Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
West J Emerg Med ; 23(6): 897-906, 2022 Oct 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2144839

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have investigated the management of COVID-19 cases from the operational perspective of the emergency department (ED), We sought to compare the management and outcome of COVID-19 positive and negative patients who presented to French EDs. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, observational study in four EDs. Included in the study were adult patients (≥18 years) between March 6-May 10, 2020, were hospitalized, and whose presenting symptoms were evocative of COVID-19. We compared the clinical features, management, and prognosis of patients according to their confirmed COVID-19 status. RESULTS: Of the 2,686 patients included in this study, 760 (28.3%) were COVID-19 positive. Among them, 364 (48.0%) had hypertension, 228 (30.0%) had chronic cardiac disease, 186 (24.5%) had diabetes, 126 (16.6%) were obese, and 114 (15.0%) had chronic respiratory disease. The proportion of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) was higher among COVID-19 positive patients (185/760, 24.3%) compared to COVID-19 negative patients (206/1,926, 10.7%; P <0.001), and they required mechanical ventilation (89, 11.9% vs 37, 1.9%; P <0.001) and high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (135, 18.1% vs 41, 2.2%; P < 0.001) more frequently. The in-hospital mortality was significantly higher among COVID-19 positive patients (139, 18.3% vs 149, 7.7%; P <0.001). CONCLUSION: Emergency departments were on the frontline during the COVID-19 pandemic and had to manage potential COVID-19 patients. Understanding what happened in the ED during this first outbreak is crucial to underline the importance of flexible organizations that can quickly adapt the bed capacities to the incoming flow of COVID-19 positive patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Prospective Studies , Cohort Studies , Pandemics , Emergency Service, Hospital , Disease Outbreaks
2.
J Affect Disord ; 316: 194-200, 2022 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1983302

ABSTRACT

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Assess the changes in anxiety, depression, and stress levels over time and identify risk factors among healthcare workers in French emergency departments (EDs) during the first COVID-19 outbreak. METHOD: A prospective, multicenter study was conducted in 4 EDs and an emergency medical service (SAMU). During 3 months, participants completed fortnightly questionnaires to assess anxiety, depression, and stress using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression and the Chamoux-Simard scale. The changes in anxiety, depression, and stress levels over time were modelled by a linear mixed model including a period effect and a continuous time effect within periods. RESULTS: A total of 211 respondents (43.5 %) completed the survey at inclusion. There was a decrease in mean anxiety (from 7.33 to 5.05, p < 0.001), mean depression (from 4.16 to 3.05, p = 0.009), mean stress at work (from 41.2 to 30.2, p = 0.008), and mean stress at home (from 33.0 to 26.0, p = 0.031) at the beginning of each period. The mean anxiety level was higher for administrative staff (+0.53) and lower for paramedics (-0.61, p = 0.047) compared to physicians. The anxiety level increased with the number of day and night shifts (0.13/day, p < 0.001, 0.12/night, p = 0.025) as did stress at work (1.6/day, p < 0.001, 1.1/night, p = 0.007). Reassigned healthcare workers were at higher risk of stress particularly compared to SAMU workers (stress at work: p = 0.015, at home: p = 0.021, in life in general: p = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Although anxiety, depression, and stress decreased over time, anxiety was higher among physicians and administrative staff. Reassignment and working hours were identified as potential risk factors for mental health distress in EDs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Anxiety/psychology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Depression/psychology , Disease Outbreaks , Emergency Service, Hospital , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim ; 50(Supp1): S57-S61, 2022 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1911957

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Admission in the intensive care unit of the old patient with coronavirus disease 19 raises an ethical question concerning the scarce resources and their short-term mortality. METHODS: Patients aged over 60 from 7 different intensive care units admitted between March 1, 2020 and May 6, 2020, with a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 19 were included in the cohort. Twenty variables were collected during the admission, such as age, severity (Simplified Acute Physiology Score [SAPS] II), several data on physiological status before intensive care unit comorbidities, evaluation of autonomy, frailty, and biological variables. The objective was to model the 30-day mortality with relevant variables, compute their odds ratio associated with their 95% CI, and produce a nomogram to easily estimate and communicate the 30-day mortality. The performance of the model was estimated with the area under the receiving operating curve. RESULTS: We included 231 patients, among them 60 (26.0%) patients have died on the 30th day. The relevant variables selected to explain the 30-day mortality were Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) score (0.82 [0.71-0.94]), age 1.12 (1.07-1.18), SAPS II 1.05 (1.02-1.08), and dementia 6.22 (1.00-38.58). A nomogram was computed to visually represent the final model. Area under the receiving operating curve was at 0.833 (0.776-0.889). CONCLUSIONS: Age, autonomy, dementia, and severity at admission were important predictive variables for the 30-day mortality status, and the nomogram could help the physician in the decision-making process and the communication with the family.

4.
Aging Dis ; 13(2): 614-623, 2022 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1856376

ABSTRACT

The SARS-COV2 pandemic induces tensions on health systems and ethical dilemmas. Practitioners need help tools to define patients not candidate for ICU admission. A multicentre observational study was performed to evaluate the impact of age and geriatric parameters on 30-day mortality in patients aged ≥60 years of age. Patients or next of kin were asked to answer a phone questionnaire assessing geriatric covariates 1 month before ICU admission. Among 290 screened patients, 231 were included between March 7 and May 7, 2020. In univariate, factors associated with lower 30-day survival were: age (per 10 years increase; OR 3.43, [95%CI: 2.13-5.53]), ≥3 CIRS-G grade ≥2 comorbidities (OR 2.49 [95%CI: 1.36-4.56]), impaired ADL, (OR 4.86 [95%CI: 2.44-9.72]), impaired IADL8 (OR 6.33 [95%CI: 3.31-12.10], p<0.001), frailty according to the Fried score (OR 4.33 [95%CI: 2.03-9.24]) or the CFS ≥5 (OR 3.79 [95%CI: 1.76-8.15]), 6-month fall history (OR 3.46 [95%CI: 1.58-7.63]). The final multivariate model included age (per 10 years increase; 2.94 [95%CI:1.78-5.04], p<0.001) and impaired IADL8 (OR 5.69 [95%CI: 2.90-11.47], p<0.001)). Considered as continuous variables, the model led to an AUC of 0.78 [95% CI: 0.72, 0.85]. Age and IADL8 provide independent prognostic factors for 30-day mortality in the considered population. Considering a risk of death exceeding 80% (82.6% [95%CI: 61.2% - 95.0%]), patients aged over 80 years with at least 1 IADL impairment appear as poor candidates for ICU admission.

6.
BMJ Open ; 11(7): e044449, 2021 07 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1299231

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: With the spread of COVID-19 epidemic, health plans must be adapted continuously. There is an urgent need to define the best care courses of patients with COVID-19, especially in intensive care units (ICUs), according to their individualised benefit/risk ratio. Since older age is associated with poorer short-term and long-term outcomes, prediction models are needed, that may assist clinicians in their ICU admission decision. Senior-COVID-Rea was designed to evaluate, in patients over 60 years old admitted in ICU for severe COVID-19 disease, the impact of age and geriatric and paraclinical parameters on their mortality 30 days after ICU admission. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre survey protocol to be conducted in seven hospitals of the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region, France. All patients over 60 years old admitted in ICU for severe COVID-19 infection (or their legally acceptable representative) will be proposed to enter the study and to fill in a questionnaire regarding their functional and nutritional parameters 1 month before COVID-19 infection. Paraclinical parameters at ICU admission will be collected: lymphocytes and neutrophils counts, high-fluorescent lymphoid cells and immature granulocytes percentages (Sysmex data), D-dimers, C-reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), creatinine, CT scan for lung extension rate as well as clinical resuscitation scores, and the delay between the first signs of infection and ICU admission. The primary outcome will be the overall survival at day 30 post-ICU admission. The analysis of factors predicting mortality at day 30 will be carried out using univariate and multivariate logistic regressions. Multivariate logistic regression will consider up to 15 factors.The ambition of this trial, which takes into account the different approaches of geriatric vulnerability, is to define the respective abilities of different operational criteria of frailty to predict patients' outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was ethically approved. The results of the primary and secondary objectives will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04422340.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aged , France/epidemiology , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Middle Aged , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Prohibitins , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
7.
BMC Med Educ ; 21(1): 284, 2021 May 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1234556

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the surgical training of residents. There is a real concern that trainees will not be able to meet their training requirements. Low-fidelity surgical simulation appears to be an alternative for surgical training. The educational benefits of repeating ossiculoplasty simulations under a microscope have never been evaluated. With this study we aimed to evaluate the differences in performance scores and on a global rating scale before and after training on an ossiculoplasty simulator. METHODS: In this quasi-experimental, prospective, single-centre, before-after study with blinded rater evaluation, residents performed five microscopic ossiculoplasty tasks with a difficulty gradient (sliding beads onto rods, the insertion of a partial prosthesis, the insertion of a total prosthesis, and the insertion of a stapedotomy piston under microscopic or endoscopic surgery) before and after training on the same simulator. Performance scores were defined for each task, and total performance scores (score/min) were calculated. All data were collected prospectively. RESULTS: Six out of seven intermediate residents and 8/9 novices strongly agreed that the simulator was an effective training device and should be included in the ENT residency program. The mean effect of training was a significant increase in the total performance score (+ 0.52 points/min, [95 % CI, 0.40-0.64], p < 0.001), without a significant difference between novice and intermediate residents. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study shows that techniques for middle-ear surgery can be acquired using a simulator, avoiding any risk for patients, even under lockdown measures.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Internship and Residency , Simulation Training , Clinical Competence , Communicable Disease Control , Computer Simulation , Controlled Before-After Studies , Humans , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL