The practice of regional anesthesia during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international survey of members of three regional anesthesia societies.

PURPOSE: To determine the preferences and attitudes of members of regional anesthesia societies during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We distributed an electronic survey to members of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Regional Anaesthesia-UK, and the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia & Pain Therapy. A questionnaire consisting of 19 questions was developed by a panel of experienced regional anesthesiologists and distributed by email to the participants. The survey covered the following domains: participant information, practice settings, preference for the type of anesthetic technique, the use of personal protective equipment, and oxygen therapy. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 729 participants from 73 different countries, with a response rate of 20.1% (729/3,630) for the number of emails opened and 8.5% (729/8,572) for the number of emails sent. Most respondents (87.7%) identified as anesthesia staff (faculty or consultant) and practiced obstetric and non-obstetric anesthesia (55.3%). The practice of regional anesthesia either expanded or remained the same, with only 2% of respondents decreasing their use compared with the pre-pandemic period. The top reasons for an increase in the use of regional anesthesia was to reduce the need for an aerosol-generating medical procedure and to reduce the risk of possible complications to patients. The most common reason for decreased use of regional anesthesia was the risk of urgent conversion to general anesthesia. Approximately 70% of the responders used airborne precautions when providing care to a patient under regional anesthesia. The most common oxygen delivery method was nasal prongs (cannula) with a surgical mask layered over it (61%). CONCLUSIONS: Given the perceived benefits of regional over general anesthesia, approximately half of the members of three regional anesthesia societies seem to have expanded their use of regional anesthesia techniques during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Déterminer les préférences et les attitudes des membres des sociétés d'anesthésie régionale pendant la pandémie de COVID-19. MéTHODE: Nous avons distribué un sondage électronique aux membres de l'American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, de Regional Anesthesia-UK et de l'European Society of Regional Anaesthesia & Pain Therapy. Un questionnaire composé de 19 questions a été élaboré par un panel d'anesthésiologistes régionaux d'expérience et distribué par courriel aux participants. Le sondage couvrait les domaines suivants : les renseignements sur les participants, les contextes de pratique, leur préférence quant au type de technique d'anesthésie, l'utilisation d'équipement de protection individuelle et l'oxygénothérapie RéSULTATS: Le sondage a été complété par 729 participants provenant de 73 pays différents, avec un taux de réponse de 20,1 % (729/3630) pour le nombre de courriels ouverts et de 8,5 % (729/8572) pour le nombre de courriels envoyés. La plupart des répondants (87,7 %) se sont identifiés comme anesthésiologistes (académique ou consultant) et pratiquaient l'anesthésie obstétricale et non obstétricale (55,3 %). Leur pratique de l'anesthésie régionale s'est étendue ou est demeurée inchangée, et seulement 2 % des répondants ont indiqué avoir diminué leur utilisation de cette pratique par rapport à la période pré-pandémique. Les principales raisons d'une augmentation de l'utilisation de l'anesthésie régionale étaient de réduire la nécessité d'une intervention médicale générant des aérosols et de réduire le risque de complications potentielles pour les patients. La raison la plus courante de diminution du recours à l'anesthésie régionale était le risque de conversion urgente à une anesthésie générale. Environ 70 % des intervenants ont utilisé des précautions en matière de propagation des aérosols lorsqu'ils procuraient des soins à un patient sous anesthésie régionale. La méthode d'administration d'oxygène la plus fréquemment utilisée était les canules nasales avec un masque chirurgical superposé (61 %). CONCLUSION: Compte tenu des avantages perçus de l'anesthésie régionale par rapport à l'anesthésie générale, environ la moitié des membres de trois sociétés d'anesthésie régionale semblent avoir élargi leur utilisation des techniques d'anesthésie régionale pendant la vague initiale de la pandémie de COVID-19.

Team Approach: Virtual Care in the Management of Orthopaedic Patients.

¼: Telemedicine and remote care administered through technology are among the fastest growing sectors in health care. The utilization and implementation of virtual-care technologies have further been accelerated with the recent COVID-19 pandemic. ¼: Remote, technology-based patient care is not a "one-size-fits-all" solution for all medical and surgical conditions, as each condition presents unique hurdles, and no true consensus exists regarding the efficacy of telemedicine across surgical fields. ¼: When implementing virtual care in orthopaedics, as with standard in-person care, it is important to have a well-defined team structure with a deliberate team selection process. As always, a team with a shared vision for the care they provide as well as a supportive and incentivized environment are integral for the success of the virtual-care mechanism. ¼: Future studies should assess the impact of primarily virtual, integrated, and multidisciplinary team-based approaches and systems of care on patient outcomes, health-care expenditure, and patient satisfaction in the orthopaedic population.

Post-discharge after surgery Virtual Care with Remote Automated Monitoring-1 (PVC-RAM-1) technology versus standard care: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if virtual care with remote automated monitoring (RAM) technology versus standard care increases days alive at home among adults discharged after non-elective surgery during the covid-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 8 acute care hospitals in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 905 adults (≥40 years) who resided in areas with mobile phone coverage and were to be discharged from hospital after non-elective surgery were randomised either to virtual care and RAM (n=451) or to standard care (n=454). 903 participants (99.8%) completed the 31 day follow-up. INTERVENTION: Participants in the experimental group received a tablet computer and RAM technology that measured blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, temperature, and body weight. For 30 days the participants took daily biophysical measurements and photographs of their wound and interacted with nurses virtually. Participants in the standard care group received post-hospital discharge management according to the centre's usual care. Patients, healthcare providers, and data collectors were aware of patients' group allocations. Outcome adjudicators were blinded to group allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was days alive at home during 31 days of follow-up. The 12 secondary outcomes included acute hospital care, detection and correction of drug errors, and pain at 7, 15, and 30 days after randomisation. RESULTS: All 905 participants (mean age 63.1 years) were analysed in the groups to which they were randomised. Days alive at home during 31 days of follow-up were 29.7 in the virtual care group and 29.5 in the standard care group: relative risk 1.01 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.02); absolute difference 0.2% (95% confidence interval -0.5% to 0.9%). 99 participants (22.0%) in the virtual care group and 124 (27.3%) in the standard care group required acute hospital care: relative risk 0.80 (0.64 to 1.01); absolute difference 5.3% (-0.3% to 10.9%). More participants in the virtual care group than standard care group had a drug error detected (134 (29.7%) v 25 (5.5%); absolute difference 24.2%, 19.5% to 28.9%) and a drug error corrected (absolute difference 24.4%, 19.9% to 28.9%). Fewer participants in the virtual care group than standard care group reported pain at 7, 15, and 30 days after randomisation: absolute differences 13.9% (7.4% to 20.4%), 11.9% (5.1% to 18.7%), and 9.6% (2.9% to 16.3%), respectively. Beneficial effects proved substantially larger in centres with a higher rate of care escalation. CONCLUSION: Virtual care with RAM shows promise in improving outcomes important to patients and to optimal health system function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04344665.