ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has influenced health care delivery significantly. Numerous studies have highlighted that trauma theater efficiency has decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, there is limited information as to exactly which stage of the patient theater journey is causing this decreased efficiency and whether efficiency can be improved. In the trauma theater of Warrington Hospital, United Kingdom, we have attempted to maintain trauma theater efficiency despite the requirement for increased infection control. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of additional COVID-19 infection control protocols on trauma theater efficiency in our center, considering the length of time taken for specific theater events, and to find out whether our interventions were successful in maintaining theater efficiency. METHODS: We compared the efficiency of the trauma theater in a busy unit in December 2019 (pre-COVID-19) and December 2020 (with COVID-19 protocols in place). We collected time logs for different theater events for each patient in December of both years and compared the data. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the average number of cases performed per session between the COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 time periods (P=.17). Theater start time was significantly earlier during the COVID-19 period (P<.001). There was no significant difference between the two periods in transport time, check-in time, preprocedure time, anesthetic time, and the time between cases (P>.05). A significant difference was observed in the check-out time between the two groups in the two time periods, with checking out taking longer during the COVID-19 period (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that our theater start times were earlier during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the overall theater efficiency was maintained despite the additional COVID-19 infection control protocols that were in place. These findings suggest that well-planned infection control protocols do not need to impede trauma theater efficiency in certain settings.
ABSTRACT
A 67-year-old man presented to his general practitioner with intermittent episodes of unilateral sciatica over a 2-month period for which he was referred for an outpatient MRI of his spine. This evidenced a significant lumbar vertebral mass that showed tight canal stenosis and compression of the cauda equina. The patient was sent to the emergency department for management by orthopaedic surgeons. He was mobilising independently, pain free on arrival and without neurological deficit on assessment. Clinically, this patient presented with no red flag symptoms of cauda equina syndrome or reason to suspect malignancy. In these circumstances, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines do not support radiological investigation of the spine outside of specialist services. However, in this case, investigation helped deliver urgent care for cancer that otherwise may have been delayed. This leads to the question, do the current guidelines meet clinical requirements?
Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma/diagnosis , Cauda Equina Syndrome/diagnosis , Prostatic Neoplasms/diagnosis , Spinal Neoplasms/complications , Spinal Stenosis/diagnosis , Adenocarcinoma/complications , Adenocarcinoma/secondary , Adenocarcinoma/therapy , Aged , Cauda Equina/diagnostic imaging , Cauda Equina Syndrome/blood , Cauda Equina Syndrome/etiology , Cauda Equina Syndrome/therapy , Chemoradiotherapy/methods , Humans , Image-Guided Biopsy , Kallikreins/blood , Lumbar Vertebrae/diagnostic imaging , Lumbar Vertebrae/pathology , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Male , Palliative Care/methods , Prostate/diagnostic imaging , Prostate/pathology , Prostate-Specific Antigen/blood , Prostatic Neoplasms/blood , Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology , Prostatic Neoplasms/therapy , Spinal Neoplasms/blood , Spinal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Spinal Neoplasms/secondary , Spinal Stenosis/etiology , Spinal Stenosis/therapy , Ultrasonography, InterventionalABSTRACT
AIMS: Our rural orthopaedic service has undergone service restructure during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to sustain hip fracture care. All adult trauma care has been centralised to the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital for assessment and medical input, before transferring those requiring operative intervention to the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital. We aim to review the impact of COVID-19 on hip fracture workload and service changes upon management of hip fractures. METHODS: We reviewed our prospectively maintained trust database and National Hip Fracture Database records for the months of March and April between the years 2016 and 2020. Our assessment included fracture pattern (intrascapular vs extracapsular hip fracture), treatment intervention, length of stay and mortality. RESULTS: We treated 288 patients during March and April between 2016 and 2020, with a breakdown of 55, 58, 53, 68, and 54 from 2016 to 2020 respectively. Fracture pattern distribution in the pre-COVID-19 years of 2016 to 2019 was 58% intracapsular and 42% extracapsular. In 2020 (COVID-19 period) the fracture patterns were 65% intracapsular and 35% extracapsular. Our mean length of stay was 13.1 days (SD 8.2) between 2016 to 2019, and 5.0 days (6.3) days in 2020 (p < 0.001). Between 2016 and 2019 we had three deaths in hip fracture patients, and one death in 2020. Hemiarthroplasty and dynamic hip screw fixation have been the mainstay of operative intervention across the five years and this has continued in the COVID-19 period. We have experienced a rise in conservatively managed patients; ten in 2020 compared to 14 over the previous four years. CONCLUSION: There has not been a reduction in the number of hip fractures during COVID-19 period compared to the same time period over previous years. In our experience, there has been an increase in conservative treatment and decreased length of stay during the COVID -19 period.Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-8:500-507.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic has subjected healthcare workers (HCWs) to high risk of infection through direct workplace exposure, coupled with increased workload and psychological stress. This review aims to determine the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mental health outcomes of hospital-based HCWs and formulate recommendations for future action. METHODS: A systematic review was performed between 31st December 2019 and 17th June 2020 through Ovid Medline and Embase databases (PROSPERO ID CRD42020181204). Studies were included for review if they investigated the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mental health outcomes of hospital-based HCWs and used validated psychiatric scoring tools. Prevalence of ICD-10 classified psychiatric disorders was the primary outcome measure. RESULTS: The initial search returned 436 articles. Forty-four studies were included in final analysis, with a total of 69,499 subjects. Prevalence ranges of six mental health outcomes were identified: depression 13.5%-44.7%; anxiety 12.3%-35.6%; acute stress reaction 5.2%-32.9%; post-traumatic stress disorder 7.4%-37.4%; insomnia 33.8%-36.1%; and occupational burnout 3.1%-43.0%. Direct exposure to SARS-CoV-2 patients was the most common risk factor identified for all mental health outcomes except occupational burnout. Nurses, frontline HCWs, and HCWs with low social support and fewer years of working experience reported the worst outcomes. CONCLUSION: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has significantly impacted the mental health of HCWs. Frontline staff demonstrate worse mental health outcomes. Hospitals should be staffed to meet service provision requirements and to mitigate the impact onmental health. This can be improved with access to rapid-response psychiatric teams and should be continually monitored throughout the pandemic and beyond its conclusion.