OBJECTIVE: The aim is to evaluate the levels of knowledge, attitude, and practice among emergency HCW of the COVID-19 resuscitation protocol by the European Resuscitation Council (ERC).
METHODS: A cross-sectional study using a validated questionnaire was conducted among HCW in the emergency department of University of Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC), Malaysia from April to June 2021.
RESULTS: A total of 159 respondents were included in the analysis (89% response rate). Sixty-eight percent of respondents had adequate knowledge regarding COVID-19 resuscitation. Majority of the respondents had knowledge on airborne-precaution personal protective equipment (PPE) (99%) and infection control measures (98%). Nearly 73% were pessimistic about the COVID-19 prognosis. Seventy-three percent of respondents thought an arrested COVID-19 patient may benefit from cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and 94% were willing to administer CPR provided airborne-precaution PPE was available. Ninety percent of respondents reported adherence to resuscitation guidelines. There were significant differences in the mean knowledge scores between designation, education levels, and COVID-19 training. Overall, the respondents' level of practice was insufficient (27%), with a mean score of 53.7%(SD = 14.7). There was a lack of practicein the resuscitation oftheintubatedand patients who were beingprone. There was insufficient practice about ventilation technique, use ofsupraglotticdevices, and intubation barriers. There was a positive correlation between adequate knowledge and good practice.
CONCLUSION: Emergency HCW have adequate knowledge, but poor compliance to the ERC COVID-19 guidelines. Emergency HCW were willing and confident to resuscitate COVID-19 patients, despite fears of nosocomial infection and expectation of poor patients' prognosis. Ongoing education and trainingprogramsare recommended to improve their knowledge, cultivate a positive attitude, andachievegood compliance with COVID-19 resuscitation guidelines.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was extracted from the ongoing National Orthopaedic Registry of Malaysia (NORM), for the period June 2008 till December 2009. Patients aged 50 years and above without previous pathological fracture hip fractures were included in the study.
RESULTS: Most hip fracture patients were 70 years and above (69.5%) with a mean (SD) age of 73.8 (10.3) years. Females represented the majority of the patients in this study (68.4%). Low energy trauma (i.e. trivial fall) was to the main mechanism of hip fractures in this study (81.3%).
CONCLUSIONS: Aging adults should be made aware of timely preventive strategies (including osteoporosis prevention) fall prevention measures, and encouraged to maintain physically active lifestyles.
KEY WORDS: Hip fracture, pre-fracture status.
METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted in emergency departments of two tertiary hospitals from June 1 to August 31, 2021. Consecutive patients aged >18 years admitted for COVID-19-related HRF (World Health Organization criteria: confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia with respiratory rate > 30 breaths/min, severe respiratory distress, or peripheral oxygen saturation < 90% on room air) requiring NRB + NC or HFNC were screened for enrollment. Primary outcome was improvement of partial pressure arterial oxygen (PaO2) at two hours. Secondary outcomes were intubation rate, ventilator-free days, hospital length of stay, and 28-day mortality. Data were analyzed using linear regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity score.
RESULTS: Among the 110 patients recruited, 52 (47.3%) were treated with NRB + NC, and 58 (52.7%) with HFNC. There were significant improvements in patients' PaO2, PaO2/FIO2 ratio, and respiratory rate two hours after the initiation of NRB + NC and HFNC. Comparing the two groups, after IPTW adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in PaO2 improvement (adjusted mean ratio [MR] 2.81; 95% CI -5.82 to 11.43; p = .524), intubation rate (adjusted OR 1.76; 95% CI 0.44 to 6.92; p = .423), ventilator-free days (adjusted MR 0.00; 95% CI -8.84 to 8.85; p = .999), hospital length of stay (adjusted MR 3.04; 95% CI -2.62 to 8.69; p = .293), and 28-day mortality (adjusted OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.15 to 2.98; p = .608).
CONCLUSION: HFNC may be beneficial in COVID-19 HRF. NRB + NC is a viable alternative, especially in resource-limited settings, given similar improvement in oxygenation at two hours, and no significant differences in long-term outcomes. The effectiveness of NRB + NC needs to be investigated by a powered randomized controlled trial.