ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Healthcare provision has been severely affected by COVID-19, with specific challenges in organ transplantation. Here, we describe the coordinated response to, and outcomes during the first wave, across all UK liver transplant (LT) centers. METHODS: Several policy changes affecting the liver transplant processes were agreed upon. These included donor age restrictions and changes to offering. A "high-urgency" (HU) category was established, prioritizing only those with UKELD > 60, HCC reaching transplant criteria, and others likely to die within 90 days. Outcomes were compared with the same period in 2018 and 2019. RESULTS: The retrieval rate for deceased donor livers (71% vs. 54%; P < .0001) and conversion from offer to completed transplant (63% vs. 48%; P < .0001) was significantly higher. Pediatric LT activity was maintained; there was a significant reduction in adult (42%) and total (36%) LT. Almost all adult LT were super-urgent (n = 15) or HU (n = 133). We successfully prioritized those with highest illness severity with no reduction in 90-day patient (P = .89) or graft survival (P = .98). There was a small (5% compared with 3%; P = .0015) increase in deaths or removals from the waitlist, mainly amongst HU cohort. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully prioritized LT recipients in highest need, maintaining excellent outcomes, and waitlist mortality was only marginally increased.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Carcinoma, Hepatocellular , Liver Neoplasms , Liver Transplantation , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Humans , Pandemics , Transplant Recipients , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Waiting ListsABSTRACT
Strict isolation of vulnerable individuals has been a strategy implemented by authorities to protect people from COVID-19. Our objective was to investigate health-related quality of life (HRQoL), uncertainty and coping behaviours in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic. A cross-sectional survey of adult SOT recipients undergoing follow-up at our institution was performed. Perceived health status, uncertainty and coping strategies were assessed using the EQ-5D-5L, Short-form Mishel Uncertainty in Illness Scale (SF-MUIS) and Brief Cope, respectively. Interactions with COVID-19 risk perception, access to health care, demographic and clinical variables were assessed. The survey was completed by 826 of 3839 (21.5%) invited participants. Overall, low levels of uncertainty in illness were reported, and acceptance was the major coping strategy (92%). Coping by acceptance, feeling protected, self-perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 were associated with lower levels of uncertainty. Health status index scores were significantly lower for those with mental health illness, compromised access to health care, a perceived high risk of severe COVID-19 infection and higher levels of uncertainty. A history of mental health illness, risk perceptions, restricted healthcare access, uncertainty and coping strategies was associated with poorer HRQoL in SOT recipients during strict isolation. These findings may allow identification of strategies to improve HRQoL in SOT recipients during the pandemic.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Organ Transplantation , Adaptation, Psychological , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Pandemics , Quality of Life , SARS-CoV-2 , Transplant Recipients , UncertaintyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To safely expand and adapt the normal workings of a large critical care unit in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In April 2020, UK health systems were challenged to expand critical care capacity rapidly during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic so that they could accommodate patients with respiratory and multiple organ failure. Here, we describe the preparation and adaptive responses of a large critical care unit to the oncoming burden of disease. Our changes were similar to the revolution in manufacturing brought about by 'Long Shops' of 1853 when Richard Garrett and Sons of Leiston started mass manufacture of traction engines. This innovation broke the whole process into smaller parts and increased productivity. When applied to COVID-19 preparations, an assembly line approach had the advantage that our ICU became easily scalable to manage an influx of additional staff as well as the increase in admissions. Healthcare professionals could be replaced in case of absence and training focused on a smaller number of tasks. RESULTS: Compared with the equivalent period in 2019, the ICU provided 30.9% more patient days (2599 to 3402), 1845 of which were ventilated days (compared with 694 in 2019, 165.8% increase) while time from first referral to ICU admission reduced from 193.8±123.8 min (±SD) to 110.7±76.75 min (±SD). Throughout, ICU maintained adequate capacity and also accepted patients from neighbouring hospitals. This was done by managing an additional 205 doctors (70% increase), 168 nurses who had previously worked in ICU and another 261 nurses deployed from other parts of the hospital (82% increase).Our large tertiary hospital ensured a dedicated non-COVID ICU was staffed and equipped to take regional emergency referrals so that those patients requiring specialist surgery and treatment were treated throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: We report how the challenge of managing a huge influx of patients and redeployed staff was met by deconstructing ICU care into its constituent parts. Although reported from the largest colocated ICU in the UK, we believe that this offers solutions to ICUs of all sizes and may provide a generalisable model for critical care pandemic surge planning.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Care , Hospitalization , Intensive Care Units , Pandemics , Surge Capacity , Tertiary Care Centers , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19/virology , Critical Care/methods , Critical Care/organization & administration , Emergency Service, Hospital , Health Personnel , Humans , Models, Organizational , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The outbreak of COVID-19 has vastly increased the operational burden on healthcare systems worldwide. For patients with end-stage liver failure, liver transplantation is the only option. However, the strain on intensive care facilities caused by the pandemic is a major concern. There is an urgent need for ethical frameworks to balance the need for liver transplantation against the availability of national resources. METHODS: We performed an international multicenter study of transplant centers to understand the evolution of policies for transplant prioritization in response to the pandemic in March 2020. To describe the ethical tension arising in this setting, we propose a novel ethical framework, the quadripartite equipoise (QE) score, that is applicable to liver transplantation in the context of limited national resources. RESULTS: Seventeen large- and medium-sized liver transplant centers from 12 countries across 4 continents participated. Ten centers opted to limit transplant activity in response to the pandemic, favoring a "sickest-first" approach. Conversely, some larger centers opted to continue routine transplant activity in order to balance waiting list mortality. To model these and other ethical tensions, we computed a QE score using 4 factors - recipient outcome, donor/graft safety, waiting list mortality and healthcare resources - for 7 countries. The fluctuation of the QE score over time accurately reflects the dynamic changes in the ethical tensions surrounding transplant activity in a pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: This four-dimensional model of quadripartite equipoise addresses the ethical tensions in the current pandemic. It serves as a universally applicable framework to guide regulation of transplant activity in response to the increasing burden on healthcare systems. LAY SUMMARY: There is an urgent need for ethical frameworks to balance the need for liver transplantation against the availability of national resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. We describe a four-dimensional model of quadripartite equipoise that models these ethical tensions and can guide the regulation of transplant activity in response to the increasing burden on healthcare systems.