Chapter 9. Educational process. Recommendations and standard operating procedures for intensive care unit and hospital preparations for an influenza epidemic or mass disaster

Continuous prolonged prone positioning in COVID-19-related ARDS: a multicenter cohort study from Chile

Background

Prone positioning is currently applied in time-limited daily sessions up to 24 h which determines that most patients require several sessions. Although longer prone sessions have been reported, there is scarce evidence about the feasibility and safety of such approach. We analyzed feasibility and safety of a continuous prolonged prone positioning strategy implemented nationwide, in a large cohort of COVID-19 patients in Chile.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), conducted in 15 Intensive Care Units, which adhered to a national protocol of continuous prone sessions  ≥ 48 h and until PaO2:FiO2 increased above 200 mm Hg. The number and extension of prone sessions were registered, along with relevant physiologic data and adverse events related to prone positioning. The cohort was stratified according to the first prone session duration: Group A, 2–3 days; Group B, 4–5 days; and Group C, > 5 days. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to assess whether the duration of prone sessions could impact safety.

Results

We included 417 patients who required a first prone session of 4 (3–5) days, of whom 318 (76.3%) received only one session. During the first prone session the main adverse event was grade 1–2 pressure sores in 97 (23.9%) patients; severe adverse events were infrequent with 17 non-scheduled extubations (4.2%). 90-day mortality was 36.2%. Ninety-eight patients (24%) were classified as group C; they exhibited a more severe ARDS at baseline, as reflected by lower PaO2:FiO2 ratio and higher ventilatory ratio, and had a higher rate of pressure sores (44%) and higher 90-day mortality (48%). However, after adjustment for severity and several relevant confounders, prone session duration was not associated with mortality or pressure sores.

Conclusions

Nationwide implementation of a continuous prolonged prone positioning strategy for COVID-19 ARDS patients was feasible. Minor pressure sores were frequent but within the ranges previously described, while severe adverse events were infrequent. The duration of prone session did not have an adverse effect on safety.

COVID-19 Critical Care Simulations: An International Cross-Sectional Survey

Objective: To describe the utility and patterns of COVID-19 simulation scenarios across different international healthcare centers. Methods: This is a cross-sectional, international survey for multiple simulation centers team members, including team-leaders and healthcare workers (HCWs), based on each center's debriefing reports from 30 countries in all WHO regions. The main outcome measures were the COVID-19 simulations characteristics, facilitators, obstacles, and challenges encountered during the simulation sessions. Results: Invitation was sent to 343 simulation team leaders and multidisciplinary HCWs who responded; 121 completed the survey. The frequency of simulation sessions was monthly (27.1%), weekly (24.8%), twice weekly (19.8%), or daily (21.5%). Regarding the themes of the simulation sessions, they were COVID-19 patient arrival to ER (69.4%), COVID-19 patient intubation due to respiratory failure (66.1%), COVID-19 patient requiring CPR (53.7%), COVID-19 transport inside the hospital (53.7%), COVID-19 elective intubation in OR (37.2%), or Delivery of COVID-19 mother and neonatal care (19%). Among participants, 55.6% reported the team's full engagement in the simulation sessions. The average session length was 30-60 min. The debriefing process was conducted by the ICU facilitator in (51%) of the sessions followed by simulation staff in 41% of the sessions. A total of 80% reported significant improvement in clinical preparedness after simulation sessions, and 70% were satisfied with the COVID-19 sessions. Most perceived issues reported were related to infection control measures, followed by team dynamics, logistics, and patient transport issues. Conclusion: Simulation centers team leaders and HCWs reported positive feedback on COVID-19 simulation sessions with multidisciplinary personnel involvement. These drills are a valuable tool for rehearsing safe dynamics on the frontline of COVID-19. More research on COVID-19 simulation outcomes is warranted; to explore variable factors for each country and healthcare system.

How are healthcare provider systems preparing for health emergency situations?

Natural disasters, disease outbreaks, famine, and human conflict have strained communities everywhere over the course of human existence. However, modern changes in climate, human mobility, and other factors have increased the global community's vulnerability to widespread emergencies. We are in the midst of a disruptive health event, with the COVID-19 pandemic testing our health provider systems globally. This study presents a qualitative analysis of published literature, obtained systematically, to examine approaches health providers are taking to prepare for and respond to mass casualty incidents around the globe. The research reveals emerging trends in the weaknesses of systems' disaster responses while highlighting proposed solutions, so that others may better prepare for future disasters. Additionally, the research examines gaps in the literature, to foster more targeted and actionable contributions to the literature.

Ebola virus disease: Report from the task force on tropical diseases by the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine

Ebola virus is a filovirus that can cause fatal hemorrhagic fever (HF) and five distinct species exist that vary in terms of geographical distribution and virulence. Once the more virulent forms enter the human population, transmission occurs primarily through direct contact with infected body fluids and may result in significant outbreaks. The devastating has been the recent West African outbreak. Clinically, signs and symptoms are similar to those of the other VHFs [4]. The incubation period is 2-21days, followed by fever, headache, myalgia, diarrhoea, vomiting and dehydration; thereafter, there may be recovery or deterioration with collapse, neurological manifestations and bleeding, that can lead to a fatal outcome. Elevated hepatic transaminases is common and severe hepatitis is more common in fatal cases and frequently there is associated fluid depletion. Real time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) techniques on blood specimens are the gold standard for diagnosis [6]. Management is discussed and is essentially supportive with strict attention to infection control and prevention. None of the pharmacological interventions have shown conclusive benefit and future management of epidemics should centre around prevention and containment, specifically isolation, hygiene, and vaccination.

Engagement and education: care of the critically ill and injured during pandemics and disasters: CHEST consensus statement

BACKGROUND

Engagement and education of ICU clinicians in disaster preparedness is fragmented by time constraints and institutional barriers and frequently occurs during a disaster. We reviewed the existing literature from 2007 to April 2013 and expert opinions about clinician engagement and education for critical care during a pandemic or disaster and offer suggestions for integrating ICU clinicians into planning and response. The suggestions in this article are important for all of those involved in a pandemic or large-scale disaster with multiple critically ill or injured patients, including front-line clinicians, hospital administrators, and public health or government officials.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed and suggestions formulated according to the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) Consensus Statement development methodology. We assessed articles, documents, reports, and gray literature reported since 2007. Following expert-informed sorting and review of the literature, key priority areas and questions were developed. No studies of sufficient quality were identified upon which to make evidence-based recommendations. Therefore, the panel developed expert opinion-based suggestions using a modified Delphi process.

RESULTS

Twenty-three suggestions were formulated based on literature-informed consensus opinion. These suggestions are grouped according to the following thematic elements: (1) situational awareness, (2) clinician roles and responsibilities, (3) education, and (4) community engagement. Together, these four elements are considered to form the basis for effective ICU clinician engagement for mass critical care.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal engagement of the ICU clinical team in caring for large numbers of critically ill patients due to a pandemic or disaster will require a departure from the routine independent systems operating in hospitals. An effective response will require robust information systems; coordination among clinicians, hospitals, and governmental organizations; pre-event engagement of relevant stakeholders; and standardized core competencies for the education and training of critical care clinicians.