Social factors associated with self-reported changes in mental health symptoms among youth in the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Children and youth experienced marked impacts on day-to-day life in the COVID-19 pandemic that were associated with poorer familial and friend relationships, and greater mental health challenges. Few studies provide self-report data on mental health symptoms from children and youth themselves. We sought to examine the associations between social factors and child and youth self-reported symptoms of worsened mood, anxiety, and irritability during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A nationally representative cross-sectional survey was administered online to collect self-report data across 10 Canadian provinces among children (11-14 years) and youth (15-18 years), April-May 2022. Age-appropriate questions were based on The Partnership for Maternal, Newborn & Child Health and the World Health Organization of the United Nations H6 + Technical Working Group on Adolescent Health and Well-Being consensus framework and the Coronavirus Health and Impact Survey. Associations between a priori defined social factors (e.g., relationship quality) and respondent self-reported mental health were evaluated using ordinal logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex, and geographic location. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 483 (51.7%) children (11-14 years; 227, 47.0% girls) and 450 (48.3%) youth (15-18 years; 204, 45.3% girls). The parents of most children and youth had resided in Canada for over 20 years (678, 72.7%). Over one-quarter of children and youth self-identified as Black, Indigenous, or a Person of Color (134, 27.7%; 134, 29.8%, respectively). Over one-third of children and youth self-reported symptoms of worsened mood (149, 30.9%; 125, 27.8%, respectively), anxiety (181, 37.5%; 167, 37.1%, respectively), or irritability (160, 33.1%; 160, 35.6%, respectively) during, compared to pre-pandemic. In descending order of odds ratios (OR), for children and youth, worsened familial relationships (during compared to pre-pandemic) was associated with the self-reported symptoms of worsened mood (child: OR 4.22, 95%CI 2.51-6.88; youth: OR 6.65 95%CI 3.98-11.23), anxiety (child: OR 4.24, 95%CI2.69-6.75; youth: OR 5.28, 95%CI 3.17-8.86), and irritability (child: OR 2.83, 95%CI 1.76-4.56; youth: OR 6.46, 95%CI 3.88-10.90). CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported data from a nationally representative sample of children and youth suggest strong associations between social factors and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interventions targeting child and youth familial relationships may positively impact child and youth mental health.

Well-being approaches targeted to improve child and youth health post-COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Our previous work synthesized published studies on well-being interventions during COVID-19. As we move into a post-COVID-19 pandemic period there is a need to comprehensively review published strategies, approaches, and interventions to improve child and youth well-being beyond deleterious impacts experienced during COVID-19. METHODS: Seven databases were searched from inception to January 2023. Studies were included if they: (1) presented original data on an approach (i.e., approach applied) or (2) provided recommendations to inform development of a future approach (i.e., approach suggested), (3) targeted to mitigate negative impacts of COVID-19 on child and youth (≤18 year) well-being, and (4) published on or after December 2019. RESULTS: 39 studies (n = 4/39, 10.3% randomized controlled trials) from 2021 to 2023 were included. Twenty-two studies applied an approach (n = 22/39, 56.4%) whereas seventeen studies (n = 17/39, 43.6%) suggested an approach; youth aged 13-18 year (n = 27/39, 69.2%) were most frequently studied. Approach applied records most frequently adopted an experimental design (n = 11/22, 50.0%), whereas approach suggested records most frequently adopted a cross-sectional design (n = 13/22, 59.1%). The most frequently reported outcomes related to good health and optimum nutrition (n = 28/39, 71.8%), followed by connectedness (n = 22/39, 56.4%), learning, competence, education, skills, and employability (n = 18/39, 46.1%), and agency and resilience (n = 16/39, 41.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The rapid onset and unpredictability of COVID-19 precluded meaningful engagement of children and youth in strategy development despite widespread recognition that early engagement can enhance usefulness and acceptability of interventions. Published or recommended strategies were most frequently targeted to improve connectedness, belonging, and socialization among children and youth.

Interventions to improve well-being among children and youth aged 6-17 years during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is an example of a global infectious disease outbreak that poses a threat to the well-being of children and youth (e.g., physical infection, psychological impacts). The consequences of challenges faced during COVID-19 may be longstanding and newly developed interventions are being deployed. We present a narrative synthesis of available evidence from the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic on the feasibility, accessibility, and effects of interventions to improve well-being among children and youth to inform the development and refinement of interventions relevant to post-pandemic recovery. METHODS: Six databases were searched from inception to August 2022. A total of 5484 records were screened, 39 were reviewed in full text, and 19 studies were included. The definition of well-being and the five domains of well-being as defined by the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn & Child Health and the World Health Organization in collaboration with the United Nations H6 + Technical Working Group on Adolescent Health and Well-Being were used. RESULTS: Nineteen studies (74% randomized controlled trials) from 10 countries were identified, involving a total of 7492 children and youth (age range: 8.2-17.2 years; 27.8-75.2% males) and 954 parents that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020 to March 2021). Nearly all interventions (n = 18, 95%) targeted health and nutrition, followed by connectedness (n = 6, 32%), while fewer studies targeted agency and resilience (n = 5, 23%), learning and competence (n = 2, 11%), or safety and support (n = 1, 3%). Five interventions (26%) were self-guided while 13 interventions (68%) were guided synchronous by a trained professional, all of which targeted physical and mental health subdomains within health and nutrition; one intervention (5%) was unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Studies deploying synchronous interventions most often reported improved well-being among children and youth largely in the domain of health and nutrition, specifically physical and mental health. Targeted approaches will be crucial to reach sub-groups of children and youth who are most at risk of negative well-being outcomes. Further research is needed to determine how interventions that best supported children and youth early in the pandemic are different from interventions that are required now as we enter into the post-pandemic phase.

Outcomes After Neuraxial or Regional Anaesthesia Instead of General Anaesthesia for Lower Limb Revascularisation Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised and Non-Randomised Studies.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether receipt of neuraxial or regional anaesthesia instead of general anaesthesia for lower limb revascularisation surgery affects patient outcomes. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, and Google Scholar. REVIEW METHODS: After protocol registration, the data sources were searched for randomised and non-randomised studies comparing neuraxial or regional anaesthesia with general anaesthesia for lower limb revascularisation surgery in adults. Two investigators independently selected articles, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. Data were pooled using random effects models. GRADE was used to assess certainty in cumulative evidence. RESULTS: From 10 755 citations identified, five randomised (n = 970) and 13 non-randomised (n = 96 800) studies were included. Use of neuraxial instead of general anaesthesia for lower limb revascularisation surgery was associated with no statistically significant reduction in short term (in hospital or 30 day) mortality in randomised studies (pooled odds ratio [OR] 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33 - 1.81; low certainty) and a statistically significant reduction in adjusted short term mortality in non-randomised studies (pooled OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.56 - 0.81; low certainty). Adults allocated to neuraxial anaesthesia in randomised studies had fewer pulmonary complications (pooled OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.16 - 0.76; low certainty). In non-randomised studies, neuraxial instead of general anaesthesia was associated with a lower adjusted odds of any morbidity (pooled OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.52 - 0.84), cardiac complications (pooled OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.58 - 0.79), pneumonia (pooled OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.64 - 1.02), prolonged mechanical ventilation (OR 0.09; 95% CI 0.002 - 0.55), and bypass graft thrombosis (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.59 - 0.85), as well as a shorter operative duration (low certainty for all). Use of a nerve block instead of general anaesthesia was associated with a lower adjusted odds of delirium (OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.06 - 0.42) and a shorter operative duration (low certainty for both). CONCLUSION: Randomised and non-randomised data suggest that neuraxial anaesthesia for lower limb revascularisation surgery reduces morbidity and possibly mortality. Until randomised trials with a low risk of bias become available, this study supports use of neuraxial anaesthesia for these procedures where appropriate.

Exploring the influence of behavioural, normative and control beliefs on intentions to adhere to public health guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview based study.

BACKGROUND: Perceived severity and susceptibility of disease are predictors of individual behaviour during health crises. Little is known about how individual beliefs influence intentions to adhere to public health guidelines during periods of health crises, and how access to and consumption of information influence these intentions. This study investigated behavioural beliefs, normative beliefs, and control beliefs, and their influence on behavioural intentions to adhere to public health guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Participants were recruited from a related COVID-19 study conducted by our team, and through snowball sampling in subsequent. Using a maximum variation sampling technique, we recruited a diverse group of participants representing six major regions in Canada. Participants took part in one-on-one semi-structured interviews from February 2021 to May 2021. Data were analyzed independently in duplicate by thematic analysis. The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) was the conceptual framework used to organize dominant themes. RESULTS: We conducted a total of 60 individual interviews (137 eligible individuals contacted, 43.8% response rate) and identified six themes organized according to the three constructs of behavioural, normative and control beliefs as described in the TPB: (1) Behavioural: My "New Normal," Individual Rights and Perceived Pandemic Severity, Fatigue with COVID-19, (2) Normative: COVID-19 Collective, (3) Control: Practicality of Public Health Guidelines, and (6) Conflicting Public Health Messages. Most (n = 43, 71.7%) participants perceived individuals in their geographic community to be following public health guidelines adequately. Several participants (n = 15, 25.0%) commented on the unequal impact of restrictions based on socioeconomic factors (i.e., class, race, age). CONCLUSION: Individual perceptions of risk, loss of control, access to resources (i.e., childcare), and societal expectations, shaped intentions to engage in disease preventative behaviours (i.e., social distancing) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A qualitative descriptive study of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on staff in a Canadian intensive care unit.

PURPOSE: We sought to explore the lived experiences of a professionally diverse sample of healthcare workers (HCWs) in a single intensive care unit (ICU) serving a large and generalizable Canadian population. We aimed to understand how working during the COVID-19 pandemic affected their professional and personal lives, including their perceptions of institutional support, to inform interventions to ameliorate impacts of the COVID-19 and future pandemics. METHODS: In this qualitative descriptive study, 23 ICU HCWs, identified using convenience purposive sampling, took part in individual semistructured interviews between July and November 2020, shortly after the first wave of the pandemic in Ontario. We used inductive thematic analysis to identify major themes. RESULTS: We identified five major themes related to the COVID-19 pandemic: 1) communication and informational needs (e.g., challenges communicating policy changes); 2) adjusting to restricted visitation (e.g., spending less time interacting with patients); 3) staffing and workplace supports (e.g., importance of positive team dynamics); 4) permeability of professional and personal lives (e.g., balancing shift work and childcare); and 5) a dynamic COVID-19 landscape (e.g., coping with constant change). The COVID-19 pandemic contributed to HCWs in the ICU experiencing varied negative repercussions on their work environment, including staffing and institutional support, which carried into their personal lives. CONCLUSION: Healthcare workers in the ICU perceived that the COVID-19 pandemic had negative repercussions on their work environment, including staffing and institutional support, as well as their professional and personal lives. Understanding both the negative and positive experiences of all ICU HCWs working during the COVID-19 pandemic is critical to future pandemic preparedness. Their perspectives will help to inform the development of mental health and wellbeing interventions to support staff during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avons cherché à explorer les expériences vécues par un échantillon varié de travailleurs de la santé (TS) dans une seule unité de soins intensifs (USI) desservant une population canadienne vaste et généralisable. Notre objectif était de comprendre comment le travail pendant la pandémie de COVID-19 a affecté leur vie professionnelle et personnelle, y compris leurs perceptions du soutien institutionnel, afin d'éclairer les interventions visant à atténuer les impacts de la COVID-19 et des pandémies futures. MéTHODE: Dans cette étude qualitative descriptive, 23 travailleurs de la santé en soins intensifs, identifiés à l'aide d'un échantillonnage raisonné de commodité, ont participé à des entrevues individuelles semi-structurées entre juillet et novembre 2020, peu après la première vague de la pandémie en Ontario. Nous avons utilisé l'analyse thématique inductive pour identifier les principaux thèmes. RéSULTATS: Nous avons cerné cinq grands thèmes liés à la pandémie de COVID-19 : 1) les besoins en matière de communication et d'information (p. ex., les difficultés à communiquer les changements de politiques); 2) l'adaptation aux visites restreintes (p. ex., le fait de passer moins de temps à interagir avec les patients); 3) le soutien à la dotation en personnel et au milieu de travail (p. ex., l'importance d'une dynamique d'équipe positive); 4) la perméabilité de la vie professionnelle et personnelle (p. ex., l'équilibre entre le travail en quarts et la garde des enfants); et 5) le paysage dynamique de la COVID-19 (p. ex., l'adaptation à des changements constants). La pandémie de COVID-19 a contribué à ce que les travailleurs de la santé de l'USI subissent divers impacts négatifs sur leur environnement de travail, y compris sur la dotation en personnel et le soutien institutionnel, qui se sont répercutés sur leur vie personnelle. CONCLUSION: Les travailleurs de la santé de l'USI ont perçu que la pandémie de COVID-19 avait eu des répercussions négatives sur leur environnement de travail, y compris sur la dotation en personnel et le soutien institutionnel, ainsi que sur leur vie professionnelle et personnelle. Il est essentiel de comprendre les expériences négatives et positives de tous les travailleurs de la santé des soins intensifs travaillant pendant la pandémie de COVID-19 pour bien se préparer aux pandémies futures. Leurs points de vue aideront à l'élaboration d'interventions en santé mentale et en bien-être pour soutenir le personnel pendant la pandémie de COVID-19 et au-delà.

A Multiple Baseline Trial of an Electronic ICU Discharge Summary Tool for Improving Quality of Care.

OBJECTIVE: Effective communication between clinicians is essential for seamless discharge of patients between care settings. Yet, discharge summaries are commonly not available and incomplete. We implemented and evaluated a structured electronic health record-embedded electronic discharge (eDischarge) summary tool for patients discharged from the ICU to a hospital ward. DESIGN: Multiple baseline trial with randomized and staggered implementation. SETTING: Adult medical-surgical ICUs at four acute care hospitals serving a single Canadian city. PATIENTS: Health records of patients 18 years old or older, in the ICU 24 hours or longer, and discharged from the ICU to an in-hospital patient ward between February 12, 2018, and June 30, 2019. INTERVENTION: A structured electronic note (ICU eDischarge tool) with predefined fields (e.g., diagnosis) embedded in the hospital-wide electronic health information system. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We compared the percent of timely (available at discharge) and complete (included goals of care designation, diagnosis, list of active issues, active medications) discharge summaries pre and post implementation using mixed effects logistic regression models. After implementing the ICU eDischarge tool, there was an immediate and sustained increase in the proportion of patients discharged from ICU with timely and complete discharge summaries from 10.8% (preimplementation period) to 71.1% (postimplementation period) (adjusted odds ratio, 32.43; 95% CI, 18.22-57.73). No significant changes were observed in rapid response activation, cardiopulmonary arrest, death in hospital, ICU readmission, and hospital length of stay following ICU discharge. Preventable (60.1 vs 5.7 per 1,000 d; p = 0.023), but not nonpreventable (27.3 vs 40.2 per 1,000d; p = 0.54), adverse events decreased post implementation. Clinicians perceived the eDischarge tool to produce a higher quality discharge process. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an electronic tool was associated with more timely and complete discharge summaries for patients discharged from the ICU to a hospital ward.

Public awareness and knowledge of sepsis: a cross-sectional survey of adults in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a life-threatening complication of the body's response to infection. The financial, medical, and psychological costs of sepsis to individuals and to the healthcare system are high. Most sepsis cases originate in the community, making public awareness of sepsis essential to early diagnosis and treatment. There has been no comprehensive examination of adult's sepsis knowledge in Canada. METHODS: We administered an online structured survey to English- or French-literate adults in Canada. The questionnaire comprised 28 questions in three domains: awareness, knowledge, and information access. Sampling was stratified by age, sex, and geography and weighted to 2016 census data. We used descriptive statistics to summarize responses; demographic differences were tested using the Rao-Scott correction for weighted chi-squared tests and associations using multiple variable regression. RESULTS: Sixty-one percent of 3200 adults sampled had heard of sepsis. Awareness differed by respondent's residential region, sex, education, and ethnic group (p < 0.001, all). The odds of having heard of sepsis were higher for females, older adults, respondents with some or completed college/university education, and respondents who self-identified as Black, White, or of mixed ethnicity (p < 0.01, all). Respondent's knowledge of sepsis definitions, symptoms, risk factors, and prevention measures was generally low (53.0%, 31.5%, 16.5%, and 36.3%, respectively). Only 25% of respondents recognized vaccination as a preventive strategy. The strongest predictors of sepsis knowledge were previous exposure to sepsis, healthcare employment, female sex, and a college/university education (p < 0.001, all). Respondents most frequently reported hearing about sepsis through television (27.7%) and preferred to learn about sepsis from healthcare providers (53.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis can quickly cause life-altering physical and psychological effects and 39% of adults sampled in Canada have not heard of it. Critically, a minority (32%) knew about signs, risk factors, and strategies to lower risk. Education initiatives should focus messaging on infection prevention, employ broad media strategies, and use primary healthcare providers to disseminate evidence-based information. Future work could explore whether efforts to raise public awareness of sepsis might be bolstered or hindered by current discourse around COVID-19, particularly those centered on vaccination.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on intensive care unit workers: a nationwide survey.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Canadian intensive care unit (ICU) workers. METHODS: Between June and August 2020, we distributed a cross-sectional online survey of ICU workers evaluating the impact of the pandemic, coping strategies, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Impact of Events Scale-Revised), and psychological distress, anxiety, and depression (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale). We performed regression analyses to determine the predictors of psychological symptoms. RESULTS: We analyzed responses from 455 ICU workers (80% women; 67% from Ontario; 279 nurses, 69 physicians, and 107 other healthcare professionals). Respondents felt that their job put them at great risk of exposure (60%), were concerned about transmitting COVID-19 to family members (76%), felt more stressed at work (67%), and considered leaving their job (37%). Overall, 25% had probable PTSD and 18% had minimal or greater psychological distress. Nurses were more likely to report PTSD symptoms (33%) and psychological distress (23%) than physicians (5% for both) and other health disciplines professionals (19% and 14%). Variables associated with PTSD and psychological distress included female sex (beta-coefficient [B], 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20 to 2.10 and B, 3.79; 95% CI, 1.79 to 5.78, respectively; P < 0.001 for differences in scores across groups) and perceived increased risk due to PPE shortage or inadequate PPE training (B, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.51 to 2.31 and B, 4.88; 95% CI, 3.34 to 6.43, respectively). Coping strategies included talking to friends/family/colleagues (80%), learning about COVID-19 (78%), and physical exercise (68%). Over half endorsed the following workplace strategies as valuable: hospital-provided scrubs, clear communication and protocols by hospitals, knowing their voice is heard, subsidized parking, and gestures of appreciation from leadership. CONCLUSIONS: This survey study shows that ICU workers have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic with high levels of stress and psychological burden. Respondents endorsed communication, protocols, and appreciation from leadership as helpful mitigating strategies.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Évaluer l'impact de la pandémie de COVID-19 sur les travailleurs canadiens des unités de soins intensifs (USI). MéTHODE: Entre juin et août 2020, nous avons fait parvenir un sondage transversal en ligne aux travailleurs des soins intensifs pour évaluer l'impact de la pandémie, les stratégies d'adaptation et les symptômes de stress post-traumatique (SPT; Échelle révisée de l'impact de l'événement - IES-R), ainsi que la détresse psychologique, l'anxiété et la dépression (Échelle de détresse psychologique de Kessler). Nous avons réalisé des analyses de régression pour déterminer les prédicteurs de symptômes psychologiques. RéSULTATS: Nous avons analysé les réponses de 455 travailleurs des soins intensifs (80 % de femmes; 67 % de l'Ontario; 279 infirmières/infirmiers, 69 médecins et 107 autres professionnels de la santé). Les répondants ont estimé que leur emploi les plaçait face à un risque élevé d'exposition (60 %), craignaient de transmettre la COVID-19 aux membres de leur famille (76 %), se sentaient plus stressés au travail (67 %) et avaient envisagé de quitter leur emploi (37 %). Dans l'ensemble, 25 % souffraient probablement d'un SPT et 18 % présentaient une détresse psychologique minimale ou supérieure. Les infirmières et infirmiers étaient plus susceptibles de rapporter des symptômes de SPT (33 %) et de détresse psychologique (23 %) que les médecins (5 % pour les deux) et les professionnels de la santé des autres disciplines (19 % et 14 %). Les variables associées à un SPT et à la détresse psychologique comprenaient le sexe féminin (coefficient bêta [B], 1,59; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 %, 1,20 à 2,10 et B, 3,79; IC 95 %, 1,79 à 5,78, respectivement; P < 0,001 pour les différences de scores entre les groupes) et la perception d'un risque accru en raison des pénuries d'EPI ou d'une formation inadéquate en EPI (B, 1,87; IC 95 %, 1,51 à 2,31 et B, 4,88; IC 95 %, 3,34 à 6,43, respectivement). Les stratégies d'adaptation comprenaient le fait de parler aux amis, à la famille ou aux collègues (80 %), l'acquisition de connaissances concernant la COVID-19 (78 %) et l'exercice physique (68 %). Plus de la moitié ont estimé que les stratégies de travail suivantes étaient utiles : des uniformes fournis par les hôpitaux, une communication et des protocoles clairs de la part des hôpitaux, le fait de savoir que leur voix est entendue, un stationnement subventionné et des gestes d'appréciation de la part des dirigeants. CONCLUSION: Cette étude montre que les travailleurs des soins intensifs ont été touchés par la pandémie de COVID-19 avec des niveaux élevés de stress et de fardeau psychologique. Les répondants ont déclaré que la communication, les protocoles et les gestes d'appréciation de la direction constituaient des stratégies d'atténuation utiles.

Impact of restricted visitation policies during COVID-19 on critically ill adults, their families, critical care clinicians, and decision-makers: a qualitative interview study.

PURPOSE: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, restricted visitation policies were enacted at acute care facilities to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and conserve personal protective equipment. In this study, we aimed to describe the impact of restricted visitation policies on critically ill patients, families, critical care clinicians, and decision-makers; highlight the challenges faced in translating these policies into practice; and delineate strategies to mitigate their effects. METHOD: A qualitative description design was used. We conducted semistructured interviews with critically ill adult patients and their family members, critical care clinicians, and decision-makers (i.e., policy makers or enforcers) affected by restricted visitation policies. We transcribed semistructured interviews verbatim and analyzed the transcripts using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three patients, eight family members, 30 clinicians (13 physicians, 17 nurses from 23 Canadian intensive care units [ICUs]), and three decision-makers participated in interviews. Thematic analysis was used to identify five themes: 1) acceptance of restricted visitation (e.g., accepting with concerns); 2) impact of restricted visitation (e.g., ethical challenges, moral distress, patients dying alone, intensified workload); 3) trust in the healthcare system during the pandemic (e.g., mistrust of clinical team); 4) modes of communication (e.g., communication using virtual platforms); and 5) impact of policy implementation on clinical practice (e.g., frequent changes and inconsistent implementation). CONCLUSIONS: Restricted visitation policies across ICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected critically ill patients and their families, critical care clinicians, and decision-makers.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Au cours de la première vague de la pandémie de COVID-19, des politiques de visite restreintes ont été adoptées dans les établissements de soins aigus afin de réduire la propagation de la COVID-19 et d'économiser les équipements de protection individuelle. Dans cette étude, nous avons cherché à décrire l'impact des politiques de visite restreintes sur les patients gravement malades, les familles, les intensivistes et les décideurs, ainsi qu'à souligner les difficultés rencontrées dans la mise en pratique de ces politiques et à définir des stratégies pour en atténuer les effets. MéTHODE: Une méthodologie de description qualitative a été utilisée. Nous avons mené des entretiens semi-structurés avec des patients adultes gravement malades et les membres de leur famille, les intensivistes et les décideurs (c.-à-d. les stratèges ou les responsables de l'application de la loi) touchés par les politiques de visite restreintes. Nous avons transcrit textuellement les entretiens semi-structurés et analysé les transcriptions à l'aide d'une analyse thématique inductive. RéSULTATS: Trois patients, huit membres de leur famille, 30 cliniciens (13 médecins, 17 infirmières de 23 unités de soins intensifs canadiennes) et trois décideurs ont participé à ces entrevues. L'analyse thématique a été utilisée pour identifier cinq thèmes : 1) l'acceptation des visites restreintes (p. ex., accepter avec des préoccupations); 2) l'impact des visites restreintes (p. ex., défis éthiques, détresse morale, patients mourant seuls, charge de travail accrue); 3) la confiance dans le système de santé pendant la pandémie (p. ex., méfiance à l'égard de l'équipe clinique); 4) les modes de communication (p. ex., communication à l'aide de plateformes virtuelles); et 5) l'incidence de la mise en œuvre des politiques sur la pratique clinique (p. ex., changements fréquents et mise en œuvre incohérente). CONCLUSION: Les politiques de visite restreintes dans les unités de soins intensifs pendant la pandémie de COVID-19 ont eu un impact négatif sur les patients gravement malades et leurs familles, les intensivistes et les décideurs.

Evidence-informed consensus statements to guide COVID-19 patient visitation policies: results from a national stakeholder meeting.

PURPOSE: Hospital policies forbidding or limiting families from visiting relatives on the intensive care unit (ICU) has affected patients, families, healthcare professionals, and patient- and family-centered care (PFCC). We sought to refine evidence-informed consensus statements to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies during the current COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics and to identify barriers and facilitators to their implementation and sustained uptake in Canadian ICUs. METHODS: We created consensus statements from 36 evidence-informed experiences (i.e., impacts on patients, families, healthcare professionals, and PFCC) and 63 evidence-informed strategies (i.e., ways to improve restricted visitation) identified during a modified Delphi process (described elsewhere). Over two half-day virtual meetings on 7 and 8 April 2021, 45 stakeholders (patients, families, researchers, clinicians, decision-makers) discussed and refined these consensus statements. Through qualitative descriptive content analysis, we evaluated the following points for 99 consensus statements: 1) their importance for improving restricted visitation policies; 2) suggested modifications to make them more applicable; and 3) facilitators and barriers to implementing these statements when creating ICU visitation policies. RESULTS: Through discussion, participants identified three areas for improvement: 1) clarity, 2) accessibility, and 3) feasibility. Stakeholders identified several implementation facilitators (clear, flexible, succinct, and prioritized statements available in multiple modes), barriers (perceived lack of flexibility, lack of partnership between government and hospital, change fatigue), and ways to measure and monitor their use (e.g., family satisfaction, qualitative interviews). CONCLUSIONS: Existing guidance on policies that disallowed or restricted visitation in intensive care units were confusing, hard to operationalize, and often lacked supporting evidence. Prioritized, succinct, and clear consensus statements allowing for local adaptability are necessary to guide the creation of ICU visitation policies and to optimize PFCC.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les politiques hospitalières interdisant ou limitant les visites des familles à des proches à l'unité de soins intensifs (USI) ont affecté les patients, les familles, les professionnels de la santé et les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille (SCPF). Nous avons cherché à affiner les déclarations de consensus fondées sur des données probantes afin de guider la création de politiques de visite aux soins intensifs pendant la pandémie actuelle de COVID-19 et les pandémies futures, et dans le but d'identifier les obstacles et les critères facilitants à leur mise en œuvre et à leur adoption répandue dans les unités de soins intensifs canadiennes. MéTHODE: Nous avons créé des déclarations de consensus à partir de 36 expériences fondées sur des données probantes (c.-à-d. impacts sur les patients, les familles, les professionnels de la santé et les SCPF) et 63 stratégies fondées sur des données probantes (c.-à-d. moyens d'améliorer les restrictions des visites) identifiées au cours d'un processus Delphi modifié (décrit ailleurs). Au cours de deux réunions virtuelles d'une demi-journée tenues les 7 et 8 avril 2021, 45 intervenants (patients, familles, chercheurs, cliniciens, décideurs) ont discuté et affiné ces déclarations de consensus. Grâce à une analyse descriptive qualitative du contenu, nous avons évalué les points suivants pour 99 déclarations de consensus : 1) leur importance pour l'amélioration des politiques de restriction des visites; 2) les modifications suggérées pour les rendre plus applicables; et 3) les critères facilitants et les obstacles à la mise en œuvre de ces déclarations lors de la création de politiques de visite aux soins intensifs. RéSULTATS: En discutant, les participants ont identifié trois domaines à améliorer : 1) la clarté, 2) l'accessibilité et 3) la faisabilité. Les intervenants ont identifié plusieurs critères facilitants à la mise en œuvre (énoncés clairs, flexibles, succincts et hiérarchisés disponibles dans plusieurs modes), des obstacles (manque perçu de flexibilité, manque de partenariat entre le gouvernement et l'hôpital, fatigue du changement) et des moyens de mesurer et de surveiller leur utilisation (p. ex., satisfaction des familles, entrevues qualitatives). CONCLUSION: Les directives existantes sur les politiques qui interdisaient ou limitaient les visites dans les unités de soins intensifs étaient déroutantes, difficiles à mettre en oeuvre et manquaient souvent de données probantes à l'appui. Des déclarations de consensus hiérarchisées, succinctes et claires permettant une adaptabilité locale sont nécessaires pour guider la création de politiques de visite en soins intensifs et pour optimiser les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille.

Patient and family involvement in Choosing Wisely initiatives: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Patients are important stakeholders in reducing low-value care, yet mechanisms for optimizing their involvement in low-value care remain unclear. To explore the role of patients in the development and implementation of Choosing Wisely recommendations to reduce low-value care and to assess the likelihood that existing patient resources will change patient health behaviour. METHODS: Three phased mixed-methods study: 1) content analysis of all publicly available Choosing Wisely clinician lists and patient resources from the United States of America and Canada. Quantitative data was summarized with frequencies and free text comments were analyzed with qualitative thematic content analysis; 2) semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposive sample of representatives of professional societies who created Choosing Wisely clinician lists and members of the public (including patients and family members). Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and two researchers conducted qualitative template analysis; 3) evaluation of Choosing Wisely patient resources. Two public partners were identified through the Calgary Critical Care Research Network and independently answered two free text questions "would this change your health behaviour" and "would you discuss this material with a healthcare provider". Free text data was analyzed by two researchers using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: From the content analysis of 136 Choosing Wisely clinician lists, six reported patient involvement in their development. From 148 patient resource documents that were mapped onto a conceptual framework (Inform, Activate, Collaborate) 64% described patient engagement at the level of Inform (educating patients). From 19 interviews stakeholder perceptions of patient involvement in reducing low-value care were captured by four themes: 1) impact of perceived power dynamics on the discussion of low-value care in the clinical interaction, 2) how to communicate about low-value care, 3) perceived barriers to patient involvement in reducing low-value care, and 4) suggested strategies to engage patients and families in Choosing Wisely initiatives. In the final phase of work in response to the question "would this change your health behaviour" two patient partners agreed 'yes' on 27% of patient resources. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities exist to increase patient and family participation in initiatives to reduce low-value care.

Patient discharge from intensive care: an updated scoping review to identify tools and practices to inform high-quality care.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients require complex care and experience unique needs during and after their stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). Discharging or transferring a patient from the ICU to a hospital ward or back to community care (under the care of a general practitioner) includes several elements that may shape patient outcomes and overall experiences. The aim of this study was to answer the question: what elements facilitate a successful, high-quality discharge from the ICU? METHODS: This scoping review is an update to a review published in 2015. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases from 2013-December 3, 2020 including adult, pediatric, and neonatal populations without language restrictions. Data were abstracted using different phases of care framework models, themes, facilitators, and barriers to the ICU discharge process. RESULTS: We included 314 articles from 11,461 unique citations. Two-hundred and fifty-eight (82.2%) articles were primary research articles, mostly cohort (118/314, 37.6%) or qualitative (51/314, 16.2%) studies. Common discharge themes across all articles included adverse events, readmission, and mortality after discharge (116/314, 36.9%) and patient and family needs and experiences during discharge (112/314, 35.7%). Common discharge facilitators were discharge education for patients and families (82, 26.1%), successful provider-provider communication (77/314, 24.5%), and organizational tools to facilitate discharge (50/314, 15.9%). Barriers to a successful discharge included patient demographic and clinical characteristics (89/314, 22.3%), healthcare provider workload (21/314, 6.7%), and the impact of current discharge practices on flow and performance (49/314, 15.6%). We identified 47 discharge tools that could be used or adapted to facilitate an ICU discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors contribute to a successful ICU discharge, with facilitators and barriers present at the patient and family, health care provider, and organizational level. Successful provider-patient and provider-provider communication, and educating and engaging patients and families about the discharge process were important factors in a successful ICU discharge.

Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings because of the COVID-19 pandemic have negative consequences. The objective of this scoping review is to identify impacts of restricted visitation policies in acute care settings, and describe perspectives and mitigation approaches among patients, families, and healthcare professionals. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Healthstar, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on January 01/2021, unrestricted, for published primary research records reporting any study design. We included secondary (e.g., reviews) and non-research records (e.g., commentaries), and performed manual searches in web-based resources. We excluded records that did not report primary data. Two reviewers independently abstracted data in duplicate. RESULTS: Of 7810 citations, we included 155 records. Sixty-six records (43%) were primary research; 29 (44%) case reports or case series, and 26 (39%) cohort studies; 21 (14%) were literature reviews and 8 (5%) were expert recommendations; 54 (35%) were commentary, editorial, or opinion pieces. Restricted visitation policies impacted coping and daily function (n = 31, 20%) and mental health outcomes (n = 29, 19%) of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Participants described a need for coping and support (n = 107, 69%), connection and communication (n = 107, 69%), and awareness of state of well-being (n = 101, 65%). Eighty-seven approaches to mitigate impact of restricted visitation were identified, targeting families (n = 61, 70%), patients (n = 51, 59%), and healthcare professionals (n = 40, 46%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients, families, and healthcare professionals were impacted by restricted visitation polices in acute care settings during COVID-19. The consequences of this approach on patients and families are understudied and warrant evaluation of approaches to mitigate their impact. Future pandemic policy development should include the perspectives of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020221662) and a protocol peer-reviewed prior to data extraction.

Experiences and management of physician psychological symptoms during infectious disease outbreaks: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, physicians experienced unprecedented levels of burnout. The uncertainty of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic along with increased workload and difficult medical triage decisions may lead to a further decline in physician psychological health. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO for primary research from database inception (Medline [1946], EMBASE [1974], PsycINFO [1806]) to November 17, 2020. Titles and abstracts were screened by one of three reviewers and full-text article screening and data abstraction were conducted independently, and in duplicate, by three reviewers. RESULTS: From 6223 unique citations, 480 articles were reviewed in full-text, with 193 studies (of 90,499 physicians) included in the final review. Studies reported on physician psychological symptoms and management during seven infectious disease outbreaks (severe acute respiratory syndrome [SARS], three strains of Influenza A virus [H1N1, H5N1, H7N9], Ebola, Middle East respiratory syndrome [MERS], and COVID-19) in 57 countries. Psychological symptoms of anxiety (14.3-92.3%), stress (11.9-93.7%), depression (17-80.5%), post-traumatic stress disorder (13.2-75.2%) and burnout (14.7-76%) were commonly reported among physicians, regardless of infectious disease outbreak or country. Younger, female (vs. male), single (vs. married), early career physicians, and those providing direct care to infected patients were associated with worse psychological symptoms. INTERPRETATION: Physicians should be aware that psychological symptoms of anxiety, depression, fear and distress are common, manifest differently and self-management strategies to improve psychological well-being exist. Health systems should implement short and long-term psychological supports for physicians caring for patients with COVID-19.

Patients, family members and providers perceive family-administered delirium detection tools in the adult ICU as feasible and of value to patient care and family member coping: a qualitative focus group study.

PURPOSE: While studies report on perceptions of family participation in delirium prevention, little is known about the use of family-administered delirium detection tools in the care of critically ill patients. This study sought the perspectives of patients, their family members, and healthcare providers on the use of family-administered delirium detection tools to detect delirium in critically ill patients and barriers and facilitators to using family-administered delirium detection tools in patient care. METHODS: In this qualitative study, critical care providers (five physicians, six registered nurses) and participants from the Family ICU Delirium Detection Study (seven past patients and family members) took part in four focus groups at one hospital in Calgary, Alberta. RESULTS: Key themes identified following thematic analysis from 18 participants included: 1) perceptions of acceptability of family-administered delirium detection (e.g., family feels valued, intensive care unit (ICU) care team may not use a family member's results, intensification of work load), 2) considerations regarding feasibility (e.g., insufficient knowledge, healthcare team buy-in), and 3) overarching strategies to support implementation into routine patient care (e.g., value of family-administered delirium detection for patients and families is well understood in the clinical context, regular communication between the family and ICU providers, an electronic version of the tool). CONCLUSIONS: Patients, family members and healthcare providers who participated in the focus groups perceived family participation in delirium detection and the use of family-administered delirium detection tools at the bedside as feasible and of value to patient care and family member coping. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03379129); registered 15 December 2017.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Bien que certaines études rapportent les perceptions concernant la participation de la famille à la prévention du delirium, on connaît peu l'utilisation d'outils de détection du delirium administrés par la famille dans les soins aux patients gravement malades. Cette étude a cherché à connaître les points de vue des patients, des membres de leur famille et des fournisseurs de soins de santé concernant l'utilisation d'outils de détection de delirium administrés par la famille pour dépister le delirium chez les patients gravement malades. Nous nous sommes aussi intéressés aux obstacles et aux éléments facilitateurs d'une utilisation d'outils de détection du delirium administrés par la famille dans les soins aux patients. MéTHODE: Dans le cadre de cette étude qualitative, les fournisseurs de soins intensifs (cinq médecins, six infirmières) et les participants de l'Étude sur la détection familiale du delirium aux soins intensifs (sept anciens patients et des membres de leur famille) ont participé à quatre groupes de discussion dans un hôpital de Calgary, en Alberta. RéSULTATS: Les principaux thèmes identifiés à la suite de l'analyse thématique de 18 participants étaient les suivants : 1) les perceptions de l'acceptabilité de la détection du delirium administrée par la famille (p. ex., la famille se sent valorisée, l'équipe de soins intensifs (USI) pourrait ne pas utiliser les résultats d'un membre de la famille, l'augmentation de la charge de travail), 2) les considérations concernant la faisabilité (par ex., connaissances insuffisantes, endossement par l'équipe de soins), et 3) les stratégies globales pour appuyer la mise en œuvre de cette modalité dans les soins de routine (p. ex., la valeur de la détection du delirium administrée par la famille pour les patients et les familles est bien comprise dans le contexte clinique, la communication régulière entre la famille et les fournisseurs de soins intensifs, une version électronique de l'outil). CONCLUSION: Les patients, les membres de la famille et les fournisseurs de soins de santé qui ont participé aux groupes de discussion ont perçu la participation de la famille à la détection du delirium et l'utilisation d'outils de détection du delirium administrés par la famille au chevet comme étant faisables et utiles pour les soins aux patients et les membres de la famille. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03379129); enregistrée le 15 décembre 2017.

An environmental scan of visitation policies in Canadian intensive care units during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: In response to the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2, hospitals in Canada enacted temporary visitor restrictions to limit the spread of COVID-19 and preserve personal protective equipment supplies. This study describes the extent, variation, and fluctuation of Canadian adult intensive care unit (ICU) visitation policies before and during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an environmental scan of Canadian hospital visitation policies throughout the first wave of the pandemic. We conducted a two-phased study analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data. RESULTS: We collected 257 documents with reference to visitation policies (preCOVID, 101 [39%]; midCOVID, 71 [28%]; and lateCOVID, 85 [33%]). Of these 257 documents, 38 (15%) were ICU-specific and 70 (27%) referenced the ICU. Most policies during the midCOVID/lateCOVID pandemic period allowed no visitors with specific exceptions (e.g., end-of-life). Framework analysis revealed five overarching themes: 1) reasons for restricted visitation policies; 2) visitation policies and expectations; 3) exceptions to visitation policy; 4) patient and family-centred care; and 5) communication and transparency. CONCLUSIONS: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, most Canadian hospitals had public-facing visitor restriction policies with specific exception categories, most commonly for patients at end-of-life, patients requiring assistance, or COVID-19 positive patients (varying from not allowed to case-by-case). Further studies are needed to understand the consistency with which visitation policies were operationalized and how they may have impacted patient- and family-centred care.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: En réponse à la propagation rapide du SRAS-CoV-2, les hôpitaux du Canada ont adopté des restrictions temporaires pour les visites afin de limiter la propagation de la COVID-19 et de préserver les stocks d'équipements de protection individuelle. Cette étude décrit l'ampleur, les variations et fluctuations des politiques canadiennes concernant les visites aux unités de soins intensifs (USI) pour adultes avant et pendant la première vague de la pandémie de COVID-19. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude de milieu des politiques hospitalières canadiennes concernant les visites tout au long de la première vague de la pandémie. Nous avons mené une étude en deux phases analysant des données quantitatives et qualitatives. RéSULTATS: Nous avons recueilli 257 documents faisant référence aux politiques de visites (pré-COVID, 101 [39 %]; mid-COVID, 71 [28 %]; et COVID-tardif, 85 [33 %]). Sur ces 257 documents, 38 (15 %) étaient spécifiques aux USI et 70 (27 %) faisaient référence aux USI. La plupart des politiques au cours de la période pandémique mid-COVID/COVID-tardif ne permettaient aucune visite sauf exception spécifique (p. ex., fin de vie). L'analyse du cadre a révélé cinq thèmes généraux : 1) les raisons des restrictions des politiques de visites; 2) les politiques et attentes en matière de visites; 3) les exceptions aux politiques de visites; 4) les soins aux patients et centrés sur la famille; et 5) la communication et la transparence. CONCLUSION: Au cours de la première vague de la pandémie de COVID-19, la plupart des hôpitaux canadiens avaient des politiques de restriction des visites s'appliquant au public avec des catégories d'exception spécifiques, le plus souvent pour les patients en fin de vie, les patients nécessitant de l'aide ou les patients COVID-positifs (variant d'une interdiction au cas par cas). D'autres études sont nécessaires pour comprendre l'uniformité avec laquelle les politiques de visites ont été mises en œuvre et comment elles ont pu avoir une incidence sur les soins centrés sur le patient et la famille.

A qualitative study of physician perceptions and experiences of caring for critically ill patients in the context of resource strain during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to global shortages in the resources required to care for critically ill patients and to protect frontline healthcare providers. This study investigated physicians' perceptions and experiences of caring for critically ill patients in the context of actual or anticipated resource strain during the COVID-19 pandemic, and explored implications for the healthcare workforce and the delivery of patient care. METHODS: We recruited a diverse sample of critical care physicians from 13 Canadian Universities with adult critical care training programs. We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews between March 25-June 25, 2020 and used qualitative thematic analysis to derive primary themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Fifteen participants (eight female, seven male; median age = 40) from 14 different intensive care units described three overarching themes related to physicians' perceptions and experiences of caring for critically ill patients during the pandemic: 1) Conditions contributing to resource strain (e.g., continuously evolving pandemic conditions); 2) Implications of resource strain on critical care physicians personally (e.g., safety concerns) and professionally (e.g. practice change); and 3) Enablers of resource sufficiency (e.g., adequate human resources). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has required health systems and healthcare providers to continuously adapt to rapidly evolving circumstances. Participants' uncertainty about whether their unit's planning and resources would be sufficient to ensure the delivery of high quality patient care throughout the pandemic, coupled with fear and anxiety over personal and familial transmission, indicate the need for a unified systemic pandemic response plan for future infectious disease outbreaks.

Engaging patients in de-implementation interventions to reduce low-value clinical care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many decisions regarding health resource utilization flow through the patient-clinician interaction. Thus, it represents a place where de-implementation interventions may have considerable effect on reducing the use of clinical interventions that lack efficacy, have risks that outweigh benefits, or are not cost-effective (i.e., low-value care). The objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to determine the effect of de-implementation interventions that engage patients within the patient-clinician interaction on use of low-value care. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from inception to November 2019. Gray literature was searched using the CADTH tool. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers and were included if they (1) described an intervention that engaged patients in an initiative to reduce low-value care, (2) reported the use of low-value care with and without the intervention, and (3) were randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental designs. Studies describing interventions solely focused on clinicians or published in a language other than English were excluded. Data was extracted independently in duplicate and pertained to the low-value clinical intervention of interest, components of the strategy for patient engagement, and study outcomes. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and a modified Downs and Black checklist for quasi-experimental studies. Random effects meta-analysis (reported as risk ratio, RR) was used to examine the effect of de-implementation interventions on the use of low-value care. RESULTS: From 6736 unique citations, 9 RCTs and 13 quasi-experimental studies were included in the systematic review. Studies mostly originated from the USA (n = 13, 59%), targeted treatments (n = 17, 77%), and took place in primary care (n = 10, 45%). The most common intervention was patient-oriented educational material (n = 18, 82%), followed by tools for shared decision-making (n = 5, 23%). Random effects meta-analysis demonstrated that de-implementation interventions that engage patients within the patient-clinician interaction led to a significant reduction in low-value care in both RCTs (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.66-0.84) and quasi-experimental studies (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.43-0.87). There was significant inter-study heterogeneity; however, intervention effects were consistent across subgroups defined by low-value practice and patient-engagement strategy. CONCLUSIONS: De-implementation interventions that engage patients within the patient-clinician interaction through patient-targeted educational materials or shared decision-making tools are effective in decreasing the use of low-value care. Clinicians and policymakers should consider engaging patients within initiatives that seek to reduce low-value care. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/6fsxm).

Allocation of intensive care resources during an infectious disease outbreak: a rapid review to inform practice.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has placed sustained demand on health systems globally, and the capacity to provide critical care has been overwhelmed in some jurisdictions. It is unknown which triage criteria for allocation of resources perform best to inform health system decision-making. We sought to summarize and describe existing triage tools and ethical frameworks to aid healthcare decision-making during infectious disease outbreaks. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review of triage criteria and ethical frameworks for the allocation of critical care resources during epidemics and pandemics. We searched Medline, EMBASE, and SCOPUS from inception to November 3, 2020. Full-text screening and data abstraction were conducted independently and in duplicate by three reviewers. Articles were included if they were primary research, an adult critical care setting, and the framework described was related to an infectious disease outbreak. We summarized each triage tool and ethical guidelines or framework including their elements and operating characteristics using descriptive statistics. We assessed the quality of each article with applicable checklists tailored to each study design. RESULTS: From 11,539 unique citations, 697 full-text articles were reviewed and 83 articles were included. Fifty-nine described critical care triage protocols and 25 described ethical frameworks. Of these, four articles described both a protocol and ethical framework. Sixty articles described 52 unique triage criteria (29 algorithm-based, 23 point-based). Few algorithmic- or point-based triage protocols were good predictors of mortality with AUCs ranging from 0.51 (PMEWS) to 0.85 (admitting SOFA > 11). Most published triage protocols included the substantive values of duty to provide care, equity, stewardship and trust, and the procedural value of reason. CONCLUSIONS: This review summarizes available triage protocols and ethical guidelines to provide decision-makers with data to help select and tailor triage tools. Given the uncertainty about how the COVID-19 pandemic will progress and any future pandemics, jurisdictions should prepare by selecting and adapting a triage tool that works best for their circumstances.