Implementing mixed nursing care teams in intensive care units during COVID-19: A rapid qualitative descriptive study.

AIMS: The goal of this study was to gain insight into the views and experiences of an intensive care team working in a new nursing-care delivery model during the COVID-19 waves. A new model of care was implemented to augment nursing capacity and provide sufficient intensive care beds. DESIGN: A qualitative monocentric study using rapid qualitative descriptive methods was reported in line with the COREQ checklist. METHODS: Nurse, ward manager and physician participants were purposively recruited between January and March 2021 in a tertiary university-affiliated hospital in the Flemish-speaking part of Belgium. Semistructured interviews were conducted and analysed using thematic analysis methods. RESULTS: The participants were seventeen expert nurses, twelve supporting nurses, seven ward managers and four physicians. A central theme of ensuring safe, high-quality care emerged from the findings. There was a sense of losing one's grip on clinical practice when working in the mixed nursing-care teams. Different underlying experiences played a part in this sense of losing control: dealing with unknown elements, experiencing role ambiguity, struggling with responsibility and the absence of trust. Several coping mechanisms were developed by the nursing-care team to deal with those experiences, including attempts to create stability, to strike a balance between delegating and educating, to build in control and to communicate openly. CONCLUSION: In this rapid qualitative descriptive study, the implementation of a new nursing-care delivery model during a pandemic was seen to lead to several challenges for all members of the care team. Coping mechanisms were developed by the team to deal with these experienced challenges. IMPACT: When rethinking nursing-care delivery models, the findings of this study may help guide the process of implementing mixed nursing-care teams. Special attention needs to be paid to clarifying roles, sharing responsibility and clinical leadership. Other significant influences (such as moral distress) should also be taken into account.

Shifting Nursing Care Models as a Solution for the Increasing Demand on Intensive Care Unit Beds During a Pandemic: A Case Study.

AIM: An option appraisal of different nursing care delivery models was presented, which were made in between the first and second COVID-19 waves. The authors wanted to inform colleagues on involving nursing care delivery models in the problem-solving process during a pandemic. LOCAL PROBLEM: In the pre-COVID-19 hospital practice, the nursing care delivery model of primary nursing was applied in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, this situation could not be upheld because of the increased need for ICU beds and the shortages of available ICU nurses. METHODS: This study used the literature of an ongoing systematic review on nursing care delivery models and expert meetings between the authors and nursing staff. RESULTS: One standard nursing care delivery model and 3 alternative nursing care delivery models were discussed and compared in this case study. Theoretically, a modular system of team nursing seemed the better model to use during a pandemic. This model leads to an equal distribution of expertise and social distancing between experts. Compared with the other models, a strategic reserve can be created. CONCLUSION: This case study should be primarily considered as an example on how rethinking and reorganizing the nursing care delivery model could contribute to an enlarged, qualitative capacity, which needs to be organized in a short time span.

Early resuscitation orders in hospitalized oldest-old with COVID-19: A multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In particular older people are at risk of mortality due to corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Advance care planning is essential to assist patient autonomy and prevent non-beneficial medical interventions. AIM: To describe early (taken within 72 h after hospital admission) resuscitation orders in oldest-old hospitalized with COVID-19. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of patients aged 80 years and older admitted to the acute hospital in March and April 2020 with COVID-19 were retrospectively recruited from 10 acute hospitals in Belgium. Recruitment was done through a network of geriatricians. RESULTS: Overall, 766 octogenarians were admitted of whom 49 were excluded because no therapeutic relationship with the geriatrician and six because of incomplete case report form. Early decisions not to consider intensive care admission were taken in 474/711 (66.7%) patients. This subgroup was characterized by significantly higher age, higher number of comorbidities and higher frailty level. There was a significant association between the degree of the treatment limitation and the degree of premorbid frailty (p < 0.001). Overall in-hospital mortality was 41.6% in patients with an early decision not to consider intensive care admission (67.1% in persons who developed respiratory failure vs 16.7% in patients without respiratory failure (p < 0.001)). Of 104 patients without early decision not to consider intensive care admission but who developed respiratory failure, 59 were eventually not transferred to intensive care unit with in-hospital mortality of 25.4%; 45 were transferred to the intensive care unit with mortality of 64.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Geriatricians applied all levels of treatment in oldest-old hospitalized with COVID-19. Early decisions not to consider intensive care admission were taken in two thirds of the cohort of whom more than 50% survived to hospital discharge by means of conservative treatment.

Prediction of hospital bed capacity during the COVID- 19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Prediction of the necessary capacity of beds by ward type (e.g. ICU) is essential for planning purposes during epidemics, such as the COVID- 19 pandemic. The COVID- 19 taskforce within the Ghent University hospital made use of ten-day forecasts on the required number of beds for COVID- 19 patients across different wards. METHODS: The planning tool combined a Poisson model for the number of newly admitted patients on each day with a multistate model for the transitions of admitted patients to the different wards, discharge or death. These models were used to simulate the required capacity of beds by ward type over the next 10 days, along with worst-case and best-case bounds. RESULTS: Overall, the models resulted in good predictions of the required number of beds across different hospital wards. Short-term predictions were especially accurate as these are less sensitive to sudden changes in number of beds on a given ward (e.g. due to referrals). Code snippets and details on the set-up are provided to guide the reader to apply the planning tool on one's own hospital data. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to achieve a fast setup of a planning tool useful within the COVID- 19 pandemic, with a fair prediction on the needed capacity by ward type. This methodology can also be applied for other epidemics.

Antiphospholipid antibodies in patients with COVID-19: A relevant observation?

BACKGROUND: High incidence of thrombosis in COVID-19 patients indicates a hypercoagulable state. Hence, exploring the involvement of antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) in these patients is of interest. OBJECTIVES: To illustrate the incidence of criteria (lupus anticoagulant [LAC], anticardiolipin [aCL] immunoglobulin G [IgG]/IgM, antibeta2-glycoprotein I antibodies [aß2GPI] IgG/IgM) and noncriteria (anti-phosphatidyl serine/prothrombin [aPS/PT], aCL, and aß2GPI IgA) aPL in a consecutive cohort of critically ill SARS-CoV-2 patients, their association with thrombosis, antibody profile and titers of aPL. PATIENTS/METHODS: Thirty-one consecutive confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit were included. aPL were measured at one time point, with part of the aPL-positive patients retested after 1 month. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were single LAC-positive, two triple-positive, one double-positive, one single aCL, and three aCL IgG and LAC positive. Seven of nine thrombotic patients had at least one aPL. Sixteen of 22 patients without thrombosis were aPL positive, amongst them two triple positives. Nine of 10 retested LAC-positive patients were negative on a second occasion, as well as the double-positive patient. Seven patients were aPS/PT-positive associated to LAC. Three patients were aCL and aß2GPI IgA-positive. CONCLUSION: Our observations support the frequent single LAC positivity during (acute phase) observed in COVID-19 infection; however, not clearly related to thrombotic complications. Triple aPL positivity and high aCL/aß2GPI titers are rare. Repeat testing suggests aPL to be mostly transient. Further studies and international registration of aPL should improve understanding the role of aPL in thrombotic COVID-19 patients.