Holding the frontline: a cross-sectional survey of emergency department staff well-being and psychological distress in the course of the COVID-19 outbreak.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has been associated with stress and challenges for healthcare professionals, especially for those working in the front-line of treating COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to: 1) assess changes in well-being and perceived stress symptoms of Dutch emergency department (ED) staff in the course of the first COVID-19 wave, and 2) assess and explore stressors experienced by ED staff since the COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study. An online questionnaire was administered during June-July 2020 to physicians, nurses and non-clinical staff of four EDs in the Netherlands. Well-being and stress symptoms (i.e., cognitive, emotional and physical) were scored for the periods pre, during and after the first COVID-19 wave using the World Health Organization Well-Being Index (WHO-5) and a 10-point Likert scale. Stressors were assessed and explored by rating experiences with specific situations (i.e., frequency and intensity of distress) and in free-text narratives. Quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equations (GEE). Narratives were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: In total, 192 questionnaires were returned (39% response). Compared to pre-COVID-19, the mean WHO-5 index score (range: 0-100) decreased significantly with 14.1 points (p < 0.001) during the peak of the first wave and 3.7 points (< 0.001) after the first wave. Mean self-perceived stress symptom levels almost doubled during the peak of the first wave (≤0.005). Half of the respondents reported experiencing more moral distress in the ED since the COVID-19 outbreak. High levels of distress were primarily found in situations where the staff was unable to provide or facilitate necessary emotional support to a patient or family. Analysis of 51 free-texts revealed witnessing suffering, high work pressure, fear of contamination, inability to provide comfort and support, rapidly changing protocols regarding COVID-19 care and personal protection, and shortage of protection equipment as important stressors. CONCLUSIONS: The first COVID-19 wave took its toll on ED staff. Actions to limit drop-out and illness among staff resulting from psychological distress are vital to secure acute care for (non-)COVID-19 patients during future infection waves.

Wilderness Mass Casualty Incident (MCI): Rescue Chain After Avalanche at Everest Base Camp (EBC) In 2015.

The Nepal Earthquake of 2015 killed over 8000 people and injured over 20,000 in Nepal. Moments after the earthquake, an avalanche of falling ice came down from above Everest Base Camp (EBC). The air blast created by the avalanche flattened the middle part of EBC, killing 15 people and injuring at least 70. The casualties were initially triaged and treated at EBC and then evacuated by air to Kathmandu for definitive care. There were intermediate stops at the villages of Pheriche and Lukla during which the casualties were offloaded, retriaged, treated, and loaded again for further transport. Most of the authors of this article helped to provide primary disaster relief at EBC, Pheriche, or Lukla immediately after the earthquake. We describe the process by which an ad hoc rescue chain evacuated the casualties. We discuss challenges, both medical and nonmedical, what went well, and lessons learned. We make recommendations for disaster planning in the Khumbu (Everest) region, an isolated high altitude roadless area of Nepal.

A validation study for a clinical decision rule for acute wrist injury.

PURPOSE: Acute wrist injury is a common reason for visiting the emergency department. To date, there are no implemented clinical decision rules to predict a fracture in this group of patients. We previously identified six clinical predictors in adult patients with acute wrist trauma. The aim of this study was to validate these predictors as a decision rule in a validation cohort. METHODS: This prospective cohort study was conducted in the emergency department at five hospitals in the Netherlands and included adults with acute wrist injury. All collaborating physicians performed a standardized physical examination and data were collected in a case report form. The main outcome was defined as the radiographic presence of a wrist fracture. Six clinical variables that were significantly associated with a fracture (ρ < 0.01) were included in a model to develop the clinical decision rule. RESULTS: A total of 493 fractures in 724 patients were identified by radiographic assessment. Almost all of the clinical variables were associated with the presence of a fracture. Our decision rule had a sensitivity of 0.97 (95% CI 0.96-0.99) with a specificity of 0.26 (95% CI 0.20-0.32) in this validation cohort. Application of the decision rule resulted in a reduction in radiographic assessment rate of 10% at the cost of missing 2% of the fractures. CONCLUSION: The decision rule showed a high sensitivity and low specificity, possible due to the high pre-test probability of a wrist fracture in the cohort. Our study needs further validation in other populations.

Practical Tips for Working as an Expedition Doctor on High-Altitude Expeditions.

Brants, Anne, and Tracee Metcalfe. Practical tips for working as an expedition doctor on high-altitude expeditions. High Alt Med Biol. 18:193-198, 2017.-With the explosion of adventure travel over the past decade, there has been a concurrent increase in mountaineering expeditions to extreme elevations, including many of the 8000-m peaks. This trend has created an increased demand for qualified expedition doctors to provide specialized medical advice and care to climbers and expedition staff. This review is intended to help physicians prepare for work on such expeditions. The authors rely heavily on their own experience and discuss the types of work available on high-altitude expeditions; how to identify a safe and reputable guiding company; personal and medical preparation; priorities in selecting or building an appropriate medical kit; and medical conditions commonly encountered on expeditions. The review concludes by considering ethical dilemmas and other difficult issues unique to this work.

A pilot study to identify clinical predictors for wrist fractures in adult patients with acute wrist injury.

BACKGROUND: To date, no clinical decision rules for acute wrist injuries are available. In the past, clinical decision rules for the knee, ankle and spine injuries have been developed and validated. Implementation of these rules resulted in standardised clinical assessment at the emergency department and a substantial reduction of radiographic diagnostics. The objective of the study was to identify predictors for wrist fractures in patients with acute wrist injury which might potentiate a clinical decision rule in the future. This is a prospective pilot study in adult patients presenting with acute wrist injury at the emergency department of the Canisius-Wilhelmina Hospital in the Netherlands. METHODS: Clinical variables were collected in a case report file by emergency physicians. Radiography was ordered according to common practice to confirm or rule out the presence of fractures. Independent associations between the presence of clinical variables and wrist fractures were calculated. Multivariable analysis was performed in order to quantify sensitivity and specificity for fracture prediction. RESULTS: A total of 63 wrist fractures were detected in the study population of 95. Age over 55 years, inability to carry weight directly after trauma, support of injured wrist by the contralateral hand for pain relief, presence of swelling and/or hematoma, visible wrist deformity and reduced range of motion were associated with the presence of a wrist fracture. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified clinical predictors for wrist fractures in patients with acute wrist injury. Future studies are needed for justification of evidence-based wrist assessment and identification of a 100% sensitive decision rule for wrist fractures.