SOFTLY: Comparison of outcomes of rigid versus soft collar during emergency department investigation for potential cervical spine injury in low-risk blunt trauma patients - A pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: Blunt trauma patients with potential cervical spine injury are traditionally immobilised in rigid collars. Recently, this has been challenged. The present study's objective was comparison of the rate of patient-oriented adverse events in stable, alert, low-risk patients with potential cervical spine injuries immobilised in rigid versus soft collars. METHODS: Unblinded, prospective quasi-randomised clinical trial of neurologically intact, adult, blunt trauma patients assessed as having potential cervical spine injury. Patients were randomised to collar type. All other aspects of care were unchanged. Primary outcome was patient-reported discomfort related to neck immobilisation by collar type. Secondary outcomes included adverse neurological events, agitation and clinically important cervical spine injuries (clinical trial registration number: ACTRN12621000286842). RESULTS: A total of 137 patients were enrolled: 59 patients allocated to a rigid collar and 78 to a soft collar. Most injuries were from a fall <1 m (54%) or a motor vehicle crash (21.9%). Median neck pain score of collar immobilisation was lower in the soft collar group (3.0 [interquartile range 0-6.1] vs 6.0 [interquartile range 3-8.8], P < 0.001). The proportion of patients with clinician-identified agitation was lower in the soft collar group (5% vs 17%, P = 0.04). There were four clinically important cervical spine injuries (two in each group). All were treated conservatively. There were no adverse neurological events. CONCLUSIONS: Use of soft rather than rigid collar immobilisation for low-risk blunt trauma patients with potential cervical spine injury is significantly less painful for patients and results in less agitation. A larger study is needed to determine the safety of this approach or whether collars are required at all.

Interventions to support the mental health and well-being of front-line healthcare workers in hospitals during pandemics: an evidence review and synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Pandemics negatively impact healthcare workers' (HCW's) mental health and well-being causing additional feelings of anxiety, depression, moral distress and post-traumatic stress. A comprehensive review and evidence synthesis of HCW's mental health and well-being interventions through pandemics reporting mental health outcomes was conducted addressing two questions: (1) What mental health support interventions have been reported in recent pandemics, and have they been effective in improving the mental health and well-being of HCWs? (2) Have any mobile apps been designed and implemented to support HCWs' mental health and well-being during pandemics? DESIGN: A narrative evidence synthesis was conducted using Cochrane criteria for synthesising and presenting findings when systematic review and pooling data for statistical analysis are not suitable due to the heterogeneity of the studies. DATA SOURCES: Evidence summary resources, bibliographic databases, grey literature sources, clinical trial registries and protocol registries were searched. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Subject heading terms and keywords covering three key concepts were searched: SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus (or similar infectious diseases) epidemics, health workforce and mental health support interventions. Searches were limited to English-language items published from 1 January 2000 to 14 June 2022. No publication-type limit was used. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors determined eligibility and extracted data from identified manuscripts. Data was synthesised into tables and refined by coauthors. RESULTS: 2694 studies were identified and 27 papers were included. Interventions were directed at individuals and/or organisations and most were COVID-19 focused. Interventions had some positive impacts on HCW's mental health and well-being, but variable study quality, low sample sizes and lack of control conditions were limitations. Two mobile apps were identified with mixed outcomes. CONCLUSION: HCW interventions were rapidly designed and implemented with few comprehensively described or evaluated. Tailored interventions that respond to HCWs' needs using experience co-design for mental health and well-being are required with process and outcome evaluation.

Managing healthcare worker well-being in an Australian emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Emergency Medicine staff in Australia and New Zealand are at the forefront of the healthcare response to COVID-19. This article describes a well-being plan for ED staff that has been devised to mitigate against the negative psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.