Family satisfaction with intensive care unit communication during the COVID-19 pandemic: a prospective multicentre Australian study Family Satisfaction - COVID ICU.

BACKGROUND: Virtual communication has become common practice during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic because of visitation restrictions. AIMS: The authors aimed to evaluate overall family satisfaction with the intensive care unit (FS-ICU) care involving virtual communication strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic period. METHODS: In this prospective multicentre study involving three metropolitan hospitals in Melbourne, Australia, the next of kin (NOK) of all eligible ICU patients between 1 July 2020 and 31 October 2020 were requested to complete an adapted version of the FS-ICU 24-questionnaire. Group comparisons were analysed and calculated for family satisfaction scores: ICU/care (satisfaction with care), FS-ICU/dm (satisfaction with information/decision-making) and FS-ICU/total (overall satisfaction with the ICU). The essential predictors that influence family satisfaction were identified using quantitative and qualitative analyses. RESULTS: Seventy-three of the 227 patients' NOK who initially agreed completed the FS-ICU questionnaire (response rate 32.2%). The mean FS-ICU/total was 63.9 (standard deviation [SD], 30.8). The mean score for satisfaction with FS-ICU/dm was lower than the FS-ICU/care (62.1 [SD, 30.3) vs 65.4 (SD, 31.4); P < 0.001]. There was no difference in mean FS-ICU/total scores between survivors (n = 65; 89%) and non-survivors (n = 8, 11%). Higher patient Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III score, female NOK and the patient dying in the ICU were independent predictors for FS-ICU/total score, while a telephone call at least once a day by an ICU doctor was related to family satisfaction for FS-ICU/dm. CONCLUSIONS: There was low overall family satisfaction with ICU care and virtual communication strategies adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Efforts should be targeted for improving factors with virtual communication that cause low family satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Treatment limitations and clinical outcomes in critically ill frail patients with and without COVID-19 pneumonitis.

BACKGROUND: The presence of treatment limitations in patients with frailty at intensive care unit (ICU) admission is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the presence and predictors of treatment limitations in patients with and without COVID-19 pneumonitis in those admitted to Australian and New Zealand ICUs. METHODS: This registry-based multicenter, retrospective cohort study included all frail adults (≥16 years) with documented clinical frailty scale (CFS) scores, admitted to ICUs with admission diagnostic codes for viral pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) over 2 years between January 01, 2020 and December 31, 2021. Frail patients (CFS ≥5) coded as having viral pneumonitis or ARDS due to COVID-19 were compared to those with other causes of viral pneumonitis or ARDS for documented treatment limitations. RESULTS: 884 frail patients were included in the final analysis from 129 public and private ICUs. 369 patients (41.7%) had confirmed COVID-19. There were more male patients in COVID-19 (55.3% vs 47.0%; p = 0.015). There were no differences in age or APACHE-III scores between the two groups. Overall, 36.0% (318/884) had treatment limitations, but similar between the two groups (35.8% [132/369] vs 36.1% [186/515]; p = 0.92). After adjusting for confounders, increasing frailty (OR = 1.72; 95%-CI 1.39-2.14), age (OR = 1.05; 95%-CI 1.04-1.06), and presence of chronic respiratory condition (OR = 1.58; 95%-CI 1.10-2.27) increased the likelihood of instituting treatment limitations. However, the presence of COVID-19 by itself did not influence treatment limitations (odds ratio [OR] = 1.39; 95%-CI 0.98-1.96). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of treatment limitations was similar in patients with frailty with or without COVID-19 pneumonitis at ICU admission.

Respiratory system mechanics, gas exchange, and outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The association of respiratory mechanics, particularly respiratory system static compliance (CRS), with severity of hypoxaemia in patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has been widely debated, with some studies reporting distinct ARDS phenotypes based on CRS. Ascertaining whether such phenotypes exist is important, because they might indicate the need for ventilation strategies that differ from those used in patients with ARDS due to other causes. In a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published between Dec 1, 2019, and March 14, 2022, we evaluated respiratory system mechanics, ventilator parameters, gas exchange parameters, and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. Among 11 356 patients in 37 studies, mean reported CRS, measured close to the time of endotracheal intubation, was 35·8 mL/cm H2O (95% CI 33·9-37·8; I2=96·9%, τ2=32·6). Pooled mean CRS was normally distributed. Increasing ARDS severity (assessed by PaO2/FiO2 ratio as mild, moderate, or severe) was associated with decreasing CRS. We found no evidence for distinct CRS-based clinical phenotypes in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS, and we therefore conclude that no change in conventional lung-protective ventilation strategies is warranted. Future studies should explore the personalisation of mechanical ventilation strategies according to factors including respiratory system mechanics and haemodynamic status in patients with ARDS.

Impact of frailty on clinical outcomes in patients with and without COVID-19 pneumonitis admitted to intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand: a retrospective registry data analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if the impact of frailty on mortality differs between patients with viral pneumonitis due to COVID-19 or other causes. We aimed to determine if a difference exists between patients with and without COVID-19 pneumonitis. METHODS: This multicentre, retrospective, cohort study using the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database included patients aged ≥ 16 years admitted to 153 ICUs between 01/012020 and 12/31/2021 with admission diagnostic codes for viral pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome, and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). The primary outcome was hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 4620 patients were studied, and 3077 (66.6%) had COVID-19. The patients with COVID-19 were younger (median [IQR] 57.0 [44.7-68.3] vs. 66.1 [52.0-76.2]; p < 0.001) and less frail (median [IQR] CFS 3 [2-4] vs. 4 [3-5]; p < 0.001) than non-COVID-19 patients. The overall hospital mortality was similar between the patients with and without COVID-19 (14.7% vs. 14.9%; p = 0.82). Frailty alone as a predictor of mortality showed only moderate discrimination in differentiating survivors from those who died but was similar between patients with and without COVID-19 (AUROC 0.68 vs. 0.66; p = 0.42). Increasing frailty scores were associated with hospital mortality, after adjusting for Australian and New Zealand Risk of Death score and sex. However, the effect of frailty was similar in patients with and without COVID-19 (OR = 1.29; 95% CI: 1.19-1.41 vs. OR = 1.24; 95% CI: 1.11-1.37). CONCLUSION: The presence of frailty was an independent risk factor for mortality. However, the impact of frailty on outcomes was similar in COVID-19 patients compared to other causes of viral pneumonitis.

Timely goals of care documentation in patients with frailty in the COVID-19 era: a retrospective multi-site study.

BACKGROUND: Older frail patients are more likely to have timely goals of care (GOC) documentation than non-frail patients. AIMS: To investigate whether timely documentation of GOC within 72 h differed in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020), compared with the pre-COVID-19 era (2019) for older frail patients. METHODS: Multi-site retrospective cohort study was conducted in two public hospitals where all consecutive frail adult patients aged ≥65 years were admitted under medical units for at least 24 h between 1 March 31 and October in 2019 and between 1 March and 31 October 2020 were included. The GOC was derived from electronic records. Frailty status was derived from hospital coding data using hospital frailty risk score (frail ≥5). The primary outcome was the documentation of GOC within 72 h of hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included hospital mortality, rapid response call, intensive care unit admission, prolonged hospital length of stay (≥10 days) and time to the documentation of GOC. RESULTS: The study population comprised 2021 frail patients admitted in 2019 and 1849 admitted in 2020, aged 81.2 and 90.9 years respectively. The proportion of patients with timely GOC was lower in 2020, than 2019 (48.3% (893/1849) vs 54.9% (1109/2021); P = 0.021). After adjusting for confounding factors, patients in 2020 were less likely to receive timely GOC (odds ratio = 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68-0.88). Overall time to GOC documentation was longer in 2020 (hazard ratio = 0.86; 95% CI 0.80-0.93). CONCLUSION: Timely GOC documentation occurred less frequently in frail patients during the COVID-19 pandemic than in the pre-COVID-19 era.

SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk to healthcare workers performing tracheostomies: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Tracheostomy is a commonly performed procedure in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) receiving mechanical ventilation (MV). This review aims to investigate the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from patients to healthcare workers (HCWs) when tracheostomies are performed. METHODS: This systematic review used the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis framework. Studies reporting SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs involved in tracheostomy procedures were included. RESULTS: Sixty-nine studies (between 01/11/2019 and 16/01/2022) reporting 3117 tracheostomy events were included, 45.9% (1430/3117) were performed surgically. The mean time from MV initiation to tracheostomy was 16.7 ± 7.9 days. Location of tracheostomy, personal protective equipment used, and anaesthesia technique varied between studies. The mean procedure duration was 14.1 ± 7.5 minutes; was statistically longer for percutaneous tracheostomies compared with surgical tracheostomies (mean duration 17.5 ± 7.0 versus 15.5 ± 5.6 minutes, p = 0.02). Across 5 out of 69 studies that reported 311 tracheostomies, 34 HCWs tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 23/34 (67.6%) were associated with percutaneous tracheostomies. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we found that SARS-CoV-2 transmission to HCWs performing or assisting with a tracheostomy procedure appeared to be low, with all reported transmissions occurring in 2020, prior to vaccinations and more recent strains of SARS-CoV-2. Transmissions may be higher with percutaneous tracheostomies. However, an accurate estimation of infection risk was not possible in the absence of the actual number of HCWs exposed to the risk during the procedure and the inability to control for multiple confounders related to variable timing, technique, and infection control practices.

Frailty and mortality associations in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Observational data during the pandemic have demonstrated mixed associations between frailty and mortality. AIM: To examine associations between frailty and short-term mortality in patients hospitalised with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase and the COVID-19 living systematic review from 1 December 2019 to 15 July 2021. Studies reporting mortality and frailty scores in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (age ≥18 years) were included. Data on patient demographics, short-term mortality (in hospital or within 30 days), intensive care unit (ICU) admission and need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were extracted. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies reporting 34 628 patients were included. Overall, 26.2% (n = 9061) died. Patients who died were older (76.7 ± 9.6 vs 69.2 ± 13.4), more likely male (risk ratio (RR) = 1.08; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-1.11) and had more comorbidities. Fifty-eight percent of patients were frail. Adjusting for age, there was no difference in short-term mortality between frail and non-frail patients (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.84-1.28). The non-frail patients were commonly admitted to ICU (27.2% (4256/15639) vs 29.1% (3567/12274); P = 0.011) and had a higher mortality risk (RR = 1.63; 95% CI: 1.30-2.03) than frail patients. Among patients receiving IMV, there was no difference in mortality between frail and non-frail (RR = 1.62; 95% CI 0.93-2.77). CONCLUSION: This systematic review did not demonstrate an independent association between frailty status and short-term mortality in patients with COVID-19. Patients with frailty were less commonly admitted to ICU and non-frail patients were more likely to receive IMV and had higher mortality risk. This finding may be related to allocation decisions for patients with frailty amidst the pandemic.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Frailty Admitted to ICU With Coronavirus Disease 2019: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.

Frailty is often used in clinical decision-making for patients with coronavirus disease 2019, yet studies have found a variable influence of frailty on outcomes in those admitted to the ICU. In this individual patient data meta-analysis, we evaluated the characteristics and outcomes across the range of frailty in patients admitted to ICU with coronavirus disease 2019. DATA SOURCES: We contacted the corresponding authors of 16 eligible studies published between December 1, 2019, and February 28, 2021, reporting on patients with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to ICU with a documented Clinical Frailty Scale. STUDY SELECTION: Individual patient data were obtained from seven studies with documented Clinical Frailty Scale were included. We classified patients as nonfrail (Clinical Frailty Scale = 1-4) or frail (Clinical Frailty Scale = 5-8). DATA EXTRACTION: We collected patient demographics, Clinical Frailty Scale score, ICU organ supports, and clinically relevant outcomes (ICU and hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stays, and discharge destination). The primary outcome was hospital mortality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of the 2,001 patients admitted to ICU, 388 (19.4%) were frail. Increasing age and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, Clinical Frailty Scale score greater than or equal to 4, use of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, renal replacement therapy, and hyperlactatemia were risk factors for death in a multivariable analysis. Hospital mortality was higher in patients with frailty (65.2% vs 41.8%; p < 0.001), with adjusted mortality increasing with a rising Clinical Frailty Scale score beyond 3. Younger and nonfrail patients were more likely to receive mechanical ventilation. Patients with frailty spent less time on mechanical ventilation (median days [interquartile range], 9 [5-16] vs 11 d [6-18 d]; p = 0.012) and accounted for only 12.3% of total ICU bed days. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with frailty with coronavirus disease 2019 were commonly admitted to ICU and had greater hospital mortality but spent relatively fewer days in ICU when compared with nonfrail patients. Patients with frailty receiving mechanical ventilation were at greater risk of death than patients without frailty.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the characteristics and outcomes of readmitted COVID-19 survivors.

The objective of the present study is to investigate the incidence, characteristics and outcomes of patients who were readmitted to hospital emergency departments or required re-hospitalisation following an index hospitalisation with a diagnosis of COVID-19. A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE and pre-print websites was conducted between 1 January and 31 December 2020. Studies reporting on the incidence, characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who represent or require hospital admission were included. Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or through an independent third reviewer. Data were synthesised according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Six studies reporting on 547 readmitted patients were included. The overall incidence was 4.4%, most common in males (57.2%), and due to respiratory distress or prolonged COVID-19. Readmitted patients had a shorter initial hospital length of stay (LOS) compared with those with a single hospitalisation (8.1 ± 10.6 vs 13.9 ± 10.2 days). The mean time to readmission was 7.6 ± 6.0 days; the mean LOS on re-hospitalisation was 6.3 ± 5.6 days. Hypertension (odds ratio (OR) = 2.08; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.69-2.55; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%), diabetes mellitus (OR = 1.77; 95% CI 1.38-2.27; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) and chronic renal failure (OR = 2.37; 95% CI 1.09-5.14; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%) were more common in these patients. Intensive care admission rates were similar between the two groups; 12.8% (22/172) of readmitted patients died. In summary, readmitted patients following an index hospitalisation for COVID-19 were more commonly males with multiple comorbidities. Shorter initial hospital LOS and unresolved primary illness may have contributed to readmission.

Prone Positioning of Nonintubated Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Several studies have reported prone positioning of nonintubated patients with coronavirus diseases 2019-related hypoxemic respiratory failure. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the impact of prone positioning on oxygenation and clinical outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the coronavirus diseases 2019 living systematic review from December 1, 2019, to November 9, 2020. SUBJECTS AND INTERVENTION: Studies reporting prone positioning in hypoxemic, nonintubated adult patients with coronavirus diseases 2019 were included. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data on prone positioning location (ICU vs non-ICU), prone positioning dose (total minutes/d), frequency (sessions/d), respiratory supports during prone positioning, relative changes in oxygenation variables (peripheral oxygen saturation, Pao2, and ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2), respiratory rate pre and post prone positioning, intubation rate, and mortality were extracted. Twenty-five observational studies reporting prone positioning in 758 patients were included. There was substantial heterogeneity in prone positioning location, dose and frequency, and respiratory supports provided. Significant improvements were seen in ratio of Pao2 to the Fio2 (mean difference, 39; 95% CI, 25-54), Pao2 (mean difference, 20 mm Hg; 95% CI, 14-25), and peripheral oxygen saturation (mean difference, 4.74%; 95% CI, 3-6%). Respiratory rate decreased post prone positioning (mean difference, -3.2 breaths/min; 95% CI, -4.6 to -1.9). Intubation and mortality rates were 24% (95% CI, 17-32%) and 13% (95% CI, 6-19%), respectively. There was no difference in intubation rate in those receiving prone positioning within and outside ICU (32% [69/214] vs 33% [107/320]; p = 0.84). No major adverse events were recorded in small subset of studies that reported them. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the significant variability in frequency and duration of prone positioning and respiratory supports applied, prone positioning was associated with improvement in oxygenation variables without any reported serious adverse events. The results are limited by a lack of controls and adjustments for confounders. Whether this improvement in oxygenation results in meaningful patient-centered outcomes such as reduced intubation or mortality rates requires testing in well-designed randomized clinical trials.

Risk perception and emotional wellbeing in healthcare workers involved in rapid response calls during the COVID-19 pandemic: A substudy of a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has effected major changes to healthcare delivery within acute care settings. Rapid response calls (RRCs) in healthcare organisations have been effective at identifying and urgently managing acute clinical deterioration. Code-95 RRC were introduced to prewarn healthcare workers (HCWs) attending to patients suspected or confirmed with COVID-19 infection. AIMS: The primary aim of the study was to identify the personal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HCWs involved in attending Code-95 RRC. We sought to evaluate their perception of risks and effects on wellbeing and identify potential opportunities for improvement at organisational levels. METHODS: We undertook a detailed survey on HCWs attending Code-95 RRCs, including questions that sought to understand the impact of the pandemic as well as their perception of infection risk and emotional wellbeing. This was a substudy of the prospective cross-sectional single-centre survey of HCWs that was conducted over a 3-week period at Frankston Hospital, Victoria, Australia. We adopted a quantitative content analysis approach for free-text responses in this secondary analysis. RESULTS: Four hundred two free-text comments were received from 297 respondents and were analysed. More than two-thirds (68%, 223/297) were female. Of all comments, 39% (155/402) were related to organisational issues including communication, confusion due to constantly changing infection control policies, and insufficient training. Thirty-three percent of comments (133/402) raised issues regarding the adequacy of personal protective equipment. Anxiety was reported in 25% of comments (101/402) with concerns predominantly relating to emotional stress and fatigue, risks of virus exposure and transmitting the infection to others, and COVID-19 precautions impairing care delivery. CONCLUSION(S): Our study raises important issues that have relevance for all healthcare organisations in the management of patients with COVID-19. These include the importance of improving communication, especially when infection control policies are revised, optimising training, maintaining adequate personal protective equipment, and HCW support. Early recognition and management of these issues are crucial to maintain optimal healthcare delivery.

Development and validation of a tool to appraise guidelines on SARS-CoV-2 infection control strategies in healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines on infection control strategies in healthcare workers (HCWs) play an important role in protecting them during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic. Poorly constructed guidelines that are incomprehensive and/or ambiguous may compromise HCWs' safety. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop and validate a tool to appraise guidelines on infection control strategies in HCWs based on the guidelines published early in the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. DESIGN, SETTING, AND OUTCOMES: A three-stage, web-based, Delphi consensus-building process among a panel of diverse HCWs and healthcare managers was performed. The tool was validated by appraising 40 international, specialty-specific, and procedure-specific guidelines along with national guidelines from countries with a wide range of gross national income. RESULTS: Overall consensus (≥75%) was reached at the end of three rounds for all six domains included in the tool. The Delphi panel recommended an ideal infection control guideline should encompass six domains: general characteristics (domain 1), engineering recommendations (domain 2), personal protective equipment (PPE) use (domain 3), and administrative aspects (domain 4-6) of infection control. The appraisal tool performed well across the six domains, and the inter-rater agreement was excellent for the 40 guidelines. All included guidelines performed relatively better in domains 1-3 than in domains 4-6, and this was more evident in guidelines originating from lower income countries. CONCLUSION: The guideline appraisal tool was robust and easy to use. Engineering recommendations aspects of infection control, administrative measures that promote optimal PPE use, and HCW wellbeing were generally lacking in assessed guidelines. This tool may enable health systems to adopt high-quality HCW infection control guidelines during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic and may also provide a framework for future guideline development.

A Systematic Review of the Incidence and Outcomes of In-Hospital Cardiac Arrests in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of in-hospital cardiac arrest in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and to describe the characteristics and outcomes for patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU, compared with non-ICU patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest. Finally, we evaluated outcomes stratified by age. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and preprint websites was conducted between January 1, 2020, and December 10, 2020. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews identification: CRD42020203369. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting on consecutive in-hospital cardiac arrest with a resuscitation attempt among patients with coronavirus disease 2019. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were synthesized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews guidelines. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus or through an independent third reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight studies reporting on 847 in-hospital cardiac arrest were included. In-hospital cardiac arrest incidence varied between 1.5% and 5.8% among hospitalized patients and 8.0-11.4% among patients in ICU. In-hospital cardiac arrest occurred more commonly in older male patients. Most initial rhythms were nonshockable (83.9%, [asystole = 36.4% and pulseless electrical activity = 47.6%]). Return of spontaneous circulation occurred in 33.3%, with a 91.7% in-hospital mortality. In-hospital cardiac arrest events in ICU had higher incidence of return of spontaneous circulation (36.6% vs 18.7%; p < 0.001) and relatively lower mortality (88.7% vs 98.1%; p < 0.001) compared with in-hospital cardiac arrest in non-ICU locations. Patients greater than or equal to 60 years old had significantly higher in-hospital mortality than those less than 60 years (93.1% vs 87.9%; p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately, one in 20 patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 received resuscitation for an in-hospital cardiac arrest. Hospital survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest within the ICU was higher than non-ICU locations and seems comparable with prepandemic survival for nonshockable rhythms. Although the data provide guidance surrounding prognosis after in-hospital cardiac arrest, it should be interpreted cautiously given the paucity of information surrounding treatment limitations and resource constraints during the pandemic. Further research is into actual causative mechanisms is needed.

'Code-95' rapid response calls for patients under airborne precautions in the COVID-19-era: a cross-sectional survey of healthcare worker perceptions.

BACKGROUND: To allow better allocation of staff and resources, rapid response teams attending to acutely deteriorating or aggressive patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection were pre-warned with the announcement of 'Code-95' with calls. AIM: To assess healthcare worker (HCW) perspectives on pre-warning rapid response calls (RRC) with 'Code-95' in announcements when attending to deteriorating or aggressive patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Design: prospective cross-sectional single-centre survey of HCW over a 3-week period. SETTING: tertiary public hospital. PARTICIPANTS: HCW caring for deteriorating or aggressive patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: the primary outcome was to assess HCW perspectives in attending Code-95 calls. Secondary outcomes were to identify any differences related to craft group, age, experience or presence of comorbidities. RESULTS: A total of 297 responses was analysed; 86.7% of HCW (n = 257) attending Code-95 calls reported anxiety. Medical staff reported greater anxiety in comparison to nursing staff (93.8% vs 78.5%; P = 0.002). Efferent team reported higher anxiety in contrast to afferent team (92.6% vs 58.8%; P = 0.021). There was no significant difference in perceived anxiety based on age (≤40 vs >40 years of age), years of experience (≤5 vs >5 years), comorbidities or mental illness; 54% reported concerns about adequacy of infection-control policies and personal protective equipment; 45% were worried about inadequate training for responding to Code-95 calls. CONCLUSIONS: Most surveyed HCW supported Code-95 announcements pre-warning them of potential COVID-19 exposure when attending a RRC. However, the majority of HCW reported anxiety when attending these calls. Medical and efferent team HCW perceived greater anxiety compared to nursing and afferent team HCW. The Code-95 system to pre-warn rapid response teams may be a useful addition to protecting HCW from infectious diseases, although broader implementation will require greater resourcing, training and support.

Personal protective equipment preparedness in intensive care units during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: An Asia-Pacific follow-up survey.

BACKGROUND: Personal-protective equipment (PPE)-preparedness, defined as adherence to guidelines, healthcare worker (HCW) training, procuring PPE stocks and responding appropriately to suspected cases, is crucial to prevent HCW-infections. OBJECTIVES: To perform a follow-up survey to assess changes in PPE-preparedness across six Asia-Pacific countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A prospective follow-up cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted between 10/08/2020 to 01/09/ 2020, five months after the initial Phase 1 survey. The survey was sent to the same 231 intensivists across the six Asia-Pacific countries (Australia, Hong Kong, India, New Zealand, Philippines, and Singapore) that participated in Phase 1. The main outcome measure was to identify any changes in PPE-preparedness between Phases 1 and 2. FINDINGS: Phase 2 had responses from 132 ICUs (57%). Compared to Phase 1 respondents reported increased use of PPE-based practices such as powered air-purifying respirator (40.2% vs. 6.1%), N95-masks at all times (86.4% vs. 53.7%) and double-gloving (87.9% vs. 42.9%). The reported awareness of PPE stocks (85.6% vs. 51.9%), mandatory showering policies following PPE-breach (31.1% vs. 6.9%) and safety perception amongst HCWs (60.6% vs. 28.4%) improved significantly during Phase 2. Despite reported statistically similar adoption rate of the buddy system in both phases (42.4% vs. 37.2%), there was a reported reduction in donning/doffing training in Phase 2 (44.3% vs. 60.2%). There were no reported differences HCW training in other areas, such as tracheal intubation, intra-hospital transport and safe waste disposal, between the 2 phases. CONCLUSIONS: Overall reported PPE-preparedness improved between the two survey periods, particularly in PPE use, PPE inventory and HCW perceptions of safety. However, the uptake of HCW training and implementation of low-cost safety measures continued to be low and the awareness of PPE breach management policies were suboptimal. Therefore, the key areas for improvement should focus on regular HCW training, implementing low-cost buddy-system and increasing awareness of PPE-breach management protocols.

Noninvasive Oxygen Strategies to Manage Confirmed COVID-19 Patients in Indian Intensive Care Units: A Survey.

BACKGROUND: About 5% of hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients will need intensive care unit (ICU) admission for hypoxemic respiratory failure requiring oxygen support. The choice between early mechanical ventilation and noninvasive oxygen therapies, such as, high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and/or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) has to balance the contradictory priorities of protecting healthcare workers by minimizing aerosol-generation and optimizing resource management. This survey over two timeframes aimed to explore the controversial issue of location and noninvasive oxygen therapy in non-intubated ICU patients using a clinical vignette. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was designed, piloted, and distributed electronically to Indian intensivists/anesthetists, from private hospitals, government hospitals, and medical college hospitals (the latter two referred to as first-responder hospitals), who are directly responsible for admitting/managing patients in ICU. RESULTS: Of the 204 responses (125/481 in phase 1 and 79/320 in phase 2), 183 responses were included. Respondents from first-responder hospitals were more willing to manage non-intubated hypoxemic patients in neutral pressure rooms, while respondents from private hospitals preferred negative-pressure rooms (p < 0.001). In both the phases, private hospital doctors were less comfortable to use any form of noninvasive oxygen therapies in neutral-pressure rooms compared to first-responder hospitals (low-flow oxygen therapy: 72 vs 50%, p < 0.01; HFNO: 47 vs 24%, p < 0.01 and NPPV: 38 vs 28%, p = 0.20). INTERPRETATION: Variations existed in practices among first-responder and private intensivists/anesthetists. The resource optimal private hospital intensivists/anesthetists were less comfortable using noninvasive oxygen therapies in managing COVID-19 patients. This may reflect differential resource availability necessitating resolution at national, state, and local levels. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Subramaniam A, Haji JY, Kumar P, Ramanathan K, Rajamani A. Noninvasive Oxygen Strategies to Manage Confirmed COVID-19 Patients in Indian Intensive Care Units: A Survey. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(10):926-931.

Personal protective equipment preparedness in Asia-Pacific intensive care units during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A multinational survey.

BACKGROUND: There has been a surge in coronavirus disease 2019 admissions to intensive care units (ICUs) in Asia-Pacific countries. Because ICU healthcare workers are exposed to aerosol-generating procedures, ensuring optimal personal protective equipment (PPE) preparedness is important. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate PPE preparedness across ICUs in six Asia-Pacific countries during the initial phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, which is defined by the World Health Organization as guideline adherence, training healthcare workers, procuring stocks, and responding appropriately to suspected cases. METHODS: A cross-sectional Web-based survey was circulated to 633 level II/III ICUs of Australia, New Zealand (NZ), Singapore, Hong Kong (HK), India, and the Philippines. FINDINGS: Two hundred sixty-three intensivists responded, representing 231 individual ICUs eligible for analysis. Response rates were 68-100% in all countries except India, where it was 24%. Ninety-seven percent of ICUs either conformed to or exceeded World Health Organization recommendations for PPE practice. Fifty-nine percent ICUs used airborne precautions irrespective of aerosol generation procedures. There were variations in negative-pressure room use (highest in HK/Singapore), training (best in NZ), and PPE stock awareness (best in HK/Singapore/NZ). High-flow nasal oxygenation and noninvasive ventilation were not options in most HK (66.7% and 83.3%, respectively) and Singapore ICUs (50% and 80%, respectively), but were considered in other countries to a greater extent. Thirty-eight percent ICUs reported not having specialised airway teams. Showering and "buddy systems" were underused. Clinical waste disposal training was suboptimal (38%). CONCLUSIONS: Many ICUs in the Asia-Pacific reported suboptimal PPE preparedness in several domains, particularly related to PPE training, practice, and stock awareness, which requires remediation. Adoption of low-cost approaches such as buddy systems should be encouraged. The complete avoidance of high-flow nasal oxygenation reported by several intensivists needs reconsideration. Consideration must be given to standardise PPE guidelines to minimise practice variations. Urgent research to evaluate PPE preparedness and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 transmission is required.

Incidence and outcome of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in the COVID-19 era: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 on pre-hospital and hospital services and hence on the prevalence and outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) remain unclear. The review aimed to evaluate the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence, process, and outcomes of OHCA. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and pre-print websites was performed. Studies reporting comparative data on OHCA within the same jurisdiction, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were included. Study quality was assessed based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Ten studies reporting data from 35,379 OHCA events were included. There was a 120% increase in OHCA events since the pandemic. Time from OHCA to ambulance arrival was longer during the pandemic (p = 0.036). While mortality (OR = 0.67, 95%-CI 0.49-0.91) and supraglottic airway use (OR = 0.36, 95%-CI 0.27-0.46) was higher during the pandemic, automated external defibrillator use (OR = 1.78 95%-CI 1.06-2.98), return of spontaneous circulation (OR = 1.63, 95%CI 1.18-2.26) and intubation (OR = 1.87, 95%-CI 1.12--3.13) was more common before the pandemic. More patients survived to hospital admission (OR = 1.75, 95%-CI 1.42-2.17) and discharge (OR = 1.65, 95%-CI 1.28-2.12) before the pandemic. Bystander CPR (OR = 1.18, 95%-CI 0.95-1.46), unwitnessed OHCA (OR = 0.84, 95%-CI 0.66-1.07), paramedic-resuscitation attempts (OR = 1.19 95%-CI 1.00-1.42) and mechanical CPR device use (OR = 1.57 95%-CI 0.55-4.55) did not defer significantly. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence and mortality following OHCA was higher during the COVID-19 pandemic. There were significant variations in resuscitation practices during the pandemic. Research to define optimal processes of pre-hospital care during a pandemic is urgently required. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42020203371).

Case Fatality Rates for Patients with COVID-19 Requiring Invasive Mechanical Ventilation. A Meta-analysis.

Rationale: Initial reports of case fatality rates (CFRs) among adults with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are highly variable.Objectives: To examine the CFR of patients with COVID-19 receiving IMV.Methods: Two authors independently searched PubMed, Embase, medRxiv, bioRxiv, the COVID-19 living systematic review, and national registry databases. The primary outcome was the "reported CFR" for patients with confirmed COVID-19 requiring IMV. "Definitive hospital CFR" for patients with outcomes at hospital discharge was also investigated. Finally, CFR was analyzed by patient age, geographic region, and study quality on the basis of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.Measurements and Results: Sixty-nine studies were included, describing 57,420 adult patients with COVID-19 who received IMV. Overall reported CFR was estimated as 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39-52%). Fifty-four of 69 studies stated whether hospital outcomes were available but provided a definitive hospital outcome on only 13,120 (22.8%) of the total IMV patient population. Among studies in which age-stratified CFR was available, pooled CFR estimates ranged from 47.9% (95% CI, 46.4-49.4%) in younger patients (age ≤40 yr) to 84.4% (95% CI, 83.3-85.4%) in older patients (age >80 yr). CFR was also higher in early COVID-19 epicenters. Overall heterogeneity is high (I2 >90%), with nonsignificant Egger's regression test suggesting no publication bias.Conclusions: Almost half of patients with COVID-19 receiving IMV died based on the reported CFR, but variable CFR reporting methods resulted in a wide range of CFRs between studies. The reported CFR was higher in older patients and in early pandemic epicenters, which may be influenced by limited ICU resources. Reporting of definitive outcomes on all patients would facilitate comparisons between studies.Systematic review registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020186997).