Family satisfaction with intensive care unit communication during the COVID-19 pandemic: a prospective multicentre Australian study Family Satisfaction - COVID ICU.

BACKGROUND: Virtual communication has become common practice during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic because of visitation restrictions. AIMS: The authors aimed to evaluate overall family satisfaction with the intensive care unit (FS-ICU) care involving virtual communication strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic period. METHODS: In this prospective multicentre study involving three metropolitan hospitals in Melbourne, Australia, the next of kin (NOK) of all eligible ICU patients between 1 July 2020 and 31 October 2020 were requested to complete an adapted version of the FS-ICU 24-questionnaire. Group comparisons were analysed and calculated for family satisfaction scores: ICU/care (satisfaction with care), FS-ICU/dm (satisfaction with information/decision-making) and FS-ICU/total (overall satisfaction with the ICU). The essential predictors that influence family satisfaction were identified using quantitative and qualitative analyses. RESULTS: Seventy-three of the 227 patients' NOK who initially agreed completed the FS-ICU questionnaire (response rate 32.2%). The mean FS-ICU/total was 63.9 (standard deviation [SD], 30.8). The mean score for satisfaction with FS-ICU/dm was lower than the FS-ICU/care (62.1 [SD, 30.3) vs 65.4 (SD, 31.4); P < 0.001]. There was no difference in mean FS-ICU/total scores between survivors (n = 65; 89%) and non-survivors (n = 8, 11%). Higher patient Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III score, female NOK and the patient dying in the ICU were independent predictors for FS-ICU/total score, while a telephone call at least once a day by an ICU doctor was related to family satisfaction for FS-ICU/dm. CONCLUSIONS: There was low overall family satisfaction with ICU care and virtual communication strategies adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Efforts should be targeted for improving factors with virtual communication that cause low family satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Development and validation of a tool to appraise guidelines on SARS-CoV-2 infection control strategies in healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines on infection control strategies in healthcare workers (HCWs) play an important role in protecting them during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic. Poorly constructed guidelines that are incomprehensive and/or ambiguous may compromise HCWs' safety. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop and validate a tool to appraise guidelines on infection control strategies in HCWs based on the guidelines published early in the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. DESIGN, SETTING, AND OUTCOMES: A three-stage, web-based, Delphi consensus-building process among a panel of diverse HCWs and healthcare managers was performed. The tool was validated by appraising 40 international, specialty-specific, and procedure-specific guidelines along with national guidelines from countries with a wide range of gross national income. RESULTS: Overall consensus (≥75%) was reached at the end of three rounds for all six domains included in the tool. The Delphi panel recommended an ideal infection control guideline should encompass six domains: general characteristics (domain 1), engineering recommendations (domain 2), personal protective equipment (PPE) use (domain 3), and administrative aspects (domain 4-6) of infection control. The appraisal tool performed well across the six domains, and the inter-rater agreement was excellent for the 40 guidelines. All included guidelines performed relatively better in domains 1-3 than in domains 4-6, and this was more evident in guidelines originating from lower income countries. CONCLUSION: The guideline appraisal tool was robust and easy to use. Engineering recommendations aspects of infection control, administrative measures that promote optimal PPE use, and HCW wellbeing were generally lacking in assessed guidelines. This tool may enable health systems to adopt high-quality HCW infection control guidelines during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic and may also provide a framework for future guideline development.

Case Fatality Rates for Patients with COVID-19 Requiring Invasive Mechanical Ventilation. A Meta-analysis.

Rationale: Initial reports of case fatality rates (CFRs) among adults with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are highly variable.Objectives: To examine the CFR of patients with COVID-19 receiving IMV.Methods: Two authors independently searched PubMed, Embase, medRxiv, bioRxiv, the COVID-19 living systematic review, and national registry databases. The primary outcome was the "reported CFR" for patients with confirmed COVID-19 requiring IMV. "Definitive hospital CFR" for patients with outcomes at hospital discharge was also investigated. Finally, CFR was analyzed by patient age, geographic region, and study quality on the basis of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.Measurements and Results: Sixty-nine studies were included, describing 57,420 adult patients with COVID-19 who received IMV. Overall reported CFR was estimated as 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39-52%). Fifty-four of 69 studies stated whether hospital outcomes were available but provided a definitive hospital outcome on only 13,120 (22.8%) of the total IMV patient population. Among studies in which age-stratified CFR was available, pooled CFR estimates ranged from 47.9% (95% CI, 46.4-49.4%) in younger patients (age ≤40 yr) to 84.4% (95% CI, 83.3-85.4%) in older patients (age >80 yr). CFR was also higher in early COVID-19 epicenters. Overall heterogeneity is high (I2 >90%), with nonsignificant Egger's regression test suggesting no publication bias.Conclusions: Almost half of patients with COVID-19 receiving IMV died based on the reported CFR, but variable CFR reporting methods resulted in a wide range of CFRs between studies. The reported CFR was higher in older patients and in early pandemic epicenters, which may be influenced by limited ICU resources. Reporting of definitive outcomes on all patients would facilitate comparisons between studies.Systematic review registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020186997).