Non-rebreather mask and low-flow nasal cannula vs high-flow nasal cannula in severe COVID-19 pneumonia in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: To assess the effectiveness of non-rebreather mask combined with low-flow nasal cannula (NRB + NC) compared to high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in improving oxygenation in patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemic respiratory failure (HRF). METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted in emergency departments of two tertiary hospitals from June 1 to August 31, 2021. Consecutive patients aged >18 years admitted for COVID-19-related HRF (World Health Organization criteria: confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia with respiratory rate > 30 breaths/min, severe respiratory distress, or peripheral oxygen saturation < 90% on room air) requiring NRB + NC or HFNC were screened for enrollment. Primary outcome was improvement of partial pressure arterial oxygen (PaO2) at two hours. Secondary outcomes were intubation rate, ventilator-free days, hospital length of stay, and 28-day mortality. Data were analyzed using linear regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity score. RESULTS: Among the 110 patients recruited, 52 (47.3%) were treated with NRB + NC, and 58 (52.7%) with HFNC. There were significant improvements in patients' PaO2, PaO2/FIO2 ratio, and respiratory rate two hours after the initiation of NRB + NC and HFNC. Comparing the two groups, after IPTW adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in PaO2 improvement (adjusted mean ratio [MR] 2.81; 95% CI -5.82 to 11.43; p = .524), intubation rate (adjusted OR 1.76; 95% CI 0.44 to 6.92; p = .423), ventilator-free days (adjusted MR 0.00; 95% CI -8.84 to 8.85; p = .999), hospital length of stay (adjusted MR 3.04; 95% CI -2.62 to 8.69; p = .293), and 28-day mortality (adjusted OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.15 to 2.98; p = .608). CONCLUSION: HFNC may be beneficial in COVID-19 HRF. NRB + NC is a viable alternative, especially in resource-limited settings, given similar improvement in oxygenation at two hours, and no significant differences in long-term outcomes. The effectiveness of NRB + NC needs to be investigated by a powered randomized controlled trial.

Religious coping during the COVID-19 pandemic: Gender, occupational and socio-economic perspectives among Malaysian frontline healthcare workers

Objective: At the dawn of the new decade of the 20th century, the world was taken aback by the scourge of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study aimed to study the nature of religious coping of frontline healthcare workers seen through the perspective of gender, socio-economic status, and occupation. Methods: An online-based study was carried out among frontline healthcare workers involved in the care of COVID-19 patients (n = 200). Sociodemographic data form and the Brief Religious Coping scale were used in this study. Results: There were more female healthcare workers (60.5%) and doctors (69.5% vs. 30.5%). Healthcare workers used more positive religious coping than negative religious coping (median score: 22 vs. 9). Positive religious coping was seen more in females (median score: 23 vs. 21, P = .015). Non-doctors applied positive coping more than doctors (median score: 26 vs. 21, P < .001). There were significant differences in positive religious coping scores across income groups, with the B40 group having the highest score (median score: 24). Post hoc pairwise comparison concluded that the B40 group had significantly higher positive religious coping scores than the M40 group. Conclusion: Positive coping was utilized more among female healthcare workers, nondoctors, and the lowest socio-economic group. As prior literature has shown that positive religious coping is desirable and has superior mental health outcomes, our findings show that more effort should be channeled into enhancing positive religious coping, particularly among male healthcare workers, doctors, and the middle and high socio-economic group. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Assessment of burnout among emergency medicine healthcare workers in a teaching hospital in Malaysia during COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction:Burnout is a syndrome occurring from an overwhelming workplace stress. The study was done at a large teaching hospital identified as a COVID-19 treating hospital. During COVID-19 pandemic, the country was in Movement Control Order since 18 March 2020 to contain the spread of the virus, and thus, it has increased the job workload and responsibility. The purpose of this study was to identify the prevalence of burnout among emergency healthcare worker in this hospital and to identify the factors contributed to the burnout.Methods:A cross-sectional study was conducted using a questionnaire among emergency healthcare worker from 8 May 2020 to 15 May 2020 during the Conditional Movement Control Order. The questionnaire was adapted from Michelle Post, Public Welfare, Vol. 39, No. 1, 1981, American Public Welfare Association and distributed via Google Forms. It consisted of 28 questions and was rated based on a five-point Likert-type scale. The questions were then summed up to determine the burnout levels.Results:There were 216 respondents with 65.7% were nurses, 17.1% were doctors, and the rest were assistant medical officer. 51.3% of the respondents had burnout with 61.2% of nurses, 35.1% of doctors, and 29.6% of assistant medical officer. There was weak correlation (r?=?0.148) with the years of experience working in emergency department and the level of burnout (p?=?0.03). Among the burnout features were fatigue with 52.2% and frequent physical illness and feel unappreciated with 48.6% and 45.9%, respectively. The job-related issues which predisposed to burnout were demand coping with an angry public with 70.2%, job overload 63.9%, lack clear guideline or rapid program changes 54%, and pay too little 53.1%.Conclusion:Emergency healthcare worker has a high rate of burnout especially among the nurses. The factors leading to burnout were frequent exposure to angry public, job overload, lack of clear guidelines, and perception of underpaid.

COVID-19 aerosol box as protection from droplet and aerosol contaminations in healthcare workers performing airway intubation: a randomised cross-over simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Concerns over high transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2 have led to innovation and usage of an aerosol box to protect healthcare workers during airway intubation in patients with COVID-19. Its efficacy as a barrier protection in addition to the use of a standard personal protective equipment (PPE) is not fully known. We performed a simulated study to investigate the relationship between aerosol box usage during intubation and contaminations on healthcare workers pre-doffing and post-doffing of PPE. METHODS: This was a randomised cross-over study conducted between 9 April to 5 May 2020 in the ED of University Malaya Medical Centre. Postgraduate Emergency Medicine trainees performed video laryngoscope-assisted intubation on an airway manikin with and without an aerosol box in a random order. Contamination was simulated by nebulised Glo Germ. Primary outcome was number of contaminated front and back body regions pre-doffing and post-doffing of PPE of the intubator and assistant. Secondary outcomes were intubation time, Cormack-Lehane score, number of intubation attempts and participants' feedback. RESULTS: Thirty-six trainees completed the study interventions. The number of contaminated front and back body regions pre-doffing of PPE was significantly higher without the aerosol box (all p values<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the number of contaminations post-doffing of PPE between using and not using the aerosol box, with a median contamination of zero. Intubation time was longer with the aerosol box (42.5 s vs 35.5 s, p<0.001). Cormack-Lehane scores were similar with and without the aerosol box. First-pass intubation success rate was 94.4% and 100% with and without the aerosol box, respectively. More participants reported reduced mobility and visibility when intubating with the aerosol box. CONCLUSIONS: An aerosol box may significantly reduce exposure to contaminations but with increased intubation time and reduced operator's mobility and visibility. Furthermore, the difference in degree of contamination between using and not using an aerosol box could be offset by proper doffing of PPE.