Background: The professional quality of life of healthcare professionals in emergency departments may be compromised during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objectives: This study aims to examine professional quality of life and resilience as well as their relationships among emergency department healthcare professionals in Hong Kong during the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods: This study employed a cross-sectional design. Healthcare professionals (doctors and nurses) working in emergency departments in Hong Kong were recruited via snowball sampling. The Professional Quality of Life Scale, version 5, and the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale were used to assess their positive (compassion satisfaction) and negative (secondary traumatic stress and burnout) aspects of professional quality of life and self-reported resilience. Socio-demographics and work-related characteristics were also analysed. Results: A total of 106 participants provided valid responses. The results showed an overall moderate level of compassion satisfaction, secondary traumatic stress and burnout among emergency department healthcare professionals. The mean score of the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale was 23.8. Backward linear regression analyses revealed self-reported resilience was the only significant predictor of compassion satisfaction (regression coefficient B = 0.875; p < 0.001), secondary traumatic stress (B = −0.294, p < 0.001) and burnout (B = −0.670; p < 0.001), explaining 70.6%, 18.5% and 59.8% of total variance, respectively. Conclusion: Emergency department healthcare professionals in Hong Kong experienced an overall moderate level of professional quality of life during the COVID-19 outbreak. Those with a higher level of self-reported resilience had better compassion satisfaction and lower levels of secondary traumatic stress and burnout. The results support the importance of developing interventions that foster resilience among this group of emergency department healthcare professionals to combat COVID-19.

Background: Direct laryngoscopy is often poorly tolerated in patients with foreign body ingestion. The use of flexible endoscopes, which are reported to be better tolerated, was described. However, studies on endoscopy usage by emergency physicians are lacking. Objective: This study evaluates whether using a bronchoscope is as effective as the direct laryngoscopy for localising pharyngeal foreign bodies by emergency physicians. Methods: This was a randomised cross-over manikin study conducted on 32 emergency physicians. Four foreign bodies were placed at the oropharynx, vallecula, arytenoid and post-cricoid area of a manikin. Participants, being randomised into two groups, examined the pharynx with a bronchoscope and a direct laryngoscope in designated orders. The primary outcome was the complete visualisation rate defined as visualising all the four foreign bodies within the time limit. Secondary outcomes included participants-rated difficulty scores, device preferences, the time needed for complete visualisation and cumulative success rates. Results: Complete visualisation rate was significantly higher using the bronchoscope (93.8%) than the direct laryngoscope (62.5%) p = 0.02. The overall difficulty score was lower using the bronchoscope (median 4, interquartile range: 3–5) than the direct laryngoscope (median 6, interquartile range: 5–8), p < 0.001. The bronchoscope was the preferred method for overall examination (71.9%) over the direct laryngoscope (28.1%), p = 0.001. There were no significant differences in times needed for complete examination for the bronchoscope (median 73.6 s, interquartile range: 54.7–97.7 s) and the direct laryngoscope (median 82.2 s, interquartile range: 40.1–120 s), p = 0.9, and cumulative success rates, p = 0.081. Conclusion: The bronchoscope was associated with an increased complete visualisation rate and was the easier and preferred method for pharyngeal examination.