Long COVID in long-term care: a rapid realist review.

OBJECTIVES: The goals of this rapid realist review were to ask: (a) what are the key mechanisms that drive successful interventions for long COVID in long-term care (LTC) and (b) what are the critical contexts that determine whether the mechanisms produce the intended outcomes? DESIGN: Rapid realist review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science for peer-reviewed literature and Google for grey literature were searched up to 23 February 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included sources focused on interventions, persons in LTC, long COVID or post-acute phase at least 4 weeks following initial COVID-19 infection and ones that had a connection with source materials. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Three independent reviewers searched, screened and coded studies. Two independent moderators resolved conflicts. A data extraction tool organised relevant data into context-mechanism-outcome configurations using realist methodology. Twenty-one sources provided 51 intervention data excerpts used to develop our programme theory. Synthesised findings were presented to a reference group and expert panel for confirmatory purposes. RESULTS: Fifteen peer-reviewed articles and six grey literature sources were eligible for inclusion. Eleven context-mechanism-outcome configurations identify those contextual factors and underlying mechanisms associated with desired outcomes, such as clinical care processes and policies that ensure timely access to requisite resources for quality care delivery, and resident-centred assessments and care planning to address resident preferences and needs. The underlying mechanisms associated with enhanced outcomes for LTC long COVID survivors were: awareness, accountability, vigilance and empathetic listening. CONCLUSIONS: Although the LTC sector struggles with organisational capacity issues, they should be aware that comprehensively assessing and monitoring COVID-19 survivors and providing timely interventions to those with long COVID is imperative. This is due to the greater care needs of residents with long COVID, and coordinated efficient care is required to optimise their quality of life.

The Impact of 51 Risk Factors on Life Expectancy in Canada: Findings from a New Risk Prediction Model Based on Data from the Global Burden of Disease Study.

The aims of this study were (1) to develop a comprehensive risk-of-death and life expectancy (LE) model and (2) to provide data on the effects of multiple risk factors on LE. We used data for Canada from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study. To create period life tables for males and females, we obtained age/sex-specific deaths rates for 270 diseases, population distributions for 51 risk factors, and relative risk functions for all disease-exposure pairs. We computed LE gains from eliminating each factor, LE values for different levels of exposure to each factor, and LE gains from simultaneous reductions in multiple risk factors at various ages. If all risk factors were eliminated, LE in Canada would increase by 6.26 years for males and 5.05 for females. The greatest benefit would come from eliminating smoking in males (2.45 years) and high blood pressure in females (1.42 years). For most risk factors, their dose-response relationships with LE were non-linear and depended on the presence of other factors. In individuals with high levels of risk, eliminating or reducing exposure to multiple factors could improve LE by several years, even at a relatively advanced age.

The impact of a barrier enclosure on time to tracheal intubation: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Novel devices such as the barrier enclosure were developed in hopes of improving provider safety by limiting SARS-CoV-2 transmission during tracheal intubation. Nevertheless, concerns arose regarding a lack of rigorous efficacy and safety data for these devices. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of the barrier enclosure on time to tracheal intubation. METHOD: After Research Ethics Board approval, elective surgical patients with normal airway predictors were randomly allocated 1:1 to tracheal intubation with or without a barrier enclosure. The primary outcome was time to tracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes included first-pass success rate, total time of airway manipulation, anesthesiologists' perception of intubation difficulty, likelihood of use in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, and patients' perception of comfort and acceptability. RESULTS: There were 48 participants in the barrier enclosure group and 46 participants in the control group. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) time to tracheal intubation was 62 (29) sec with barrier closure and 53 (27) sec without barrier enclosure (mean difference, 9 sec; 95% confidence interval, - 3 to 20; P = 0.14). Anesthesiologists rated the difficulty of intubation higher with barrier enclosure (mean [SD] visual analogue scale score, 27 [26] mm vs 9 [17] mm; P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: In healthy surgical patients with normal airway predictors, the use of a barrier enclosure during tracheal intubation did not significantly prolong time to intubation or decrease first-pass intubation success. Nevertheless, there was an increase in difficulty of intubation perceived by the anesthesiologists with use of a barrier enclosure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04366141); registered 28 April 2020.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: De nouveaux dispositifs tels que des boîtes de protection ont été mis au point dans l'espoir d'améliorer la sécurité des fournisseurs de soins en limitant la transmission du SRAS-CoV-2 pendant l'intubation endotrachéale. Néanmoins, des inquiétudes ont été soulevées au sujet d'un manque de données rigoureuses sur l'efficacité et l'innocuité de ces dispositifs. Nous avons réalisé une étude randomisée contrôlée afin d'évaluer l'impact d'une boîte de protection sur le temps de l'intubation endotrachéale. MéTHODE: Après avoir reçu l'approbation du Comité d'éthique de la recherche, des patients de chirurgie élective présentant des prédicteurs des voies aériennes normales ont été aléatoirement répartis à un ratio de 1:1 pour une intubation endotrachéale avec ou sans boîte de protection. Le critère d'évaluation principal était le temps nécessaire à l'intubation endotrachéale. Les critères d'évaluation secondaires comprenaient le taux de réussite à la première tentative, le temps total de manipulation des voies aériennes, la perception par les anesthésiologistes de la difficulté d'intubation, la probabilité d'utilisation chez les patients atteints du SRAS-CoV-2, et la perception de confort et d'acceptabilité des patients. RéSULTATS: Il y avait 48 participants dans le groupe avec boîte et 46 participants dans le groupe témoin. Le temps moyen (écart type [ÉT]) pour l'intubation endotrachéale était de 62 (29) sec avec la boîte et de 53 (27) sec sans la boîte (différence moyenne, 9 sec; intervalle de confiance de 95 %, − 3 à 20; P = 0,14). Les anesthésiologistes ont estimé que la difficulté d'intubation était plus élevée avec une boîte de protection (score moyen sur l'échelle visuelle analogique [ÉT], 27 [26] mm vs 9 [17] mm; P < 0,001). Il n'y avait pas de différences pour les autres critères d'évaluation secondaires. CONCLUSION: Chez les patients chirurgicaux en bonne santé avec des prédicteurs de voies aériennes normales, l'utilisation d'une boîte de protection pendant l'intubation endotrachéale n'a pas prolongé de manière significative le temps d'intubation ni réduit le taux de réussite de l'intubation à la première tentative. Néanmoins, il y avait une augmentation de la difficulté d'intubation perçue par les anesthésiologistes avec l'utilisation d'une boîte de protection. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04366141); enregistrée le 28 avril 2020.