Magnitude and time to peak oxygenation effect of prone positioning in ventilated adults with COVID-19 related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

BACKGROUND: Prone positioning may improve oxygenation in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and was widely adopted in COVID-19 patients. However, the magnitude and timing of its peak oxygenation effect remain uncertain with the optimum dosage unknown. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the magnitude of the peak effect of prone positioning on the PaO2 :FiO2 ratio during prone and secondly, the time to peak oxygenation. METHODS: Multi-centre, observational study of invasively ventilated adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 treated with prone positioning. Baseline characteristics, prone positioning and patient outcome data were collected. All arterial blood gas (ABG) data during supine, prone and after return to supine position were analysed. The magnitude of peak PaO2 :FiO2 ratio effect and time to peak PaO2 :FIO2 ratio effect was measured. RESULTS: We studied 220 patients (mean age 54 years) and 548 prone episodes. Prone positioning was applied for a mean (±SD) 3 (±2) times and 16 (±3) hours per episode. Pre-proning PaO2 :FIO2 ratio was 137 (±49) for all prone episodes. During the first episode. the mean PaO2 :FIO2 ratio increased from 125 to a peak of 196 (p < .001). Peak effect was achieved during the first episode, after 9 (±5) hours in prone position and maintained until return to supine position. CONCLUSIONS: In ventilated adults with COVID-19 acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, peak PaO2 :FIO2 ratio effect occurred during the first prone positioning episode and after 9 h. Subsequent episodes also improved oxygenation but with diminished effect on PaO2 :FIO2 ratio. This information can help guide the number and duration of prone positioning episodes.

Neuromuscular blockade and oxygenation changes during prone positioning in COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Neuromuscular blockers (NMBs) are often used during prone positioning to facilitate mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 related ARDS. However, their impact on oxygenation is uncertain. METHODS: Multi-centre observational study of invasively ventilated COVID-19 ARDS adults treated with prone positioning. We collected data on baseline characteristics, prone positioning, NMB use and patient outcome. We assessed arterial blood gas data during supine and prone positioning and after return to the supine position. RESULTS: We studied 548 prone episodes in 220 patients (mean age 54 years, 61% male) of whom 164 (75%) received NMBs. Mean PaO2:FiO2 (P/F ratio) during the first prone episode with NMBs reached 208 ± 63 mmHg compared with 161 ± 66 mmHg without NMBs (Δmean = 47 ± 5 mmHg) for an absolute increase from baseline of 76 ± 56 mmHg versus 55 ± 56 mmHg (padj < 0.001). The mean P/F ratio on return to the supine position was 190 ± 63 mmHg in the NMB group versus 141 ± 64 mmHg in the non-NMB group for an absolute increase from baseline of 59 ± 58 mmHg versus 34 ± 56 mmHg (padj < 0.001). CONCLUSION: During prone positioning, NMB is associated with increased oxygenation compared to non-NMB therapy, with a sustained effect on return to the supine position. These findings may help guide the use of NMB during prone positioning in COVID-19 ARDS.

Co-design of a cancer nutrition care pathway by patients, carers, and health professionals: the CanEAT pathway.

PURPOSE: Limited practical resources exist to guide optimal nutrition care for patients, carers, and health professionals (HPs). This study aimed to co-design a cancer nutrition care pathway to guide and improve the provision of consistent, evidence-based care with consumers and HPs. METHODS: This study utilised an experienced-based co-design (EBCD) approach over five stages. Stage 1 involved stakeholder engagement and a literature review. Stage 2 included a survey and focus groups with patients/carers. Co-design workshops were conducted within stage 3, key stakeholder consultation within stage 4, and the finalisation and dissemination of the cancer nutrition care pathway formed stage 5. Results of stages 3 to 5 are the focus of this paper. RESULTS: Two co-design workshops were held with patients, carers, and HPs (n = 32 workshop 1; n = 32 workshop 2), who collectively agreed on areas of focus and key priorities. Following this, a consultation period was completed with patients, carers, and HPs (n = 45) to refine the pathway. The collective outcome of all study stages was the co-design of a cancer nutrition care pathway (the CanEAT pathway) defining optimal cancer nutrition care that combines evidence-based practice tips into a centralised suite of resources, tools, and clinical guidance. CONCLUSION: The CanEAT pathway was co-designed by patients, carers, and HPs. The EBCD approach is a meaningful way to develop targeted improvements in cancer care. The CanEAT pathway is freely available to guide and support patients, carers, and HPs to aid the implementation of optimal nutrition care into clinical practice.

Sharing Cancer Survivorship Care between Oncology and Primary Care Providers: A Qualitative Study of Health Care Professionals' Experiences.

Survivorship care that is shared between oncology and primary care providers may be a suitable model to effectively and efficiently care for the growing survivor population, however recommendations supporting implementation are lacking. This qualitative study aimed to explore health care professionals' (HCPs) perceived facilitators and barriers to the implementation, delivery and sustainability of shared survivorship care. Data were collected via semi-structured focus groups and analysed by inductive thematic analysis. Results identified four overarching themes: (1) considerations for HCPs; (2) considerations regarding patients; (3) considerations for planning and process; and (4) policy implications. For HCPs, subthemes included general practitioner (GP, primary care physician) knowledge and need for further training, having clear protocols for follow-up, and direct communication channels between providers. Patient considerations included identifying patients suitable for shared care, discussing shared care with patients early in their cancer journey, and patients' relationships with their GPs. Regarding process, subthemes included rapid referral pathways back to hospital, care coordination, and ongoing data collection to inform refinement of a dynamic model. Finally, policy implications included development of policy to support a consistent shared care model, and reliable and sustainable funding mechanisms. Based on study findings, a set of recommendations for practice and policy were developed.