BackgroundConcerns over high transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2 have led to innovation and usage of an aerosol box to protect healthcare workers during airway intubation in patients with COVID-19. Its efficacy as a barrier protection in addition to the use of a standard personal protective equipment (PPE) is not fully known. We performed a simulated study to investigate the relationship between aerosol box usage during intubation and contaminations on healthcare workers pre-doffing and post-doffing of PPE.MethodsThis was a randomised cross-over study conducted between 9 April to 5 May 2020 in the ED of University Malaya Medical Centre. Postgraduate Emergency Medicine trainees performed video laryngoscope-assisted intubation on an airway manikin with and without an aerosol box in a random order. Contamination was simulated by nebulised Glo Germ. Primary outcome was number of contaminated front and back body regions pre-doffing and post-doffing of PPE of the intubator and assistant. Secondary outcomes were intubation time, Cormack-Lehane score, number of intubation attempts and participants’ feedback.ResultsThirty-six trainees completed the study interventions. The number of contaminated front and back body regions pre-doffing of PPE was significantly higher without the aerosol box (all p values<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the number of contaminations post-doffing of PPE between using and not using the aerosol box, with a median contamination of zero. Intubation time was longer with the aerosol box (42.5 s vs 35.5 s, p<0.001). Cormack-Lehane scores were similar with and without the aerosol box. First-pass intubation success rate was 94.4% and 100% with and without the aerosol box, respectively. More participants reported reduced mobility and visibility when intubating with the aerosol box.ConclusionsAn aerosol box may significantly reduce exposure to contaminations but with increased intubation time and reduced operator’s mobility and visibility. Furthermore, the difference in degree of contamination between using and not using an aerosol box could be offset by proper doffing of PPE.

Objective Suffering is a common experience in palliative care. In our study, we aimed to determine the effect of 5‐min mindfulness of love on suffering and the spiritual quality of life of palliative care patients. Methods We conducted a parallel‐group, blinded, randomized controlled study at the University of Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC), Malaysia from February 2019 to April 2019. Sixty adult palliative care patients with an overall suffering score of 4/10 or above based on the Suffering Pictogram were recruited and randomly assigned to either the 5‐min mindfulness of love group (N = 30) or the 5‐min supportive listening group (N = 30). Results There were statistically significant improvements in the overall suffering score (mean difference = −2.9, CI = −3.7 to −2.1, t = −7.268, p = 0.000) and the total FACIT‐Sp‐12 score (mean difference = 2.9, CI = 1.5 to 4.3, t = 4.124, p = 0.000) in the intervention group compared to the control group. Conclusion The results provided evidence that 5‐min mindfulness of love could affect the actual state of suffering and the spiritual quality of life of palliative care patients.

ContextNumerous studies have shown that gratitude can reduce stress and improve quality of life.ObjectiveOur study aimed to examine the effect of mindful gratitude journaling on suffering, psychological distress and quality of life of patients with advanced cancer.MethodsWe conducted a parallel-group, blinded, randomised controlled trial at the University of Malaya Medical Centre, Malaysia. Ninety-two adult patients with advanced cancer, and an overall suffering score ≥4/10 based on the Suffering Pictogram were recruited and randomly assigned to either a mindful gratitude journaling group (N=49) or a routine journaling group (N=43).ResultsAfter 1 week, there were significant reductions in the overall suffering score from the baseline in both the intervention group (mean difference in overall suffering score=−2.0, 95% CI=−2.7 to −1.4, t=−6.125, p=0.000) and the control group (mean difference in overall suffering score=−1.6, 95% CI=−2.3 to −0.8, t=−4.106, p=0.037). There were also significant improvements in the total Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score (mean difference=−3.4, 95% CI=−5.3 to −1.5, t=−3.525, p=0.000) and the total Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being score (mean difference=7.3, 95% CI=1.5 to 13.1, t=2.460, p=0.014) in the intervention group after 7 days, but not in the control group.ConclusionThe results provide evidence that 7 days of mindful gratitude journaling could positively affect the state of suffering, psychological distress and quality of life of patients with advanced cancer.Trial registration numberThe trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN1261800172191) and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Background and importance Musculoskeletal trauma is a common presentation in the emergency department (ED). Tramadol as an analgesic has been recommended by pain management guidelines for musculoskeletal pain. Parenteral tramadol in the ED is commonly administered intravenously. Subcutaneously administered tramadol may have other advantages such as easier and faster preparation, avoids the need for intravenous (i.v.) access, and reduces the incidence of respiratory and gastrointestinal effects. However, studies comparing subcutaneous (s.c.) and i.v. tramadol for the management of acute moderate pain in patients with extremity injury are lacking.Objective The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of s.c. tramadol vs. i.v. tramadol in patients with moderate pain due to extremity injury in the ED. Design, settings, and participantsThis noninferiority randomized controlled trial included adult patients presented to an academic, tertiary hospital ED with moderate pain (pain score of 4-6 on the visual analog scale) due to extremity injury. Intervention patients stratified to pain score were randomized to receive 50 mg of i.v. or s.c. tramadol.Outcomes measure and analysis Primary outcome measure was the difference in the pain score reduction at 30 min after tramadol administration between the two groups. The noninferiority null hypothesis was that the therapeutic difference in terms of pain score reduction of more than 0.8 exists between the two treatment groups at the endpoint. Main resultsIn total 232 patients were randomized to i.v. (n = 115) or s.c. (n = 117). Although 225 were analyzed in the per-protocol population (i.v. = 113; s.c. = 112). The baseline median pain score was 6 (IQR, 5-6). Median pain score reduction at 30 min after administration was 2 (IQR, 1-3) in the IV group vs. 2 (IQR, 1-2) in the s.c. group with a median difference of 0 (IQR, 0-0), which was below the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.8. Adverse events in the i.v. group were higher compared to the s.c. group (33.6% vs. 8.9%, P ≤ 0.001). ConclusionsThe s.c. tramadol is noninferior to i.v. tramadol in the treatment of moderate pain from extremity injuries.