Physiological effects and subjective tolerability of prone positioning in COVID-19 and healthy hypoxic challenge.

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning has a beneficial role in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients receiving ventilation but lacks evidence in awake non-ventilated patients, with most studies being retrospective, lacking control populations and information on subjective tolerability. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, single-centre study of prone positioning in awake non-ventilated patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 pneumonia. The primary outcome was change in peripheral oxygenation in prone versus supine position. Secondary outcomes assessed effects on end-tidal CO2, respiratory rate, heart rate and subjective symptoms. We also recruited healthy volunteers to undergo proning during hypoxic challenge. RESULTS: 238 hospitalised patients with pneumonia were screened; 55 were eligible with 25 COVID-19 patients and three non-COVID-19 patients agreeing to undergo proning - the latter insufficient for further analysis. 10 healthy control volunteers underwent hypoxic challenge. Patients with COVID-19 had a median age of 64 years (interquartile range 53-75). Proning led to an increase in oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry (SpO2) compared to supine position (difference +1.62%; p=0.003) and occurred within 10 min of proning. There were no effects on end-tidal CO2, respiratory rate or heart rate. There was an increase in subjective discomfort (p=0.003), with no difference in breathlessness. Among healthy controls undergoing hypoxic challenge, proning did not lead to a change in SpO2 or subjective symptom scores. CONCLUSION: Identification of suitable patients with COVID-19 requiring oxygen supplementation from general ward environments for awake proning is challenging. Prone positioning leads to a small increase in SpO2 within 10 min of proning though is associated with increased discomfort.

Admission COVID-19 clinical risk assessment for guiding patient placement and diagnostic testing strategy.

INTRODUCTION: Without universal access to point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 testing, many hospitals rely on clinical judgement alone for identifying cases of COVID-19 early. METHODS: Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust introduced a 'traffic light' clinical judgement aid to the COVID-19 admissions unit in mid-March 2020. Ability to accurately predict COVID-19 was audited retrospectively across different stages of the epidemic. RESULTS: One SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive patient (1/41, 2%) was misallocated to a 'green' (non-COVID-19) area during the first period of observation, and no patients (0/32, 0%) were mislabelled 'green' during the second period. 33 of 62 (53%) labelled 'red' (high risk) tested SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive during the first period, while 5 of 22 (23%) 'red' patients were PCR positive in the second. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 clinical risk stratification on initial assessment effectively identifies non-COVID-19 patients. However, diagnosing COVID-19 is challenging and risk of overcalling COVID-19 should be recognised, especially when background prevalence is low.

Ethical principles and a practical approach to support policy making through the next phases of the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

There is an urgent need for an ethical framework to help us address the local and national challenges that we face as clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. We propose four key commitments from which a practical and consistent ethical approach can be derived. These commitments are to articulate the needs, rights and interests of the different stakeholders affected by any policy; to be accountable and transparent, recognising that people are autonomous individuals with values and concerns of their own; to consider the impact of our actions on the sustainability of the NHS, infrastructure, service demands and staff welfare; and to treat everybody equitably, with all deserving of consideration and care. Implementing these commitments will require a number of specific actions. We must put in place frameworks enabling clear advocacy for each competing objective; communicate policy and practice effectively to the public; promote integration of decision-making among social, primary, secondary and tertiary care and reduce or stop unnecessary or inefficient interventions; minimise health inequalities; and build spare capacity into the system.In this article, we expand on these actions, and note the legal context in which this would be delivered.