The COVID‐19 pandemic is creating unique strains on the healthcare system. While only a small percentage of patients require mechanical ventilation and ICU care, the enormous size of the populations affected means that these critical resources may become limited. A number of non‐invasive options exist to avert mechanical ventilation and ICU admission. This is a clinical review of these options and their applicability in adult COVID‐19 patients. Summary recommendations include: (1) Avoid nebulized therapies. Consider metered dose inhaler alternatives. (2) Provide supplemental oxygen following usual treatment principles for hypoxic respiratory failure. Maintain awareness of the aerosol‐generating potential of all devices, including nasal cannulas, simple face masks, and venturi masks. Use non‐rebreather masks when possible. Be attentive to aerosol generation and the use of personal protective equipment. (3) High flow nasal oxygen is preferred for patients with higher oxygen support requirements. Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation may be associated with higher risk of nosocomial transmission. If used, measures special precautions should be used reduce aerosol formation. (4) Early intubation/mechanical ventilation may be prudent for patients deemed likely to progress to critical illness, multi‐organ failure, or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

A targeted intervention involving a smoke-alarm-giveaway program can reduce the incidence of injuries from residential fires.

INTERVENTION:The intervention was first TCN contact. Controls never saw a TCN during the study period. MEASUREMENTS: We examined sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with TCN use and outcomes. The primary outcome was inpatient admission during the index ED visit (admission on Day 0). Secondary outcomes included cumulative 30-day admission (any admission on Days 0-30) and 72-hour ED revisits. RESULTS: A TCN saw 5,930 (10%) individuals, 42% of whom were admitted. After accounting for observed selection bias using entropy balance, results showed that when compared to controls, TCN contact was associated with lower risk of admission (site 1: À9.9% risk of inpatient admission, 95% confidence interval (CI) = À12.3% to À7.5%; site 2: À16.5%, 95% CI = À18.7% to À14.2%; site 3: À4.7%, 95% CI = À7.5% to À2.0%). Participants with TCN contact had greater risk of a 72-hour ED revisit at two sites (site 1: 1.5%, 95% CI = 0.7-2.3%; site 2: 1.4%, 95% CI = 0.7-2.1%). Risk of any admission within 30 days of the index ED visit also remained lower for TCN patients at both these sites (site 1: À7.8%, 95% CI = À10.3% to À5.3%; site 2: À13.8%, 95% CI = À16.1% to À11.6%). CONCLUSION: Targeted evaluation by geriatric ED transitions of care staff may be an effective delivery innovation to reduce risk of inpatient admission. J Am Geriatr Soc 2018.

No abstract

No abstract