ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to determine the clinical practice and barriers of ventilatory support management in COVID-19 patients in Saudi Arabia among respiratory therapists. METHODS: A validated questionnaire comprising three parts was distributed to all critical care respiratory therapists registered with the Saudi Society for Respiratory Care through the official social networks. RESULTS: A total of 74 respiratory therapists completed the survey. The mean (±standard deviation) of intensive care unit beds was 67 ± 79. Clinical presentation (54%) and arterial blood gas (38%) were the two main diagnostic tools used to initiate ventilatory support. While protocols for the initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV; 81%) were widely available, participants had limited availability of protocols for the use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV; 34%) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC; 34%). In mild cases of COVID-19, most respondents used HFNC (57%), while IMV was mostly used in moderate (43%) and severe (93%) cases. Regular ventilator check was mostly done every 4 h (57%). BiPAP (47.3%) and full-face masks (45.9%) were the most used mode and interface, respectively, while pressure-regulated volume control (55.4%) and pressure control (27%) were the most used mechanical ventilation modes for COVID-19 patients. In terms of use of proning, 62% used it on IMV, while 26% reported using awake proning. Staff shortage (51.4%), personal protective equipment (PPE) shortage (51.4%), increased workload (45.9%), inadequate training (43.2%) and lack of available protocols and policies (37.8%) were the main barriers. CONCLUSION: Ventilatory support management of COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia was inconsistent with the global practice, lacked uniformity, and there was limited use of standard protocols/treatment guidelines. Shortage of staff and PPE, increased workload and insufficient training were the most prevalent barriers.
ABSTRACT
Biomedical waste (BMW) management is an essential practice of healthcare professionals (HCPs) for preventing health and also environmental hazards. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic, posing significant challenges for healthcare sectors. A cross-sectional study was performed to assess the knowledge, practice, and attitude on BMW management among HCPs when taking care of patients with COVID-19 and associated with demographic variables. From Al-Ahsa healthcare sectors, 256 HCPs were selected randomly, of which 105 (41%) had excellent knowledge, 87 (34%) had good knowledge, and 64 (25%) had poor knowledge with a mean score of 13.1 ± 3.6. A higher mean score was (14.4 ± 3.2) obtained by physicians, and (13.6 ± 3.8) nurses than the other HCPs. Regarding practice, 72 (28.1%) HCPs used and discarded PPE while handling biomedical wastes. Additionally, 88 (34.4%) followed proper hand hygiene before and after each procedure and whenever needed. Physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists had a more favorable attitude than other HCPs. There was a statistically significant association found among knowledge level and educational qualification (p < 0.0001), gender (p < 0.001), and work experience (p < 0.05). Emphasis is needed to train all HCPs regarding proper BMW management during this pandemic to prevent infection transmission.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: As the global outbreak of COVID-19 continues to ravage the world, it is important to understand how frontline clinicians manage ventilatory support and the various limiting factors. METHODS: An online survey composed of 32 questions was developed and validated by an international expert panel. RESULTS: Overall, 502 respondents from 40 countries across six continents completed the survey. The mean number (±SD) of ICU beds was 64 ± 84. The most popular initial diagnostic tools used for treatment initiation were arterial blood gas (48%) and clinical presentation (37.5%), while the national COVID-19 guidelines were the most used (61.2%). High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) (53.8%), non-invasive ventilation (NIV) (47%), and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (92%) were mostly used for mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 cases, respectively. However, only 38.8%, 56.6% and 82.9% of the respondents had standard protocols for HFNC, NIV, and IMV, respectively. The most frequently used modes of IMV and NIV were volume control (VC) (36.1%) and continuous positive airway pressure/pressure support (CPAP/PS) (40.6%). About 54% of the respondents did not adhere to the recommended, regular ventilator check interval. The majority of the respondents (85.7%) used proning with IMV, with 48.4% using it for 12-16 hours, and 46.2% had tried awake proning in combination with HFNC or NIV. Increased staff workload (45.02%), lack of trained staff (44.22%) and shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) (42.63%) were the main barriers to COVID-19 management. CONCLUSION: Our results show that general clinical practices involving ventilatory support were highly heterogeneous, with limited use of standard protocols and most frontline clinicians depending on isolated and varied management guidelines. We found increased staff workload, lack of trained staff and shortage of PPE to be the main limiting factors affecting global COVID-19 ventilatory support management.