Variation in Communication and Family Visiting Policies in Italian Intensive Care Units during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Secondary Analysis of the COVISIT International Survey

Background: During COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions to in-person visiting of caregivers to patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) were applied in many countries. Our aim was to describe the variations in communication and family visiting policies in Italian ICUs during the pandemic. Methods: A secondary analysis from the COVISIT international survey was conducted, focusing on data from Italy. Results: Italian ICUs provided 118 (18%) responses out of 667 responses collected worldwide. A total of 12 Italian ICUs were at the peak of COVID-19 admissions at the time of the survey and 42/118 had 90% or more of patients admitted to ICU affected by COVID-19. During the COVID-19 peak, 74% of Italian ICUs adopted a no-in-person-visiting policy. This remained the most common strategy (67%) at the time of the survey. Information to families was provided by regular phone calls (81% in Italy versus 47% for the rest of the world). Virtual visiting was available for 69% and most commonly performed using devices provided by the ICU (71% in Italy versus 36% outside Italy). Conclusion: Our study showed that restrictions to the ICU applied during the COVID-19 pandemic were still in use at the time of the survey. The main means of communication with caregivers were telephone and virtual meetings.

Variation in Communication and Family Visiting Policies in Italian Intensive Care Units during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Secondary Analysis of the COVISIT International Survey.

BACKGROUND: During COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions to in-person visiting of caregivers to patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) were applied in many countries. Our aim was to describe the variations in communication and family visiting policies in Italian ICUs during the pandemic. METHODS: A secondary analysis from the COVISIT international survey was conducted, focusing on data from Italy. RESULTS: Italian ICUs provided 118 (18%) responses out of 667 responses collected worldwide. A total of 12 Italian ICUs were at the peak of COVID-19 admissions at the time of the survey and 42/118 had 90% or more of patients admitted to ICU affected by COVID-19. During the COVID-19 peak, 74% of Italian ICUs adopted a no-in-person-visiting policy. This remained the most common strategy (67%) at the time of the survey. Information to families was provided by regular phone calls (81% in Italy versus 47% for the rest of the world). Virtual visiting was available for 69% and most commonly performed using devices provided by the ICU (71% in Italy versus 36% outside Italy). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that restrictions to the ICU applied during the COVID-19 pandemic were still in use at the time of the survey. The main means of communication with caregivers were telephone and virtual meetings.

Facepiece filtering respirators with exhalation valve should not be used in the community to limit SARS-CoV-2 diffusion

During normal speech, a huge number of droplets are produced, and face covering may be effective in limiting the distance reached by the droplets, potentially reducing the transmission of the virus from individuals who are unaware that they are infected.1 Face covering with masks or tissue has been widely recommended as a complementary measure to reduce the infection rate in the community by limiting the excretion of droplets from asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals.2 In this context, some governments are ordering face covering, especially during activities when social distancing is impossible or difficult (eg, using public transportation and visiting grocery stores or supermarkets, etc).2,3 Such measures should be intended as a protection towards the community and not as self-protection. FFRs are disposable filtering media, designed to provide the wearer an inward protection from inhaling contaminants conveyed by respiratory droplets or aerosols.4 On one hand, this ‘panic buying’ of FFRs may have contributed to the lack of supplies available for those employed in risky settings, such as healthcare workers frequently exposed to aerosol generating procedures, and it has also likely encourages counterfeiting.5 On the other hand, the uncontrolled sale of FFRs to people who are unaware of their specific features and are untrained in their use can create additional risks: incorrect doffing procedures can increase cross contamination;a false perception of safety can reduce the compliance to other measures (ie, hand hygiene, respiratory etiquette, social distancing);and even worse, the use of FFRs with exhalation valves in the community may be an additional and underrecognized transmission source. The European Centres for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and Africa Centre for Disease Prevention and Control have provided clear statements against their use in the community setting.7,8 The US Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) recommended against their use in healthcare settings where a sterile field must be maintained, thus implying that the outward protection is not provided by FFRs.9 Recently, the City and County of San Francisco explicitly listed respirators with one-way valves among those forbidden for use in the community, clarifying that they ‘allow droplets out of the mask, putting others nearby at risk,’ thus not complying with the face-covering order.10 Communication campaigns should aim to promote the wearing of masks as a source control measure and to increase awareness that FFR supplies are already insufficient to protect highly exposed workers.

Personal protective equipment use by healthcare workers in intensive care unit during the early phase of COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: a secondary analysis of the PPE-SAFE survey.

BACKGROUND: Italy was the first Western country to be heavily affected by COVID-19. Healthcare workers (HCWs) were exposed to a high risk of occupational infection, partially due to insufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) supplies. This study aimed to describe the practices, availability, training, confidence in PPE use and the adverse effects due to extended PPE use, as reported by HCWs in Italy. We also aimed to provide a comparison between Italian data and those from other countries. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of a previously published international study, the PPE-SAFE Survey, conducted in April 2020. Data were analysed from the original study database. RESULTS: We analysed the responses from 380 healthcare workers based in Italy, out of the 2711 respondents to the international survey. Among the Italian respondents, FFP2 and FFP3 respirators or equivalent were the most used masks for routine tasks (respectively 188/380, 50%; and 163/380, 43%). The median time of wearing PPE without taking a break was 5 h [interquartile range (IQR) 4-6], with statistically significant difference from other countries [median 4 h (IQR 2-5) p < 0.0001]. In Italy, 249 out of 380 (65%) HCWs had never performed a formal fit test for a N95 mask or equivalent and 91/380 (24%) never had a partner for donning and doffing procedures. Most of the respondents (299/380, 79%) had received formal training in PPE use at any time. CONCLUSION: Most of the surveyed Italian HCWs reported working at above usual capacity, long shifts with PPE without breaks and routine use in intensive care unit of aerosol protection (e.g. FFP2/FFP3), hazmat suits and face shields/visors. The correct adherence to safety procedures (e.g. donning/doffing in pairs, performing fit test) has substantial scope for improvement in the future.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prone position: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: The ongoing pandemic of COVID-19 brought to the fore prone positioning as treatment for patients with acute respiratory failure. With the increasing number of patients in prone position, both spontaneously breathing and mechanically ventilated, cardiac arrest in this position is more likely to occur. This scoping review aimed to summarize the available evidence on cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prone position ('reverse CPR') and knowledge or research gaps to be further evaluated. The protocol of this scoping review was prospectively registered on 10th May 2020 in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/nfuh9). METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE and pre-print repositories (bioRxiv and medRxiv) for simulation, pre-clinical and clinical studies on reverse CPR until 31st May 2020. RESULTS: We included 1 study on manikins, 31 case reports (29 during surgery requiring prone position) and 2 nonrandomized studies describing reverse CPR. No studies were found regarding reverse CPR in patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Even if the algorithms provided by the guidelines on basic and advanced life support remain valid in cardiac arrest in prone position, differences exist in the methods of performing CPR. There is no clear evidence of superiority in terms of effectiveness of reverse compared to supine CPR in patients with cardiac arrest occurring in prone position. The quality of evidence is low and knowledge gaps (e.g. protocols, training of healthcare personnel, devices for skill acquisition) should be fulfilled by further research. Meanwhile, a case-by-case evaluation of patient and setting characteristics should guide the decision on how to start CPR in such cases.

Update I. A systematic review on the efficacy and safety of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19.

PURPOSE: To assess efficacy and safety of chloroquine (CQ)/hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for treatment or prophylaxis of COVID-19 in adult humans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE and two pre-print repositories (bioRxiv, medRxiv) were searched from inception to 8th June 2020 for RCTs and nonrandomized studies (retrospective and prospective, including single-arm, studies) addressing the use of CQ/HCQ in any dose or combination for COVID-19. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were included (6 RCTs, 26 nonrandomized, 29,192 participants). Two RCTs had high risk, two 'some concerns' and two low risk of bias (Rob2). Among nonrandomized studies with comparators, nine had high risk and five moderate risk of bias (ROBINS-I). Data synthesis was not possible. Low and moderate risk of bias studies suggest that treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 with CQ/HCQ may not reduce risk of death, compared to standard care. High dose regimens or combination with macrolides may be associated with harm. Postexposure prophylaxis may not reduce the rate of infection but the quality of the evidence is low. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19 should be treated with CQ/HCQ only if monitored and within the context of high quality RCTs. High quality data about efficacy/safety are urgently needed.

Medical masks and Respirators for the Protection of Healthcare Workers from SARS-CoV-2 and other viruses.

The use of medical masks and respirators as personal protective equipment is pivotal to reducing the level of biological hazard to which healthcare workers are exposed during the outbreak of highly diffusible pathogens, such as the recent novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Unfortunately, during this pandemic, supplies are rapidly running out worldwide, with potential consequences for the rate of occupational infections. Also, knowledge about specific characteristics of respirators is of utmost importance to select the proper type according to the clinical setting. A wide variety of literature is available on the topic, but mostly based on Influenza viruses infection models. Clinical evidence on the use of respirators is poor and interest in the topic has not been constant over time. A better understanding of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is needed, together with high-quality clinical data on the use of respirators or alternative devices. Moreover, healthcare workers, regardless of their level of experience, should receive specific training. This review aims to summarize the available evidence on the use of medical masks and respirators in the context of viral infections, especially the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).