METHODOLOGY: This was a cross-sectional observational study done from November 2017 until December 2017 at ED Hospital Sultan Abdul Halim (HSAH), a 650-bedded tertiary hospital in the state of Kedah. All patients that were triaged to red zone, age 18 years and above, and involved in intra-hospital transfer to critical coronary unit, intensive care unit and wards were included. All cases were documented in proforma by the accompanying staff.
RESULTS: Among the 170 critically ill patients, only 29 patients (17.1%) experienced adverse events during intra-hospital transfer. The adverse events seen were hypotension (12.4%), desaturation (3.5%) and dislodged peripheral line (2.4%). Cardiorespiratory related diagnosis was the commonest presentation. Intra-hospital transfer during morning shift and evening shift has 79.5% (b=-1.59, OR=0.21, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.69, p=0.011) and 75.6% ((b=-1.41, OR=0.24, 95% CI: 0.08, 0.73, p=0.012) lesser odds of experiencing adverse events compare to night shift. Patients with vasopressor/inotropes had 9 times higher odds of experiencing adverse events during transportation, compared to patients with no vasopressor/inotropes (b=2.27, OR=9.70, 95% CI: 3.39, 27.72, p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Critical care patients who are involved in intrahospital transfer were at risk of adverse events such as hypotension, desaturation and dislodge peripheral line. Risk identification and maintaining level of care is important to minimize the adverse events during transfer. Patients had higher rates of adverse events if they were transferred during night shifts and on inotropic/vasopressor support.
RESULTS: Five repatriation missions performed was led by the National Agency for Disaster Management (NADMA) with the Ministry of Health providing technical expertise. A total of 432 citizens were repatriated from the missions. The operations were divided into four phases: the pre-boarding screening phase, the boarding and in-flight phase, the reception phase and the quarantine phase. The commercial aircraft used were from two different commercial airlines. Each mission had flight crew members between 10 and 17 people. There were 82 positive cases detected among the repatriated citizens. There was a single positive case of a healthcare worker involved in the mission, based on the sample taken on arrival of the flight. There were no infections involving flight team members.
CONCLUSION: Medical flight crew must be familiar with aircraft fittings that differ from one commercial airline to another as it influences infection control practices. A clear understanding of socio-political situation of a country, transmission routes of a pathogen, disease presentation, and knowledge of aviation procedures, aircraft engineering and design is of great importance in preparing for such missions. Our approach of multidiscipline team involvement managed to allow us to provide and execute the operations successfully.