Design and testing of the safety of the SARUS-CPR hood for novice resuscitators.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Bystanders should be protected against aerosols, droplets, saliva, blood and vomitus during resuscitation after cardiac arrest The SARUS (safer - airway - resuscitation) CPR airway hood™ is a clear plastic cover and integrated mask that envelopes the head and torso. Our objectives were to test leakage using saline aerosol generation tests, then assess the performance of the hood during mock cardio-pulmonary resuscitation on a manikin. METHODS: A checklist was validated by comparing the performance of 10 novices against 10 experts during mock resuscitation. Thereafter, 15 novices were tested with and without the hood, in a randomised cross-over study, one week apart. RESULTS: Laboratory analysis showed a > 99% reduction of saline particles detected 5 cm, 75 cm and 165 cm above volunteers wearing the hood. On manikins, experts scored better compared to novices, 8.5 (0.7) vs 7.6 (1.2), difference (95%CI) 0.9 (0.4-1.3), P = 0.0004. Novice performance was equivalent using the hood and standard equipment, 7.3 (1.4) vs 7.3 (1.1) respectively, difference (90%CI) 0.0 (-0.3 - 0.3), P = 0.90. CONCLUSION: Aerosol transmission reduced in the breathing zone. Simulated resuscitation by novices was equivalent with and without the hood.

Need for tracheostomy in major head and neck ablative surgery: a paradigm shift during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Management of the airway in the perioperative period for patients requiring major head and neck ablative surgery has commonly included the performance of elective surgical tracheostomy. This has been standard practice in most maxillofacial units across the UK, including ours. However, the COVID-19 pandemic and emerging guidelines on aerosol-generating procedures required us to revisit the need for a perioperative tracheostomy. METHODS: We present our series of 29 consecutive cases, cared for during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, that were managed either using surgical tracheostomy or overnight tracheal intubation. RESULTS: Out of 29 patients 3 received a surgical tracheostomy. The average duration of tracheostomy use was 8 days. Twenty patients were managed using a period of overnight tracheal intubation. Average duration of tracheal intubation was 1.2 days, with an average intensive care unit stay of 1.7 days. The average duration of hospital stay was 15.8 days for patients managed with overnight tracheal intubation and 30.1 days for patients who received a surgical tracheostomy. The return to theatre rate was 13.8% for reasons including flap failure and neck space infection. There were no airway issues reported in this series of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that overnight tracheal intubation can be a safe alternative to surgical tracheostomy in the majority of cases.

Exploring barriers and facilitators of physical distancing in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study

Background: Physical distancing measures (e.g., keeping a distance of two metres from others, avoiding crowded areas, and reducing the number of close physical contacts) continue to be among the most important preventative measures used to reduce the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID -19). Therefore, it is important to understand barriers and facilitators of physical distancing to help inform future public health campaigns.

The identification of needs and development of best practice guidance for the psychological support of frontline healthcare workers during and after COVID-19: A protocol for the FLoWS project

Recent estimates suggest that up to 34% of frontline workers in healthcare (FLWs) at the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic response are reporting elevated symptoms of psychological distress due to resource constraints, ineffective treatments, and concerns about self-contamination. However, little systematic research has been carried out to assess the mental health needs of FLWs in Europe, or the extent of psychological suffering in FLWs within different European countries of varying outbreak severity. Accordingly, this project will employ a mixed-methods approach over three work packages to develop best-practice guidelines for alleviating psychological distress in FLWs during the different phases of the pandemic. Work package 1 will identify the point and long-term prevalence of psychological distress symptoms in a sample of Irish and Italian FLWs, and the predictors of these symptoms. Work package 2 will perform a qualitative needs assessment on a sample of Irish and Italian FLWs to identify sources of stress and resilience, barriers to psychological care, and optimal strategies for alleviating psychological distress in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic. Work package 3 will synthesise the findings from the preceding work packages to draft best practice guidelines, which will be co-created by a multidisciplinary panel of experts using the Delphi method. The guidelines will provide clinicians with a framework for alleviating psychological distress in FLWs, with particular relevance to the COVID-19 pandemic, but may also have relevance for future pandemics and other public health emergencies.

Identifying and addressing psychosocial determinants of adherence to physical distancing guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic - project protocol

Optimising public health physical distancing measures has been a critical part of the global response to the spread of COVID-19. Evidence collected during the current pandemic shows that the transmission rate of the virus is significantly reduced following implementation of intensive physical distancing measures. Adherence to these recommendations has been poorer than adherence to other key transmission reduction behaviours such as handwashing. There are a complex range of reasons that are likely to predict why people do not or only partially adhere to physical distancing recommendations. In the current project we aim to address the following research questions: (1) What are the psychosocial determinants of physical distancing for the general public and for key socio-demographic sub-groups (e.g., young adults, older adults, etc.)?;(2) Do current Government of Ireland COVID-19 physical distancing communications address the determinants of physical distancing?;and (3) How can communications be optimised and tailored to sub-groups to ensure maximum adherence to guidelines? These will be addressed by conducting three work packages (WPs). In WP1, we will work closely with the iCARE international study, which includes a large online survey of public responses to measures established to reduce and slow the spread of COVID-19, including physical distancing. We will analyse Irish data, comparing it to data from other countries, to identify the key psychosocial determinants of physical distancing behaviour. This will be followed by a qualitative study to explore in depth the barriers and facilitators of physical distancing behaviour among the Irish public (WP2). In WP3, we will conduct a content analysis and evidence mapping of current government messaging around physical distancing, to ensure the findings from this research feed into the development of ongoing communication and future messaging about physical distancing.

Airway management guidance for the endemic phase of COVID-19.

It is now apparent that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) will remain endemic for some time. Improved therapeutics and a vaccine may shorten this period, but both are far from certain. Plans must be put in place on the assumption that the virus and its disease will continue to affect the care of patients and the safety of staff. This will impact particularly on airway management due to the inherent risk to staff during such procedures. Research is needed to clarify the nature and risk of respiratory aerosol-generating procedures. Improved knowledge of the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 infection and immunity is also required. In the meantime, we describe the current status of airway management during the endemic phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Some controversies remain unresolved, but the safety of patients and staff remains paramount. Current evidence does not support or necessitate dramatic changes to choices for anaesthetic airway management. Theatre efficiency and training issues are a challenge that must be addressed, and new information may enable this.

Consensus guidelines for managing the airway in patients with COVID-19: Guidelines from the Difficult Airway Society, the Association of Anaesthetists the Intensive Care Society, the Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine and the Royal College of Anaesthetists.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome-corona virus-2, which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is highly contagious. Airway management of patients with COVID-19 is high risk to staff and patients. We aimed to develop principles for airway management of patients with COVID-19 to encourage safe, accurate and swift performance. This consensus statement has been brought together at short notice to advise on airway management for patients with COVID-19, drawing on published literature and immediately available information from clinicians and experts. Recommendations on the prevention of contamination of healthcare workers, the choice of staff involved in airway management, the training required and the selection of equipment are discussed. The fundamental principles of airway management in these settings are described for: emergency tracheal intubation; predicted or unexpected difficult tracheal intubation; cardiac arrest; anaesthetic care; and tracheal extubation. We provide figures to support clinicians in safe airway management of patients with COVID-19. The advice in this document is designed to be adapted in line with local workplace policies.