Background: The global COVID-19 pandemic has imposed challenges on healthcare systems and professionals worldwide and introduced a ´maelstrom´ of ethical dilemmas. How ethically demanding situations are handled affects employees’ moral stress and job satisfaction. Aim: Describe priority-setting dilemmas, moral distress and support experienced by nurses and physicians across medical specialties in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Western Norway. Research design: A cross-sectional hospital-based survey was conducted from 23 April to 11 May 2020. Ethical considerations: Ethical approval granted by the Regional Research Ethics Committee in Western Norway (131421). Findings: Among the 1606 respondents, 67% had experienced priority-setting dilemmas the previous two weeks. Healthcare workers who were directly involved in COVID-19 care, were redeployed or worked in psychiatry/addiction medicine experienced it more often. Although 59% of the respondents had seen adverse consequences due to resource scarcity, severe consequences were rare. Moral distress levels were generally low (2.9 on a 0–10 scale), but higher in selected groups (redeployed, managers and working in psychiatry/addiction medicine). Backing from existing collegial and managerial structures and routines, such as discussions with colleagues and receiving updates and information from managers that listened and acted upon feedback, were found more helpful than external support mechanisms. Priority-setting guidelines were also helpful. Discussion: By including all medical specialties, nurses and physicians, and various institutions, the study provides information on how the COVID-19 mitigation also influenced those not directly involved in the COVID-19 treatment of patients. In the next stages of the pandemic response, support for healthcare professionals directly involved in outbreak-affected patients, those redeployed or those most impacted by mitigation strategies must be a priority. Conclusion: Empirical research of healthcare workers experiences under a pandemic are important to identify groups at risks and useful support mechanisms.

No abstract

Postoperative delirium (PD) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains to be explored. We sought to (1) determine the incidence of PD in octogenarians who underwent TAVI or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), (2) identify its risk factors, and (3) describe possible differences in the onset and course of PD between treatment groups. A prospective cohort study of consecutive patients aged ≥80 years with severe aortic stenosis who underwent elective TAVI or SAVR (N = 143) was conducted. The incidence of PD was assessed for 5 days using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM). Risk factors for PD were studied with logistic regression. Patients treated with TAVI were older (p ≤0.001), had lower cognitive scores (p = 0.007), and more co-morbidities (p = 0.003). Despite this, significantly fewer (p = 0.013) patients treated with TAVI (44%) experienced PD compared to patients treated with SAVR (66%). Undergoing SAVR (p = 0.02) and having lower cognitive function (p = 0.03) emerged as risk factors for PD, whereas gender, activities of daily living, frailty, atrial fibrillation, and postoperative use of opioids and anxiolytics did not. Patients treated with TAVI and without PD during the first 2 postoperative days were unlikely to experience PD on subsequent days. The onset of PD after SAVR could occur at any time during the postoperative evaluation. In conclusion, SAVR in octogenarian patients with aortic stenosis might be considered as a predisposing factor for PD. Our data also suggest that the onset of PD was more unpredictable after SAVR.

BackgroundDespite numerous studies on prehospital airway management, results are difficult to compare due to inconsistent or heterogeneous data. The objective of this study was to assess advanced airway management from international physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical services.MethodsWe collected airway data from 21 helicopter emergency medical services in Australia, England, Finland, Hungary, Norway and Switzerland over a 12-month period. A uniform Utstein-style airway template was used for collecting data.ResultsThe participating services attended 14,703 patients on primary missions during the study period, and 2,327 (16 %) required advanced prehospital airway interventions. Of these, tracheal intubation was attempted in 92 % of the cases. The rest were managed with supraglottic airway devices (5 %), bag-valve-mask ventilation (2 %) or continuous positive airway pressure (0.2 %). Intubation failure rates were 14.5 % (first-attempt) and 1.2 % (overall). Cardiac arrest patients showed significantly higher first-attempt intubation failure rates (odds ratio: 2.0; 95 % CI: 1.5-2.6; p < 0.001) compared to non-cardiac arrest patients. Complications were recorded in 13 %, with recognised oesophageal intubation being the most frequent (25 % of all patients with complications). For non-cardiac arrest patients, important risk predictors for first-attempt failure were patient age (a non-linear association) and administration of sedatives (reduced failure risk). The patient’s sex, provider’s intubation experience, trauma type (patient category), indication for airway intervention and use of neuromuscular blocking agents were not risk factors for first-attempt intubation failure.ConclusionsAdvanced airway management in physician-staffed prehospital services was performed frequently, with high intubation success rates and low complication rates overall. However, cardiac arrest patients showed significantly higher first-attempt failure rates compared to non-cardiac arrest patients. All failed intubations were handled successfully with a rescue device or surgical airway.Trial registrationStudy registration: www.clinicaltrials.govNCT01502111. Registered 22 December 2011.

No abstract