RESUMEN
Background and aims: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has significant positive and negative impacts on the professional life of intensive care unit (ICU) professionals. This study was conducted to evaluate compassion satisfaction (CS), burnout (BO), and secondary traumatic stress (STS) in ICU professionals and to study demographic and occupational variables related to them. Methods: This prospective observational study was undertaken on ICU professionals involved in direct care of critically ill COVID-19 patients. The online questionnaire consisting of demographic, work-related parameters, and professional quality of life scale version 5 (ProQOL 5) was sent to 1,080 ICU healthcare workers. The subgroups of ProQOL 5, CS, BO, and STS were calculated and compared across study parameters. Linear regression was performed to evaluate variables which were independently associated with ProQOL. Results: The response rate in the present study was 39.8%, and after evaluation, 320 responses were found eligible for final analysis. There was predominance of average levels of CS, BO, and STS. Female gender, contractual job, lesser work experience, greater workload, and COVID-19 infection in close acquittance of participants were factors observed to independently associated with increase in negative aspects of ProQOL (BO and STS). Further, increase in duty hours and COVID-19 infection in close social circle were observed to independently decrease positive aspects (CS). Conclusion: This study shows that despite majority of respondents reporting moderate levels BO and STS, CS is maintained during the COVID-19 crisis. The identification of risk factors is vital to support ICU professionals by targeted interventions. How to cite this article: Kerai S, Doda P, Saxena KN. Professional Quality of Life in Intensive Care Unit Professionals during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Prospective Observational Cross-sectional Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(5):604-612.
RESUMEN
Background and Aims: There is paucity of studies on preoperative risk assessment tools in patients undergoing emergency surgery. The present study evaluated the performance of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) surgical risk calculator and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status (PS) classification system in patients undergoing emergency exploratory laparotomy. Methods: This retrospective study included 60 adult patients who underwent emergency exploratory laparotomy for perforation peritonitis. The clinical details, ASA PS classification, laboratory investigations and postoperative course of patients were retrieved from their medical records. Based on these details, APACHE II and ACS-NSQIP were calculated for the patients. The study's primary outcome was the accuracy of the preoperative APACHE II, ACS-NSQIP risk calculator and ASA PS class in predicting the postoperative 30-day mortality of patients. Results: The area under the curve (AUC) of APACHE II, ACS-NSQIP score, and ASA PS classification for mortality 30 days after surgery was 0.737, 0.694 and 0.601, respectively. The P value for the Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) test of scoring systems was 0.05, 0.25 and 0.05, respectively. AUC for postoperative complications was 0.799 for APACHE II, 0.683 for ACS-NSQIP and 0.601 for ASA PS classification. H-L test of these scoring systems for complications after surgery revealed P values of 0.62, 0.36 and 0.53, respectively. Conclusion: Compared to the ACS-NSQIP and ASA PS classification system, the APACHE II score has a better discriminative ability for postoperative complications and mortality in adult patients undergoing emergency exploratory laparotomy.