Effects of dynamic response to coronavirus disease outbreak in a regional emergency medical center: A retrospective study.

ABSTRACT: Emergency departments (EDs) are on the frontline of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. To resolve the abrupt overloading of COVID-19-suspected patients in a community, each ED needs to respond in various ways. In our hospital, we increased the isolation beds through temporary remodeling and by performing in-hospital COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction testing rather than outsourcing them. The aim of this study was to verify the effects of our response to the newly developed viral outbreak.The medical records of patients who presented to an ED were analyzed retrospectively. We divided the study period into 3: pre-COVID-19, transition period of response (the period before fully implementing the response measures), and post-response (the period after complete response). We compared the parameters of the National Emergency Department Information System and information about isolation and COVID-19.The number of daily ED patients was 86.8 ±â€Š15.4 in the pre-COVID-19, 36.3 ±â€Š13.6 in the transition period, and 67.2 ±â€Š10.0 in the post-response period (P < .001). The lengths of stay in the ED were significantly higher in transition period than in the other periods [pre-COVID-19 period, 219.0 (121.0-378.0) min; transition period, 301 (150.0-766.5) min; post-response period, 281.0 (114.0-575.0) min; P < .001]. The ratios of use of an isolation room and fever (≥37.5°C) were highest in the post-response period [use of isolation room: pre-COVID-19 period, 0.6 (0.7%); transition period, 1.2 (3.3%); post-response period, 16.1 (24.0%); P < .001; fever: pre-COVID-19 period, 14.8(17.3%); transition period, 6.8 (19.1%); post-response period, 14.5 (21.9%), P < .001].During an outbreak of a novel infectious disease, increasing the number of isolation rooms in the ED and applying a rapid confirmation test would enable the accommodation of more suspected patients, which could help reduce the risk posed to the community and thus prevent strain on the local emergency medical system.

2021 Clinical Practice Guidelines for Diabetes Mellitus of the Korean Diabetes Association.

The Committee of Clinical Practice Guidelines of the Korean Diabetes Association (KDA) updated the previous clinical practice guidelines for Korean adults with diabetes and prediabetes and published the seventh edition in May 2021. We performed a comprehensive systematic review of recent clinical trials and evidence that could be applicable in real-world practice and suitable for the Korean population. The guideline is provided for all healthcare providers including physicians, diabetes experts, and certified diabetes educators across the country who manage patients with diabetes or the individuals at the risk of developing diabetes mellitus. The recommendations for screening diabetes and glucose-lowering agents have been revised and updated. New sections for continuous glucose monitoring, insulin pump use, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in patients with diabetes mellitus have been added. The KDA recommends active vaccination for coronavirus disease 2019 in patients with diabetes during the pandemic. An abridgement that contains practical information for patient education and systematic management in the clinic was published separately.

Impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak on the transportation of patients requiring emergency care.

The first confirmed community transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 in Daegu Metropolitan City, South Korea, occurred on February 18, 2020. In the following 70-day period, approximately 6000 new cases occurred, severely impacting the medical service system. This study investigated the crisis-impact on the local emergency transport system.Emergency medical service activity reports were retrospectively reviewed to determine patient demographics and initial vital signs. Delay in reaching the patient, transporting the patient to the hospital, and returning to the fire station were assessed and categorized based on patients' initial vital signs. The study period was divided into 4 groups (1/1-2/18, 2/19-3/3, 3/4-3/31, and 4/1-04/30) and intergroup differences were analyzed.When compared to Period 1, the time-difference between the request to attend a scene and arrival at the scene was delayed in Periods 2, 3, and 4 by 4 minute 58 s, 3  minute 24 seconds, and 2 minute 20 seconds, respectively; that between arriving at the scene and at the hospital was delayed by 7  minute 43 seconds, 6 minutes 59 seconds, and 4 minutes 30 seconds, respectively; and that between arriving at the hospital and returning to the fire station was delayed by 29  minute 3 second, 25  minute 55 second, and 18  minute 44 second, respectively. In Period 2, for patients with symptoms of severe illness when compared to patients lacking such symptoms, the time-difference between the request to attend the scene and arrival at a hospital and between arrival at the hospital and returning to the fire station were 6 to 23 minute and 12 to 48 minute longer, respectively. Most of the delays impacted patients with a fever. In terms of condition, the statistical effect size for delay in transport time was from large to small: fever, hypoxia, abnormal respiratory rate, respiratory symptom, and hypotension.Outbreaks of infectious disease cause a paradoxical state in emergency medical transport systems, inducing delays in the transport of severely ill patients. Therefore, maintenance and improvement of the medical service system for both patients with infectious disease and those with other severe illnesses is required.