Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 105
Filter
1.
STAR Protoc ; 2(4): 100943, 2021 12 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1510407

ABSTRACT

During the COVID-19 pandemic, US states developed Crisis Standards of Care (CSC) algorithms to triage allocation of scarce resources to maximize population-wide benefit. While CSC algorithms were developed by ethical debate, this protocol guides their quantitative assessment. For CSC algorithms, this protocol addresses (1) adapting algorithms for empirical study, (2) quantifying predictive accuracy, and (3) simulating clinical decision-making. This protocol provides a framework for healthcare systems and governments to test the performance of CSC algorithms to ensure they meet their stated ethical goals. For complete details on the use and execution of this protocol, please refer to Jezmir et al. (2021).


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/standards , Health Care Rationing/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Standard of Care/ethics , Triage/standards , COVID-19/virology , Critical Care/ethics , Health Care Rationing/ethics , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Triage/ethics , Triage/methods
2.
Chest ; 161(2): 429-447, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1401309

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: After the publication of a 2014 consensus statement regarding mass critical care during public health emergencies, much has been learned about surge responses and the care of overwhelming numbers of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gaps in prior pandemic planning were identified and require modification in the midst of severe ongoing surges throughout the world. RESEARCH QUESTION: A subcommittee from The Task Force for Mass Critical Care (TFMCC) investigated the most recent COVID-19 publications coupled with TFMCC members anecdotal experience in order to formulate operational strategies to optimize contingency level care, and prevent crisis care circumstances associated with increased mortality. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: TFMCC adopted a modified version of established rapid guideline methodologies from the World Health Organization and the Guidelines International Network-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist. With a consensus development process incorporating expert opinion to define important questions and extract evidence, the TFMCC developed relevant pandemic surge suggestions in a structured manner, incorporating peer-reviewed literature, "gray" evidence from lay media sources, and anecdotal experiential evidence. RESULTS: Ten suggestions were identified regarding staffing, load-balancing, communication, and technology. Staffing models are suggested with resilience strategies to support critical care staff. ICU surge strategies and strain indicators are suggested to enhance ICU prioritization tactics to maintain contingency level care and to avoid crisis triage, with early transfer strategies to further load-balance care. We suggest that intensivists and hospitalists be engaged with the incident command structure to ensure two-way communication, situational awareness, and the use of technology to support critical care delivery and families of patients in ICUs. INTERPRETATION: A subcommittee from the TFMCC offers interim evidence-informed operational strategies to assist hospitals and communities to plan for and respond to surge capacity demands resulting from COVID-19.


Subject(s)
Advisory Committees , COVID-19 , Critical Care , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Surge Capacity , Triage , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/methods , Critical Care/organization & administration , Evidence-Based Practice/methods , Evidence-Based Practice/organization & administration , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Surge Capacity/organization & administration , Surge Capacity/standards , Triage/methods , Triage/standards , United States/epidemiology
3.
Chest ; 161(2): 504-513, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1401308

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Faced with possible shortages due to COVID-19, many states updated or rapidly developed crisis standards of care (CSCs) and other pandemic preparedness plans (PPPs) for rationing resources, particularly ventilators. RESEARCH QUESTION: How have US states incorporated the controversial standard of rationing by age and/or life-years into their pandemic preparedness plans? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was an investigator-initiated, textual analysis conducted from April to June 2020, querying online resources and in-state contacts to identify PPPs published by each of the 50 states and for Washington, DC. Analysis included the most recent versions of CSC documents and official state PPPs containing triage guidance as of June 2020. Plans were categorized as rationing by (A) short-term survival (≤ 1 year), (B) 1 to 5 expected life-years, (C) total life-years, (D) "fair innings," that is, specific age cutoffs, or (O) other. The primary measure was any use of age and/or life-years. Plans were further categorized on the basis of whether age/life-years was a primary consideration. RESULTS: Thirty-five states promulgated PPPs addressing the rationing of critical care resources. Seven states considered short-term prognosis, seven considered whether a patient had 1 to 5 expected life-years, 13 rationed by total life-years, and one used the fair innings principle. Seven states provided only general ethical considerations. Seventeen of the 21 plans considering age/life-years made it a primary consideration. Several plans borrowed heavily from a few common sources, although use of terminology was inconsistent. Many documents were modified in light of controversy. INTERPRETATION: Guidance with respect to rationing by age and/or life-years varied widely. More than one-half of PPPs, many following a few common models, included age/life-years as an explicit rationing criterion; the majority of these made it a primary consideration. Terminology was often vague, and many plans evolved in response to pushback. These findings have ethical implications for the care of older adults and other vulnerable populations during a pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Civil Defense/standards , Crew Resource Management, Healthcare , Critical Care , Health Care Rationing/standards , Standard of Care/organization & administration , Triage , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Crew Resource Management, Healthcare/ethics , Crew Resource Management, Healthcare/methods , Crew Resource Management, Healthcare/organization & administration , Critical Care/ethics , Critical Care/organization & administration , Critical Care/standards , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Surge Capacity/standards , Triage/ethics , Triage/organization & administration , Triage/standards , United States/epidemiology , Vulnerable Populations
4.
Allergy Asthma Proc ; 42(5): 395-399, 2021 Sep 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1394716

ABSTRACT

Background: Adverse reactions, including anaphylaxis, to messenger RNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines rarely occur. Because of the need to administer a timely second dose in subjects who reported a reaction to their first dose, a panel of health-care professionals developed a safe triage of the employees and health care providers (EHCP) at a large health-care system to consider administration of future dosing. Methods: There were 28,544 EHCPs who received their first dose of COVID-19 vaccines between December 15, 2020, and March 8, 2021. The EHCPs self-reported adverse reactions to a centralized COVID-19 command center (CCC). The CCC screened and collected information on the quality of reaction, symptoms, and timing of the onset of the reaction. Results: Of 1253 calls to the CCC, 113 were identified as requiring consideration by a panel of three (American Board of Allergy and Immunology) ABAI-certified allergists for future dosing or formal in-person assessment. Of the 113 EHCPs, 94 (83.2%) were recommended to get their second dose. Eighty of 94 received their second planned dose without a severe or immediate reaction. Of the 14 of 113 identified as needing further evaluation, 6 were evaluated by a physician and subsequently received their second dose without a serious adverse reaction. Eight of 14 did not receive their second dose. Only 5 of the 113 EHCPs reported reactions (4.4%) were recommended to not take the second dose: 3 (2.6%) because of symptoms consistent with anaphylaxis, and 2 because of neurologic complications (seizure, stroke). Conclusion: The panel demonstrated that, by consideration of reaction history alone, the ECHPs could be appropriately triaged to receive scheduled second dosing of COVID-19 vaccines without delays for in-person evaluation and allergy testing.


Subject(s)
Anaphylaxis/etiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Occupational Diseases/prevention & control , Triage/methods , Vaccines, Synthetic/adverse effects , Adult , Aged , Anaphylaxis/diagnosis , Anaphylaxis/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Occupational Health Services/methods , Occupational Health Services/standards , Quality Improvement , Retrospective Studies , Self Report , Triage/standards , Vaccines, Synthetic/administration & dosage
5.
Cancer ; 127(22): 4177-4189, 2021 11 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1363649

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Remote triage for suspected head and neck cancer (HNC) referrals was adopted by many institutions during the initial peak of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Its safety in this population has not been established. METHODS: A 16-week, prospective, multicenter national service evaluation was started on March 23, 2020. Suspected HNC referrals undergoing remote triage in UK secondary care centers were identified and followed up for a minimum of 6 months to record the cancer status. Triage was supported by risk stratification using a validated calculator. RESULTS: Data for 4568 cases were submitted by 41 centers serving a population of approximately 26 million. These represented 14.1% of the predicted maximum referrals for this population outside of pandemic times, and this gave the study a margin of error of 1.34% at 95% confidence. Completed 6-month follow-up data were available for 99.8% with an overall cancer rate of 5.6% (254 of 4557). The rates of triage were as follows: urgent imaging investigation, 25.4% (n = 1156); urgent face-to-face review, 27.8%; (n = 1268); assessment deferral, 30.3% (n = 1382); and discharge, 16.4% (n = 749). The corresponding missed cancers rates were 0.5% (5 of 1048), 0.3% (3 of 1149), 0.9% (12 of 1382), and 0.9% (7 of 747; P = .15). The negative predictive value for a nonurgent triage outcome and no cancer diagnosis was 99.1%. Overall harm was reported in 0.24% (11 of 4557) and was highest for deferred assessments (0.58%; 8 of 1382). CONCLUSIONS: Remote triage, incorporating risk stratification, may facilitate targeted investigations for higher risk patients and prevent unnecessary hospital attendance for lower risk patients. The risk of harm is low and may be reduced further with appropriate safety netting of deferred appointments. LAY SUMMARY: This large national study observed the widespread adoption of telephone assessment (supported by a risk calculator) of patients referred to hospital specialists with suspected head and neck cancer during the initial peak of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The authors identified 4568 patients from 41 UK centers (serving a population of more than 26 million people) who were followed up for a minimum of 6 months. Late cancers were identified, whether reviewed or investigated urgently (0.4%) or nonurgently (0.9%), but the overall rate of harm was low (0.2%), with the highest rate being seen with deferred appointments (0.6%).


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Head and Neck Neoplasms/diagnosis , Remote Consultation/methods , Triage/methods , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Child , Child, Preschool , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Head and Neck Neoplasms/epidemiology , Head and Neck Neoplasms/therapy , Humans , Infant , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Prospective Studies , Remote Consultation/standards , Risk Assessment/methods , Triage/standards , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Young Adult
6.
Natl Med J India ; 33(6): 349-357, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1332193

ABSTRACT

Covid-19 infection has placed health systems under unprecedented strain and foresight for preparedness is the key factor to avert disaster. Every facility that provides obstetric service needs a certain level of preparedness to be able to handle at least Covid-suspect pregnant women awaiting test reports, who need to be managed as Covid-positive patients till reports are available. Thus, these facilities need to have triage areas and Covid-suspect labour rooms. Healthcare facilities can have designated areas for Covid-positive patients or have referral linkages with designated Covid-positive hospitals. Preparation includes structural reorganization with setting up a Covid-suspect and Covid-positive facility in adequate space, as well as extensive training of staff about infection control practices and rational use of personal protective equipment (PPE). A systematic approach involving five essential steps of making standard operating procedures, infrastructural reorganization for a triage area and a Covid-suspect labour ward, procurement of PPE, managing the personnel and instituting appropriate infection control practices can ensure uninterrupted services to patients without compromising the safety of healthcare providers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Infection Control/organization & administration , Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Hospital/organization & administration , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/prevention & control , Triage/organization & administration , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Testing/standards , Disinfection/organization & administration , Disinfection/standards , Female , Health Personnel/education , Health Personnel/psychology , Health Personnel/standards , Humans , Infection Control/standards , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Hospital/standards , Occupational Stress/prevention & control , Occupational Stress/psychology , Pandemics/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment/standards , Postnatal Care/organization & administration , Postnatal Care/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/diagnosis , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/epidemiology , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/virology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Triage/standards
7.
Rev. Bras. Saúde Mater. Infant. (Online) ; 21(supl.2): 519-527, 2021. graf
Article in English | WHO COVID, LILACS (Americas) | ID: covidwho-1328010

ABSTRACT

Abstract Objectives: to develop a flow to ensure care for all people with severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2, offering from intensive care to palliative care, in an equitable and fair manner. Methods: the modified Delphi methodology was used to reach consensus on a flow and a prioritization index among specialists, the regional council of medicine, members of the healthcare system and the local judicial sector. Results: the score was incorporated into the flow as the final phase for building the list of patients who will be referred to intensive care, whenever a ventilator is available. Patients with lower scores should have priority access to the ICU. Patients with higher scores should receive palliative care associated with available curative measures. However, curative measures must be proportionate to the severity of the overall clinical situation and the prognosis. Conclusions: this tool could and will prevent patients from being excluded from access to the necessary health care so that their demands are assessed, their suffering is reduced, and their illnesses are cured, when possible.


Resumo Objetivos: desenvolver um fluxo para garantir o atendimento a todas as pessoas com Síndrome da Angústia Respiratória Aguda de forma equitativa e justa. Métodos: a metodologia Delphi modificada foi utilizada para obter um consenso sobre um fluxo e um escore de priorização entre especialistas do Conselho Regional de Medicina, membros gestores do sistema de saúde e setor judiciário local. Resultados: a priorização foi baseada na insuficiência aguda de órgãos, comorbidades, fragilidade e funcionalidade. O escore foi incorporado ao fluxo como fase final para construção da lista ordenada de pacientes que serão encaminhados para terapia intensiva, sempre que houver ventilador disponível. Pacientes com pontuações mais baixas devem ter prioridade de acesso à UTI. Pacientes com pontuações mais altas devem receber cuidados paliativos associados às medidas curativas disponíveis. No entanto, medidas curativas devem ser proporcionais à gravidade da situação clínica global e ao prognóstico. Conclusão: esta ferramenta pôde e poderá evitar que pacientes sejam excluídos do acesso aos cuidados de saúde necessários para que suas demandas sejam avaliadas, seu sofrimento diminuído e suas doenças curadas, quando possível.


Subject(s)
Humans , Palliative Care/standards , Triage/standards , Health Equity , Critical Care/standards , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome , COVID-19/epidemiology , Palliative Care/ethics , Prognosis , Critical Care/ethics , Decision Making , Intensive Care Units
8.
Rev. Bras. Saúde Mater. Infant. (Online) ; 21(supl.2): 519-527, 2021. graf
Article in English | WHO COVID, LILACS (Americas) | ID: covidwho-1328009

ABSTRACT

Abstract Objectives: to develop a flow to ensure care for all people with severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2, offering from intensive care to palliative care, in an equitable and fair manner. Methods: the modified Delphi methodology was used to reach consensus on a flow and a prioritization index among specialists, the regional council of medicine, members of the healthcare system and the local judicial sector. Results: the score was incorporated into the flow as the final phase for building the list of patients who will be referred to intensive care, whenever a ventilator is available. Patients with lower scores should have priority access to the ICU. Patients with higher scores should receive palliative care associated with available curative measures. However, curative measures must be proportionate to the severity of the overall clinical situation and the prognosis. Conclusions: this tool could and will prevent patients from being excluded from access to the necessary health care so that their demands are assessed, their suffering is reduced, and their illnesses are cured, when possible.


Resumo Objetivos: desenvolver um fluxo para garantir o atendimento a todas as pessoas com Síndrome da Angústia Respiratória Aguda de forma equitativa e justa. Métodos: a metodologia Delphi modificada foi utilizada para obter um consenso sobre um fluxo e um escore de priorização entre especialistas do Conselho Regional de Medicina, membros gestores do sistema de saúde e setor judiciário local. Resultados: a priorização foi baseada na insuficiência aguda de órgãos, comorbidades, fragilidade e funcionalidade. O escore foi incorporado ao fluxo como fase final para construção da lista ordenada de pacientes que serão encaminhados para terapia intensiva, sempre que houver ventilador disponível. Pacientes com pontuações mais baixas devem ter prioridade de acesso à UTI. Pacientes com pontuações mais altas devem receber cuidados paliativos associados às medidas curativas disponíveis. No entanto, medidas curativas devem ser proporcionais à gravidade da situação clínica global e ao prognóstico. Conclusão: esta ferramenta pôde e poderá evitar que pacientes sejam excluídos do acesso aos cuidados de saúde necessários para que suas demandas sejam avaliadas, seu sofrimento diminuído e suas doenças curadas, quando possível.


Subject(s)
Humans , Palliative Care/standards , Triage/standards , Health Equity , Critical Care/standards , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome , COVID-19/epidemiology , Palliative Care/ethics , Prognosis , Critical Care/ethics , Decision Making , Intensive Care Units
9.
Emerg Med J ; 38(9): 692-693, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1320446

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Recent research suggests that between 20% and 50% of paediatric head injuries attending our emergency department (ED) could be safely discharged soon after triage, without the need for medical review, using a 'Head Injury Discharge At Triage' tool (HIDAT). We sought to implement this into clinical practice. METHODS: Paediatric ED triage staff underwent competency-based assessments for HIDAT with all head injury presentations 1 May to 31 October 2020 included in analysis. We determined which patients were discharged using the tool, which underwent CT of the brain and whether there was a clinically important traumatic brain injury or representation to the ED. RESULTS: Of the 1429 patients screened; 610 (43%) screened negative with 250 (18%) discharged by nursing staff. Of the entire cohort, 32 CTs were performed for head injury concerns (6 abnormal) with 1 CT performed in the HIDAT negative group (normal). Of those discharged using HIDAT, four reattended, two with vomiting (no imaging or admission) and two with minor scalp wound infections. Two patients who screened negative declined discharge under the policy with later medical discharge (no imaging or admission). Paediatric ED attendances were 29% lower than in 2018. CONCLUSION: We have successfully implemented HIDAT into local clinical practice. The number discharged (18%) is lower than originally described; this is likely multifactorial. The relationship between COVID-19 and paediatric ED attendances is unclear but decreased attendances suggest those for whom the tool was originally designed are not attending ED and may be accessing other medical/non-medical resources.


Subject(s)
Brain Injuries, Traumatic/diagnosis , COVID-19/prevention & control , Head Injuries, Closed/diagnosis , Head Injuries, Penetrating/diagnosis , Triage/methods , Brain Injuries, Traumatic/etiology , Brain Injuries, Traumatic/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Child , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Emergency Service, Hospital/standards , Head Injuries, Closed/complications , Head Injuries, Penetrating/complications , Health Plan Implementation , Hospitals, Pediatric/organization & administration , Humans , Nurses, Pediatric/organization & administration , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Discharge , Professional Role , Triage/organization & administration , Triage/standards
10.
BMC Fam Pract ; 22(1): 146, 2021 07 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1295439

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, general practices were asked to expand triage and to reduce unnecessary face-to-face contact by prioritizing other consultation modes, e.g., online messaging, video, or telephone. The current study explores the potential barriers and facilitators general practitioners experienced to expanding triage systems and their attitudes towards triage during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: A mixed-method study design was used in which a quantitative online survey was conducted along with qualitative interviews to gain a more nuanced appreciation for practitioners' experiences in the United Kingdom. The survey items were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework so they would capture 14 behavioral factors that may influence whether practitioners use triage systems. Items were responded to using seven-point Likert scales. A median score was calculated for each item. The responses of participants identifying as part-owners and non-owners (i.e., "partner" vs. "non-partner" practitioners) were compared. The semi-structured interviews were conducted remotely and examined using Braun and Clark's thematic analysis. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 204 participants (66% Female). Most participants (83%) reported triaging patients. The items with the highest median scores captured the 'Knowledge,' 'Skills,' 'Social/Professional role and identity,' and 'Beliefs about capabilities' domains. The items with the lowest median scores captured the 'Beliefs about consequences,' 'Goals,' and 'Emotions' domains. For 14 of the 17 items, partner scores were higher than non-partner scores. All the qualitative interview participants relied on a phone triage system. Six broad themes were discovered: patient accessibility, confusions around what triage is, uncertainty and risk, relationships between service providers, job satisfaction, and the potential for total digital triage. Suggestions arose to optimize triage, such as ensuring there is sufficient time to conduct triage accurately and providing practical training to use triage efficiently. CONCLUSIONS: Many general practitioners are engaging with expanded triage systems, though more support is needed to achieve total triage across practices. Non-partner practitioners likely require more support to use the triage systems that practices take up. Additionally, practical support should be made available to help all practitioners manage the new risks and uncertainties they are likely to experience during non-face-to-face consultations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , General Practice , General Practitioners , Remote Consultation , Triage , Attitude of Health Personnel , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/therapy , Clinical Competence , England/epidemiology , Female , General Practice/organization & administration , General Practice/standards , General Practice/trends , General Practitioners/psychology , General Practitioners/standards , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/standards , Male , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/ethics , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/trends , Remote Consultation/ethics , Remote Consultation/methods , Risk Management/trends , SARS-CoV-2 , Triage/ethics , Triage/methods , Triage/organization & administration , Triage/standards
11.
J Cancer Res Ther ; 17(2): 547-550, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1268381

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Health emergency due to COVID-19 started in Uruguay on March 13, 2020; our mastology unit tried to ensure adequate oncological care, and protect patients from the virus infection and complications. OBJECTIVE: To assess the health care activities in the "peak" of the pandemic during 3 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: we collected data from the electronic health record. RESULTS: There were a total of 293 medical appointments from 131 patients (221 face-to-face), that decreased by 16.7% compared to the same period in 2019 (352 appointments). The medical appointments were scheduled to evaluate the continuity of systemic treatment or modifications (95 patients; 72.5%), follow-up (17; 12.9%), first-time consultation (12; 9.1%), and assess paraclinical studies (7; 5.3%). The patients were on hormone therapy (81 patients; 74%), chemotherapy (CT) (21; 19%), and anti-HER2 therapies (9; 8%). New twenty treatments were initiated. Of the 14 patients that were on adjuvant/neoadjuvant CT, 9 (64.3%) continued with the same regimen with the addition of prophylactic granulocyte-colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF), and 5 (35.7%), who were receiving weekly paclitaxel, continued the treatment with no changes. Of the seven patients that were on palliative CT, 2 (28.5%) continued the treatment with the addition of G-CSF, 3 (42.8%) continued with weekly capecitabine or paclitaxel with no treatment changes, and 2 (28.5%) changed their treatment regimen (a less myelosuppressive regimen was selected for one and due to progression of the disease in the other patient). The ninety patients who were receiving adjuvant, neoadjuvant, or palliative criteria hormone therapy and/or anti-HER2 therapies, continued the treatment with no changes. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that, although medical appointments decreased by approximately 17%, we could maintain healthcare activities, continued most of the treatments while the most modified was CT with G-CSF to avoid myelosuppression.


Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , Continuity of Patient Care/statistics & numerical data , Delivery of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Medical Oncology/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/adverse effects , Bone Marrow/drug effects , Breast Neoplasms/complications , Breast Neoplasms/diagnosis , Breast Neoplasms/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Continuity of Patient Care/organization & administration , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Delivery of Health Care/standards , Electronic Health Records/statistics & numerical data , Female , Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor/administration & dosage , Hematopoiesis/drug effects , Hematopoiesis/immunology , Humans , Medical Oncology/organization & administration , Medical Oncology/standards , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Referral and Consultation/standards , Referral and Consultation/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Telemedicine/organization & administration , Telemedicine/standards , Telemedicine/statistics & numerical data , Triage/organization & administration , Triage/standards , Uruguay/epidemiology
12.
Plast Reconstr Surg ; 148(1): 168e-169e, 2021 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1263729

Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Infection Control/organization & administration , Pandemics/prevention & control , Surgery Department, Hospital/organization & administration , Surgery, Plastic/organization & administration , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Testing/standards , COVID-19 Testing/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19 Testing/trends , Egypt/epidemiology , Elective Surgical Procedures/standards , Elective Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Elective Surgical Procedures/trends , Health Policy , Humans , Infection Control/standards , Infection Control/statistics & numerical data , Infection Control/trends , Reconstructive Surgical Procedures/standards , Reconstructive Surgical Procedures/statistics & numerical data , Reconstructive Surgical Procedures/trends , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Surgery Department, Hospital/standards , Surgery Department, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Surgery Department, Hospital/trends , Surgery, Plastic/standards , Surgery, Plastic/statistics & numerical data , Surgery, Plastic/trends , Telemedicine/organization & administration , Telemedicine/standards , Telemedicine/statistics & numerical data , Tertiary Care Centers/organization & administration , Tertiary Care Centers/standards , Tertiary Care Centers/statistics & numerical data , Tertiary Care Centers/trends , Triage/organization & administration , Triage/standards , Triage/statistics & numerical data , Triage/trends
13.
S Afr Med J ; 111(5): 426-431, 2021 03 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1256982

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical operations have been drastically reduced in South Africa (SA). Guidelines on surgical prioritisation during COVID-19 have been published, but are specific to high-income countries. There is a pressing need for context-specific guidelines and a validated tool for prioritising surgical cases during the COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2020, the South African National Surgical Obstetric Anaesthesia Plan Task Team was asked by the National Department of Health to establish a national framework for COVID-19 surgical prioritisation. OBJECTIVES: To develop a national framework for COVID-19 surgical prioritisation, including a set of recommendations and a risk calculatorfor operative care. METHODS: The surgical prioritisation framework was developed in three stages: (i) a literature review of international, national and local recommendations on COVID-19 and surgical care was conducted; (ii) a set of recommendations was drawn up based on the available literature and through consensus of the COVID-19 Task Team; and (iii) a COVID-19 surgical risk calculator was developed and evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 30 documents were identified from which recommendations around prioritisation of surgical care were used to draw up six recommendations for preoperative COVID-19 screening and testing as well as the use of appropriate personal protective equipment. Ninety-nine perioperative practitioners from eight SA provinces evaluated the COVID-19 surgical risk calculator, which had high acceptability and a high level of concordance (81%) with current clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: This national framework on COVID-19 surgical prioritisation can help hospital teams make ethical, equitable and personalised decisions whether to proceed with or delay surgical operations during this unprecedented epidemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Critical Care/ethics , Intensive Care Units/standards , Surgery Department, Hospital/organization & administration , Surgical Procedures, Operative/statistics & numerical data , Triage/standards , COVID-19/epidemiology , Consensus , Elective Surgical Procedures , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , South Africa , Surgery Department, Hospital/standards
15.
Curr Oncol ; 28(3): 1867-1878, 2021 05 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1227004

ABSTRACT

Cancer causes substantial emotional and psychosocial distress, which may be exacerbated by delays in treatment. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in increased wait times for many patients with cancer. In this study, the psychosocial distress associated with waiting for cancer surgery during the pandemic was investigated. This cross-sectional, convergent mixed-methods study included patients with lower priority disease during the first wave of COVID-19 at an academic, tertiary care hospital in eastern Canada. Participants underwent semi-structured interviews and completed two questionnaires: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). Qualitative analysis was completed through a thematic analysis approach, with integration achieved through triangulation. Fourteen participants were recruited, with cancer sites including thyroid, kidney, breast, prostate, and a gynecological disorder. Increased anxiety symptoms were found in 36% of patients and depressive symptoms in 14%. Similarly, 64% of patients experienced moderate or high stress. Six key themes were identified, including uncertainty, life changes, coping strategies, communication, experience, and health services. Participants discussed substantial distress associated with lifestyle changes and uncertain treatment timelines. Participants identified quality communication with their healthcare team and individualized coping strategies as being partially protective against such symptoms. Delays in surgery for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in extensive psychosocial distress. Patients may be able to mitigate these symptoms partially through various coping mechanisms and improved communication with their healthcare teams.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Depression/epidemiology , Neoplasms/surgery , Time-to-Treatment , Adaptation, Psychological , Adult , Aged , Anxiety/diagnosis , Anxiety/etiology , Anxiety/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Communicable Disease Control/standards , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/diagnosis , Depression/etiology , Depression/psychology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/psychology , Nova Scotia/epidemiology , Pandemics/prevention & control , Psychological Distress , Psychometrics/statistics & numerical data , Qualitative Research , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , Triage/standards , Uncertainty
17.
Chest ; 160(2): 538-548, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1202982

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented demand for ICUs, with the need to triage admissions along with the development of ICU triage criteria. However, how these criteria relate to outcomes in patients already admitted to the ICU is unknown, as is the incremental ICU capacity that triage of these patients might create given existing admission practices. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the short- and long-term survival of low- vs high-priority patients for ICU admission according to current pandemic triage criteria? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study analyzed prospectively collected registry data (2007-2018) in 23 ICUs in Victoria, Australia, with probabilistic linkage with death registries. After excluding elective surgery, admissions were stratified according to existing ICU triage protocol prioritization as low (age ≥ 85 years, or severe chronic illness, or Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] score = 0 or ≥ 12), medium (SOFA score = 8-11) or high (SOFA score = 1-7) priority. The primary outcome was long-term survival. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS) and bed-day usage. RESULTS: This study examined 126,687 ICU admissions. After 5 years of follow-up, 1,093 of 3,296 (33%; 95% CI, 32-34) of "low-priority" patients aged ≥ 85 years or with severe chronic illness and 86 of 332 (26%; 95% CI, 24-28) with a SOFA score ≥ 12 were still alive. Sixty-three of 290 (22%; 95% CI, 17-27) of patients in these groups followed up for 10 years were still alive. Together, low-priority patients accounted for 27% of all ICU bed-days and had lower in-hospital mortality (22%) than the high-priority patients (28%). Among nonsurvivors, low-priority admissions had shorter ICU LOS than medium- or high-priority admissions. INTERPRETATION: Current SOFA score or age or severe comorbidity-based ICU pandemic triage protocols exclude patients with a close to 80% hospital survival, a > 30% five-year survival, and 27% of ICU bed-day use. These findings imply the need for stronger evidence-based ICU triage protocols.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Illness/classification , Critical Illness/mortality , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Triage/standards , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Survival Rate , Time Factors
19.
Psychiatry Res ; 298: 113833, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1096211

ABSTRACT

Some psychiatric hospitals have instituted mandatory COVID-19 testing for all patients referred for admission. Others have permitted patients to decline testing. Little is known about the rate of COVID-19 infection in acute psychiatric inpatients. Characterizing the proportion of infected patients who have an asymptomatic presentation will help inform policy regarding universal mandatory versus symptom-based or opt-out testing protocols. We determined the COVID-19 infection rate and frequency of asymptomatic presentation in 683 consecutively admitted patients during the surge in the New York City region between April 3rd, 2020 and June 8th, 2020. Among these psychiatric inpatients, there was a 9.8 % overall rate of COVID-19 infection. Of the COVID-19 infected patients, approximately 76.1 % (51/67) either had no COVID-19 symptoms or could not offer reliable history of symptoms at the time of admission. Had they not been identified by testing and triaged to a COVID-19 positive unit, they could have infected others, leading to institutional outbreak. These findings provide justification for psychiatric facilities to maintain universal mandatory testing policies, at least until community infection rates fall and remain at very low levels.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/standards , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Hospitals, Psychiatric/standards , Mental Disorders/therapy , Patient Admission/standards , Adult , Comorbidity , Female , Humans , Male , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Middle Aged , New York City/epidemiology , Referral and Consultation , Triage/standards
20.
Med Care ; 59(4): 288-294, 2021 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1091180

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: This qualitative research explored the lived experiences of patients who experienced postponement of elective cardiac and vascular surgery due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We know very little about patients during the novel coronavirus pandemic. Understanding the patient voice may play an important role in prioritization of postponed cases and triage moving forward. METHODS: Utilizing a hermeneutical phenomenological qualitative design, we interviewed 47 individuals who experienced a postponement of cardiac or vascular surgery due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were analyzed and informed by phenomenological research methods. RESULTS: Patients in our study described 3 key issues around their postponement of elective surgery. Patients described robust narratives about the meanings of their elective surgeries as the chance to "return to normal" and alleviate symptoms that impacted everyday life. Second, because of the meanings most of our patients ascribed to their surgeries, postponement often took a toll on how patients managed physical health and emotional well-being. Finally, paradoxically, many patients in our study were demonstrative that they would "rather die from a heart attack" than be exposed to the coronavirus. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several components of the patient experience, encompassing quality of life and other desired benefits of surgery, the risks of COVID, and difficulty reconciling the 2. Our study provides significant qualitative evidence to inform providers of important considerations when rescheduling the backlog of patients. The emotional and psychological distress that patients experienced due to postponement may also require additional considerations in postoperative recovery.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Cardiovascular Surgical Procedures/standards , Elective Surgical Procedures/standards , Psychological Distress , Time-to-Treatment , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , COVID-19/transmission , Cardiovascular Surgical Procedures/psychology , Elective Surgical Procedures/psychology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Patient Preference , Qualitative Research , Time Factors , Triage/standards
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL