Evaluation of calling criteria for the rapid response system utilising single versus multiple physiological parameter disturbances.

BACKGROUND: The Adult Deterioration Detection System for Medical Emergency Team (MET) activation is widely used and includes single parameter (SP-MET) and multiple parameter (MP-MET) disturbances. Whether the patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes differ for SP-MET compared with MP-MET is uncertain. AIMS: To describe MET interventions and outcomes of SP versus MP MET in the Acute Medical Unit (AMU) of a tertiary care hospital. METHODS: Retrospective audit over 6 months comparing SP-MET and MP-MET groups. RESULTS: SP-MET constituted 64.1% (168) of 262 AMU MET calls, most commonly for hypotension (35.5%) and tachycardia (14.1%). There were no significant differences in demographic and disease characteristics between the two groups. Common interventions included fluid/electrolyte replacement in 139 (52%), oxygen therapy in 46 (17%) and non-invasive ventilation in 33 (13%) patients. After MET intervention, 82.4% patients stayed on the ward, 8.4% died/were palliated, 6.5% were transferred to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and 2.7% patients required urgent transfer to the theatre for intervention. SP-MET patients were more likely to remain on the ward (88.7% vs 71.3%; P = 0.001), receive ward-based interventions (85.1% vs 61.7%; P < 0.001) and less likely to experience death/palliation (4.2% vs 16%, P = 0.001) compared with the MP-MET group. MP-MET were independently associated with negative outcomes (OR 3.10; 95% CI 1.60-6.00). CONCLUSION: SP-MET identify a cohort of patients at lower risk of requiring escalation of care and ICU admission. Given the resource intensity of MET activation, further research is warranted to determine whether alternative response strategies are appropriate for selected SP disturbances.

Management of adult cardiac arrest in the COVID-19 era: consensus statement from the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine.

INTRODUCTION: The global pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused significant worldwide disruption. Although Australia and New Zealand have not been affected as much as some other countries, resuscitation may still pose a risk to health care workers and necessitates a change to our traditional approach. This consensus statement for adult cardiac arrest in the setting of COVID-19 has been produced by the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM) and aligns with national and international recommendations. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: In a setting of low community transmission, most cardiac arrests are not due to COVID-19. Early defibrillation saves lives and is not considered an aerosol generating procedure. Compression-only cardiopulmonary resuscitation is thought to be a low risk procedure and can be safely initiated with the patient's mouth and nose covered. All other resuscitative procedures are considered aerosol generating and require the use of airborne personal protective equipment (PPE). It is important to balance the appropriateness of resuscitation against the risk of infection. Methods to reduce nosocomial transmission of COVID-19 include a physical barrier such as a towel or mask over the patient's mouth and nose, appropriate use of PPE, minimising the staff involved in resuscitation, and use of mechanical chest compression devices when available. If COVID-19 significantly affects hospital resource availability, the ethics of resource allocation must be considered. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT: The changes outlined in this document require a significant adaptation for many doctors, nurses and paramedics. It is critically important that all health care workers have regular PPE and advanced life support training, are able to access in situ simulation sessions, and receive extensive debriefing after actual resuscitations. This will ensure safe, timely and effective management of the patients with cardiac arrest in the COVID-19 era.

Review article: Updated resuscitation guidelines for 2016: A summary of the Australian and New Zealand Committee on Resuscitation recommendations.

This review paper summarises the key changes made to the resuscitation guidelines used in Australia and New Zealand. They were released by the Australian and New Zealand Committee on Resuscitation in January 2016. These are local adaptations of the evidence previously published in October 2015 by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR). They are presented across the main working groups in ILCOR: ALS, BLS, paediatrics, neonates, acute coronary syndromes, first aid and 'Education, Implementation and Teams'.

Simple lightweight disposable continuous positive airways pressure mask to effectively treat acute pulmonary oedema: randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the novel Boussignac valve continuous positive airways pressure (CPAP) delivery mask and a standard closed-circuit Drager CF800 CPAP system in the management of acute pulmonary oedema (APO) patients. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial whereby patients presenting to the ED with APO and who met the study criteria received either CPAP via the Boussignac valve system or from a standard Drager CF800. Baseline physiological and arterial gas data were recorded and repeated at 30 and 60 min after CPAP commenced. The primary outcome was mean change in pCO2 at 60 min between the two systems. RESULTS: There were 39 evaluable patients (19 Boussignac, 20 Drager). The mean change in pCO2 at 60 min compared to baseline was similar in the two groups (Boussignac 0.9 kPa vs. Drager 1.2 kPa, mean difference -0.3; 95% CI -1.0-0.5, P=0.45). In addition, there were no significant differences at 60 min in regards to respiratory rate decrease, Boussignac 17.3/min versus Drager 19.6/min (mean difference 1.3; 95% CI -3.3-5.8, P=0.58) or peripheral SaO2 increase, Boussignac 10.7% versus Drager 14.6% (mean difference -3.9; 95% CI -9.9-2.1, P=0.19). There was no significant difference in disposition from the ED or the complication rate. CONCLUSIONS: The Boussignac valve system may be an effective lightweight disposable method of delivering CPAP to patients with APO. It appears to perform as effectively as much larger, more expensive and less transportable equipment.