Flow impacts of hot/cold zone infection control procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic forced emergency departments (EDs) to change operations to minimize nosocomial infection risk. Many EDs cohort patients using provincial screening tools at triage. Despite cohorting, staff exposures occurred in the 'cold zone' due to lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) use with patients deemed low risk, resulting in staff quarantines. The cohorting strategy was perceived to lengthen time to physician initial assessment and ED length of stay times in our ED without protecting staff well enough due to varying PPE use. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of hot/cold zones for patient cohorting during a viral pandemic on ED length of stay. METHODS: We conducted an interrupted time series analysis 3 weeks before and after the removal of hot/cold zone care space cohorting in our ED. In the before period, staff did not routinely wear full PPE to see cold zone patients. After removal, staff wore full PPE to see almost all patients. We collected data on ED length of stay, physician initial assessment times, arrival-to-room times, patient volumes, Canadian Triage Acuity Score (CTAS), admissions, staff hours of coverage, as well as proportions of patients on droplet/contact precautions and COVD-19 positive patients. The primary outcome was median ED length of stay. RESULTS: After the removal of the hot/cold divisions, there was a decrease in the adjusted median ED length of stay by 24 min (95% CI 14; 33). PPE use increased in the after arm of the study. The interrupted time series analysis suggested a decrease in median ED length of stay after removal, although the change in slope and difference did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Cohorted waiting areas may provide a safety benefit without operational compromise, but cohorting staff and care spaces is likely to compromise efficiency and create delays.

RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: La pandémie de COVID-19 a contraint les services d'urgence (SU) à modifier leur fonctionnement afin de minimiser le risque d'infection nosocomiale. De nombreux SU regroupaient des patients à l'aide d'outils de dépistage provinciaux au triage. Malgré la constitution de cohortes, les expositions du personnel se sont produites dans la "zone froide" en raison du manque d'utilisation d'équipements de protection individuelle (EPI) avec des patients jugés à faible risque, ce qui a entraîné la mise en quarantaine du personnel. Dans notre service d'urgence, la stratégie de cohorte a été perçue comme prolongeant l'évaluation initiale des médecins et la durée du séjour dans le service sans pour autant protéger suffisamment le personnel en raison de l'utilisation variable des EPI. L'objectif de cette étude était d'évaluer l'impact des zones chaudes/froides pour le regroupement de patients lors d'une pandémie virale sur la durée du séjour à l'urgence. MéTHODES: Nous avons réalisé une analyse de séries chronologiques interrompues trois semaines avant et après la suppression de la cohorte d'espace de soins en zone chaude/froide dans nos urgences. Au cours de la période précédente, le personnel ne portait pas systématiquement un EPI complet pour voir les patients des zones froides. Après le retrait, le personnel a porté un EPI complet pour voir presque tous les patients. Nous avons recueilli des données sur la durée du séjour aux urgences, les délais d'évaluation initiale par les médecins, les délais d'arrivée en salle, le volume de patients, L'échelle canadienne de triage et de gravité (ÉTG), les admissions, les heures de couverture du personnel, ainsi que les proportions de patients ayant reçu des précautions contre les gouttelettes et les contacts et de patients positifs au COVD-19. Le critère de jugement principal était la durée médiane du séjour aux urgences. RéSULTATS: Après la suppression des divisions chaudes/froides, la durée médiane ajustée du séjour aux urgences a diminué de 24 minutes (IC à 95 % : 14 ; 33). L'utilisation des EPI a augmenté dans le groupe suivant de l'étude. L'analyse des séries chronologiques interrompues suggère une diminution de la durée médiane de séjour aux urgences après le retrait, bien que le changement de la pente et de la différence n'ait pas atteint la signification statistique. CONCLUSION: Les zones d'attente en cohorte peuvent offrir un avantage en matière de sécurité sans compromis sur le plan opérationnel, mais le regroupement du personnel et des espaces de soins est susceptible de compromettre l'efficacité et de créer des retards.

The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Emergency Department Visits at a Canadian Academic Tertiary Care Center.

INTRODUCTION: Public health response to the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has emphasized social distancing and stay-at-home policies. Reports of decreased emergency department (ED) visits in non-epicenters of the outbreak have raised concerns that patients with non-COVID-19 emergencies are delaying or avoiding seeking care. We evaluated the impact of the pandemic on ED visits at an academic tertiary care center. METHODS: We conducted an observational health records review between January 1-April 22, 2020, comparing characteristics of all ED visits between pre- and post-pandemic declaration by the World Health Organization. Measures included triage acuity, presenting complaints, final diagnoses, disposition, and mortality. We further examined three time-sensitive final diagnoses: stroke; sepsis; and acute coronary syndrome (ACS). RESULTS: In this analysis, we included 44,497 ED visits. Average daily ED visits declined from 458.1 to 289.0 patients/day (-36.9%). For the highest acuity triaged patients there was a drop of 1.1 patients/day (-24.9%). Daily ED visits related to respiratory complaints increased post-pandemic (+14.1%) while ED visits for many other complaints decreased, with the greatest decline in musculoskeletal (-52.5%) and trauma (-53.6%). On average there was a drop of 1.0 patient/day diagnosed with stroke (-17.6%); a drop of 1.6 patients/day diagnosed with ACS (-49.9%); and no change in patients diagnosed with sepsis (pre = 2.8 patients/day; post = 2.9 patients/day). CONCLUSION: Significant decline in ED visits was observed immediately following formal declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, with potential for delayed/missed presentations of time-sensitive emergencies. Future research is needed to better examine long-term clinical outcomes of the decline in ED visits during pandemics.

Physician preparedness for resource allocation decisions under pandemic conditions: A cross-sectional survey of Canadian physicians, April 2020.

BACKGROUND: Under the pandemic conditions created by the novel coronavirus of 2019 (COVID-19), physicians have faced difficult choices allocating scarce resources, including but not limited to critical care beds and ventilators. Past experiences with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and current reports suggest that making these decisions carries a heavy emotional toll for physicians around the world. We sought to explore Canadian physicians' preparedness and attitudes regarding resource allocation decisions. METHODS: From April 3 to April 13, 2020, we conducted an 8-question online survey of physicians practicing in the region of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, organized around 4 themes: physician preparedness for resource rationing, physician preparedness to offer palliative care, attitudes towards resource allocation policy, and approaches to resource allocation decision-making. RESULTS: We collected 219 responses, of which 165 were used for analysis. The majority (78%) of respondents felt "somewhat" or "a little prepared" to make resource allocation decisions, and 13% felt "not at all prepared." A majority of respondents (63%) expected the provision of palliative care to be "very" or "somewhat difficult." Most respondents (83%) either strongly or somewhat agreed that there should be policy to guide resource allocation. Physicians overwhelmingly agreed on certain factors that would be important in resource allocation, including whether patients were likely to survive, and whether they had dementia and other significant comorbidities. Respondents generally did not feel confident that they would have the social support they needed at the time of making resource allocation decisions. INTERPRETATION: This rapidly implemented survey suggests that a sample of Canadian physicians feel underprepared to make resource allocation decisions, and desire both more emotional support and clear, transparent, evidence-based policy.