No abstract

Purpose As the COVID-19 pandemic has unfolded, there has been growing recognition of risks to frontline health care workers. When caring for patients with tracheostomy, speech-language pathologists have significant exposure to mucosal surfaces, secretions, and aerosols that may harbor the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This tutorial provides guidance on practices for safely performing patient evaluation and procedures, thereby reducing risk of infection. Method Data were collated through review of literature, guidelines, and consensus statements relating to COVID-19 and similar high-consequent infections, with a focus on mitigating risk of transmission to health care workers. Particular emphasis was placed on speech-language pathologists, nurses, and other allied health professionals. A multinational interdisciplinary team then analyzed findings, arriving at recommendations through consensus via electronic communications and video conference. Results Reports of transmission of infection to health care workers in the current COVID-19 pandemic and previous outbreaks substantiate the need for safe practices. Many procedures routinely performed by speech-language pathologists have a significant risk of infection due to aerosol generation. COVID-19 testing can inform level of protective equipment, and meticulous hygiene can stem spread of nosocomial infection. Modifications to standard clinical practice in tracheostomy are often required. Personal protective equipment, including either powered air-purifying respirator or N95 mask, gloves, goggles, and gown, are needed when performing aerosol-generating procedures in patients with known or suspected COVID-19 infection. Conclusions Speech-language pathologists are often called on to assist in the care of patients with tracheostomy and known or suspected COVID-19 infection. Appropriate care of these patients is predicated on maintaining the health and safety of the health care team. Careful adherence to best practices can significantly reduce risk of infectious transmission.

Purpose. Following surgical lung resection, patients frequently suffer functional decline and reduced activity levels. Despite this exercise interventions are not routinely provided. This study aimed to establish the safety and feasibility of exercise administered following lung resection in an Australian setting. Method. Pilot randomized controlled trial. Fifteen individuals (53% male), mean ± standard deviation age 65.5 ± 16.1 years, undergoing surgery for suspected lung cancer. Randomization occurred postoperatively. Control arm received protocolized inpatient respiratory physiotherapy. Intervention arm additionally received twice daily exercise until discharge home and twice weekly as outpatient for 8 weeks. Outcome measures (safety, feasibility, functional capacity, functional mobility, and health-related quality of life [HRQoL]) were assessed preoperatively and 2 and 12 weeks postoperatively. Results. Fifteen participants (lung cancer n = 10) were assigned to control (n = 8) and intervention (n = 7) groups. Inpatient exercise was delivered on 71% of occasions (35 out of 49 planned sessions). Four participants attended outpatient exercise sessions and these participants attended sessions on 81% of occasions (52 out of 64 planned sessions). No adverse events occurred. There was a significant between group difference in 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT; P = .024). In both groups the 6MWT declined from baseline to 2 weeks postoperative and then improved up to 12 weeks; improvements were greater in the intervention group. Intervention was associated with positive trends of improvement in some HRQoL domains. Conclusions. Exercise intervention performed in the inpatient and outpatient settings for individuals following lung resection was safe and feasible. The uptake rate for outpatient exercise was 57%, similar to previous trials; however, adherence was excellent within the subgroup of participants who attended. Further research is required to investigate the best setting of exercise delivery and explore ways to improve the uptake rate.

Background Positive expiratory pressure (PEP) is a technique used to enhance sputum clearance during acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). The impact of PEP therapy during acute exacerbations on clinically important outcomes is not clear. This study sought to determine the effect of PEP therapy on symptoms, quality of life and future exacerbations in patients with AECOPD. Methods 90 inpatients (58 men; mean age 68.6 years, FEV 1 40.8% predicted) with AECOPD and sputum expectoration were randomised to receive usual care (including physical exercise)±PEP therapy. The Breathlessness, Cough and Sputum Scale (BCSS), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and BODE index (Body mass index, airflow Obstruction, Dyspnoea, Exercise tolerance) were measured at discharge, 8 weeks and 6 months following discharge, and analysed via linear mixed models. Exacerbations and hospitalisations were recorded using home diaries. Results There were no significant between-group differences over time for BCSS score [mean (SE) at discharge 5.2 (0.4) vs 5.0 (0.4) for PEP and control group, respectively; p=0.978] or SGRQ total score [41.6 (2.6) vs 40.8 (2.8) at 8 weeks, p=0.872]. Dyspnoea improved more rapidly in the PEP group over the first 8 weeks ( p=0.006), however these benefits were not observed at 6 months. Exacerbations ( p=0.986) and hospitalisations ( p=0.359) did not differ between groups. Conclusions We found no evidence that PEP therapy during AECOPD improves important short-term or longterm outcomes. There does not appear to be a routine role for PEP therapy in the management of such individuals.