Search

Aims: To describe intensive care unit nurses' experiences of moral distress during the COVID-19 pandemic, and their recommendations for mitigative interventions., Design: Interpretive description., Methods: Data were collected with a purposeful sample of 40 Canadian intensive care unit nurses between May and September 2021. Nurses completed a demographic questionnaire, the Measure of Moral Distress-Healthcare Professionals survey and in-depth interviews. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were categorized and synthesized using reflexive thematic analysis and rapid qualitative analysis., Results: Half of the nurses in this sample reported moderate levels of moral distress. In response to moral distress, nurses experienced immediate and long-term effects across multiple health domains. To cope, nurses discussed varied reactions, including action, avoidance and acquiescence. Nurses provided recommendations for interventions across multiple organizations to mitigate moral distress and negative health outcomes., Conclusion: Nurses reported that moral distress drove negative health outcomes and attrition in response to moral events in practice. To change these conditions of moral distress, nurses require organizational investments in interventions and cultures that prioritize the inclusion of nursing perspectives and voices., Implications for the Profession: Nurses engage in a variety of responses to cope with moral distress. They possess valuable insights into the practice issues central to moral distress that have significant implications for all members of the healthcare teams, patients and systems. It is essential that nurses' voices be included in the development of future interventions central to the responses to moral distress., Reporting Method: This study adheres to COREQ guidelines., Impact: What Problem did the Study Address? Given the known structural, systemic and environmental factors that contribute to intensive care unit nurses' experiences of moral distress, and ultimately burnout and attrition, it was important to learn about their experiences of moral distress and their recommendations for organizational mitigative interventions. Documentation of these experiences and recommendations took on a greater urgency during the context of a global health emergency, the COVID-19 pandemic, where such contextual influences on moral distress were less understood. What Were the Main Findings? Over half of the nurses reported a moderate level of moral distress. Nurses who were considering leaving nursing practice reported higher moral distress scores than those who were not considering leaving. In response to moral distress, nurses experienced a variety of outcomes across several health domains. To cope with moral distress, nurses engaged in patterns of action, avoidance and acquiescence. To change the conditions of moral distress, nurses desire organizational interventions, practices and culture changes situated in the amplification of their voices. Where and on Whom Will the Research Have an Impact on? These findings will be of interest to: (1) researchers developing and evaluating interventions that address the complex phenomenon of moral distress, (2) leaders and administrators in hospitals, and relevant healthcare and nursing organizations, and (3) nurses interested in leveraging evidence-informed recommendations to advocate for interventions to address moral distress. What Does this Paper Contribute to the Wider Global Community? This paper advances the body of scientific work on nurses' experiences of moral distress, capturing this phenomenon within the unique context of a global health emergency. Nurses' levels of moral distress using Measure of Moral Distress-Healthcare Professional survey were reported, serving as a comparator for future studies seeking to measure and evaluate intensive care unit nurses' levels of moral distress. Nurses' recommendations for mitigative interventions for moral distress have been reported, which can help inform future interventional studies., Patient or Public Contribution: No patient or public contribution., (© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Advanced Nursing published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: Community hospitals account for 90% of hospitals in Canada, but clinical research is mainly conducted in academic hospitals. Increasing community hospital research participation can improve generalizability of study results, while also accelerating study recruitment and increasing staff engagement. We aimed to identify and describe the factors that influence community intensive care unit (ICU) research participation and the development, implementation, and sustainability of a community ICU research program., Methods: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study using semistructured interviews. Between April 2022 and May 2023, we interviewed a purposeful sample of individuals interested or involved in community hospital research in Canadian community ICUs. We analyzed qualitative data using both conventional content analysis and rapid qualitative analysis. Findings were deductively mapped out using the Ecological Model of Health Behavior. Quantitative survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics., Results: Participants included 23 health care workers, ten research staff, and five hospital administrators (n = 38) from 20 community hospitals across six provinces in Canada. The main factors associated with community ICU research participation were 1) infrastructure, 2) personnel characteristics, 3) key relationships and connections, and 4) the COVID-19 pandemic., Conclusion: In this qualitative descriptive study, participants identified the physical resources, skills, and relationships required to start and sustain a clinical research program in a Canadian community ICU. Our findings suggest that all levels of the Canadian health care system need to invest in strengthening community hospital research capacity to increase research participation., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Intensive care unit healthcare workers (ICU HCW) are at risk of mental health disorders during emerging disease outbreaks. Numerous cross-sectional studies have reported psychological distress, anxiety, and depression amongst ICU HCW during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, few studies have followed HCW longitudinally, and none of these have examined the association between COVID-19 workload and mental health. We conducted a longitudinal cohort study of 309 Canadian ICU HCW from April 2020 to August 2020, during the 1st wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychological distress was assessed using the General Health Questionnaire 12-item scale (GHQ-12) at 3 timepoints: during the acceleration phase of the 1st wave (T1), the deceleration phase of the 1st wave (T2), and after the 1st wave had passed (T3). Clinically relevant psychological distress, defined as a GHQ-12 score ≥ 3, was identified in 64.7% of participants at T1, 41.0% at T2, and 34.6% at T3. Psychological distress was not associated with COVID-19 workload at T1. At T2, psychological distress was associated with the number of COVID-19 patients in the ICU (odds ratio [OR]: 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00, 1.13) while at T3, when COVID-19 patient numbers were low, it was associated with the number of weekly hospital shifts with COVID-19 exposure (OR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.09, 1.64). When analyzed longitudinally in a mixed effects model, pandemic timepoint was a stronger predictor of psychological distress (OR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.40 for T2 and OR: 0.16, 95% CI: 0.09, 0.27 for T3) than COVID-19 workload. Participants who showed persistent psychological distress at T3 were compared with those who showed recovery at T3. Persistent psychological distress was associated with a higher number of weekly shifts with COVID-19 exposure (OR: 1.97, 95% CI:1.33, 3.09) but not with a higher number of COVID-19 patients in the ICU (OR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.76, 0.95). In summary, clinically relevant psychological distress was observed in a majority of ICU HCW during the acceleration phase of the 1st wave of the COVID-19 pandemic but decreased rapidly as the 1st wave progressed. Persistent psychological distress was associated with working more weekly shifts with COVID-19 exposure but not with higher numbers of COVID-19 patients in the ICU. In future emerging disease outbreaks, minimizing shifts with direct disease exposure may help alleviate symptoms for individuals with persistent psychological distress., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Pestana et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: This update summarizes key changes made to the protocol for the Frequency of Screening and Spontaneous Breathing Trial (SBT) Technique Trial-North American Weaning Collaborative (FAST-NAWC) trial since the publication of the original protocol. This multicenter, factorial design randomized controlled trial with concealed allocation, will compare the effect of both screening frequency (once vs. at least twice daily) to identify candidates to undergo a SBT and SBT technique [pressure support + positive end-expiratory pressure vs. T-piece] on the time to successful extubation (primary outcome) in 760 critically ill adults who are invasively ventilated for at least 24 h in 20 North American intensive care units., Methods/design: Protocols for the pilot, factorial design trial and the full trial were previously published in J Clin Trials ( https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-0870.1000284 ) and Trials (https://doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3641-8). As planned, participants enrolled in the FAST pilot trial will be included in the report of the full FAST-NAWC trial. In response to the onset of the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic when approximately two thirds of enrollment was complete, we revised the protocol and consent form to include critically ill invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19. We also refined the statistical analysis plan (SAP) to reflect inclusion and reporting of participants with and without COVID-19. This update summarizes the changes made and their rationale and provides a refined SAP for the FAST-NAWC trial. These changes have been finalized before completion of trial follow-up and the commencement of data analysis., Trial Registration: Clinical Trials.gov NCT02399267., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide essential evidence to inform practice, but the many necessary steps result in lengthy times to initiation, which is problematic in the case of rapidly emerging infections such as COVID-19. This study aimed to describe the start-up timelines for the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) RCT., Methods: We surveyed hospitals participating in CATCO and ethics submission sites using a structured data abstraction form. We measured durations from protocol receipt to site activation and to first patient enrolment, as well as durations of administrative processes, including research ethics board (REB) approval, contract execution and lead times between approvals to site activation., Results: All 48 hospitals (26 academic, 22 community) and 4 ethics submission sites responded. The median time from protocol receipt to trial initiation was 111 days (interquartile range [IQR] 39-189 d, range 15-412 d). The median time between protocol receipt and REB submission was 41 days (IQR 10-56 d, range 4-195 d), from REB submission to approval, 4.5 days (IQR 1-12 d, range 0-169 d), from REB approval to site activation, 35 days (IQR 22-103 d, range 0-169 d), from protocol receipt to contract submission, 42 days (IQR 20-51 d, range 4-237 d), from contract submission to full contract execution, 24 days (IQR 15-58 d, range 5-164 d) and from contract execution to site activation, 10 days (IQR 6-27 d, range 0-216 d). Processes took longer in community hospitals than in academic hospitals., Interpretation: The time required to initiate RCTs in Canada was lengthy and varied among sites. Adoption of template clinical trial agreements, greater harmonization or central coordination of ethics submissions, and long-term funding of platform trials that engage academic and community hospitals are potential solutions to improve trial start-up efficiency., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Jennifer Tsang reports a Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation grant to her institution, outside the submitted work. She is cochair of the Canadian Community ICU Research Network (CCIRNet) and vice-chair of the Quest Community Health Centre board of directors. Alexandra Binnie reports a Physicians’ Services Incorporated Foundation grant and a Mohawk Medbuy grant to her institution, outside the submitted work. She is cochair of CCIRNet. Srinivas Murthy reports a grant from the Health Research Foundation, Innovative Medicines Canada, outside the submitted work. No other competing interests were declared., (© 2023 CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors.)

Objectives: Few surveys have focused on physician moral distress, burnout, and professional fulfilment. We assessed physician wellness and coping during the COVID-19 pandemic., Design: Cross-sectional survey using four validated instruments., Setting: Sixty-two sites in Canada and the United States., Subjects: Attending physicians (adult, pediatric; intensivist, nonintensivist) who worked in North American ICUs., Intervention: None., Measurements and Main Results: We analysed 431 questionnaires (43.3% response rate) from 25 states and eight provinces. Respondents were predominantly male (229 [55.6%]) and in practice for 11.8 ± 9.8 years. Compared with prepandemic, respondents reported significant intrapandemic increases in days worked/mo, ICU bed occupancy, and self-reported moral distress (240 [56.9%]) and burnout (259 [63.8%]). Of the 10 top-ranked items that incited moral distress, most pertained to regulatory/organizational ( n = 6) or local/institutional ( n = 2) issues or both ( n = 2). Average moral distress (95.6 ± 66.9), professional fulfilment (6.5 ± 2.1), and burnout scores (3.6 ± 2.0) were moderate with 227 physicians (54.6%) meeting burnout criteria. A significant dose-response existed between COVID-19 patient volume and moral distress scores. Physicians who worked more days/mo and more scheduled in-house nightshifts, especially combined with more unscheduled in-house nightshifts, experienced significantly more moral distress. One in five physicians used at least one maladaptive coping strategy. We identified four coping profiles (active/social, avoidant, mixed/ambivalent, infrequent) that were associated with significant differences across all wellness measures., Conclusions: Despite moderate intrapandemic moral distress and burnout, physicians experienced moderate professional fulfilment. However, one in five physicians used at least one maladaptive coping strategy. We highlight potentially modifiable factors at individual, institutional, and regulatory levels to enhance physician wellness., Competing Interests: Dr. Burns disclosed that the Canadian Critical Care Society (CCSS) paid for the statistical analyses. Dr. Lorens received funding from the CCCS. Drs. Lorens and Kerlin disclosed work for hire. Drs. Viglianti, Kohn, Peltan, and Schnapp received support for article research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Fox-Robichaud’s institution received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Hamilton Academic Hospitals. Dr. Mathews’ institution received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI); he received funding from Roivant/Kinevant Sciences. Dr. Jain is supported by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) T32AG019134, the Pepper Scholar Award from Yale Claude D. Pepper Older American Independence Center (P30AG021342), NIA of the NIH GEMSSTAR Award (R03AG078942), Parker B. Francis Fellowship Award, and Yale Physician-Scientist Development Award. Drs. Akgun and Crothers disclosed government work. Dr. Gershengorn received funding from the American Thoracic Society (ATS), Gilead Sciences, and Southeastern Critical Care Summit. Dr. Martin’s institution received funding from BARDA; he received funding from Genetech. Dr. Stapleton disclosed that she is chair of DSMB for Altimmune and a member of the ATS Board of Directors 2019–2021 (elected to Chair the Critical Care Assembly which includes a position on the Board). Dr. Attia’s institution received funding from the NHBLI (NHLBI K23 HL129888 and R03 [pending]), the Centers for Aids Research, and Pediatric HIV/AIDS Cohort Study. Dr. Maddux’s institution received funding from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K23HD096018) and the Francis Family Foundation. Dr. Bagshaw received funding from Baxter and Bioporto. Dr. Crothers’ institution received funding from the NIH and Veteran’s Affairs. Dr. Peltan’s institution received funding from Regeneron and Asahi Kasei Pharma; he received funding from the NIH (K23GM129661) and Janssen. Dr. Schnapp received funding from UptoDate and Elsevier. Dr. Kraft’s institution received funding from the NIH, the American Lung Association, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca Consulting; she received funding from Sanofi, Astra-Zeneca, Chiesi Speaking, and UptoDate; she disclosed she is a cofounder and Chief Medical Officer of RaeSedo LLC. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Rationale: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted non-COVID critical care trials globally as intensive care units (ICUs) prioritized patient care and COVID-specific research. The international randomized controlled trial CYCLE (Critical Care Cycling to Improve Lower Extremity Strength) was forced to halt recruitment at all sites in March 2020, creating immediate challenges. We applied the CONSERVE (CONSORT and SPIRIT Extension for RCTs Revised in Extenuating Circumstance) statement as a framework to report the impact of the pandemic on CYCLE and describe our mitigation approaches., Methods: On March 23, 2020, the CYCLE Methods Centre distributed a standardized email to determine the number of patients still in-hospital and those requiring imminent 90-day endpoint assessments. We assessed protocol fidelity by documenting attempts to provide the in-hospital randomized intervention (cycling or routine physiotherapy) and collect the primary outcome (physical function 3-days post-ICU discharge) and 90-day outcomes. We advised sites to prioritize data for the study's primary outcome. We sought feedback on pandemic barriers related to trial procedures., Results: Our main Methods Centre mitigation strategies included identifying patients at risk for protocol deviations, communicating early and frequently with sites, developing standardized internal tools focused on high-risk points in the protocol for monitoring patient progress, data entry, and validation, and providing guidance to conduct some research activities remotely. For study sites, our strategies included determining how institutional pandemic research policies applied to CYCLE, communicating with the Methods Centre about capacity to continue any part of the research, and developing contingency plans to ensure the protocol was delivered as intended. From 15 active sites (12 Canada, 2 US, 1 Australia), 5 patients were still receiving the study intervention in ICUs, 6 required primary outcomes, and 17 required 90-day assessments. With these mitigation strategies, we attempted 100% of ICU interventions, 83% of primary outcomes, and 100% of 90-day assessments per our protocol., Conclusions: We retained all enrolled patients with minimal missing data using several time-sensitive strategies. Although CONSERVE recommends reporting only major modifications incurred by extenuating circumstances, we suggest that it also provides a helpful framework for reporting mitigation strategies with the goal of improving research transparency and trial management., Trial Registration: NCT03471247. Registered on March 20, 2018., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Importance: The efficacy and safety of prone positioning is unclear in nonintubated patients with acute hypoxemia and COVID-19., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of prone positioning in nonintubated adult patients with acute hypoxemia and COVID-19., Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, unblinded randomized clinical trial conducted at 21 hospitals in Canada, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the US. Eligible adult patients with COVID-19 were not intubated and required oxygen (≥40%) or noninvasive ventilation. A total of 400 patients were enrolled between May 19, 2020, and May 18, 2021, and final follow-up was completed in July 2021., Intervention: Patients were randomized to awake prone positioning (n = 205) or usual care without prone positioning (control; n = 195)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation within 30 days of randomization. The secondary outcomes included mortality at 60 days, days free from invasive mechanical ventilation or noninvasive ventilation at 30 days, days free from the intensive care unit or hospital at 60 days, adverse events, and serious adverse events., Results: Among the 400 patients who were randomized (mean age, 57.6 years [SD, 12.83 years]; 117 [29.3%] were women), all (100%) completed the trial. In the first 4 days after randomization, the median duration of prone positioning was 4.8 h/d (IQR, 1.8 to 8.0 h/d) in the awake prone positioning group vs 0 h/d (IQR, 0 to 0 h/d) in the control group. By day 30, 70 of 205 patients (34.1%) in the prone positioning group were intubated vs 79 of 195 patients (40.5%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.59 to 1.12], P = .20; absolute difference, -6.37% [95% CI, -15.83% to 3.10%]). Prone positioning did not significantly reduce mortality at 60 days (hazard ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.40], P = .54; absolute difference, -1.15% [95% CI, -9.40% to 7.10%]) and had no significant effect on days free from invasive mechanical ventilation or noninvasive ventilation at 30 days or on days free from the intensive care unit or hospital at 60 days. There were no serious adverse events in either group. In the awake prone positioning group, 21 patients (10%) experienced adverse events and the most frequently reported were musculoskeletal pain or discomfort from prone positioning (13 of 205 patients [6.34%]) and desaturation (2 of 205 patients [0.98%]). There were no reported adverse events in the control group., Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure from COVID-19, prone positioning, compared with usual care without prone positioning, did not significantly reduce endotracheal intubation at 30 days. However, the effect size for the primary study outcome was imprecise and does not exclude a clinically important benefit., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04350723.

Only a small proportion of COVID-19 patients in Canada have been recruited into clinical research studies. One reason is that few community intensive care units (ICUs) in Canada participate in research. The objective of this study was to examine the motivating factors, barriers and facilitators to research participation amongst Canadian community ICU stakeholders. A cross-sectional online survey was distributed between May and November 2020. The survey focused on 6 domains: participant demographics, ICU characteristics, ICU research infrastructure, motivating factors, perceived barriers, and perceived facilitators. Responses were received from 73 community ICU stakeholders, representing 18 ICUs. 7/18 ICUs had a clinical research program. Participants rated their interest in pandemic research at a mean of 5.2 (Standard Deviation [SD] = 1.9) on a 7-point Likert scale from 'not interested' to 'very interested'. The strongest motivating factor for research participation was the belief that research improves clinical care and outcomes. The most significant facilitators of research involvement were the availability of an experienced research coordinator and dedicated external funding to cover start-up costs, while the most significant barriers to research involvement were a lack of start-up funding for a research coordinator and a lack of ICU research experience. Canadian Community ICU stakeholders are interested in participating in pandemic research but lack basic infrastructure, research personnel, research experience and start-up funding. Evolution of a research support model at community hospitals, where most patients receive acute care, may increase research participation and improve the generalizability of funded research in Canada., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Risk prediction scores are important tools to support clinical decision-making for patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The objective of this paper was to validate the 4C mortality score, originally developed in the United Kingdom, for a Canadian population, and to examine its performance over time. We conducted an external validation study within a registry of COVID-19 positive hospital admissions in the Kitchener-Waterloo and Hamilton regions of southern Ontario between March 4, 2020 and June 13, 2021. We examined the validity of the 4C score to prognosticate in-hospital mortality using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals calculated via bootstrapping. The study included 959 individuals, of whom 224 (23.4%) died in-hospital. Median age was 72 years and 524 individuals (55%) were male. The AUC of the 4C score was 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.79-0.87. Overall mortality rates across the pre-defined risk groups were 0% (Low), 8.0% (Intermediate), 27.2% (High), and 54.2% (Very High). Wave 1, 2 and 3 values of the AUC were 0.81 (0.76, 0.86), 0.74 (0.69, 0.80), and 0.76 (0.69, 0.83) respectively. The 4C score is a valid tool to prognosticate mortality from COVID-19 in Canadian hospitals and can be used to prioritize care and resources for patients at greatest risk of death., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Intensive care unit healthcare workers (ICU HCW) are at risk of mental health issues during emerging disease outbreaks. A study of ICU HCW from France revealed symptoms of anxiety and depression in 50.4% and 30.4% of workers at the peak of the first wave of the pandemic. The level of COVID-19 exposure of these ICU HCW was very high. In Canada, ICU HCW experienced variable exposure to COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic, with some hospitals seeing large numbers of patients while others saw few or none. In this study we examined the relationship between COVID-19 exposure and mental health in Canadian ICU HCW. We conducted a cross-sectional cohort study of Canadian ICU HCW in April 2020, during the acceleration phase of the first wave of the pandemic. Psychosocial distress was assessed using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Participants were asked about sources of stress as well as about exposure to COVID-19 patients and availability of personal protective equipment (PPE). Factors associated with clinically-relevant psychosocial distress were identified. Responses were received from 310 Canadian ICU HCW affiliated with more than 30 institutions. Of these, 64.5% scored ≥ 3 points on the GHQ-12 questionnaire, indicating clinically-relevant psychosocial distress. The frequency of psychosocial distress was highest amongst registered nurses (75.7%) and lowest amongst physicians (49.4%). It was also higher amongst females (64.9%) than males (47.6%). Although PPE availability was good (> 80% of participants reported adequate availability), there was significant anxiety with respect to PPE availability, with respect to the risk of being infected with COVID-19, and with respect to the risk of transmitting COVID-19 to others. In multivariable regression analysis, Anxiety with respect to being infected with COVID-19 (OR 1.53, CI 1.31-1.81) was the strongest positive predictor of clinically-relevant psychosocial distress while the Number of shifts with COVID-19 exposure (OR 0.86, CI 0.75-0.95) was the strongest negative predictor. In summary, clinically-relevant psychosocial distress was identified amongst a majority of ICU HCW during the acceleration phase of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, including those with minimal or no exposure to COVID-19. Strategies to support mental health amongst ICU HCW are required across the entire healthcare system., Competing Interests: The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Background: Clinical data on patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) provide clinicians and public health officials with information to guide practice and policy. The aims of this study were to describe patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital and intensive care, and to investigate predictors of outcome to characterize severe acute respiratory infection., Methods: This observational cohort study used Canadian data from 32 selected hospitals included in a global multisite cohort between Jan. 24 and July 7, 2020. Adult and pediatric patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who received care in an intensive care unit (ICU) and a sampling of up to the first 60 patients receiving care on hospital wards were included. We performed descriptive analyses of characteristics, interventions and outcomes. The primary analyses examined in-hospital mortality, with secondary analyses of the length of hospital and ICU stay., Results: Between January and July 2020, among 811 patients admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of COVID-19, the median age was 64 (interquartile range [IQR] 53-75) years, 495 (61.0%) were men, 46 (5.7%) were health care workers, 9 (1.1%) were pregnant, 26 (3.2%) were younger than 18 years and 9 (1.1%) were younger than 5 years. The median time from symptom onset to hospital admission was 7 (IQR 3-10) days. The most common symptoms on admission were fever, shortness of breath, cough and malaise. Diabetes, hypertension and cardiac, kidney and respiratory disease were the most common comorbidities. Among all patients, 328 received care in an ICU, admitted a median of 0 (IQR 0-1) days after hospital admission. Critically ill patients received treatment with invasive mechanical ventilation (88.8%), renal replacement therapy (14.9%) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (4.0%); 26.2% died. Among those receiving mechanical ventilation, 31.2% died. Age was an influential predictor of mortality (odds ratio per additional year of life 1.06, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.09)., Interpretation: Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 commonly had fever, respiratory symptoms and comorbid conditions. Increasing age was associated with the development of critical illness and death; however, most critically ill patients in Canada, including those requiring mechanical ventilation, survived and were discharged from hospital., Competing Interests: Competing interests: See the end of the article. Competing interests: Todd Lee reports salary support from Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé. Deepali Kumar reports grants and personal fees from Roche. Michelle Kho reports grants from Canada Research Chairs. Matthew Cheng reports grants from the McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity and personal fees from GEn1E Lifesciences (as a member of the scientific advisory board) and personal fees from nplex biosciences (as a member of the scientific advisory board). Philippe Jouvet reports consulting for Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals and grants to his institution from VitalTracer and Evolucare. Patrick Archambault is a co-investigator in the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)–funded Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (https://canadiancovid19ednetwork.org). No other competing interests were declared., (© 2021 Joule Inc. or its licensors.)