Emergency department crowding and hospital transformation during COVID-19, a retrospective, descriptive study of a university hospital in Stockholm, Sweden.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 presents challenges to the emergency care system that could lead to emergency department (ED) crowding. The Huddinge site at the Karolinska university hospital (KH) responded through a rapid transformation of inpatient care capacity together with changing working methods in the ED. The aim is to describe the KH response to the COVID-19 crisis, and how ED crowding, and important input, throughput and output factors for ED crowding developed at KH during a 30-day baseline period followed by the first 60 days of the COVID-19 outbreak in Stockholm Region. METHODS: Different phases in the development of the crisis were described and identified retrospectively based on major events that changed the conditions for the ED. Results were presented for each phase separately. The outcome ED length of stay (ED LOS) was calculated with mean and 95% confidence intervals. Input, throughput, output and demographic factors were described using distributions, proportions and means. Pearson correlation between ED LOS and emergency ward occupancy by phase was estimated with 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: As new working methods were introduced between phase 2 and 3, ED LOS declined from mean (95% CI) 386 (373-399) minutes to 307 (297-317). Imaging proportion was reduced from 29 to 18% and admission rate increased from 34 to 43%. Correlation (95% CI) between emergency ward occupancy and ED LOS by phase was 0.94 (0.55-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to avoid ED crowding, even during extreme and quickly changing conditions by leveraging previously known input, throughput and output factors. One key factor was the change in working methods in the ED with higher competence, less diagnostics and increased focus on rapid clinical admission decisions. Another important factor was the reduction in bed occupancy in emergency wards that enabled a timely admission to inpatient care. A key limitation was the retrospective study design.

Do-Not-Attempt-Cardiopulmonary-Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions in patients admitted through the emergency department in a Swedish University Hospital - An observational study of outcome, patient characteristics and changes in DNACPR decisions.

AIMS: The aims were to examine patient and hospital characteristics associated with Do-Not-Attempt-Cardiopulmonary-Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions for adult admissions through the emergency department (ED), for patients with DNACPR decisions to examine patient and hospital characteristics associated with hospital mortality, and to explore changes in CPR status. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of adult patients admitted through the ED at Karolinska University Hospital 1 January to 31 October 2015. RESULTS: The cohort included 25,646 ED admissions, frequency of DNACPR decisions was 11% during hospitalisation. Patients with DNACPR decisions were older, with an overall higher burden of chronic comorbidities, unstable triage scoring, hospital mortality and one-year mortality compared to those without. For patients with DNACPR decisions, 63% survived to discharge and one-year mortality was 77%. Age and comorbidities for patients with DNACPR decisions were similar regardless of hospital mortality, those who died showed signs of more severe acute illness on ED arrival. Change in CPR status during hospitalisation was 5% and upon subsequent admission 14%. For patients discharged with DNACPR decisions, reversal of DNACPR status upon subsequent admission was 32%, with uncertainty as to whether this reversal was active or a consequence of a lack of consideration. CONCLUSION: For a mixed population of adults admitted through the ED, frequency of DNACPR decisions was 11%. Two-thirds of patients with DNACPR decisions were discharged, but one-year mortality was high. For patients discharged with DNACPR decisions, reversal of DNACPR status was substantial and this should merit further attention.

2021 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations: Summary From the Basic Life Support; Advanced Life Support; Neonatal Life Support; Education, Implementation, and Teams; First Aid Task Forces; and the COVID-19 Working Group.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the fifth annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations; a more comprehensive review was done in 2020. This latest summary addresses the most recently published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task force science experts. Topics covered by systematic reviews in this summary include resuscitation topics of video-based dispatch systems; head-up cardiopulmonary resuscitation; early coronary angiography after return of spontaneous circulation; cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the prone patient; cord management at birth for preterm and term infants; devices for administering positive-pressure ventilation at birth; family presence during neonatal resuscitation; self-directed, digitally based basic life support education and training in adults and children; coronavirus disease 2019 infection risk to rescuers from patients in cardiac arrest; and first aid topics, including cooling with water for thermal burns, oral rehydration for exertional dehydration, pediatric tourniquet use, and methods of tick removal. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the quality of the evidence, according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations or good practice statements. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in Justification and Evidence-to-Decision Framework Highlights sections. In addition, the task forces listed priority knowledge gaps for further research.

Cardiac arrest in COVID-19: characteristics and outcomes of in- and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. A report from the Swedish Registry for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.

AIM: To study the characteristics and outcome among cardiac arrest cases with COVID-19 and differences between the pre-pandemic and the pandemic period in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). METHOD AND RESULTS: We included all patients reported to the Swedish Registry for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation from 1 January to 20 July 2020. We defined 16 March 2020 as the start of the pandemic. We assessed overall and 30-day mortality using Cox regression and logistic regression, respectively. We studied 1946 cases of OHCA and 1080 cases of IHCA during the entire period. During the pandemic, 88 (10.0%) of OHCAs and 72 (16.1%) of IHCAs had ongoing COVID-19. With regards to OHCA during the pandemic, the odds ratio for 30-day mortality in COVID-19-positive cases, compared with COVID-19-negative cases, was 3.40 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31-11.64]; the corresponding hazard ratio was 1.45 (95% CI 1.13-1.85). Adjusted 30-day survival was 4.7% for patients with COVID-19, 9.8% for patients without COVID-19, and 7.6% in the pre-pandemic period. With regards to IHCA during the pandemic, the odds ratio for COVID-19-positive cases, compared with COVID-19-negative cases, was 2.27 (95% CI 1.27-4.24); the corresponding hazard ratio was 1.48 (95% CI 1.09-2.01). Adjusted 30-day survival was 23.1% in COVID-19-positive cases, 39.5% in patients without COVID-19, and 36.4% in the pre-pandemic period. CONCLUSION: During the pandemic phase, COVID-19 was involved in at least 10% of all OHCAs and 16% of IHCAs, and, among COVID-19 cases, 30-day mortality was increased 3.4-fold in OHCA and 2.3-fold in IHCA.