Personal protective equipment preparedness in intensive care units during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: An Asia-Pacific follow-up survey.

BACKGROUND: Personal-protective equipment (PPE)-preparedness, defined as adherence to guidelines, healthcare worker (HCW) training, procuring PPE stocks and responding appropriately to suspected cases, is crucial to prevent HCW-infections. OBJECTIVES: To perform a follow-up survey to assess changes in PPE-preparedness across six Asia-Pacific countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A prospective follow-up cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted between 10/08/2020 to 01/09/ 2020, five months after the initial Phase 1 survey. The survey was sent to the same 231 intensivists across the six Asia-Pacific countries (Australia, Hong Kong, India, New Zealand, Philippines, and Singapore) that participated in Phase 1. The main outcome measure was to identify any changes in PPE-preparedness between Phases 1 and 2. FINDINGS: Phase 2 had responses from 132 ICUs (57%). Compared to Phase 1 respondents reported increased use of PPE-based practices such as powered air-purifying respirator (40.2% vs. 6.1%), N95-masks at all times (86.4% vs. 53.7%) and double-gloving (87.9% vs. 42.9%). The reported awareness of PPE stocks (85.6% vs. 51.9%), mandatory showering policies following PPE-breach (31.1% vs. 6.9%) and safety perception amongst HCWs (60.6% vs. 28.4%) improved significantly during Phase 2. Despite reported statistically similar adoption rate of the buddy system in both phases (42.4% vs. 37.2%), there was a reported reduction in donning/doffing training in Phase 2 (44.3% vs. 60.2%). There were no reported differences HCW training in other areas, such as tracheal intubation, intra-hospital transport and safe waste disposal, between the 2 phases. CONCLUSIONS: Overall reported PPE-preparedness improved between the two survey periods, particularly in PPE use, PPE inventory and HCW perceptions of safety. However, the uptake of HCW training and implementation of low-cost safety measures continued to be low and the awareness of PPE breach management policies were suboptimal. Therefore, the key areas for improvement should focus on regular HCW training, implementing low-cost buddy-system and increasing awareness of PPE-breach management protocols.

Pressure support ventilation in intensive care patients receiving prolonged invasive ventilation.

Background: To our knowledge, the use and management of pressure support ventilation (PSV) in patients receiving prolonged (≥ 7 days) invasive mechanical ventilation has not previously been described. Objective: To collect and analyse data on the use and management of PSV in critically ill patients receiving prolonged ventilation. Design, setting and participants: We performed a multicentre retrospective observational study in Australia, with a focus on PSV in patients ventilated for ≥ 7 days. Main outcome measures: We obtained detailed data on ventilator management twice daily (8am and 8pm moments) for the first 7 days of ventilation. Results: Among 143 consecutive patients, 90/142 (63.4%) had received PSV by Day 7, and PSV accounted for 40.5% (784/1935) of ventilation moments. The most common pressure support level was 10 cmH2O (352/780) observations [45.1%]) with little variation over time, and 37 of 114 patients (32.4%) had no change in pressure support. Mean tidal volume during PSV was 8.3 (7.0-9.5) mL/kg predicted bodyweight (PBW) compared with 7.5 (7.0-8.3) mL/kg PBW during mandatory ventilation (P < 0.001). For 74.6% (247/331) of moments, despite a tidal volume of more than 8 mL/kg PBW, the pressure support level was not changed. Among 122 patients exposed to PSV, 97 (79.5%) received likely over-assistance according to rapid shallow breathing index criteria. Of 784 PSV moments, 411 (52.4%) were also likely over-assisted according to rapid shallow breathing index criteria, and 269/346 (77.7%) having no subsequent adjustment of pressure support. Conclusions: In patients receiving prolonged ventilation, almost two-thirds received PSV, which accounted for 40.5% of mechanical ventilation time. Half of the PSV-treated patients were exposed to high tidal volume and two-thirds to likely over-assistance. These observations provide evidence that can be used to inform interventional studies of PSV management.

Personal protective equipment preparedness in Asia-Pacific intensive care units during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A multinational survey.

BACKGROUND: There has been a surge in coronavirus disease 2019 admissions to intensive care units (ICUs) in Asia-Pacific countries. Because ICU healthcare workers are exposed to aerosol-generating procedures, ensuring optimal personal protective equipment (PPE) preparedness is important. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate PPE preparedness across ICUs in six Asia-Pacific countries during the initial phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, which is defined by the World Health Organization as guideline adherence, training healthcare workers, procuring stocks, and responding appropriately to suspected cases. METHODS: A cross-sectional Web-based survey was circulated to 633 level II/III ICUs of Australia, New Zealand (NZ), Singapore, Hong Kong (HK), India, and the Philippines. FINDINGS: Two hundred sixty-three intensivists responded, representing 231 individual ICUs eligible for analysis. Response rates were 68-100% in all countries except India, where it was 24%. Ninety-seven percent of ICUs either conformed to or exceeded World Health Organization recommendations for PPE practice. Fifty-nine percent ICUs used airborne precautions irrespective of aerosol generation procedures. There were variations in negative-pressure room use (highest in HK/Singapore), training (best in NZ), and PPE stock awareness (best in HK/Singapore/NZ). High-flow nasal oxygenation and noninvasive ventilation were not options in most HK (66.7% and 83.3%, respectively) and Singapore ICUs (50% and 80%, respectively), but were considered in other countries to a greater extent. Thirty-eight percent ICUs reported not having specialised airway teams. Showering and "buddy systems" were underused. Clinical waste disposal training was suboptimal (38%). CONCLUSIONS: Many ICUs in the Asia-Pacific reported suboptimal PPE preparedness in several domains, particularly related to PPE training, practice, and stock awareness, which requires remediation. Adoption of low-cost approaches such as buddy systems should be encouraged. The complete avoidance of high-flow nasal oxygenation reported by several intensivists needs reconsideration. Consideration must be given to standardise PPE guidelines to minimise practice variations. Urgent research to evaluate PPE preparedness and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 transmission is required.