Protocols for Personal Protective Equipment in a COVID-19 Medical Shelter.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has greatly impacted health-care systems worldwide, leading to an unprecedented rise in demand for health-care resources. In anticipation of an acute strain on established medical facilities in Dallas, Texas, federal officials worked in conjunction with local medical personnel to convert a convention center into a Federal Medical Station capable of caring for patients affected by COVID-19. A 200,000 square foot event space was designated as a direct patient care area, with surrounding spaces repurposed to house ancillary services. Given the highly transmissible nature of the novel coronavirus, the donning and doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) was of particular importance for personnel staffing the facility. Furthermore, nationwide shortages in the availability of PPE necessitated the reuse of certain protective materials. This article seeks to delineate the procedures implemented regarding PPE in the setting of a COVID-19 disaster response shelter, including workspace flow, donning and doffing procedures, PPE conservation, and exposure event protocols.

Dallas MegaShelter Medical Operations Response to Hurricane Harvey.

On August 25, 2017, Hurricane Harvey made landfall near Corpus Christi, Texas. The ensuing unprecedented flooding throughout the Texas coastal region affected millions of individuals.1 The statewide response in Texas included the sheltering of thousands of individuals at considerable distances from their homes. The Dallas area established large-scale general population sheltering as the number of evacuees to the area began to amass. Historically, the Dallas area is one familiar with "mega-sheltering," beginning with the response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.2 Through continued efforts and development, the Dallas area had been readying a plan for the largest general population shelter in Texas. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:33-37).

Unchanged pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest incidence and survival rates with regional variation in North America.

AIM: Outcomes for pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) are poor. Our objective was to determine temporal trends in incidence and mortality for pediatric OHCA. METHODS: Adjusted incidence and hospital mortality rates of pediatric non-traumatic OHCA patients from 2007-2012 were analyzed using the 9 region Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium-Epidemiological Registry (ROC-Epistry) database. Children were divided into 4 age groups: perinatal (<3 days), infants (3days-1year), children (1-11 years), and adolescents (12-19 years). ROC regions were analyzed post-hoc. RESULTS: We studied 1738 children with OHCA. The age- and sex-adjusted incidence rate of OHCA was 8.3 per 100,000 person-years (75.3 for infants vs. 3.7 for children and 6.3 for adolescents, per 100,000 person-years, p<0.001). Incidence rates differed by year (p<0.001) without overall linear trend. Annual survival rates ranged from 6.7-10.2%. Survival was highest in the perinatal (25%) and adolescent (17.3%) groups. Stratified by age group, survival rates over time were unchanged (all p>0.05) but there was a non-significant linear trend (1.3% increase) in infants. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, infants, unwitnessed event, initial rhythm of asystole, and region were associated with worse survival, all p<0.001. Survival by region ranged from 2.6-14.7%. Regions with the highest survival had more cases of EMS-witnessed OHCA, bystander CPR, and increased EMS-defibrillation (all p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Overall incidence and survival of children with OHCA in ROC regions did not significantly change over a recent 5year period. Regional variation represents an opportunity for further study to improve outcomes.

A randomized controlled trial comparing traditional training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to self-directed CPR learning in first year medical students: The two-person CPR study.

STUDY AIM: The primary purpose of this study was to compare two, shorter, self-directed methods of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) education for healthcare professionals (HCP) to traditional training with a focus on the trainee's ability to perform two-person CPR. METHODS: First-year medical students with either no prior CPR for HCP experience or prior training greater than 5 years were randomized to complete one of three courses: 1) HeartCode BLS System, 2) BLS Anytime, or 3) Traditional training. Only data from the adult CPR skills testing station was reviewed via video recording by certified CPR instructors and the Laerdal PC Skill Reporter software program (Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway). RESULTS: There were 180 first-year medical students who met inclusion criteria: 68 were HeartCode BLS System, 53 BLS Anytime group, and 59 traditional group Regarding two-person CPR, 57 (84%) of Heartcode BLS students and 43 (81%) of BLS Anytime students were able to initiate the switch compared to 39 (66%) of traditional course students (p = 0.04). There were no significant differences in the quality of chest compressions or ventilations between the three groups. There was a trend for a much higher CPR skills testing pass rate for the traditional course students. However, failure to "clear to analyze or shock" while using the AED was the most common reason for failure in all groups. CONCLUSION: The self-directed learning groups not only had a high level of success in initiating the "switch" to two-person CPR, but were not significantly different from students who completed traditional training.

Prospective, randomized trial of the effectiveness and retention of 30-min layperson training for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated external defibrillators: The American Airlines Study.

OBJECTIVE: A head-to-head trial was conducted to compare laypersons' long-term retention of life-saving psychomotor and cognitive skills learned in the traditional multi-hour training format for basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated external defibrillator use to those learned in an abbreviated (30 min) course. METHODS: Laypersons were randomized to either: (1) the traditional multi-hour Heartsaver-Automated External Defibrillator (Heartsaver-AED) group; or (2) the 30-min course group (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, choking, and automated external defibrillator use). Immediately after training, and at 6 months, participants were provided identical individual testing scenarios. In addition to audio-video recordings, computerized recordings of compression rate/depth, ventilation rates, and related pauses were obtained and subsequently rated by blinded reviewers. RESULTS: Performance following 30-min training was either equivalent or superior (p<0.007) to the multi-hour Heartsaver-Automated External Defibrillator training in all measurements, both immediately and 6 months after training. Although retention of certain skills deteriorated over the 6 months among a significant number of participants from both groups, 84% of the 30-min training group still was judged, overall, to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation adequately. Moreover, 93% still were performing chest compressions adequately and 93% continued to apply the automated external defibrillator and deliver shocks correctly. CONCLUSIONS: Using innovative learning techniques, 30-min cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated external defibrillator training is as effective as traditional multi-hour courses, even after 6 months. Thirty-minute courses should decrease labor intensity, demands on resources, and time commitments for cardiopulmonary resuscitation courses, thus facilitating more widespread and frequent retraining.