision is critical for safe care, supervisory roles were not clearly related to the amount of prior ICU experience. Vital for satisfaction with the quality of care was the span of control for those who assumed supervisory roles (i.e., the ratio of certified to noncertified personnel). Stable teams that matched less experienced personnel with more experienced personnel; a strong, interprofessional, collaborative atmosphere; a robust culture of informal consultation; and judicious, more flexible use of rules and regulations proved to be essential.
Project description:ObjectivesThe objectives were to categorise the evidence, map out the existing studies and explore what was known about the organisation of paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) during the first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, this review set out to identify any knowledge gaps in the literature and recommend areas for future research.DesignScoping review.MethodsThis study used Arksey and O'Malley's six-stage scoping review framework. A comprehensive search was conducted using the following databases, CINAHL Complete; MEDLINE; PsycINFO; PsycARTICLES and EMBASE and grey literature search engines. A search strategy with predefined inclusion criteria was used to uncover relevant research in this area. Screening and data collection were done in duplicate.Results47 631 articles were obtained through searching. However, only 25 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Three dominant themes emerged from the literature: (1) the reorganisation of space for managing increased capacity; (2) increased staffing and support; and (3) the resulting challenges.ConclusionCOVID-19 has strained institutional resources across the globe. To relieve the burden on intensive care units (ICUs), some PICUs adjusted their units to care for critically ill adults, with other PICUs making significant changes, including the redeployment of staff to adult ICUs to provide extra care for adults. Overall, PICUs were collectively well equipped to care for adult patients, with care enhanced by implementing elements of holistic, family-centred PICU practices. The pandemic fostered a collaborative approach among PICU teams and wider hospital communities. However, specific healthcare guidelines had to be created to safely care for adult patients.
Project description:Due to COVID 19 (Corona virus disease)pandemic, majority of surgeries, including surgery for cancer patients got delayed across the globe. Surgeries were limited to emergency set up only. At our institute we tried to perform colorectal cancer surgeries through out the pandemic, albeit in less numbers, as we thought cancer in itself is an emergency setting. we are planning to analyse the prospectively managed database of this particular group of patients over a period of last six 6 months and look out at 30 day post operative morbidity and mortality. Besides we will try to analyse the implications of our decision to carry on with cancer surgeries in terms of number of health care workers who got infected while being involved in primary care of these patients.