Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 13 de 13
Filter
1.
Can J Anaesth ; 2022 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1767708

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Hospital policies forbidding or limiting families from visiting relatives on the intensive care unit (ICU) has affected patients, families, healthcare professionals, and patient- and family-centered care (PFCC). We sought to refine evidence-informed consensus statements to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies during the current COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics and to identify barriers and facilitators to their implementation and sustained uptake in Canadian ICUs. METHODS: We created consensus statements from 36 evidence-informed experiences (i.e., impacts on patients, families, healthcare professionals, and PFCC) and 63 evidence-informed strategies (i.e., ways to improve restricted visitation) identified during a modified Delphi process (described elsewhere). Over two half-day virtual meetings on 7 and 8 April 2021, 45 stakeholders (patients, families, researchers, clinicians, decision-makers) discussed and refined these consensus statements. Through qualitative descriptive content analysis, we evaluated the following points for 99 consensus statements: 1) their importance for improving restricted visitation policies; 2) suggested modifications to make them more applicable; and 3) facilitators and barriers to implementing these statements when creating ICU visitation policies. RESULTS: Through discussion, participants identified three areas for improvement: 1) clarity, 2) accessibility, and 3) feasibility. Stakeholders identified several implementation facilitators (clear, flexible, succinct, and prioritized statements available in multiple modes), barriers (perceived lack of flexibility, lack of partnership between government and hospital, change fatigue), and ways to measure and monitor their use (e.g., family satisfaction, qualitative interviews). CONCLUSIONS: Existing guidance on policies that disallowed or restricted visitation in intensive care units were confusing, hard to operationalize, and often lacked supporting evidence. Prioritized, succinct, and clear consensus statements allowing for local adaptability are necessary to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies and to optimize PFCC.


RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les politiques hospitalières interdisant ou limitant les visites des familles à des proches à l'unité de soins intensifs (USI) ont affecté les patients, les familles, les professionnels de la santé et les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille (SCPF). Nous avons cherché à affiner les déclarations de consensus fondées sur des données probantes afin de guider la création de politiques de visite aux soins intensifs pendant la pandémie actuelle de COVID-19 et les pandémies futures, et dans le but d'identifier les obstacles et les critères facilitants à leur mise en œuvre et à leur adoption répandue dans les unités de soins intensifs canadiennes. MéTHODE: Nous avons créé des déclarations de consensus à partir de 36 expériences fondées sur des données probantes (c.-à-d. impacts sur les patients, les familles, les professionnels de la santé et les SCPF) et 63 stratégies fondées sur des données probantes (c.-à-d. moyens d'améliorer les restrictions des visites) identifiées au cours d'un processus Delphi modifié (décrit ailleurs). Au cours de deux réunions virtuelles d'une demi-journée tenues les 7 et 8 avril 2021, 45 intervenants (patients, familles, chercheurs, cliniciens, décideurs) ont discuté et affiné ces déclarations de consensus. Grâce à une analyse descriptive qualitative du contenu, nous avons évalué les points suivants pour 99 déclarations de consensus : 1) leur importance pour l'amélioration des politiques de restriction des visites; 2) les modifications suggérées pour les rendre plus applicables; et 3) les critères facilitants et les obstacles à la mise en œuvre de ces déclarations lors de la création de politiques de visite aux soins intensifs. RéSULTATS: En discutant, les participants ont identifié trois domaines à améliorer : 1) la clarté, 2) l'accessibilité et 3) la faisabilité. Les intervenants ont identifié plusieurs critères facilitants à la mise en œuvre (énoncés clairs, flexibles, succincts et hiérarchisés disponibles dans plusieurs modes), des obstacles (manque perçu de flexibilité, manque de partenariat entre le gouvernement et l'hôpital, fatigue du changement) et des moyens de mesurer et de surveiller leur utilisation (p. ex., satisfaction des familles, entrevues qualitatives). CONCLUSION: Les directives existantes sur les politiques qui interdisaient ou limitaient les visites dans les unités de soins intensifs étaient déroutantes, difficiles à mettre en oeuvre et manquaient souvent de données probantes à l'appui. Des déclarations de consensus hiérarchisées, succinctes et claires permettant une adaptabilité locale sont nécessaires pour guider la création de politiques de visite en soins intensifs et pour optimiser les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille.

2.
ERJ Open Res ; 8(1)2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1690978

ABSTRACT

Due to the large number of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many were treated outside the traditional walls of the intensive care unit (ICU), and in many cases, by personnel who were not trained in critical care. The clinical characteristics and the relative impact of caring for severe COVID-19 patients outside the ICU is unknown. This was a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium World Health Organization COVID-19 platform. Severe COVID-19 patients were identified as those admitted to an ICU and/or those treated with one of the following treatments: invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, inotropes or vasopressors. A logistic generalised additive model was used to compare clinical outcomes among patients admitted or not to the ICU. A total of 40 440 patients from 43 countries and six continents were included in this analysis. Severe COVID-19 patients were frequently male (62.9%), older adults (median (interquartile range (IQR), 67 (55-78) years), and with at least one comorbidity (63.2%). The overall median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 10 (5-19) days and was longer in patients admitted to an ICU than in those who were cared for outside the ICU (12 (6-23) days versus 8 (4-15) days, p<0.0001). The 28-day fatality ratio was lower in ICU-admitted patients (30.7% (5797 out of 18 831) versus 39.0% (7532 out of 19 295), p<0.0001). Patients admitted to an ICU had a significantly lower probability of death than those who were not (adjusted OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.75; p<0.0001). Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an ICU had significantly lower 28-day fatality ratio than those cared for outside an ICU.

3.
Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie ; : 1-14, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1668496

ABSTRACT

Purpose Critical illness is a transformative experience for both patients and their family members. For COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), survival may be the start of a long road to recovery. Our knowledge of the post-ICU long-term sequelae of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) may inform our understanding and management of the long-term effects of COVID-19. Source We identified international and Canadian epidemiologic data on ICU admissions for COVID-19, COVID-19 pathophysiology, emerging ICU practice patterns, early reports of long-term outcomes, and federal support programs for survivors and their families. Centred around an illustrating case study, we applied relevant literature from ARDS and SARS to contextualize knowledge within emerging COVID-19 research and extrapolate findings to future long-term outcomes. Principal findings COVID-19 is a multisystem disease with unknown long-term morbidity and mortality. Its pathophysiology is distinct and unique from ARDS, SARS, and critical illness. Nevertheless, based on initial reports of critical care management for COVID-19 and the varied injurious supportive practices employed in the ICU, patients and families are at risk for post-intensive care syndrome. The distinct incremental risk of COVID-19 multiple organ dysfunction is unknown. The risk of mood disorders in family members may be further exacerbated by imposed isolation and stigma. Conclusion Emerging literature on COVID-19 outcomes suggests some similarities with those of ARDS/SARS and prolonged mechanical ventilation. The pathophysiology of COVID-19 is presented here in the context of early outcome data and to inform an agenda for longitudinal research for patients and families.

4.
Can J Anaesth ; 69(5): 630-643, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1661743

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Critical illness is a transformative experience for both patients and their family members. For COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), survival may be the start of a long road to recovery. Our knowledge of the post-ICU long-term sequelae of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) may inform our understanding and management of the long-term effects of COVID-19. SOURCE: We identified international and Canadian epidemiologic data on ICU admissions for COVID-19, COVID-19 pathophysiology, emerging ICU practice patterns, early reports of long-term outcomes, and federal support programs for survivors and their families. Centred around an illustrating case study, we applied relevant literature from ARDS and SARS to contextualize knowledge within emerging COVID-19 research and extrapolate findings to future long-term outcomes. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: COVID-19 is a multisystem disease with unknown long-term morbidity and mortality. Its pathophysiology is distinct and unique from ARDS, SARS, and critical illness. Nevertheless, based on initial reports of critical care management for COVID-19 and the varied injurious supportive practices employed in the ICU, patients and families are at risk for post-intensive care syndrome. The distinct incremental risk of COVID-19 multiple organ dysfunction is unknown. The risk of mood disorders in family members may be further exacerbated by imposed isolation and stigma. CONCLUSION: Emerging literature on COVID-19 outcomes suggests some similarities with those of ARDS/SARS and prolonged mechanical ventilation. The pathophysiology of COVID-19 is presented here in the context of early outcome data and to inform an agenda for longitudinal research for patients and families.


RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les maladies au stade critique constituent une expérience bouleversante tant pour les patients que pour leurs proches. Pour les patients atteints de la COVID-19 admis aux soins intensifs (USI), la survie peut être le début d'un long parcours vers la guérison. Notre connaissance des séquelles à long terme post-USI d'un syndrome de détresse respiratoire aiguë (SDRA) ou d'un syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SRAS) pourrait éclairer notre compréhension et notre prise en charge des effets à long terme de la COVID-19. SOURCES: Nous avons identifié des données épidémiologiques internationales et canadiennes sur les admissions aux soins intensifs pour la COVID-19, la physiopathologie de la COVID-19, les schémas de pratique émergents en soins intensifs, les premiers rapports sur les issues à long terme et les programmes de soutien fédéraux pour les survivants et leurs familles. En nous centrant autour d'une étude de cas pour illustrer notre propos, nous avons appliqué la littérature pertinente à propos du SDRA et du SRAS afin de contextualiser les connaissances de la recherche émergente sur la COVID-19 et extrapoler les conclusions aux futures issues à long terme. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: La COVID-19 est une maladie multisystémique dont la morbidité et la mortalité à long terme sont inconnues. Sa physiopathologie est unique et distincte du SDRA, du SRAS et des maladies graves. Néanmoins, en nous fondant sur les rapports initiaux de prise en charge aux soins intensifs de la COVID-19 et sur les diverses pratiques de support préjudiciables utilisées aux soins intensifs, les patients et les familles sont à risque de syndrome post-soins intensifs. Le risque distinct supplémentaire de dysfonctionnement multiviscéral de la COVID-19 est inconnu. Le risque de troubles de l'humeur chez les proches peut être encore exacerbé par l'isolement imposé et la stigmatisation. CONCLUSION: La littérature émergente sur les issues de la COVID-19 suggère certaines similitudes avec celles du SDRA/SRAS et de la ventilation mécanique prolongée. La physiopathologie de la COVID-19 est présentée ici dans le contexte des premières données sur les issues et pour éclairer un programme de recherche longitudinale pour les patients et leurs familles.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , COVID-19/therapy , Canada/epidemiology , Caregivers , Critical Illness/therapy , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/epidemiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Survivors
5.
ERJ open research ; 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1610380

ABSTRACT

Due to the large number of patients with severe COVID-19, many were treated outside of the traditional walls of the ICU, and in many cases, by personnel who were not trained in critical care. The clinical characteristics and the relative impact of caring for severe COVID-19 patients outside of the ICU is unknown. This was a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC WHO COVID-19 platform. Severe COVID-19 patients were identified as those admitted to an ICU and/or those treated with one of the following treatments: invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, inotropes, and vasopressors. A logistic Generalised Additive Model was used to compare clinical outcomes among patients admitted and not to the ICU. A total of 40 440 patients from 43 countries and six continents were included in this analysis. Severe COVID-19 patients were frequently male (62.9%), older adults (median [IQR], 67 years [55, 78]), and with at least one comorbidity (63.2%). The overall median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 10 days (5–19) and was longer in patients admitted to an ICU than in those that were cared for outside of ICU (12 [6–23] versus 8 [4–15] days, p<0.0001). The 28-day fatality ratio was lower in ICU-admitted patients (30.7% [5797/18831] versus 39.0% [7532/19295], p<0.0001). Patients admitted to an ICU had a significantly lower probability of death than those who were not (adjusted OR:0.70, 95%CI: 0.65-0.75, p<0.0001). Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an ICU had significantly lower 28-day fatality ratio than those cared for outside of an ICU.

6.
J Physiother ; 68(1): 8-25, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1587161

ABSTRACT

This document provides an update to the recommendations for physiotherapy management for adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the acute hospital setting. It includes: physiotherapy workforce planning and preparation; a screening tool for determining requirement for physiotherapy; and recommendations for the use of physiotherapy treatments and personal protective equipment. New advice and recommendations are provided on: workload management; staff health, including vaccination; providing clinical education; personal protective equipment; interventions, including awake proning, mobilisation and rehabilitation in patients with hypoxaemia. Additionally, recommendations for recovery after COVID-19 have been added, including roles that physiotherapy can offer in the management of post-COVID syndrome. The updated guidelines are intended for use by physiotherapists and other relevant stakeholders caring for adult patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in the acute care setting and beyond.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hospitals , Humans , Personal Protective Equipment , Physical Therapy Modalities , SARS-CoV-2
7.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(12): e2136263, 2021 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1565151

ABSTRACT

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic created the need for rapid and urgent guidance for clinicians to manage COVID-19 among patients and prevent transmission. Objective: To appraise the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) using the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) criteria. Evidence Review: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to December 14, 2020, and a search of related articles to February 28, 2021, that included CPGs developed by societies or by government or nongovernment organizations that reported pharmacologic treatments of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Teams of 2 reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed CPG quality using the 15-item National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent of Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) instrument. Findings: Thirty-two CPGs were included in the review. Of these, 25 (78.1%) were developed by professional societies and emanated from a single World Health Organization (WHO) region. Overall, the CPGs were of low quality. Only 7 CPGs (21.9%) reported funding sources, and 12 (37.5%) reported conflicts of interest. Only 5 CPGs (15.6%) included a methodologist, described a search strategy or study selection process, or synthesized the evidence. Although 14 CPGs (43.8%) made recommendations or suggestions for or against treatments, they infrequently rated confidence in the quality of the evidence (6 of 32 [18.8%]), described potential benefits and harms (6 of 32 [18.8%]), or graded the strength of the recommendations (5 of 32 [15.6%]). External review, patient or public perspectives, or a process for updating were rare. High-quality CPGs included a methodologist and multidisciplinary collaborations involving investigators from 2 or more WHO regions. Conclusions and Relevance: In this review, few COVID-19 CPGs met NAM standards for trustworthy guidelines. Approaches that prioritize engagement of a methodologist and multidisciplinary collaborators from at least 2 WHO regions may lead to the production of fewer, high-quality CPGs that are poised for updates as new evidence emerges. Trial Registration: PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42021245239.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , Delivery of Health Care/standards , Hospitalization , Pandemics , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Academies and Institutes , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Societies, Medical , Trust
8.
Crit Care Explor ; 3(10): e0562, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1494022

ABSTRACT

To create evidence-based consensus statements for restricted ICU visitation policies to support critically ill patients, families, and healthcare professionals during current and future pandemics. DESIGN: Three rounds of a remote modified Delphi consensus process. SETTING: Online survey and virtual polling from February 2, 2021, to April 8, 2021. SUBJECTS: Stakeholders (patients, families, clinicians, researchers, allied health professionals, decision-makers) admitted to or working in Canadian ICUs during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: During Round 1, key stakeholders used a 9-point Likert scale to rate experiences (1-not significant, 9-significant impact on patients, families, healthcare professionals, or patient- and family-centered care) and strategies (1-not essential, 9-essential recommendation for inclusion in the development of restricted visitation policies) and used a free-text box to capture experiences/strategies we may have missed. Consensus was achieved if the median score was 7-9 or 1-3. During Round 2, participants used a 9-point Likert scale to re-rate experiences/strategies that did not meet consensus during Round 1 (median score of 4-6) and rate new items identified in Round 1. During Rounds 2 and 3, participants ranked items that reached consensus by order of importance (relative to other related items and experiences) using a weighted ranking system (0-100 points). Participants prioritized 11 experiences (e.g., variability of family's comfort with technology, healthcare professional moral distress) and developed 21 consensus statements (e.g., communicate policy changes to the hospital staff before the public, permit visitors at end-of-life regardless of coronavirus disease 2019 status, creating a clear definition for end-of-life) regarding restricted visitation policies. CONCLUSIONS: We have formulated evidence-informed consensus statements regarding restricted visitation policies informed by diverse stakeholders, which could enhance patient- and family-centered care during a pandemic.

9.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 347, 2021 09 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1438304

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings because of the COVID-19 pandemic have negative consequences. The objective of this scoping review is to identify impacts of restricted visitation policies in acute care settings, and describe perspectives and mitigation approaches among patients, families, and healthcare professionals. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Healthstar, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on January 01/2021, unrestricted, for published primary research records reporting any study design. We included secondary (e.g., reviews) and non-research records (e.g., commentaries), and performed manual searches in web-based resources. We excluded records that did not report primary data. Two reviewers independently abstracted data in duplicate. RESULTS: Of 7810 citations, we included 155 records. Sixty-six records (43%) were primary research; 29 (44%) case reports or case series, and 26 (39%) cohort studies; 21 (14%) were literature reviews and 8 (5%) were expert recommendations; 54 (35%) were commentary, editorial, or opinion pieces. Restricted visitation policies impacted coping and daily function (n = 31, 20%) and mental health outcomes (n = 29, 19%) of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Participants described a need for coping and support (n = 107, 69%), connection and communication (n = 107, 69%), and awareness of state of well-being (n = 101, 65%). Eighty-seven approaches to mitigate impact of restricted visitation were identified, targeting families (n = 61, 70%), patients (n = 51, 59%), and healthcare professionals (n = 40, 46%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients, families, and healthcare professionals were impacted by restricted visitation polices in acute care settings during COVID-19. The consequences of this approach on patients and families are understudied and warrant evaluation of approaches to mitigate their impact. Future pandemic policy development should include the perspectives of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020221662) and a protocol peer-reviewed prior to data extraction.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Critical Care , Family , Health Policy , Inpatients , Physical Distancing , Visitors to Patients , COVID-19/psychology , COVID-19/transmission , Communication , Family/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Inpatients/psychology , Mental Health Services , Pandemics , Psychological Distress , SARS-CoV-2 , Telephone , Visitors to Patients/psychology
10.
Chest ; 161(2): 418-428, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1363121

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Critically ill adults are at increased risk of VTE, including DVT, and pulmonary embolism. Various agents exist for venous thromboprophylaxis in this population. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the comparative efficacy and safety of prophylaxis agents for prevention of VTE in critically ill adults? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating efficacy of thromboprophylaxis agents among critically ill patients. We searched six databases (including PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline) from inception through January 2021 for RCTs of patients in the ICU receiving pharmacologic, mechanical, or combination therapy (pharmacologic agents and mechanical devices) for thromboprophylaxis. Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and extraction. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to rate certainty of effect estimates. RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (9,619 patients). Compared with control treatment (a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduced the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.59 [95% credible interval [CrI], 0.33-0.90]; high certainty) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82 [95% CrI, 0.47-1.37]; low certainty). LMWH probably reduces DVT compared with UFH (OR, 0.72 [95% CrI, 0.46-0.98]; moderate certainty). Compressive devices may reduce risk of DVT compared with control treatments; however, this is based on low-certainty evidence (OR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.50-1.50]). Combination therapy showed unclear effect on DVT compared with either therapy alone (very low certainty). INTERPRETATION: Among critically ill adults, compared with control treatment, LMWH reduces incidence of DVT, whereas UFH and mechanical compressive devices may reduce the risk of DVT. LMWH is probably more effective than UFH in reducing incidence of DVT and should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis. The efficacy and safety of combination pharmacologic therapy and mechanical compressive devices were unclear. TRIAL REGISTRY: Open Science Framework; URL: https://osf.io/694aj.


Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Critical Illness , Intermittent Pneumatic Compression Devices , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Adult , Heparin/therapeutic use , Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight/therapeutic use , Humans , Pulmonary Embolism/prevention & control , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
11.
CMAJ Open ; 9(1): E181-E188, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1124785

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Clinical data on patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) provide clinicians and public health officials with information to guide practice and policy. The aims of this study were to describe patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital and intensive care, and to investigate predictors of outcome to characterize severe acute respiratory infection. METHODS: This observational cohort study used Canadian data from 32 selected hospitals included in a global multisite cohort between Jan. 24 and July 7, 2020. Adult and pediatric patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who received care in an intensive care unit (ICU) and a sampling of up to the first 60 patients receiving care on hospital wards were included. We performed descriptive analyses of characteristics, interventions and outcomes. The primary analyses examined in-hospital mortality, with secondary analyses of the length of hospital and ICU stay. RESULTS: Between January and July 2020, among 811 patients admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of COVID-19, the median age was 64 (interquartile range [IQR] 53-75) years, 495 (61.0%) were men, 46 (5.7%) were health care workers, 9 (1.1%) were pregnant, 26 (3.2%) were younger than 18 years and 9 (1.1%) were younger than 5 years. The median time from symptom onset to hospital admission was 7 (IQR 3-10) days. The most common symptoms on admission were fever, shortness of breath, cough and malaise. Diabetes, hypertension and cardiac, kidney and respiratory disease were the most common comorbidities. Among all patients, 328 received care in an ICU, admitted a median of 0 (IQR 0-1) days after hospital admission. Critically ill patients received treatment with invasive mechanical ventilation (88.8%), renal replacement therapy (14.9%) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (4.0%); 26.2% died. Among those receiving mechanical ventilation, 31.2% died. Age was an influential predictor of mortality (odds ratio per additional year of life 1.06, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.09). INTERPRETATION: Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 commonly had fever, respiratory symptoms and comorbid conditions. Increasing age was associated with the development of critical illness and death; however, most critically ill patients in Canada, including those requiring mechanical ventilation, survived and were discharged from hospital.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Critical Care , Hospitalization , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , Canada/epidemiology , Comorbidity , Critical Illness , Disease Management , Disease Progression , Female , Humans , Incidence , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Pandemics , Pregnancy , Public Health Surveillance , Severity of Illness Index , Young Adult
12.
Crit Care Med ; 48(10): 1403-1410, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-717244

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To describe the importance of critical care clinical research that is not pandemic-focused during pandemic times; outline principles to assist in the prioritization of nonpandemic research during pandemic times; and propose a guiding framework for decisions about whether, when and how to continue nonpandemic research while still honoring the moral and scientific imperative to launch research that is pandemic-focused. DESIGN/DATA SOURCES: Using in-person, email, and videoconference exchanges, we convened an interprofessional clinical research group, conducted a literature review of empirical studies, ethics documents and expert commentaries (2010 to present), and viewed traditional and social media posts (March 2020 to May 2020). Stakeholder consultation involved scientific, ethics, clinical, and administrative leaders. SETTING: Clinical research in the ICU. PATIENTS: Patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: While clinical research should be prioritized to advantage patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in order to care for affected patients, it ideally would not unduly disadvantage patients without coronavirus disease 2019. Thus, timely, rigorous, relevant, and ethical clinical research is needed to improve the care and optimize outcomes for both patients with and without coronavirus disease 2019, acknowledging how many studies that are not exclusively focused on coronavirus disease 2019 remain relevant to patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Considerations to continue nonpandemic-focused research include the status of the pandemic, local jurisdictional guidance, capacity and safety of bedside and research personnel, disposition of patients already enrolled in nonpandemic studies, analyzing characteristics of each nonpandemic-focused study, research oversight, and final reporting requirements. CONCLUSIONS: Deliberation about continuing nonpandemic research should use objective, transparent criteria considering several aspects of the research process such as bedside and research staff safety, infection control, the informed consent model, protocol complexity, data collection, and implementation integrity. Decisions to pause or pursue nonpandemic research should be proportionate, transparent, and revisited as the pandemic abates.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/organization & administration , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Critical Care/standards , Pandemics/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Critical Illness/mortality , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Global Health , Humans , Infection Control/standards , Male , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Research Design , Safety Management
13.
J Physiother ; 66(2): 73-82, 2020 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-617940

ABSTRACT

This document outlines recommendations for physiotherapy management for COVID-19 in the acute hospital setting. It includes: recommendations for physiotherapy workforce planning and preparation; a screening tool for determining requirement for physiotherapy; and recommendations for the selection of physiotherapy treatments and personal protective equipment. It is intended for use by physiotherapists and other relevant stakeholders in the acute care setting caring for adult patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/complications , Critical Care/methods , Personal Protective Equipment , Physical Therapy Modalities , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Practice Guidelines as Topic , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Humans , Pandemics , Physical Therapy Modalities/standards , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL