Disease Outbreak Surge Response: How a Singapore Tertiary Hospital Converted a Multi-story Carpark Into a Flu Screening Area to Respond to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), first documented in December 2019, was declared a public health emergency by the World Health Organization (WHO) on January 30, 2020 (https://www.who.int/westernpacific/emergencies/covid-19). The disease, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus, has affected more than 9 million people and contributed to at least 490,000 deaths globally as of June 2020, with numbers on the rise (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries).Increased numbers of patients seeking medical attention during disease outbreaks can overwhelm healthcare facilities, hence requiring an equivalent response from healthcare services. Surge capacity is a concept that has not only been defined as the "ability to respond to a sudden increase in patient care demands" (Hick et al., Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2008;2:S51-S57) but also to "effectively and rapidly expand capacity" (Watson et al., Milbank Q. 2013;91(1):78-122).This narrative review discusses how Singapore's largest tertiary hospital has encapsulated the elements of surge capability and transformed a peacetime multi-story carpark into a flu screening area in response to the COVID-19 disease outbreak.

Reorganising the emergency department to manage the COVID-19 outbreak.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 disease outbreak that first surfaced in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, has taken the world by storm and ravaged almost every country in the world. Emergency departments (ED) in hospitals are on the frontlines, serving an essential function in identifying these patients, isolating them early whilst providing urgent medical care. This outbreak has reinforced the role of Emergency Medicine in public health. This paper documents the challenges faced and measures taken by a tertiary hospital's ED in Singapore, in response to the outbreak. MAIN BODY: The ED detected the first case of COVID-19 in Singapore on 22 January 2020 in a Chinese tourist and also the first case of locally transmitted COVID-19 on 3 February 2020. The patient journeys through the patient reception area in the ED and undergoes fever screening before being shunted to isolation areas within the ED. Management and disposition of suspect COVID-19 patients are guided by a close-knit collaboration between ED and department of infectious diseases. With increasing number of patients, back-up plans for expansion of space and staff augmentation have been enacted. Staff safety is also of utmost importance, with provision and guidelines for personal protective equipment and team segregation to ensure no cross-contamination across staff. These have been made possible with an early setup of an operational command and control structure within the ED, managing manpower, logistics, operations, communication and information management and liaison with other clinical departments. CONCLUSION: With the large numbers of undifferentiated patients managed by the ED to date, more than 820 patients with COVID-19 have been identified in the hospital. Not a single member of the staff of the SGH Emergency Department has come down with the illness. The various measures undertaken by the department have helped to ensure good staff morale and strict adherence to safety procedures. We share the lessons learnt so that others who manage EDs around the world can benefit from our experience.

Reducing blood sample hemolysis at a tertiary hospital emergency department.

PURPOSE: To determine the causes for sample hemolysis and measure the effect of an intervention to reduce sample hemolysis in the Emergency Department of a large hospital. METHODS: We conducted a phased, prospective, interventional study. In phase 1, factors associated with urea and electrolyte sample lysis were studied. Based on these results and a literature review, an educational program consisting of a 15-minute presentation was implemented. In phase 2, questionnaires were distributed to the doctors and medical students conducting blood sampling, and outcome data were collected after the samples were processed. RESULTS: In phase 1 (n = 227), the use of a vacutainer was associated with the highest rates of hemolysis. Lysis rate was 35.8% with use of the vacutainer, compared with 11% without (adjusted odds ratio 6.0, 95% confidence interval, 2.3-15.2). In phase 2 (n=204), the following significant changes were found: increased use of a syringe rather than vacutainer (before 64.3%; after 98.5%, P <.01), increased use of venipuncture for blood sampling (26%-36.8%, P = .02), reduced arterial sampling (3.1%-0%, P = .02), increased sample volume (4.5-5.2 mL, P <.01) and reduced interval from sampling to analysis (60.8-48.4 minutes, P <.01). We were able to attain a reduction in sample hemolysis from 19.8% (before) to 4.9% (after) (P <.001). This would translate to a cost savings of SGD$834.40 (USD$556.30) per day at the emergency department and SGD$304,556 (USD$203,037) per year. CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of an educational program at a hospital Emergency Department was able to significantly reduce rates of sample hemolysis.

Observational study to determine factors associated with blood sample haemolysis in the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: Haemolysis of blood samples is a common problem encountered in the Emergency department (ED). It leads to inaccurate blood results and has cost implications as blood samples very often have to be retaken. The purpose of our study was to determine which factors in blood sampling were associated with higher rates of haemolysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An observational convenience sample of all patients presenting to the ED requiring blood urea and electrolyte (UE) analysis were eligible for our study. Questionnaires were distributed to the doctors and nurses conducting blood sampling to determine the method used and outcome data were collected after the samples were processed. RESULTS: Out of 227 UE samples analysed, 45 (19.8%) were haemolysed. Various factors, including method (IV cannulation or venepuncture), system (syringe or vacutainer), operator, rate of blood flow, difficulty of cannulation/venepuncture and source of blood (arterial or venous), were analysed, but their effects on haemolysis were not statistically significant (P >0.05). However, the use of the vacutainer system was associated with the highest rates of haemolysis [adjusted odds ratio (OR), 6.0; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.3 to 15.1]. CONCLUSION: We found blood sampling with the vacutainer system to have increased rates of haemolysis. This could potentially change attitudes towards equipment used for blood sampling in the ED.