ABSTRACT
Early in the COVID-19 pandemic there was widespread concern that healthcare systems would be overwhelmed, and specifically, that there would be insufficient critical care capacity in terms of beds, ventilators or staff to care for patients. In the UK, this was avoided by a threefold approach involving widespread, rapid expansion of critical care capacity, reduction of healthcare demand from non-COVID-19 sources by temporarily pausing much of normal healthcare delivery, and by governmental and societal responses that reduced demand through national lockdown. Despite high-level documents designed to help manage limited critical care capacity, none provided sufficient operational direction to enable use at the bedside in situations requiring triage. We present and describe the development of a structured process for fair allocation of critical care resources in the setting of insufficient capacity. The document combines a wide variety of factors known to impact on outcome from critical illness, integrated with broad-based clinical judgement to enable structured, explicit, transparent decision-making founded on robust ethical principles. It aims to improve communication and allocate resources fairly, while avoiding triage decisions based on a single disease, comorbidity, patient age or degree of frailty. It is designed to support and document decision-making. The document has not been needed to date, nor adopted as hospital policy. However, as the pandemic evolves, the resumption of necessary non-COVID-19 healthcare and economic activity mean capacity issues and the potential need for triage may yet return. The document is presented as a starting point for stakeholder feedback and discussion.
ABSTRACT
The PA(xpress) phayngeal airway (PA(x)) is a new single use airway device that might be used for airway maintenance during anaesthesia or cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We evaluated the performance of the PA(x) in 103 anaesthetised non-paralysed patients undergoing non-emergency anaesthesia. We recorded success of insertion, quality of airway achieved and complications of its use. We were successful in establishing a clear airway on the first attempt on 68 (67%) occasions. We were unable to establish a patent airway in nine (9%) patients. Partial or intermittent airway obstruction occurred during maintenance of anaesthesia in ten (11%) cases but none required removal of the device. Jaw thrust was used to assist insertion in all cases. A mean of 1.37 further manipulations per patient were required to establish an airway and 0.60 per patient were required during maintenance of anaesthesia. In the 94 patients in whom an airway was established, assisted ventilation was excellent in 77 (82%). Leak pressure was 20 cmH2O or above in 58% cases. Intracuff pressure was measured in 55 patients: mean pressure was 68 cmH2O and was above 100 cmH2O in ten (18%) cases. Complications occurred in 38 (37%) patients during insertion, in a further 12 (13%) during maintenance and in eight (9%) during emergence. The device was difficult to insert and associated with a high incidence of trauma: blood was visible on the device after removal in 56 (55%) cases. We conclude that the PA(x) is associated with too high a failure rate and too high an incidence of minor complications for routine airway maintenance.
