Comparison of Vie Scope® and Macintosh laryngoscopes for intubation during resuscitation by paramedics wearing personal protective equipment.

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is still the gold standard of airway management, but in cases of sudden cardiac arrest in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, ETI is associated with risks for both the patient and the medical personnel. We hypothesized that the Vie Scope® is more useful for endotracheal intubation of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cardiac arrest patients than the conventional laryngoscope with Macintosh blade when operators are wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). METHODS: Study was designed as a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed by Emergency Medical Services in Poland. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who needed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prehospital setting were included. Patients under 18 years old or with criteria predictive of impossible intubation under direct laryngoscopy, were excluded. Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to Vie Scope® versus direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade. Study groups were compared on success of intubation attempts, time to intubation, glottis visualization and number of optimization maneuvers. RESULTS: We enrolled 90 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, aged 43-92 years. Compared to the VieScope® laryngoscope, use of the Macintosh laryngoscope required longer times for tracheal intubation with an estimated mean difference of -48 s (95%CI confidence interval [CI], -60.23, -35.77; p < 0.001). Moreover VieScope® improved first attempt success rate, 93.3% vs. 51.1% respectively (odds ratio [OR] = 13.39; 95%CI: 3.62, 49.58; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Vie Scope® laryngoscope in OHCA patients improved the first attempt success rate, and reduced intubation time compared to Macintosh laryngoscope in paramedics wearing PPE for against aerosol generating procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials registration number NCT04365608.

Prevalence and Predictors of Home Health Care Workers' General, Physical, and Mental Health: Findings From the 2014‒2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

Objectives. To determine the prevalence and predictors of US home health care workers' (HHWs') self-reported general, physical, and mental health. Methods. Using the 2014-2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, we analyzed the characteristics and health of 2987 HHWs (weighted n = 659 000) compared with 2 similar low-wage worker groups (health care aides and health care support workers, not working in the home). We conducted multivariable logistic regression to determine which characteristics predicted HHWs' health. Results. Overall, 26.6% of HHWs had fair or poor general health, 14.1% had poor physical health, and 20.9% had poor mental health; the prevalence of each outcome was significantly higher than that of the comparison groups. Among HHWs, certain factors, such as low household income, an inability to see a doctor because of cost, and a history of depression, were associated with all 3 aspects of suboptimal health. Conclusions. HHWs had worse general, physical, and mental health compared with low-wage workers not in home health. Public Health Implications. Increased attention to the health of HHWs by public health experts and policymakers is warranted. In addition, targeted interventions appropriate to their specific health needs may be required. (Am J Public Health. 2021;111(12):2239-2250. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306512).

The impact of COVID-19 on patient safety attendant use.

ABSTRACT: Patient safety attendants (PSAs) provide constant direct observation to patients who have cognitive impairments or thoughts. Some estimates report that an acute care hospital in the United States may spend more than $1 million annually on PSAs, an expenditure often not reimbursed. With no national defined standards to regulate or monitor PSA use, this study sought to determine the impact of COVID-19 on a PSA reduction program in a large Midwestern healthcare system.

Do Paramedics Have a Professional Obligation to Work During a Pandemic? A Qualitative Exploration of Community Member Expectations.

OBJECTIVES: Previous research has identified a lack of clarification regarding paramedic professional obligation to work. Understanding community expectations of paramedics will provide some clarity around this issue. The objective of this research was to explore the expectations of a sample of Australian community members regarding the professional obligation of paramedics to respond during pandemics. METHODS: The authors used qualitative methods to gather Australian community member perspectives immediately before the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Focus groups were used for data collection, and a thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The findings revealed 9 key themes: context of obligation (normal operations versus crisis situation), hierarchy of obligation (individual versus organizational obligation), risk acceptability, acceptable occupational risk (it's part of the job), access to personal protective equipment, legal and ethical guidelines, education and training, safety, and acceptable limitations to obligation. The factors identified as being acceptable limitations to professional obligation are presented as further sub-themes: physical health, mental health, and competing personal obligations. CONCLUSIONS: The issue of professional obligation must be addressed by ambulance services as a matter of urgency, especially in light of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. Further research is recommended to understand how community member expectations evolve during and after the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic.

A multinational, multicentre study on the psychological outcomes and associated physical symptoms amongst healthcare workers during COVID-19 outbreak.

OBJECTIVE: Since the declaration of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak as pandemic, there are reports on the increased prevalence of physical symptoms observed in the general population. We investigated the association between psychological outcomes and physical symptoms among healthcare workers. METHODS: Healthcare workers from 5 major hospitals, involved in the care for COVID-19 patients, in Singapore and India were invited to participate in a study by performing a self-administered questionnaire within the period of February 19 to April 17, 2020. Healthcare workers included doctors, nurses, allied healthcare workers, administrators, clerical staff and maintenance workers. This questionnaire collected information on demographics, medical history, symptom prevalence in the past month, Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21) and the Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R) instrument. The prevalence of physical symptoms displayed by healthcare workers and the associations between physical symptoms and psychological outcomes of depression, anxiety, stress, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were evaluated. RESULTS: Out of the 906 healthcare workers who participated in the survey, 48 (5.3%) screened positive for moderate to very-severe depression, 79 (8.7%) for moderate to extremely-severe anxiety, 20 (2.2%) for moderate to extremely-severe stress, and 34 (3.8%) for moderate to severe levels of psychological distress. The commonest reported symptom was headache (32.3%), with a large number of participants (33.4%) reporting more than four symptoms. Participants who had experienced symptoms in the preceding month were more likely to be older, have pre-existing comorbidities and a positive screen for depression, anxiety, stress, and PTSD. After adjusting for age, gender and comorbidities, it was found that depression (OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.54-5.07, p = 0.001), anxiety (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.36-3.48, p = 0.001), stress (OR 3.06, 95% CI 1.27-7.41, p = 0.13), and PTSD (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.12-4.35, p = 0.023) remained significantly associated with the presence of physical symptoms experienced in the preceding month. Linear regression revealed that the presence of physical symptoms was associated with higher mean scores in the IES-R, DASS Anxiety, Stress and Depression subscales. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates a significant association between the prevalence of physical symptoms and psychological outcomes among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 outbreak. We postulate that this association may be bi-directional, and that timely psychological interventions for healthcare workers with physical symptoms should be considered once an infection has been excluded.