Search

ObjectiveDuring certain phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, a decrease was observed in emergency department (ED) utilization. Although this phenomenon has been thoroughly characterized for the first wave (FW), second wave (SW) studies are limited. We examined the changes in ED utilization between the FW and SW, compared to 2019 reference periods.Study design and methodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of ED utilization in 3 Dutch hospitals in 2020. The FW and SW (March-June and September-December, respectively) were compared to the reference periods in 2019. ED visits were labeled as (non-)COVID-suspected.ResultsDuring the FW and SW ED visits decreased by 20.3% and 15.3%, respectively, when compared to reference periods in 2019. During both waves high urgency visits significantly increased with 3.1% and 2.1%, and admission rates (ARs) increased with 5.0% and 10.4%. Trauma related visits decreased by 5.2% and 3.4%. During the SW we observed less COVID-related visits compared to the FW (4,407 vs 3,102 patients). COVID-related visits were significantly more often in higher need of urgent care and ARs were at least 24.0% higher compared to non-COVID visits.ConclusionDuring both COVID-19 waves, ED visits were significantly reduced. ED patients were more often triaged as high urgent, the ED length of stay was longer and ARs were increased compared to the reference period in 2019, reflecting a high burden on ED resources. During the FW, the reduction in ED visits was most pronounced. Here, ARs were also higher and patient were more often triaged as high urgency. These findings stress the need to gain better insight into the motives of patients to delay or avoid emergency care during pandemics, as well as to better prepare EDs for future outbreaks.

BackgroundThe onset of the COVID-19 pandemic was characterized by rapid increases in Emergency department (ED) patient visits. EDs required an appropriate transformation. The main challenges were: adapting capacity to respond to surges in the number of patient visits, protection of high risk (frontline) staff and the segregation of suspect-COVID-19 patients. To date, only a few studies have assessed the nation-wide response of EDs to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study was designed to review the preparations of Dutch EDs during the initial phase of this public health crisis.MethodsThe study was designed as a nation-wide, cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study of Dutch hospital organizations having one or more EDs. One respondent completed the questionnaire for each hospital. The questionnaire was conducted between the first and the second COVID-19 wave in the Netherlands. It contained close-ended and open-ended questions on changes in ED infrastructure, ED workforce adaptions and the role of emergency physicians (EPs) in each hospital crisis management team.ResultsThe questionnaire was completed by 58 respondents. This represented 80% of the total number of EDs. All respondents had made preparations in anticipation of a COVID-19 patient surge. Treatment capacity was expanded in 70% of EDs, with a median increase of 49% (IQR 33-73%). Suspect-COVID-19 was segregated from non-COVID-19 patients in 89% of EDs. Alternative locations (such as outpatient departments) were more often used to assess non-COVID-19 patients, than for suspect-COVID-19 patients. Staff was expanded in 82% of EDs. This largely concerned nursing staff. A formal role for Emergency Physicians (EPs) in the hospital's crisis management team was reported by 94% of hospital organizations employing EPs.ConclusionAll Dutch EDs responded to the COVID-19 pandemic in a very short time span despite much uncertainty. Preparations predominantly concerned expansion of treatment capacity and segregation of COVID-19 ED care. EPs played a prominent role, both in direct COVID-19 care and in the hospital crises management team. It is vital for EDs to adapt to community needs swiftly. The ability of EDs to respond to the pandemic varied considerably.

BackgroundInternal hospital crises and disasters (IHCDs) are events that disrupt the routine functioning of a hospital while threatening the well-being of patients and staff. IHCDs may cause hospital closure, evacuations of patients and loss of healthcare capacity. The consequences may be ruinous for local communities. Although IHCDs occur with regularity, information on the frequency and types of these events is scarcely published in the medical literature. However, gray literature and popular media reports are widely available. We therefore conducted a scoping review of these literature sources to identify and characterize the IHCDs that occurred in Dutch hospitals from 2000 to 2020. The aim is to develop a systematic understanding of the frequency of the various types of IHCDs occurring in a prosperous nation such as the Netherlands.MethodsA systematic scoping review of news articles retrieved from the LexisNexis database, Google, Google News, PubMed and EMBASE between 2000 and 2020. All articles mentioning the closure of a hospital department in the Netherlands were analyzed.ResultsA total of 134 IHCDs were identified in a 20-year time period. Of these IHCDs, there were 96 (71.6%) emergency department closures, 76 (56.7%) operation room closures, 56 (41.8%) evacuations, 26 (17.9%) reports of injured persons, and 2 (1.5%) reported casualties. Cascading events of multiple failures transpired in 39 (29.1%) IHCDs. The primary causes of IHCDs (as reported) were information and communication technology (ICT) failures, technical failures, fires, power failures, and hazardous material warnings. An average of 6.7 IHCDs occurred per year. From 2000-2009 there were 32 IHCDs, of which one concerned a primary ICT failure. Of the 102 IHCDs between 2010-2019, 32 were primary ICT failures.ConclusionsIHCDs occur with some regularity in the Netherlands and have marked effects on hospital critical care departments, particularly emergency departments. Cascading events of multiple failures transpire nearly a third of the time, limiting the ability of a hospital to stave off closure due to failure. Emergency managers should therefore prioritize the risk of ICT failures and cascading events and train hospital staff accordingly.

BackgroundPatients with COVID-19 present with a variety of clinical manifestations, ranging from mild or asymptomatic disease to severe illness and death. Whilst previous studies have clarified these and several other aspects of COVID-19, one of the ongoing challenges regarding COVID-19 is to determine which patients are at risk of adverse outcomes of COVID-19 infection. It is hypothesized that this is the result of insufficient inhibition of the immune response, with the vagus nerve being an important neuro-immuno-modulator of inflammation. Vagus nerve activity can be non-invasively indexed by heart-rate-variability (HRV). Therefore, we aimed to assess the prognostic value of HRV, as a surrogate marker for vagus nerve activity, in predicting mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) referral, in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.MethodsA retrospective cohort study including all consecutive patients (n = 271) diagnosed and hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and May 2020, without a history of cardiac arrhythmias (including atrial and ventricular premature contractions), pacemaker, or current bradycardia (heart rate 110 bpm). HRV was based on one 10s ECG recorded at admission. 3-week survival and ICU referral were examined.ResultsHRV indexed as standard deviation of normal to normal heartbeat intervals (SDNN) predicted survival (H.R. = 0.53 95%CI: 0.31-0.92). This protective role was observed only in patients aged 70 years and older, not in younger patients. HRV below median value also predicted ICU referral within the first week of hospitalization (H.R = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.29-0.90, P = 0.021).ConclusionHigher HRV predicts greater chances of survival, especially in patients aged 70 years and older with COVID-19, independent of major prognostic factors. Low HRV predicts ICU indication and admission in the first week after hospitalization.

AbstractBackground There is a paucity of prognostic models for COVID-19 that are usable for in-office patient assessment in general practice (GP).Objectives To develop and validate a risk prediction model for hospital admission with readily available predictors.Methods A retrospective cohort study linking GP records from 8 COVID-19 centres and 55 general practices in the Netherlands to hospital admission records. The development cohort spanned March to June 2020, the validation cohort March to June 2021. The primary outcome was hospital admission within 14 days. We used geographic leave-region-out cross-validation in the development cohort and temporal validation in the validation cohort.Results In the development cohort, 4,806 adult patients with COVID-19 consulted their GP (median age 56, 56% female); in the validation cohort 830 patients did (median age 56, 52% female). In the development and validation cohort respectively, 292 (6.1%) and 126 (15.2%) were admitted to the hospital within 14 days, respectively. A logistic regression model based on sex, smoking, symptoms, vital signs and comorbidities predicted hospital admission with a c-index of 0.84 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.86) at geographic cross-validation and 0.79 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.83) at temporal validation, and was reasonably well calibrated (intercept −0.08, 95% CI −0.98 to 0.52, slope 0.89, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.07 at geographic cross-validation and intercept 0.02, 95% CI −0.21 to 0.24, slope 0.82, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.00 at temporal validation).Conclusion We derived a risk model using readily available variables at GP assessment to predict hospital admission for COVID-19. It performed accurately across regions and waves. Further validation on cohorts with acquired immunity and newer SARS-CoV-2 variants is recommended.

Abstract Background Although the Geneva Conventions and Rome Statute demand protections for healthcare facilities during war, breaches of these protections are frequently reported. The ongoing war in Ukraine is no exception, with several healthcare attacks eliciting widespread condemnation. The Ukrainian Healthcare Center (UHC) has been collecting, verifying and documenting attacks on health infrastructure since the Russia–Ukraine War was launched. The aim of this study was to assess UHC documented healthcare facility attacks during the first year (24 February 2022 to 25 February 2023) of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. Methods The Berkeley Protocol on Digital Open Source Investigations was used to document healthcare attacks. Data collection included temporal factors, location, facility type, attack and weapon type, number of killed and injured healthcare personnel and civilians, and whether facilities were damaged, destroyed or attacked more than once. Results There were 334 documented attacks on 267 Ukrainian healthcare facilities, with 230 facilities being damaged and 37 destroyed. General hospitals, primary care clinics, emergency departments and children’s hospitals were most frequently targeted. The majority of attacks took place during the first three months and in eastern Ukrainian oblasts. Heavy weaponry was employed in almost all attacks. The total number of casualties included 97 fatalities and 114 injuries. Conclusions During the first year of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, there were 334 attacks on 267 Ukrainian healthcare facilities documented by the UHC. Heavy weaponry was commonly used, and the direct impact of attacks was considerable in terms of facility damage and casualty tolls.

Abstract The number of older individuals that live independently at home is rising. These older individuals often rely on caregivers who have a similar age and health status. Therefore, caregivers may experience a high burden. We determined the prevalence and associating factors of burden among caregivers of older patients in the emergency department (ED). A cross-sectional study of primary caregivers of patients aged ≥ 70 years visiting the ED of a Dutch teaching hospital was performed. Structured interviews were conducted with patients and their caregivers. Caregiver burden was measured using the caregiver strain index (CSI). Additionally, data from questionnaires and medical records were extracted to determine potential associating factors. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were conducted to identify independent determinants for burden. Seventy-eight caregivers (39%) experienced a high burden. Multivariate analysis showed a significant association between high caregiver burden and patients with cognitive impairment or dependency for instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) and more self-reported hours of care per day. Almost 40% of older patients in the ED have a caregiver who experiences a high burden. Formal assessment in the ED may help provide adequate care to the patients and their caregivers.

Abstract Some COVID-19 survivors suffer from persistent pulmonary function impairment, but the extent and associated factors are unclear. This study aimed to characterize pulmonary function impairment three to five months after hospital discharge and the association with disease severity. Survivors of COVID-19 after hospitalization to the VieCuri Medical Centre between February and December 2020 were invited for follow-up, three to five months after discharge. Dynamic and static lung volumes, respiratory muscle strength and diffusion capacity were measured. The cohort comprised 257 patients after a moderate (n = 33), severe (n = 151) or critical (n = 73) COVID-19 infection with a median follow-up of 112 days (interquartile range 96–134 days). The main sequelae included reduced diffusion capacity (36%) and reduced maximal expiratory pressure (24%). Critically ill patients were more likely to have reduced diffusion capacity than moderate (OR 8.00, 95% CI 2.46–26.01) and severe cases (OR 3.74, 95% CI 1.88–7.44) and lower forced vital capacity (OR 3.29, 95% CI 1.20–9.06) compared to severe cases. Many COVID-19 survivors, especially after a critical disease course, showed pulmonary function sequelae, mainly DLCO impairments, three to five months after discharge. Monitoring is needed to investigate the persistence of these symptoms and the longer-term implications of the COVID-19 burden.

Abstract Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospital capacity in the Netherlands has been pushed to its limits. In order to prevent hospitals from collapse due to capacity issues, hospitalized COVID-19 patients were redistributed throughout the country. The numerous individual interfacility transfers further increased the pressure on emergency medical services (EMS), which simultaneously had to serve the community during the pandemic. In this report, we evaluate the interfacility transport of multiple non-critically ill COVID-19 patients using one single vehicle: a coach converted into an ambulance bus. Discussion Between March 28, 2020, and July 17, 2021, the ambulance bus was dispatched 22 times. In total, 102 patients were transferred over a mean distance of 79.6 km. No technical or patient-related adverse events were reported. The primary benefits of the ambulance bus were its time and staff reducing potential, as well as the ability to provide relief to overwhelmed hospitals. Furthermore, it could be assembled from existing equipment in a relatively short time span. However, the efficiency of dispatches and matching between hospitals could be improved. Conclusion The simultaneous interfacility transfer of multiple non-critically ill COVID-19 patients using an ambulance bus was feasible. No technical or patient-related adverse events were reported during 22 dispatches, involving a total of 102 patients. This mode of transport may also be useful in non-pandemic situations, such as hospital and nursing home evacuations.

Abstract Introduction Emergency departments (EDs) are reasonably well prepared for external disasters, such as natural disasters, mass casualty incidents, and terrorist attacks. However, crises and disasters that emerge and unfold within hospitals appear to be more common than external events. EDs are often affected. Internal hospital crises and disasters (IHCDs) have the potential to endanger patients, staff, and visitors, and to undermine the integrity of the facility as a steward of public health and safety. Furthermore, ED patient safety and logistics may be seriously hampered. Methods Case series of 3 disasters within EDs. Narrative overview of the current IHCD-related literature retrieved from searches of PubMed databases, hand searches, and authoritative texts. Discussion The causes of IHCDs are multifaceted and an internal disaster is often the result of a cascade of events. They may or may not be associated with a community-wide event. Examples include fires, floods, power outages, structural damage, information and communication technology (ICT) failures, and cyberattacks. EDs are particularly at-risk. While acute-onset disasters have immediate consequences for acute care services, epidemics and pandemics are threats that can have long-term sequelae. Conclusions Hospitals and their EDs are at-risk for crises and their potential escalation to hospital disasters. Emerging risks due to climate-related emergencies, infectious disease outbreaks, terrorism, and cyberattacks pose particular threats. If a hospital is not prepared for IHCDs, it undermines the capacity of administration and staff to safeguard the safety of patients. Therefore, hospitals and their EDs must check and where necessary enhance their preparedness for these contingencies.

Healthcare providers in prehospital care and emergency departments are often at the frontline of medical crises, facing a range of ethical dilemmas, particularly when it comes to patients refusing treatment. This study aimed to delve into the attitudes of these providers toward treatment refusal, unearthing the strategies they employ in navigating such challenging situations while actively working in prehospital emergency health services. Our findings showed that, as the participants’ age and experience increased, so did their inclination to respect patient autonomy and avoid persuading them to change their decision about treatment. It was noted that doctors, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians demonstrated a deeper understanding of patients’ rights than other medical specialists. However, even with this understanding, the prioritization of patients’ rights tended to diminish in life-threatening situations, giving rise to ethical dilemmas. This underlines the complexity of balancing the healthcare professionals’ responsibilities and the patients’ autonomy, which can generate ethically challenging scenarios for those working in emergency healthcare. By investigating these attitudes and experiences, this study seeks to foster a more profound understanding of the ethical quandaries faced by emergency healthcare providers. Our ultimate aim is to contribute to the development of effective strategies that support both patients and professionals in managing these tough circumstances.

Abstract 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

Structural insights in the use of protocols and the extent of practice variation in EDs are lacking. The objective is to determine the extent of practice variation in EDs in The Netherlands, based on specified common practices. We performed a comparative study on Dutch EDs that employed emergency physicians to determine practice variation. Data on practices were collected via a questionnaire. Fifty-two EDs across The Netherlands were included. Thrombosis prophylaxis was prescribed for below-knee plaster immobilization in 27% of EDs. Vitamin C was prescribed in 50% of EDs after a wrist fracture. Splitting of applied casts to the upper or lower limb was performed in one-third of the EDs. Analysis of the cervical spine after trauma was performed by the NEXUS criteria (69%), the Canadian C-spine Rule (17%) or otherwise. The imaging modality for cervical spine trauma in adults was a CT scan (98%). The cast used for scaphoid fractures was divided between the short arm cast (46%) and the navicular cast (54%). Locoregional anaesthesia for femoral fractures was applied in 54% of the EDs. EDs in The Netherlands showed considerable practice variation in treatments among the subjects studied. Further research is warranted to gain a full understanding of the variation in practice in EDs and the potential to improve quality and efficiency.

Emergency department staff are at high risk of experiencing violence and aggression from patients and visitors, which can have negative impacts on healthcare providers in the ED. The aim of this study was to explore the role of healthcare providers in addressing local violence in Riyadh EDs and investigate their preparedness for managing violent incidents. We used a descriptive, correlational design with survey methodology to collect data from a convenience sample of nurses, ED technicians, physicians, and advanced practice providers in Riyadh city’s EDs. To examine the associations, we used an analysis of variance (ANOVA) for unadjusted relationships and an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) for adjusted associations. Measures included a demographic survey, and clinicians responded to an online survey. A total of 206 ED staff participated in the questionnaire, and 59% reported experiencing physical violence during an ED shift, with 61% of incidents being caused by relatives. Additionally, 32% of the participants witnessed workplace violence. Our findings revealed that male healthcare workers, physicians, and those working in the governmental sector were at the highest risk of experiencing violence. We also found a statistically significant association between the rate of patients seen in the ED and the frequency of assault (physical or verbal) in the ED. Our results suggest that the rate of workplace violence in Riyadh EDs is high, and more efforts are needed to protect the health and well-being of healthcare providers. Senior management should take a position against ED domestic violence and reinforce managerial and healthcare provider resources by adopting policies and procedures that protect healthcare workers’ safety. This study provides valuable insights into the nature and prevalence of violence in Riyadh EDs and highlights the critical role of healthcare providers in reducing violence in EDs.

The persistence of symptoms beyond three months after COVID-19 infection, often referred to as post-COVID-19 condition (PCC), is commonly experienced. It is hypothesized that PCC results from autonomic dysfunction with decreased vagal nerve activity, which can be indexed by low heart rate variability (HRV). The aim of this study was to assess the association of HRV upon admission with pulmonary function impairment and the number of reported symptoms beyond three months after initial hospitalization for COVID-19 between February and December 2020. Follow-up took place three to five months after discharge and included pulmonary function tests and the assessment of persistent symptoms. HRV analysis was performed on one 10 s electrocardiogram obtained upon admission. Analyses were performed using multivariable and multinomial logistic regression models. Among 171 patients who received follow-up, and with an electrocardiogram at admission, decreased diffusion capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO) (41%) was most frequently found. After a median of 119 days (IQR 101–141), 81% of the participants reported at least one symptom. HRV was not associated with pulmonary function impairment or persistent symptoms three to five months after hospitalization for COVID-19.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, violence targeting healthcare reportedly increased. Attacks against healthcare can severely hamper the public health response during a pandemic. Descriptive data analysis of these attacks may be helpful to develop prevention and mitigation strategies. This study aimed to investigate trends regarding COVID-19-related attacks against healthcare from January 2020 until January 2023. COVID-19-related incidents occurring between January 2020 and January 2023 were extracted from the Safeguarding Health in Conflict Coalition database and screened for eligibility. Included incidents were linked to COVID-19 health measures or were attacks directly interfering with COVID-19 healthcare, including conflict-related attacks. Data collected per incident included temporal factors; country; setting; attack and weapon type; perpetrator; motive; number of healthcare workers (HCWs) killed, injured, or kidnapped; and health facility damage. The study identified 255 COVID-19-related attacks against healthcare, with 18 HCWs killed, 147 HCWs injured, and 86 facilities damaged. The highest attack frequency was reported during the beginning of the pandemic and predominantly concerned stigma-related attacks against healthcare. Reported incidents in 2021 included attacks targeting vaccination campaigns, as well as conflict-related attacks interfering with COVID-19 healthcare. COVID-19-related attacks against healthcare occurred in heterogeneous contexts throughout the pandemic. Due to underreporting, the data presented are a minimum estimate of the actual magnitude of violence. The findings of this study emphasize the importance of public education campaigns, improved coordination between healthcare organizations and law enforcement, and the possible need to bolster the security of medical facilities and health workers.