Telecritical Care Clinical and Operational Strategies in Response to COVID-19.

Background: The cororavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has strained intensive care unit (ICU) material and human resources to global crisis levels. The risks of staffing challenges and clinician exposure are of significant concern. One resource, telecritical care (TCC), has the potential to optimize efficiency, maximize safety, and improve quality of care provided amid large-scale disruptions, but its role in pandemic situations is only loosely defined. Planning and Preparation Phase: We propose strategic initiatives by which TCC may act as a force multiplier for pandemic preparedness in response to COVID-19, utilizing a tiered approach for increasing surge capacity needs. The goals involved usage of TCC to augment ICU capacity, optimize safety, minimize personal protective equipment (PPE) use, improve efficiencies, and enhance knowledge of managing pandemic response. Implementation Phase: A phased approach utilizing TCC would involve implementing remote capabilities across the enterprise to accomplish the goals outlined. The hardware and software needed for initial expansion to cover 275 beds included $956,670 for mobile carts and $173,106 for home workstations. Team role deployment and bedside clinical care centering around TCC as critical care capacity expand beyond 275 beds. Surge capacity was not reached during early phases of the pandemic in the region, allowing refinement of TCC during subsequent pandemic phases. Conclusions: Leveraging TCC facilitated pandemic surge planning but required redefinition of typical ICU staffing models. The design was meant to workforce efficiencies, reduce PPE use, and minimize health care worker exposure risk, all while maintaining quality care standards through an intensivist-led model. As health care operations resumed and states reopened, TCC is being used to support shifts in volume and critical care personnel during the pandemic evolution. The lessons applied may help health care systems through variable phases of the pandemic.

Association of the Quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) Score With Excess Hospital Mortality in Adults With Suspected Infection in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Importance: The quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score has not been well-evaluated in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Objective: To assess the association of qSOFA with excess hospital death among patients with suspected infection in LMICs and to compare qSOFA with the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. Design, Settings, and Participants: Retrospective secondary analysis of 8 cohort studies and 1 randomized clinical trial from 2003 to 2017. This study included 6569 hospitalized adults with suspected infection in emergency departments, inpatient wards, and intensive care units of 17 hospitals in 10 LMICs across sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Exposures: Low (0), moderate (1), or high (≥2) qSOFA score (range, 0 [best] to 3 [worst]) or SIRS criteria (range, 0 [best] to 4 [worst]) within 24 hours of presentation to study hospital. Main Outcomes and Measures: Predictive validity (measured as incremental hospital mortality beyond that predicted by baseline risk factors, as a marker of sepsis or analogous severe infectious course) of the qSOFA score (primary) and SIRS criteria (secondary). Results: The cohorts were diverse in enrollment criteria, demographics (median ages, 29-54 years; males range, 36%-76%), HIV prevalence (range, 2%-43%), cause of infection, and hospital mortality (range, 1%-39%). Among 6218 patients with nonmissing outcome status in the combined cohort, 643 (10%) died. Compared with a low or moderate score, a high qSOFA score was associated with increased risk of death overall (19% vs 6%; difference, 13% [95% CI, 11%-14%]; odds ratio, 3.6 [95% CI, 3.0-4.2]) and across cohorts (P < .05 for 8 of 9 cohorts). Compared with a low qSOFA score, a moderate qSOFA score was also associated with increased risk of death overall (8% vs 3%; difference, 5% [95% CI, 4%-6%]; odds ratio, 2.8 [95% CI, 2.0-3.9]), but not in every cohort (P < .05 in 2 of 7 cohorts). High, vs low or moderate, SIRS criteria were associated with a smaller increase in risk of death overall (13% vs 8%; difference, 5% [95% CI, 3%-6%]; odds ratio, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.4-2.0]) and across cohorts (P < .05 for 4 of 9 cohorts). qSOFA discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC], 0.70 [95% CI, 0.68-0.72]) was superior to that of both the baseline model (AUROC, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.53-0.58; P < .001) and SIRS (AUROC, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.57-0.62]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: When assessed among hospitalized adults with suspected infection in 9 LMIC cohorts, the qSOFA score identified infected patients at risk of death beyond that explained by baseline factors. However, the predictive validity varied among cohorts and settings, and further research is needed to better understand potential generalizability.

Evaluation of the patient with an exposure-related disease: the occupational and environmental history.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although the process of taking an occupational and environmental history has remained largely the same, the context in which it is done has changed dramatically over recent years. This review examines the role of the occupational and environmental history in the context of the changing nature of medical practice and discusses methods for evaluating patients with contemporary exposure-related respiratory illnesses. RECENT FINDINGS: Surveillance for occupational lung disease using mnemonic devices, screening questions and the use of structured questionnaires can significantly increase the likelihood and accuracy of detection. Electronic health records likewise can be adapted to include the most important elements of the occupational and environmental history. SUMMARY: The emergence of new technologies and industries will lead to respiratory diseases in novel occupational and environmental contexts. Using the methods described herein can make detecting these diseases easier and less time-consuming.

Critical care delivery across health care systems in low-income and low-middle-income country settings: A systematic review.

Background: Prior research has demonstrated that low- and low-middle-income countries (LLMICs) bear a higher burden of critical illness and have a higher rate of mortality from critical illness than high-income countries (HICs). There is a pressing need for improved critical care delivery in LLMICs to reduce this inequity. This systematic review aimed to characterise the range of critical care interventions and services delivered within LLMIC health care systems as reported in the literature. Methods: A search strategy using terms related to critical care in LLMICs was implemented in multiple databases. We included English language articles with human subjects describing at least one critical care intervention or service in an LLMIC setting published between 1 January 2008 and 1 January 2020. Results: A total of 1620 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among the included studies, 45% of studies reported on pediatric patients, 43% on adults, 23% on infants, 8.9% on geriatric patients and 4.2% on maternal patients. Most of the care described (94%) was delivered in-hospital, with the remainder (6.2%) taking place in out-of-hospital care settings. Overall, 49% of critical care described was delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians delivered critical care in 60% of the included studies. Additional critical care was delivered by general physicians (40%), as well as specialist physician trainees (22%), pharmacists (16%), advanced nursing or midlevel practitioners (8.9%), ambulance providers (3.3%) and respiratory therapists (3.1%). Conclusions: This review represents a comprehensive synthesis of critical care delivery in LLMIC settings. Approximately 50% of critical care interventions and services were delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians were the most common health care professionals involved in care delivery in the included studies, however generalist physicians were commonly reported to provide critical care interventions and services. This study additionally characterised the quality of the published evidence guiding critical care practice in LLMICs, demonstrating a paucity of interventional and cost-effectiveness studies. Future research is needed to understand better how to optimise critical care interventions, services, care delivery and costs in these settings. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42019146802.

Geographic, Subject, and Authorship Trends among LMIC-based Scientific Publications in High-impact Global Health and General Medicine Journals: A 30-Month Bibliometric Analysis.

The globalization of medical research and global health's increasing popularity worldwide have resulted in greater geographic, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity of studies published in the scientific literature. Yet the geographic distribution, authorship representation, and subject trends among Low-/Low-Middle-Income Country (LIC/LMIC)-based scientific publications remain largely unknown. This analysis assesses these gaps in knowledge. We performed a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of all scientific articles published between January 2014 and June 2016 in the four most prominent general medicine and five most prominent general global health journals based on impact factor. The African region, containing 24% of the global LIC/LMIC population, accounted for 49.9% of all publications. Corresponding authors with either exclusive or joint appointment to a LIC/LMIC institution were present in 26.2% of all included articles. Over one-quarter (28.8%) of all publications did not list a local author. Nearly two-thirds (62.1%) of articles published in global health journals and roughly half (52.4%) in general medicine journals involved infectious diseases. Non-HIV infectious disease studies were by far the most frequent subject areas across all journals. The trends identified in this study may help to inform the evolution and prioritization of future research efforts, thereby allowing global health to remain truly global.

Pragmatic Recommendations for Tracheostomy, Discharge, and Rehabilitation Measures in Hospitalized Patients Recovering From Severe COVID-19 in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

New studies of COVID-19 are constantly updating best practices in clinical care. However, research mainly originates in resource-rich settings in high-income countries. Often, it is impractical to apply recommendations based on these investigations to resource-constrained settings in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We report on a set of pragmatic recommendations for tracheostomy, discharge, and rehabilitation measures in hospitalized patients recovering from severe COVID-19 in LMICs. We recommend that tracheostomy be performed in a negative pressure room or negative pressure operating room, if possible, and otherwise in a single room with a closed door. We recommend using the technique that is most familiar to the institution and that can be conducted most safely. We recommend using fit-tested enhanced personal protection equipment, with the fewest people required, and incorporating strategies to minimize aerosolization of the virus. For recovering patients, we suggest following local, regional, or national hospital discharge guidelines. If these are lacking, we suggest deisolation and hospital discharge using symptom-based criteria, rather than with testing. We likewise suggest taking into consideration the capability of primary caregivers to provide the necessary care to meet the psychological, physical, and neurocognitive needs of the patient.

Pragmatic Recommendations for the Management of Acute Respiratory Failure and Mechanical Ventilation in Patients with COVID-19 in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Management of patients with severe or critical COVID-19 is mainly modeled after care for patients with severe pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from other causes, and these recommendations are based on evidence that often originates from investigations in resource-rich intensive care units located in high-income countries. Often, it is impractical to apply these recommendations to resource-restricted settings, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We report on a set of pragmatic recommendations for acute respiratory failure and mechanical ventilation management in patients with severe/critical COVID-19 in LMICs. We suggest starting supplementary oxygen when SpO2 is persistently lower than 94%. We recommend supplemental oxygen to keep SpO2 at 88-95% and suggest higher targets in settings where continuous pulse oximetry is not available but intermittent pulse oximetry is. We suggest a trial of awake prone positioning in patients who remain hypoxemic; however, this requires close monitoring, and clear failure and escalation criteria. In places with an adequate number and trained staff, the strategy seems safe. We recommend to intubate based on signs of respiratory distress more than on refractory hypoxemia alone, and we recommend close monitoring for respiratory worsening and early intubation if worsening occurs. We recommend low-tidal volume ventilation combined with FiO2 and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) management based on a high FiO2/low PEEP table. We recommend against using routine recruitment maneuvers, unless as a rescue therapy in refractory hypoxemia, and we recommend using prone positioning for 12-16 hours in case of refractory hypoxemia (PaO2/FiO2 < 150 mmHg, FiO2 ≥ 0.6 and PEEP ≥ 10 cmH2O) in intubated patients as standard in ARDS patients. We also recommend against sharing one ventilator for multiple patients. We recommend daily assessments for readiness for weaning by a low-level pressure support and recommend against using a T-piece trial because of aerosolization risk.

Pragmatic Recommendations for Infection Prevention and Control Practices for Healthcare Facilities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Infection prevention and control (IPC) strategies are key in preventing nosocomial transmission of COVID-19. Several commonly used IPC practices are resource-intensive and may be challenging to implement in resource-constrained settings. An international group of healthcare professionals from or with experience in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) searched the literature for relevant evidence. We report on a set of pragmatic recommendations for hospital-based IPC practices in resource-constrained settings of LMICs. For cases of confirmed or suspected COVID-19, we suggest that patients be placed in a single isolation room, whenever possible. When single isolation rooms are unavailable or limited, we recommend cohorting patients with COVID-19 on dedicated wards or in dedicated hospitals. We also recommend that cases of suspected COVID-19 be cohorted separately from those with confirmed disease, whenever possible, to minimize the risk of patient-to-patient transmission in settings where confirmatory testing may be limited. We suggest that healthcare workers be designated to care exclusively for patients with COVID-19, whenever possible, as another approach to minimize nosocomial spread. This approach may also be beneficial in conserving limited supplies of reusable personal protective equipment (PPE). We recommend that visitors be restricted for patients with COVID-19. In settings where family members or visitors are necessary for caregiving, we recommend that the appropriate PPE be used by visitors. We also recommend that education regarding hand hygiene and donning/doffing procedures for PPE be provided. Last, we suggest that all visitors be screened for symptoms before visitation and that visitor logs be maintained.

Pragmatic Recommendations for the Management of Anticoagulation and Venous Thrombotic Disease for Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

New studies of COVID-19 are constantly updating best practices in clinical care. Often, it is impractical to apply recommendations based on high-income country investigations to resource limited settings in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We present a set of pragmatic recommendations for the management of anticoagulation and thrombotic disease for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in LMICs. In the absence of contraindications, we recommend prophylactic anticoagulation with either low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH) for all hospitalized COVID-19 patients in LMICs. If available, we recommend LMWH over UFH for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis to minimize risk to healthcare workers. We recommend against the use of aspirin for VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients in LMICs. Because of limited evidence, we suggest against the use of "enhanced" or "intermediate" prophylaxis in COVID-19 patients in LMICs. Based on current available evidence, we recommend against the initiation of empiric therapeutic anticoagulation without clinical suspicion for VTE. If contraindications exist to chemical prophylaxis, we recommend mechanical prophylaxis with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) devices or graduated compression stockings (GCS) for hospitalized COVID-19 patients in LMICs. In LMICs, we recommend initiating therapeutic anticoagulation for hospitalized COVID-19 patients, in accordance with local clinical practice guidelines, if there is high clinical suspicion for VTE, even in the absence of testing. If available, we recommend LMWH over UFH or Direct oral anticoagulants for treatment of VTE in LMICs to minimize risk to healthcare workers. In LMIC settings where continuous intravenous UFH or LMWH are unavailable or not feasible to use, we recommend fixed dose heparin, adjusted to body weight, in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with high clinical suspicion of VTE. We suggest D-dimer measurement, if available and affordable, at the time of admission for risk stratification, or when clinical suspicion for VTE is high. For hospitalized COVID-19 patients in LMICs, based on current available evidence, we make no recommendation on the use of serial D-dimer monitoring for the initiation of therapeutic anticoagulation. For hospitalized COVID-19 patients in LMICs receiving intravenous therapeutic UFH, we recommend serial monitoring of partial thromboplastin time or anti-factor Xa level, based on local laboratory capabilities. For hospitalized COVID-19 patients in LMICs receiving LMWH, we suggest against serial monitoring of anti-factor Xa level. We suggest serial monitoring of platelet counts in patients receiving therapeutic anticoagulation for VTE, to assess risk of bleeding or development of heparin induced thrombocytopenia.

Pragmatic Recommendations for the Prevention and Treatment of Acute Kidney Injury in Patients with COVID-19 in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Current recommendations for the management of patients with COVID-19 and acute kidney injury (AKI) are largely based on evidence from resource-rich settings, mostly located in high-income countries. It is often unpractical to apply these recommendations to resource-restricted settings. We report on a set of pragmatic recommendations for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of patients with COVID-19 and AKI in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). For the prevention of AKI among patients with COVID-19 in LMICs, we recommend using isotonic crystalloid solutions for expansion of intravascular volume, avoiding nephrotoxic medications, and using a conservative fluid management strategy in patients with respiratory failure. For the diagnosis of AKI, we suggest that any patient with COVID-19 presenting with an elevated serum creatinine level without available historical values be considered as having AKI. If serum creatinine testing is not available, we suggest that patients with proteinuria should be considered to have possible AKI. We suggest expansion of the use of point-of-care serum creatinine and salivary urea nitrogen testing in community health settings, as funding and availability allow. For the management of patients with AKI and COVID-19 in LMICS, we recommend judicious use of intravenous fluid resuscitation. For patients requiring dialysis who do not have acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), we suggest using peritoneal dialysis (PD) as first choice, where available and feasible. For patients requiring dialysis who do have ARDS, we suggest using hemodialysis, where available and feasible, to optimize fluid removal. We suggest using locally produced PD solutions when commercially produced solutions are unavailable or unaffordable.

Intubation Checklist for COVID-19 Patients: A Practical Tool for Bedside Practitioners.

BACKGROUND: The high frequency of aerosolizing procedures in the ICU, including endotracheal intubation, places clinical staff at elevated risk of contracting the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19). Use of an intubation checklist can reduce exposure risk and thus acts as a potential safeguard. Specific, step-by-step guidance to perform safe endotracheal intubation in the setting of COVID-19 are limited. This article outlines the development and refinement of a COVID-19 intubation checklist and operational protocol for ICU staff at a single center in the United States. METHODS: A standard pre-intubation checklist was adapted and refined by consensus using a multidisciplinary and iterative process, then distributed to local staff for clinical use. Subsequent mock intubation training sessions were held using the new checklist to ensure proficiency. Planned debriefing sessions helped identify several previously unanticipated issues, allowing for further refinement of the intubation checklist and inclusion of all stakeholders. RESULTS: A COVID-19 intubation checklist helped optimize safety during a high-risk situation by minimizing aerosolization of secretions, the number of staff required in the room, the time spent in the room, and the frequency of donning/doffing personal protective equipment. CONCLUSIONS: We present a checklist for use during high-risk intubations of COVID-19 patients, which serves as a pragmatic bedside tool for clinicians. The process of checklist development may also serve as a model for facilities preparing their own pandemic protocols.

Pragmatic Recommendations for the Use of Diagnostic Testing and Prognostic Models in Hospitalized Patients with Severe COVID-19 in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Management of patients with severe or critical COVID-19 is mainly modeled after care of patients with severe pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome from other causes. These models are based on evidence that primarily originates from investigations in high-income countries, but it may be impractical to apply these recommendations to resource-restricted settings in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We report on a set of pragmatic recommendations for microbiology and laboratory testing, imaging, and the use of diagnostic and prognostic models in patients with severe COVID-19 in LMICs. For diagnostic testing, where reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) testing is available and affordable, we recommend using RT-PCR of the upper or lower respiratory specimens and suggest using lower respiratory samples for patients suspected of having COVID-19 but have negative RT-PCR results for upper respiratory tract samples. We recommend that a positive RT-PCR from any anatomical source be considered confirmatory for SARS-CoV-2 infection, but, because false-negative testing can occur, recommend that a negative RT-PCR does not definitively rule out active infection if the patient has high suspicion for COVID-19. We suggest against using serologic assays for the detection of active or past SARS-CoV-2 infection, until there is better evidence for its usefulness. Where available, we recommend the use of point-of-care antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection as an alternative to RT-PCR, only if strict quality control measures are guaranteed. For laboratory testing, we recommend a baseline white blood cell differential platelet count and hemoglobin, creatinine, and liver function tests and suggest a baseline C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, troponin, prothrombin time (or other coagulation test), and D-dimer, where such testing capabilities are available. For imaging, where availability of standard thoracic imaging is limited, we suggest using lung ultrasound to identify patients with possible COVID-19, but recommend against its use to exclude COVID-19. We suggest using lung ultrasound in combination with clinical parameters to monitor progress of the disease and responses to therapy in COVID-19 patients. We currently suggest against using diagnostic and prognostic models as these models require extensive laboratory testing and imaging, which often are limited in LMICs.

Pragmatic Recommendations for Identification and Triage of Patients with COVID-19 in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Effective identification and prognostication of severe COVID-19 patients presenting to healthcare facilities are essential to reducing morbidity and mortality. Low- and middle-income country (LMIC) facilities often suffer from restrictions in availability of human resources, laboratory testing, medications, and imaging during routine functioning, and such shortages may worsen during times of surge. Low- and middle-income country healthcare providers will need contextually appropriate tools to identify and triage potential COVID-19 patients. We report on a series of LMIC-appropriate recommendations and suggestions for screening and triage of COVID-19 patients in LMICs, based on a pragmatic, experience-based appraisal of existing literature. We recommend that all patients be screened upon first contact with the healthcare system using a locally approved questionnaire to identify individuals who have suspected or confirmed COVID-19. We suggest that primary screening tools used to identify individuals who have suspected or confirmed COVID-19 include a broad range of signs and symptoms based on standard case definitions of COVID-19 disease. We recommend that screening include endemic febrile illness per routine protocols upon presentation to a healthcare facility. We recommend that, following screening and implementation of appropriate universal source control measures, suspected COVID-19 patients be triaged with a triage tool appropriate for the setting. We recommend a standardized severity score based on the WHO COVID-19 disease definitions be assigned to all suspected and confirmed COVID-19 patients before their disposition from the emergency unit. We suggest against using diagnostic imaging to improve triage of reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients, unless a patient has worsening respiratory status. We suggest against the use of point-of-care lung ultrasound to improve triage of RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients. We suggest the use of diagnostic imaging to improve sensitivity of appropriate triage in suspected COVID-19 patients who are RT-PCR negative but have moderate to severe symptoms and are suspected of a false-negative RT-PCR with high risk of disease progression. We suggest the use of diagnostic imaging to improve sensitivity of appropriate triage in suspected COVID-19 patients with moderate or severe clinical features who are without access to RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2.

Awake Proning as an Adjunctive Therapy for Refractory Hypoxemia in Non-Intubated Patients with COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Failure: Guidance from an International Group of Healthcare Workers.

Non-intubated patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 could benefit from awake proning. Awake proning is an attractive intervention in settings with limited resources, as it comes with no additional costs. However, awake proning remains poorly used probably because of unfamiliarity and uncertainties regarding potential benefits and practical application. To summarize evidence for benefit and to develop a set of pragmatic recommendations for awake proning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, focusing on settings where resources are limited, international healthcare professionals from high and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with known expertise in awake proning were invited to contribute expert advice. A growing number of observational studies describe the effects of awake proning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in whom hypoxemia is refractory to simple measures of supplementary oxygen. Awake proning improves oxygenation in most patients, usually within minutes, and reduces dyspnea and work of breathing. The effects are maintained for up to 1 hour after turning back to supine, and mostly disappear after 6-12 hours. In available studies, awake proning was not associated with a reduction in the rate of intubation for invasive ventilation. Awake proning comes with little complications if properly implemented and monitored. Pragmatic recommendations including indications and contraindications were formulated and adjusted for resource-limited settings. Awake proning, an adjunctive treatment for hypoxemia refractory to supplemental oxygen, seems safe in non-intubated patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory failure. We provide pragmatic recommendations including indications and contraindications for the use of awake proning in LMICs.

White Paper on Early Critical Care Services in Low Resource Settings.

This White Paper has been formally accepted for support by the International Federation for Emergency Medicine (IFEM) and by the World Federation of Intensive and Critical Care (WFICC), put forth by a multi-specialty group of intensivists and emergency medicine providers from low- and low-middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HiCs) with the aim of 1) defining the current state of caring for the critically ill in low-resource settings (LRS) within LMICs and 2) highlighting policy options and recommendations for improving the system-level delivery of early critical care services in LRS. LMICs have a high burden of critical illness and worse patient outcomes than HICs, hence, the focus of this White Paper is on the care of critically ill patients in the early stages of presentation in LMIC settings. In such settings, the provision of early critical care is challenged by a fragmented health system, costs, a health care workforce with limited training, and competing healthcare priorities. Early critical care services are defined as the early interventions that support vital organ function during the initial care provided to the critically ill patient-these interventions can be performed at any point of patient contact and can be delivered across diverse settings in the healthcare system and do not necessitate specialty personnel. Currently, a single "best" care delivery model likely does not exist in LMICs given the heterogeneity in local context; therefore, objective comparisons of quality, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness between varying models are difficult to establish. While limited, there is data to suggest that caring for the critically ill may be cost effective in LMICs, contrary to a widely held belief. Drawing from locally available resources and context, strengthening early critical care services in LRS will require a multi-faceted approach, including three core pillars: education, research, and policy. Education initiatives for physicians, nurses, and allied health staff that focus on protocolized emergency response training can bridge the workforce gap in the short-term; however, each country's current human resources must be evaluated to decide on the duration of training, who should be trained, and using what curriculum. Understanding the burden of critical Illness, best practices for resuscitation, and appropriate quality metrics for different early critical care services implementation models in LMICs are reliant upon strengthening the regional research capacity, therefore, standard documentation systems should be implemented to allow for registry use and quality improvement. Policy efforts at a local, national and international level to strengthen early critical care services should focus on funding the building blocks of early critical care services systems and promoting the right to access early critical care regardless of the patient's geographic or financial barriers. Additionally, national and local policies describing ethical dilemmas involving the withdrawal of life-sustaining care should be developed with broad stakeholder representation based on local cultural beliefs as well as the optimization of limited resources.

Endobronchial Malignant Melanoma: An Exceedingly Rare Occurrence.

Malignant melanoma is rarely observed to metastasize to endobronchial tissue. We present a case of endobronchial malignant melanoma in a 36-year-old male smoker with a regressed cutaneous lesion. Due to the limited number of cases and poor survival rate, no definitive treatment options are available to improve survival in patients with this rare disease presentation. Immunotherapy and surgical removal of locally aggressive tumor have been described, but the definitive role for these therapeutic modalities in the setting of endobronchial metastases remains largely unknown.

Assessment of Local Health Worker Attitudes toward International Medical Volunteers in Low- and Middle-income Countries: A Global Survey.

BACKGROUND: International Medical Volunteers (IMVs) positively and negatively impact host countries, and the goals of their trips may not always align with the interests of the hosts in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). We sought to better understand local physicians' interest of hosting IMVs and what type of support they desired. METHODS: This study was a convenience sample survey-based needs assessment. The surveys were distributed to local physicians by 28 professional society groups in LMICs. FINDINGS: A total of 102 physicians from 51 countries completed the survey. Despite 61.8% participants having no experience with IMVs, 75% were interested in hosting them. Host physicians most desired clinical education (39%), research collaboration (18%), and Systems Development (11%). The most requested specialties were obstetrics and gynecology (25%) and emergency medicine (11%). Respondents considered public hospitals (62%) to be the most helpful clinical setting in which IMVs could work, and 3 months (47%) as the ideal length of stay.Respondents expressed interest in advertising the specific needs of the host country to potential IMVs (80%). Qualitative analyses suggested hosts wanted more training opportunities, inclusion of all stakeholders, culturally competent volunteers, and aid focused on subspecialty education, health policy, public health, and research. CONCLUSION: Hosts desire more bidirectional clinical education and research capacity building than just direct clinical care. Importantly, cultural competence is key to a successful host partnership, potentially improved through IMV preparation. Finally, respondents want IMVs to ensure that they stay within their scope of practice and training.

Pragmatic Recommendations for Safety while Caring for Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Infection prevention and control measures to control the spread of COVID-19 are challenging to implement in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This is compounded by the fact that most recommendations are based on evidence that mainly originates in high-income countries. There are often availability, affordability, and feasibility barriers to applying such recommendations in LMICs, and therefore, there is a need for developing recommendations that are achievable in LMICs. We used a modified version of the GRADE method to select important questions, searched the literature for relevant evidence, and formulated pragmatic recommendations for safety while caring for patients with COVID-19 in LMICs. We selected five questions related to safety, covering minimal requirements for personal protective equipment (PPE), recommendations for extended use and reuse of PPE, restriction on the number of times healthcare workers enter patients' rooms, hand hygiene, and environmental ventilation. We formulated 21 recommendations that are feasible and affordable in LMICs.

Pragmatic Recommendations for the Management of COVID-19 Patients with Shock in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

As some patients infected with the novel coronavirus progress to critical illness, a subset will eventually develop shock. High-quality data on management of these patients are scarce, and further investigation will provide valuable information in the context of the pandemic. A group of experts identify a set of pragmatic recommendations for the care of patients with SARS-CoV-2 and shock in resource-limited environments. We define shock as life-threatening circulatory failure that results in inadequate tissue perfusion and cellular dysoxia/hypoxia, and suggest that it can be operationalized via clinical observations. We suggest a thorough evaluation for other potential causes of shock and suggest against indiscriminate testing for coinfections. We suggest the use of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) as a simple bedside prognostic score for COVID-19 patients and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) to evaluate the etiology of shock. Regarding fluid therapy for the treatment of COVID-19 patients with shock in low-middle-income countries, we favor balanced crystalloids and recommend using a conservative fluid strategy for resuscitation. Where available and not prohibited by cost, we recommend using norepinephrine, given its safety profile. We favor avoiding the routine use of central venous or arterial catheters, where availability and costs are strong considerations. We also recommend using low-dose corticosteroids in patients with refractory shock. In addressing targets of resuscitation, we recommend the use of simple bedside parameters such as capillary refill time and suggest that POCUS be used to assess the need for further fluid resuscitation, if available.