Emergency management of neck stoma patients during the coronavirus pandemic: a national nurse survey.

BACKGROUND: Neck stoma patient care involves significant clinical complexity. Inadequate staff training, equipment provision and infrastructure have all been highlighted as causes for avoidable patient harm. AIMS: To establish the perception of knowledge and confidence levels relating to the emergency management of neck stomas among UK nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: A nationwide prospective electronic survey of both primary and secondary care nurses via the Royal College of Nursing and social media. FINDINGS: 402 responses were collated: 81 primary care and 321 secondary care; the majority (n=130) were band 5. Forty-nine per cent could differentiate between a laryngectomy and a tracheostomy; ENT nurses scored highest (1.56; range 0-2) on knowledge. Fifty-seven per cent could oxygenate a tracheostomy stoma correctly and 54% could oxygenate a laryngectomy stoma correctly. Sixty-five per cent cited inadequate neck stoma training and 91% felt inclusion of neck stoma training was essential within the nursing curriculum. CONCLUSION: Clinical deficiencies of management identified by nurses can be attributed to a lack of confidence secondary to reduced clinical exposure and education.

A Safe Approach to Percutaneous Tracheostomy for COVID-19 Patients in Intensive Care.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has placed a burden on critical care facilities worldwide. Patients who remain critically unwell with COVID-19 require prolonged periods of ventilation, and the burden of both the resources during a pandemic and the slow respiratory wean must be managed. Percutaneous tracheostomies are commonplace in long-term intensive care patients, yet little is known about their role in COVID-19, particularly how operator safety is maintained during the procedure. Here, we describe an approach designed to minimize cross-infection of the operators undertaking percutaneous tracheostomies within this subset of patients. Focus should be on non-technical skills, prolonged periods of pre-oxygenation, and minimal ventilation during the procedure to minimize the risk of aerosolization generated from an open breathing system. Our modified technique demonstrates successful early experiences with no operators testing positive for COVID-19 or developing symptoms following any performed procedure.

The Effect of COVID on Nasal Fracture Management in ENT Emergency Clinics.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study. Objective: Management of nasal fractures is usually in ENT emergency clinics, with our center aiming to assess patients within 10-days. During 2020, there have been numerous lockdowns and social distancing measures implemented in the UK as a result of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID). This study aimed to assess the effect of COVID on nasal fracture management in ENT emergency clinics in terms of number of patients seen, time to follow up and their management strategies. Methods: All patients with suspected or confirmed nasal bone fractures presenting to the emergency department (ED) between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2020 at our major trauma center were analyzed in 2 groups depending on the year they were seen (2019 vs. 2020). Results: There was a total of 104 patients analyzed, with 51.4% decrease in the number of patients seen in 2020 versus 2019. The mean days to follow up in 2019 was 8.09 days and 7.65 days in 2020 (P = .37). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of patients seen within the 10-day target between years (2019 = 65.7% vs. 2020 = 76.5%, P = .35). The majority of patients were managed with manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) in 2019 (n = 32, 45.7%) vs. discharge from clinic in 2020 (n = 21, 61.8%). Conclusions: Our study shows a drastic reduction in the number of patients seen in ENT emergency clinic from 2019 to 2020. This is in-keeping with other studies that have shown a reduction in ED attendances, trauma admissions and admissions across other specialties all around the world.

Personal protective equipment: knowledge of the guidance.

BACKGROUND: On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a global pandemic in the wake of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. The unpredictable nature of transmission of COVID-19 requires a meticulous understanding of guidance on personal protective equipment (PPE) as published by WHO and Public Health England (PHE). AIM: To assess perceived confidence and knowledge of PHE guidance relating to PPE by nursing staff. METHODS: A nationwide survey was disseminated between May and June 2020 through social media platforms as well as internal mail via regulatory bodies and individual hospital trusts. RESULTS: Data were collated from 339 nurses. Perceived confidence as measured on a Likert scale was a mode score of 3/5, with the average score for knowledge-based questions being 5/10. Of the respondents, 47% cited insufficient training on PPE guidance, and 84% advocated further training. Conclusions: Unifying published PPE guidance and ensuring consistency in training can improve awareness, confidence, and knowledge among nursing staff.

Personal protective equipment guidance during a global pandemic: A statistical analysis of National perceived confidence, knowledge and educational deficits amongst UK-based doctors.

INTRODUCTION: On the 11th of March 2020, the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared a global pandemic following the upsurge of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Unprecedented global demand for personal protective equipment (PPE) resulted in restricted availability, as well as evolving guidance on use, the latter of which was complicated by conflicting guidance provided by numerous healthcare bodies. AIM: To assess perceived confidence and knowledge of PPE guidance as published by Public Health England (PHE) amongst doctors of varying specialties and grades. METHOD: A nationwide 11-point survey comprising of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and a 5-point Likert scale assessing perceived confidence was disseminated to UK-based doctors using multiple platforms. Statistical analysis using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey's honest significant difference (Tukey HSD) and Pearson's chi-squared test was undertaken to assess for statistical significance. RESULTS: Data collated from 697 respondents revealed that average perceived confidence was low across all specialties and grades. Notably, 59% (n = 411) felt they had received insufficient education regarding up-to-date guidance, with 81% (n = 565) advocating further training. Anaesthetics and ophthalmology were highest and lowest scoring specialties in knowledge-based MCQs, achieving scores of 59% and 31%, respectively. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences between specialty, but not grade. CONCLUSION: Ensuring uniformity in published guidance, coupled with education may aid knowledge and subsequent confidence regarding the appropriate use of PPE. The absence of a unified consensus and sustained training not only poses significant ramifications for patient and healthcare professional (HCP) safety, but also risks further depletion of already sparse resources. Because of the novelty of COVID-19, appropriate PPE is continually evolving leaving an absence in formal training and education. This paper reveals insight into confidence and knowledge of PPE amongst doctors of various specialities/grades during a global pandemic, highlighting key deficits in education and training.