Search

Introduction: It is yet to be understood how COVID-19 impacted utilisation of Emergency Department (ED) services in Singapore. This study aimed to describe the changes in attendance of a single ED and corresponding patient visit characteristics and outcomes before and during the COVID-19 period.Methods: In a single-centre retrospective cohort study, we used descriptive statistics to compare ED attendance, patient demographics and visit characteristics during the COVID-19 period (1 January – 28 June 2020) and its corresponding historical period in 2019 (2 January – 30 June 2019).Results: Mean ED attendance decreased from 342 visits/day in the pre-COVID-19 period, to 297 visits/day in the COVID-19 period. This was accompanied by reductions in P1 visits and presentations in nearly every ICD-10-CM diagnosis category except for respiratory-related diseases. We also noted a shift in ED patient case-mix from ‘Non-fever’ cases to ‘Fever’ cases, likely giving rise to two distinct trough-to-peak visit patterns during the pre-Circuit Breaker and Circuit Breaker period. Average ED admission rate during the Circuit Breaker period (48.3%) was higher as compared to pre-Circuit Breaker period (40.7%), however average daily admission remained stable.Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic caused a reduction in SGH ED attendances amongst patients with low-acuity conditions and those with highest priority for emergency care. This raises concern about treatment-seeking delays and possible impact on health outcomes. Our data provides insights that may be useful for ED crowd management planning in the post-COVID-19 era. There should be cautious use of ED admission rate as a metric in evaluating ED performance during an outbreak.

Aim The long-term stress, anxiety and job burnout experienced by healthcare workers (HCWs) are important to consider as the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic stresses healthcare systems globally. The primary objective was to examine the changes in the proportion of HCWs reporting stress, anxiety, and job burnout over six months during the peak of the pandemic in Singapore. The secondary objective was to examine the extent that objective job characteristics, HCW-perceived job factors, and HCW personal resources were associated with stress, anxiety, and job burnout. Method A sample of HCWs (doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, administrative and operations staff; N = 2744) was recruited via invitation to participate in an online survey from four tertiary hospitals. Data were gathered between March-August 2020, which included a 2-month lockdown period. HCWs completed monthly web-based self-reported assessments of stress (Perceived Stress Scale-4), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), and job burnout (Physician Work Life Scale). Results The majority of the sample consisted of female HCWs (81%) and nurses (60%). Using random-intercept logistic regression models, elevated perceived stress, anxiety and job burnout were reported by 33%, 13%, and 24% of the overall sample at baseline respectively. The proportion of HCWs reporting stress and job burnout increased by approximately 1·0% and 1·2% respectively per month. Anxiety did not significantly increase. Working long hours was associated with higher odds, while teamwork and feeling appreciated at work were associated with lower odds, of stress, anxiety, and job burnout. Conclusions Perceived stress and job burnout showed a mild increase over six months, even after exiting the lockdown. Teamwork and feeling appreciated at work were protective and are targets for developing organizational interventions to mitigate expected poor outcomes among frontline HCWs.

Objective Obtaining vascular access during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is challenging. The aim of this study was to determine if using intraosseous (IO) access when intravenous (IV) access fails improves outcomes. Methods This was a prospective, parallel-group, cluster-randomised study that compared ‘IV only’ against ‘IV + IO’ in OHCA patients, where if 2 IV attempts failed or took more than 90 s, paramedics had 2 further attempts of IO. Primary outcome was any return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Secondary outcomes were insertion success rate, adrenaline administration, time to adrenaline and survival outcome. Results A total of 1007 patients were included in the analysis. An Intention To Treat analysis showed a significant difference in success rates of obtaining vascular access in the IV + IO arm compared to the IV arm (76.6% vs 61.1% p = 0.001). There were significantly more patients in the IV + IO arm than the IV arm being administered prehospital adrenaline (71.3% vs 55.4% p = 0.001). The IV + IO arm also received adrenaline faster compared to the IV arm in terms of median time from emergency call to adrenaline (23 min vs 25 min p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in ROSC (adjusted OR 0.99 95%CI: 0.75−1.29), survival to discharge or survival with CPC 2 or better in both groups. A Per Protocol analysis also showed there was higher success in obtaining vascular access in the IV + IO arm, but ROSC and survival outcomes were not statistically different. Conclusion Using IO when IV failed led to a higher rate of vascular access, prehospital adrenaline administration and faster adrenaline administration. However, it was not associated with higher ROSC, survival to discharge, or good neurological outcome.

Introduction Intraosseous (IO) access is an important alternative to conventional intravenous access when intravenous access is difficult. Methods A nonrandomized, prospective, observational study comparing flow rates with distal and proximal tibia IO access in adults using the EZ-IO–powered drill device. The proximal tibia was the first site of insertion, and a second IO was inserted in the distal tibia if clinically indicated. Intravenous saline infusion was started for all patients, initially without, then with a pressure bag device applied. Results From September 19, 2008 to November 3, 2010, 22 patients were recruited, with 20 proximal tibial and 22 distal tibia insertions. Two patients had only distal tibia IO insertions. Five distal tibia and 3 proximal tibia insertions had no flow when initiating normal saline infusion without pressure. Upon comparing the mean flow rates without pressure bag, it is significantly faster in the proximal tibia, 4.96 mL/min, compared with distal tibia, 2.07 ml/min, difference of 2.89 ml/min (95% CI 1.20-4.58). Flow rates with pressure bags also revealed a similar result. Flow rates in the proximal tibia were significantly faster, 7.70 ml/min to that of distal tibia, 3.80 ml/min, difference of 3.89 ml/min (95% CI 1.68-6.10). In both proximal and distal tibia groups, the flow rates are also significantly faster with pressure bags compared with without. Conclusion Flow rates are significantly faster in the proximal tibia compared with the distal tibia. In addition, flow rates with pressure bags are significantly faster than without pressure bags in both groups.