COVID-19 preparedness and response at a large UK major trauma operating theatres department

Building a resilient health system for universal health coverage and health security: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Resilient health system (RHS) is crucial to achieving universal health coverage (UHC) and health security. However, little is known about strategies towards RHS to improve UHC and health security. This systematic review aims to synthesise the literature to understand approaches to build RHS toward UHC and health security.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted including studies published from 01 January 2000 to 31 December 2021. Studies were searched in three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Scopus) using search terms under four domains: resilience, health system, universal health coverage, and health security. We critically appraised articles using Rees and colleagues' quality appraisal checklist to assess the quality of papers. A systematic narrative synthesis was conducted to analyse and synthesise the data using the World Health Organization's health systems building block framework.

RESULTS

A total of 57 articles were included in the final review. Context-based redistribution of health workers, task-shifting policy, and results-based health financing policy helped to build RHS. High political commitment, community-based response planning, and multi-sectorial collaboration were critical to realising UHC and health security. On the contrary, lack of access, non-responsive, inequitable healthcare services, poor surveillance, weak leadership, and income inequalities were the constraints to achieving UHC and health security. In addition, the lack of basic healthcare infrastructures, inadequately skilled health workforces, absence of clear government policy, lack of clarity of stakeholder roles, and uneven distribution of health facilities and health workers were the challenges to achieving UHC and health security.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced healthcare infrastructures and adequate number of healthcare workers are essential to achieving UHC and health security. However, they are not alone adequate to protect the health system from potential failure. Context-specific redistribution of health workers, task-shifting, result-based health financing policies, and integrated and multi-sectoral approaches, based on the principles of primary health care, are necessary for building RHS toward UHC and health security.

Best Practices of Hospitals in Management of Epidemic Conditions: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Many hospitals globally have valuable experiences in preparing for management and responding to infectious epidemics. Identifying and analyzing these experiences can provide comprehensive and practical data for decision-making and effective performance. This study aimed to conduct a scoping review and content analysis of the best practices of hospital (private or public) management in epidemic conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This research is a scoping review and content analysis, conducted in 2021. Data was collected by searching different databases, including Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, ProQuest, websites, search engines, and public reports without time limits. Content analysis was performed for data analysis.

RESULTS

We retrieved 8842 records from databases and other sources. Finally, 24 studies from 12 countries were selected for analysis. Most studies belonged to the United States (9 cases), and most subjects were on Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) (19 studies). We classified the results into two major categories of in-hospital executive readiness and logistic readiness. Executive readiness included 11 main categories (physical structure, resource management, exposure reduction, patients and caregivers' management, corpse management, disinfection, staff support, patient admission, instructions and guidelines, tele- communication, and education) and 26 sub-categories. Logistic readiness consisted of three major categories (leadership/team making, communication, and using capabilities) and five sub-categories.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare managers can use the identified categories and dimensions of managerial readiness and responsiveness as an action plan during an infectious disease epidemic.

Managing Traumatic Brain Injury During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic-A Case-Matched Controlled Analysis of Immediate Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the outcome of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and to compare their outcome with case-matched controls from the prepandemic phase.

METHODS

This is a retrospective case-control study in which all patients with TBI admitted during COVID-19 pandemic phase (Arm A) from March 24, 2020 to November 30, 2020 were matched with age and Glasgow Coma Scale score-matched controls from the patients admitted before March 2020 (Arm B).

RESULTS

The total number of patients matched in each arm was 118. The length of hospital stay (8 days vs. 5 days; P < 0.001), transit time from emergency room to operation room (150 minutes vs. 97 minutes; P = 0.271), anesthesia induction time (75 minutes vs. 45 minutes; P = 0.002), and operative duration (275 minutes vs. 180 minutes; P = 0.002) were longer in arm A. Although the incidence of fever and pneumonia was significantly higher in arm A than in arm B (50% vs. 26.3%, P < 0.001 and 27.1% vs. 1.7%, P < 0.001, respectively), outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended) and mortality (18.6% vs. 14.4% respectively; P = 0.42) were similar in both the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcome of the patients managed for TBI during the COVID-19 pandemic was similar to matched patients with TBI managed at our center before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. This finding suggests that the guidelines followed during the COVID-19 pandemic were effective in dealing with patients with TBI. This model can serve as a guide for any future pandemic waves for effective management of patients with TBI without compromising their outcome.

The impact of COVID-19 on the management and outcomes of patients with proximal femoral fractures: a multi-centre study of 580 patients

Background

On the 11th March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic. Multiple new guidelines were proposed and existing models of social, domestic and hospital care altered. Most healthcare systems were largely unprepared for this, and the pandemic has tested their adaptability. This study aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the demographics, presentation, clinical management and outcomes of patients with proximal femoral (hip) fractures comparing them to a similar cohort of patients admitted a year earlier.

Methods

This retrospective multi-centre cohort study compared all patients admitted with hip fractures between 1st March and 30th May 2019 (group PC: pre-COVID-19) with hip fracture patients admitted over the same time period during the pandemic in 2020 (group C: COVID-19). The data was obtained from the hospitals’ local and National Hip Fracture Databases. Mortality data was checked with the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Primary outcomes were time to theatre, in-patient length of stay and 30-day mortality.

Results

A total of 580 patients were included (304 group PC, 276 group C). Patient demographics including Charlson Comorbidity Index and Nottingham Hip Fracture Scores were broadly similar across the two cohorts. There was a significant reduction in the percentage of total hip replacements (11 to 5%, p = 0.006) in group C. There was an increase in conservative management (1 to 5%, p = 0.002) in group C. Time to theatre was significantly delayed in group C (43.7 h) vs group PC (34.6 h) (p ≤ 0.001). The overall length of hospital stay was significantly longer in group PC (16.6 days) vs group C (15 days) (p = 0.025). The 30-day mortality rate in group C was 9.8% compared to 8.2% in group PC (p = 0.746), but for COVID-19 (+) patients, it was significantly higher at 38.2% vs 5.8% in COVID-19 (−) patients (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

This is one of the largest multi-centre comparative cohort study in the literature to date examining the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of hip fracture patients. Whilst mortality rates were similar in both groups, COVID-19-positive patients were almost seven times more likely to die, reflecting the seriousness of the COVID-19 infection and its sequelae in such elderly, vulnerable patients.

COVID-19 pathway signage for operating theatres

On 20 August 2020, Public Health England released a new version of the 'COVID-19: Guidance for the remobilisation of services within health and care settings: infection prevention and control recommendations', superseding that of 18 June 2020. In this document, the infection prevention and control principles determine that the treatment, care and support of patients are to be managed in three COVID-19 pathways. These are: 'high risk', 'medium risk' and 'low risk'. In the operating theatre, where procedures may be urgent or planned, and where various surgical and anaesthetic procedures generate airborne particles (aerosols), it is crucial to communicate the infection prevention and control recommendations in a way that is easily understood and followed by all healthcare professionals. The theatre team at one hospital in the East of England produced local alternating signage to communicate the COVID-19 pathway risk during cases in theatres. This signage - named the 'COVID-19 Flag' - is placed outside of the individual theatre to ensure that staff are informed of the infection risk with the cases underway. Furthermore, it is a quick visual guide to be used in conjunction with national guidance and local protocols for appropriate decisions regarding the treatment and care of patients in the operating theatres.

Awareness of Human Factors in the operating theatres during the COVID-19 pandemic

One of the priorities at our large Operating Theatres Department is to support awareness and basic education of the multi-disciplinary teams in clinical Human Factors, to help build competence and capacity in healthcare towards a resilient system. From May 2019 until February 2020, our Human Factors Champions embarked on a project called Observation of Non-technical Skills and Teamwork in the operating theatres (ONSeT), to monitor and evaluate the benefits of local Human Factors education. In September 2020, six months after the COVID-19 pandemic hit the UK and caused a major disruption of surgical services, we decided to investigate the usefulness of the project and the impact of COVID-19 in the operating theatres, looking through the eyes of the Human Factors Champions. Results pointed to a consensus about ONSeT having helped during the pandemic, with regards to how teams worked and in enabling team leaders to be more responsive. Human Factors Champions found that feedback on performance was received in a non-threatening way and observation of performance became ‘second nature’. As organisations need to develop critical thinking, we think that the ONSeT project has helped us build some capacity for this, from the front-line onwards.