Search

Objective: To analyze the evacuation preparedness of hospitals within the European Union (EU). Method: This study consisted of 2 steps. In the first step, a systematic review of the subject matter, according to the PRISMA flow diagram, was performed. Using Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands), PubMed (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD), and Gothenburg University´s search engine, 11 questions were extracted from the review and were sent to representatives from 15 European Union (EU)- and non-EU countries. Results: The findings indicate that there is neither a full preparedness nor a standard guideline for evacuation within the EU or other non-EU countries in this study. A major shortcoming revealed by this study is the lack of awareness of the untoward consequences of medical decision-making during an evacuation. Some countries did not respond to the questions due to the lack of relevant guidelines, instructions, or time. Conclusion: Hospitals are exposed to internal and external incidents and require an adequate evacuation plan. Despite many publications, reports, and conclusions on successful and unsuccessful evacuation, there is still no common guide for evacuation, and many hospitals lack the proper preparedness. There is a need for a multinational collaboration, specifically within the EU, to establish such an evacuation planning or guideline to be used mutually within the union and the international community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) are considered 'aerosol-generating procedures' in the treatment of COVID-19.Objective: To measure air and surface environmental contamination with SARS-CoV-2 virus when CPAP and HFNO are used, compared with supplemental oxygen, to investigate the potential risks of viral transmission to healthcare workers and patients.Methods: 30 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen, with a fraction of inspired oxygen ≥0.4 to maintain oxygen saturation ≥94%, were prospectively enrolled into an observational environmental sampling study. Participants received either supplemental oxygen, CPAP or HFNO (n=10 in each group). A nasopharyngeal swab, three air and three surface samples were collected from each participant and the clinical environment. Real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction analyses were performed for viral and human RNA, and positive/suspected-positive samples were cultured for the presence of biologically viable virus.Results: Overall 21/30 (70%) participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the nasopharynx. In contrast, only 4/90 (4%) and 6/90 (7%) of all air and surface samples tested positive (positive for E and ORF1a) for viral RNA respectively, although there were an additional 10 suspected-positive samples in both air and surfaces samples (positive for E or ORF1a). CPAP/HFNO use or coughing was not associated with significantly more environmental contamination than supplemental oxygen use. Only one nasopharyngeal sample was culture positive.Conclusions: The use of CPAP and HFNO to treat moderate/severe COVID-19 did not appear to be associated with substantially higher levels of air or surface viral contamination in the immediate care environment, compared with the use of supplemental oxygen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: COVID-19 has become the most common cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) worldwide. Features of the pathophysiology and clinical presentation partially distinguish it from 'classical' ARDS. A Research and Development (RAND) analysis gauged the opinion of an expert panel about the management of ARDS with and without COVID-19 as the precipitating cause, using recent UK guidelines as a template.Methods: An 11-person panel comprising intensive care practitioners rated the appropriateness of ARDS management options at different times during hospital admission, in the presence or absence of, or varying severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection on a scale of 1-9 (where 1-3 is inappropriate, 4-6 is uncertain and 7-9 is appropriate). A summary of the anonymised results was discussed at an online meeting moderated by an expert in RAND methodology. The modified online survey comprising 76 questions, subdivided into investigations (16), non-invasive respiratory support (18), basic intensive care unit management of ARDS (20), management of refractory hypoxaemia (8), pharmacotherapy (7) and anticoagulation (7), was completed again.Results: Disagreement between experts was significant only when addressing the appropriateness of diagnostic bronchoscopy in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Adherence to existing published guidelines for the management of ARDS for relevant evidence-based interventions was recommended. Responses of the experts to the final survey suggested that the supportive management of ARDS should be the same, regardless of a COVID-19 diagnosis. For patients with ARDS with COVID-19, the panel recommended routine treatment with corticosteroids and a lower threshold for full anticoagulation based on a high index of suspicion for venous thromboembolic disease.Conclusion: The expert panel found no reason to deviate from the evidence-based supportive strategies for managing ARDS outlined in recent guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Participants in clinical research studies often do not reflect the populations for which healthcare interventions are needed or will be used. Enhancing representation of under-served groups in clinical research is important to ensure that research findings are widely applicable. We describe a multicomponent workstream project to improve representation of under-served groups in clinical trials.Methods: The project comprised three main strands: (1) a targeted scoping review of literature to identify previous work characterising under-served groups and barriers to inclusion, (2) surveys of professional stakeholders and participant representative groups involved in research delivery to refine these initial findings and identify examples of innovation and good practice and (3) a series of workshops bringing together key stakeholders from funding, design, delivery and participant groups to reach consensus on definitions, barriers and a strategic roadmap for future work. The work was commissioned by the UK National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network. Output from these strands was integrated by a steering committee to generate a series of goals, workstream plans and a strategic roadmap for future development work in this area.Results: 'Under-served groups' was identified and agreed by the stakeholder group as the preferred term. Three-quarters of stakeholders felt that a clear definition of under-served groups did not currently exist; definition was challenging and context-specific, but exemplar groups (e.g. those with language barriers or mental illness) were identified as under-served. Barriers to successful inclusion of under-served groups could be clustered into communication between research teams and participant groups; how trials are designed and delivered, differing agendas of research teams and participant groups; and lack of trust in the research process. Four key goals for future work were identified: building long-term relationships with under-served groups, developing training resources to improve design and delivery of trials for under-served groups, developing infrastructure and systems to support this work and working with funders, regulators and other stakeholders to remove barriers to inclusion.Conclusions: The work of the INCLUDE group over the next 12 months will build on these findings by generating resources customised for different under-served groups to improve the representativeness of trial populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients suspected of ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections (VA-LRTIs) commonly receive broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy unnecessarily. We tested whether exhaled breath analysis can discriminate between patients suspected of VA-LRTI with confirmed infection, from patients with negative cultures. Breath from 108 patients suspected of VA-LRTI was analysed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. The breath test had a sensitivity of 98% at a specificity of 49%, confirmed with a second analytical method. The breath test had a negative predictive value of 96% and excluded pneumonia in half of the patients with negative cultures. Trial registration number: UKCRN ID number 19086, registered May 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Recommendations to move to a race-free estimating equation for glomerular filtration rate (GFR) have gained increasing prominence since 2021. We wished to determine the impact of any future adoption upon the chronic kidney disease (CKD) patient population of a large teaching hospital, with a population breakdown largely similar to that of England as a whole., Methods: We compared four estimating equations (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease [MDRD], CKD-EPI [2009], CKD-EPI [2021], and European Kidney Function Consortium [EKFC]) using the Bland-Altman method. Bias and precision were calculated (in both figures and percentages) for all patients with CKD and specific subgroups determined by age, ethnic group, CKD stage, and sex. CKD stage was assessed using all four equations., Results: All equations studied had a positive bias in South Asian patients and a negative bias in black patients compared to CKD-EPI (2021). Similarly, there was a positive bias in white patients across all equations studied. Comparing CKD-EPI (2009) and EKFC, this positive bias increased as patients aged; the opposite was seen with MDRD. Between 10% and 28% of patients in our dataset changed their CKD staging depending upon the estimating equation used., Discussion: Our work confirms previous findings that the MDRD equation overestimates estimated GFR (eGFR) in South Asians and underestimates eGFR in blacks. The alternative equations also demonstrated similar bias. This may, in part, explain the health inequalities seen in ethnic minority patients in the UK. Applying our findings to the UK CKD population as a whole would result in anywhere from 260,000 to 730,000 patients having their CKD stage reclassified, which in turn will impact secondary care services., (© 2024 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)