Evolving swabbing practices for COVID-19 in a New Zealand emergency department during the early stages of an emerging pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To review if tests for suspected COVID-19 were performed according to the Ministry of Health (MoH) case definitions, identify patterns associated with testing outside of the case definition, and discuss the potential impacts on hospital services. METHODS: This was a retrospective audit of patients presenting to the Wellington Hospital ED between 24 March 2020 and 27 April 2020 who were swabbed for COVID-19 in ED. Swabs were audited against the March 15th and April 8th MoH COVID-19 case definitions. RESULTS: Five hundred and thirty-six COVID-19 swabs for 518 patients were taken during the study period. There was poor alignment of testing with the March 15th case definition, with only 11.6% of the 164 swabs taken during this period meeting the case definition. Of the 145 swabs that did not meet the case definition, the majority (n = 119, 82.1%) met symptom criteria only. Alignment of testing with the wider April 8th case definition was much higher with 88.2% meeting criteria. Factors associated with being swabbed despite not meeting the case definitions included fever >38°, a diagnosis of cancer, subsequent hospital admission, and for the March case definition only 'contact with a traveller'. CONCLUSION: There were associations found between testing outside of criteria and specific variables potentially perceived as high-risk. Poor alignment of testing with case definitions can impact hospital services through the (mis)use of limited laboratory testing capacity and implications for resource management. Improved communication and feedback between clinicians and policymakers may improve case definition implementation in a clinical setting.

Novel use of technology

The Glass communicated with the expert at home via Google Meet™ which, like using FaceTime or a phone call, do not record the encounter, but in addition include password-protected interactions that are on the same level, as is commonplace in workplace meetings these days. Currently underway is a similar study, in which we are utilising the learnings gathered from these two experiences and exploring alternative smart-glasses useability in the specific clinical setting of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) retrievals. Emergency Medicine Specialist, Clinical Lead Simulation Centre, Wellington Hospital, New Zealand.

Cruise ship patient presentation, admission, and intervention rates to the emergency department

AIMS: Patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs) from cruise ships are a unique cohort of patients with several management challenges. Little evidence details the effect this has on EDs in terms of resource use. Therefore, we aimed to review the frequency, characteristics, admission, and intervention rates of cruise ship patient presentations to ED. METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed patient presentations to Wellington ED from cruise ships between 2016 and 2019. Data regarding presenting features, intervention and disposition were extracted via chart review. RESULTS: There were 214 patient presentations included with a median age of 68 (IQR 43.0-76.0);97/214(45.3%) were female. Regarding referral, cruise ship doctors referred 79/214 (36.9%) patients;16/79 (24.1%) to in-patient specialties and 63/79 (79.7%) to emergency medicine (EM);and 135/214 (63%) self-referred to ED. Common presenting complaints were chest pain, abdominal pain and trauma. Advanced imaging was requested for 21.5% of patients and 9.9% required urgent intervention. Regarding disposition, 38% were admitted (22% to in-patient wards, 16% to ED observation unit [OU]) and 61% were discharged (30% by ED and 31% after specialty consultation). CONCLUSION: Overall, the number of cruise ship patients presenting to the ED was low and unlikely to be a significant resource burden. Referrals by cruise ship doctors were appropriate. Education for cruise ship patients and port services regarding non-emergent care options would be valuable to reduce self-referral rates.

Simulation Centers and Simulation-Based Education during the Time of COVID 19: A Multi-Center Best Practice Position Paper by the World Academic Council of Emergency Medicine.

COVID 19 struck us all like a bolt of lightning and for the past 10 months, it has tested our resilience, agility, creativity, and adaptability in all aspects of our lives and work. Simulation centers and simulation-based educational programs have not been spared. Rather than wait for the pandemic to be over before commencing operations and training, we have been actively looking at programs, reviewing alternative methods such as e-learning, use of virtual learning platforms, decentralization of training using in situ simulation (ISS) modeling, partnerships with relevant clinical departments, cross-training of staff to attain useful secondary skills, and many other alternatives and substitutes. It has been an eye-opening journey as we maximize our staff's talent and potential in new adoptions and stretching our goals beyond what we deemed was possible. This paper shares perspectives from simulation centers; The SingHealth Duke NUS Institute of Medical Simulation which is integrated with an Academic Medical Center in Singapore, The Robert and Dorothy Rector Clinical Skills and Simulation Center, which is integrated with Thomas Jefferson University, Oakhill Emergency Department, Florida State University Emergency Medicine Program, Florida, USA and The Wellington Regional Simulation and skills center. It describes the experiences from the time when COVID 19 first struck countries around the world to the current state whereby the simulation centers have stWWarting functioning in their "new norm." These centers were representative examples of those in countries which had extremely heavy (USA), moderate (Singapore) as well as light (New Zealand) load of COVID 19 cases in the nation. Whichever categories these centers were in, they all faced disruption and had to make the necessary adjustments, aligning with national policies and advisories. As there is no existing tried and tested model for the running of a simulation center during an infectious disease pandemic, this can serve as a landmark reference paper, as we continue to fine-tune and prepare for the next new, emerging infectious disease or crisis.