COVID-19 pandemic: an Italian single institution's experience and lessons learned by public health residents' workforce.

Methods: We hereby provide a systematic description of the response actions in which the public health residents' workforce was pivotal, in a large tertiary hospital. Background: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic has posed incredible challenges to healthcare workers worldwide. The residents have been affected by an almost complete upheaval of the previous setting of activities, with a near total focus on service during the peak of the emergency. In our Institution, residents in public health were extensively involved in leading activities in the management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic. Results: The key role played by residents in the response to Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic is highlighted by the diversity of contributions provided, from cooperation in the rearrangement of hospital paths for continuity of care, to establishing and running new services to support healthcare professionals. Overall, they constituted a workforce that turned essential in governing efficiently such a complex scenario. Conclusions: Despite the difficulties posed by the contingency and the sacrifice of many training activities, Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic turned out to be a unique opportunity of learning and measuring one's capabilities and limits in a context of absolute novelty and uncertainty.

Operational experience of the Dutch helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic: jeopardy on the prehospital care system?

PURPOSE: The SARS-CoV-2 virus has disrupted global and local medical supply chains. To combat the spread of the virus and prevent an uncontrolled outbreak with limited resources, national lockdown protocols have taken effect in the Netherlands since March 13th, 2020. The aim of this study was to describe the incidence, type and characteristics of HEMS and HEMS-ambulance 'Lifeliner 1' dispatches during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the same period one year prior. METHODS: A retrospective review of all HEMS and HEMS-ambulance 'Lifeliner 1' dispatches was performed from the start of Dutch nationwide lockdown orders from March 13th until May 13th, 2020 and the corresponding period one year prior. Dispatch-, operational-, patient-, injury-, and on-site treatment characteristics were extracted for analysis. In addition, the rate of COVID-19 positively tested HEMS personnel and the time physicians were unable to take call was described. RESULTS: During the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, the HEMS and HEMS-ambulance was requested in 528 cases. One year prior, a total of 620 requests were received. The HEMS (helicopter and ambulance) was cancelled after deployment in 56.4% of the COVID-19 cohort and 50.7% of the historical cohort (P = 0.05). Incident location type did not differ between the two cohorts, specifically, there was no significant difference in the number of injuries that occurred at home in pandemic versus non-pandemic circumstances. Besides a decrease in the number of falls, the distribution of mechanisms of injury remained similar during the COVID-19 study period. There was no difference in self-inflicted injuries observed. Prehospital interventions remained similar during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to one year prior. Specifically, prehospital intubation did not differ between the two cohorts. The rate of COVID-19 positively tested HEMS personnel was 23.1%. Physicians who tested positive were unable to take call for a mean of 25 days (range 8-53). CONCLUSION: A decrease in the number of deployments and increase in the number of cancelled missions was observed during the COVID-19 study period. No major differences in operational- and injury characteristics were found for HEMS and HEMS-ambulance dispatches between the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands and the same period one year prior. These findings highlight the importance of continued operability of the HEMS, even during pandemic circumstances. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective comparative study.