Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Anaesthesia ; 77(9): 959-970, 2022 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1948977


The evidence base surrounding the transmission risk of 'aerosol-generating procedures' has evolved primarily through quantification of aerosol concentrations during clinical practice. Consequently, infection prevention and control guidelines are undergoing continual reassessment. This mixed-methods study aimed to explore the perceptions of practicing anaesthetists regarding aerosol-generating procedures. An online survey was distributed to the Membership Engagement Group of the Royal College of Anaesthetists during November 2021. The survey included five clinical scenarios to identify the personal approach of respondents to precautions, their hospital's policies and the associated impact on healthcare provision. A purposive sample was selected for interviews to explore the reasoning behind their perceptions and behaviours in greater depth. A total of 333 survey responses were analysed quantitatively. Transcripts from 18 interviews were coded and analysed thematically. The sample was broadly representative of the UK anaesthetic workforce. Most respondents and their hospitals were aware of, supported and adhered to UK guidance. However, there were examples of substantial divergence from these guidelines at both individual and hospital level. For example, 40 (12%) requested respiratory protective equipment and 63 (20%) worked in hospitals that required it to be worn whilst performing tracheal intubation in SARS-CoV-2 negative patients. Additionally, 173 (52%) wore respiratory protective equipment whilst inserting supraglottic airway devices. Regarding the use of respiratory protective equipment and fallow times in the operating theatre: 305 (92%) perceived reduced efficiency; 376 (83%) perceived a negative impact on teamworking; 201 (64%) were worried about environmental impact; and 255 (77%) reported significant problems with communication. However, 269 (63%) felt the negative impacts of respiratory protection equipment were appropriately balanced against the risks of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Attitudes were polarised about the prospect of moving away from using respiratory protective equipment. Participants' perceived risk from COVID-19 correlated with concern regarding stepdown (Spearman's test, R = 0.36, p < 0.001). Attitudes towards aerosol-generating procedures and the need for respiratory protective equipment are evolving and this information can be used to inform strategies to facilitate successful adoption of revised guidelines.

COVID-19 , Personal Protective Equipment , Anesthetists , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Respiratory Aerosols and Droplets , SARS-CoV-2
J Hosp Infect ; 124: 13-21, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1882202


BACKGROUND: Open respiratory suctioning is defined as an aerosol generating procedure (AGP). Laryngopharyngeal suctioning, used to clear secretions during anaesthesia, is widely managed as an AGP. However, it is uncertain whether upper airway suctioning should be designated as an AGP due to the lack of both aerosol and epidemiological evidence. AIM: To assess the relative risk of aerosol generation by upper airway suctioning during tracheal intubation and extubation in anaesthetized patients. METHODS: This prospective environmental monitoring study was undertaken in an ultraclean operating theatre setting to assay aerosol concentrations during intubation and extubation sequences, including upper airway suctioning, for patients undergoing surgery (N=19). An optical particle sizer (particle size 0.3-10 µm) sampled aerosol 20 cm above the patient's mouth. Baseline recordings (background, tidal breathing and volitional coughs) were followed by intravenous induction of anaesthesia with neuromuscular blockade. Four periods of laryngopharyngeal suctioning were performed with a Yankauer sucker: pre-laryngoscopy, post-intubation, pre-extubation and post-extubation. FINDINGS: Aerosol was reliably detected {median 65 [interquartile range (IQR) 39-259] particles/L} above background [median 4.8 (IQR 1-7) particles/L, P<0.0001] when sampling in close proximity to the patient's mouth during tidal breathing. Upper airway suctioning was associated with a much lower average aerosol concentration than breathing [median 6.0 (IQR 0-12) particles/L, P=0.0007], and was indistinguishable from background (P>0.99). Peak aerosol concentrations recorded during suctioning [median 45 (IQR 30-75) particles/L] were much lower than during volitional coughs [median 1520 (IQR 600-4363) particles/L, P<0.0001] and tidal breathing [median 540 (IQR 300-1826) particles/L, P<0.0001]. CONCLUSION: Upper airway suctioning during airway management was not associated with a higher aerosol concentration compared with background, and was associated with a much lower aerosol concentration compared with breathing and coughing. Upper airway suctioning should not be designated as a high-risk AGP.

Airway Extubation , Cough , Aerosols , Airway Extubation/methods , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal , Prospective Studies
Managing Sport and Leisure ; 27(1/2):119-128, 2022.
Article in English | CAB Abstracts | ID: covidwho-1769089


Our aim in this short article is to provide an analysis of the implications of reopening football stadium doors to a group that have not been at the forefront of management consideration - disabled spectators. In order to achieve this aim, we uphold a social model approach to disability to review the current spectator sport situation across English professional football and outline the problems posed for disabled fans. We then provide the context to disabled people's experiences in football fandom which have often been unsatisfactory. This context then underpins a series of implications that will arise from the reopening of stadia in England. To conclude this commentary, we provide several management recommendations that we argue should facilitate a more disability-inclusive restart for spectator sport.