Background The current COVID-19 pandemic is highlighting gaps around the world in the design and workflow of Emergency Departments (ED). These gaps have an impact on both patient care and staff safety and represent a risk to public health. There is a need for a conceptual framework to guide ED design and workflow to address these challenges. Such a framework is important as the ED environment will always remain vulnerable to infectious diseases outbreaks in the future. Aims This paper aims to address issues and principles around ED design and workflow amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. We propose a conceptual framework and checklist for EDs to be prepared for future outbreaks as well. Methods A scoping literature review was conducted, of the experiences of EDs in managing outbreaks such as SARS, H1N1 and COVID-19. The combined experiences of the authors and the experiences from the literature were grouped under common themes to develop the conceptual framework. Results Four key principles were derived- (1) situational awareness, surveillance and perimeter defence, (2) ED staff protection, (3) surge capacity management and (4) ED recovery. The findings were integrated in a proposed conceptual framework to guide ED design in response to an infectious disease outbreak. There are various elements which need to be considered at ED input, throughput and output. These elements can be categorised into (1) system (workflow, protocols and communication), (2) staff (human resources), (3) space (infrastructure), and (4) supply (logistics) and are placed in a checklist for pragmatic use. Conclusion The ED needs to be in a constant state of preparedness. A framework can be useful to guide ED design and workflow to achieve this. As all ED systems are different with varying capabilities, our framework may help EDs across the world prepare for infectious disease outbreaks.

Introduction: End-of-life (EOL) conditions are commonly encountered by emergency physicians (EP). We aim to explore EPs’ experience and perspectives toward EOL discussions in acute settings. Methods: A qualitative survey was conducted among EPs in three tertiary institutions. Data on demographics, EOL knowledge, conflict management strategies, comfort level, and perceived barriers to EOL discussions were collected. Data analysis was performed using SPSS and SAS. Results: Of 63 respondents, 40 (63.5%) were male. Respondents comprised 22 senior residents/registrars, 9 associate consultants, 22 consultants, and 10 senior consultants. The median duration of emergency department practice was 8 (interquartile range: 6–10) years. A majority (79.3%) reported conducting EOL discussions daily to weekly, with most (90.5%) able to obtain general agreement with families and patients regarding goals of care. Top barriers were communications with family/clinicians, lack of understanding of palliative care, and lack of rapport with patients. 38 (60.3%) deferred discussions to other colleagues (e.g., intensivists), 10 (15.9%) involved more family members, and 13 (20.6%) employed a combination of approaches. Physician's comfort level in discussing EOL issues also differed with physician seniority and patient type. There was a positive correlation between the mean general comfort level when discussing EOL and the seniority of the EPs up till consultancy. However, the comfort level dropped among senior consultants as compared to consultants. EPs were most comfortable discussing EOL of patients with a known terminal illness and least comfortable in cases of sudden death. Conclusions: Formal training and standardized framework would be useful to enhance the competency of EPs in conducting EOL discussions.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract