BackgroundIn recent years, there is an increase in the proportion of the elderly population in the world. With an increase in patients' age, there is a change in the comorbidities and causes for Intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. More studies are needed to redefine healthcare delivery to elderly patients admitted to ICU. AimsThe aims are to assess the disease pattern and outcome in elderly patients admitted to the Medical ICU and to determine factors affecting the outcomes in elderly patients admitted to the Medical ICU. MethodsThis was a retrospective cross-sectional study conducted in the Medical ICU of a tertiary care hospital for six months. Patients who met inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in this study. Data collected from medical records were statistically analysed. ResultsOut of 859 newly admitted patients to the Medical ICU, 196 (22.81%) were elderly patients (age > 60 years). The mean age of elderly patients was 69.8 ± 7.65 years. The mortality rate in elderly patients aged > 60 years was 36.70%, which was higher when compared to 23.60% in patients aged ≤ 60 years, and the correlation was statistically significant (p<0.0001). Neurological disorders (42.8%) were the most common cause of admissions, followed by renal disorders (13.26%), respiratory diseases (9.7%), and infections (9.18%). Deaths due to neurological disorders were most common (43.66%) followed by renal disorders (14.08%), infections (11.26%), and respiratory diseases (7%). The mean number of comorbidities in elderly patients was 1.99 ± 1.21. The mortality rate in elderly patients with more than three comorbidities was 56.52%, which was higher when compared to 33.52% in elderly patients with comorbidities ≤3, and the correlation was statistically insignificant (p=0.1275). The mean length of ICU stay in elderly patients was 9.14 ± 6.73 days. The length of stay in ICU was prolonged in patients with more number of comorbidities, which was statistically significant (p<0.0001). The mortality rate was higher in patients with prolonged length of stay, and the correlation was statistically significant (p=0.0013). ConclusionThe insight over the proportion of older patients admitted to the ICU will enable policy-makers to plan accordingly. Mortality in elderly patients was high. Hence there is a need to redefine healthcare delivery to elderly patients in terms of triage and level of care in ICU. For better outcomes, risk categorisation can be done based on the number of comorbidities for optimal care. Exclusive geriatric intensive care units were needed for better care of elderly patients.

No abstract

COVID 19 caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS CoV2). Initial infection started from China in December 2019. It became pandemic and till date it has infected 399 million people all over the world. First wave was associated with more panic situation and it has impacted mental health globally. As time passed and with subsequent waves, we have learnt to deal with the stress caused by COVID 19. I am presenting my case of suffering from COVID 19 twice despite vaccinated and its psychological impact on mental status.

A BSTRACT Poisoning is a very common way to commit suicide. It is more common in low- and middle-income countries. Aluminium phosphide is a very commonly available pesticide in such countries including India. Aluminium phosphide is a very toxic compound. Ingestion of aluminium phosphide can cause severe toxicity to various cells, and mortality is very high. We are presenting a case of rare survival of acute aluminium phosphide poisoning, who presented with signs and symptoms of severe toxicity including metabolic acidosis and shock. During hospitalisation, he developed ventricular tachycardia, acute kidney, and liver failure.

Background Since the beginning of the novel coronavirus disease in Wuhan city of China in 2019 and its spreading worldwide and taking the form of a pandemic, many healthcare workers (HCWs) were affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Though we have used many types of personal protective equipment (PPE) kits while taking care of COVID-19 patients, we have seen COVID-19 susceptibility in different working areas were different. The pattern of infection in different working areas depended on HCWs following COVID-19 appropriate behavior. Therefore, we planned to estimate the susceptibility of front-line HCWs and second-line HCWs to getting COVID-19 infection. Aim To determine the risk of COVID-19 in front-line healthcare workers as compared to second-line healthcare workers. Method and materials We planned a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of COVID-19-positive healthcare workers from our institute within six months. Their nature of duty was analyzed and they were divided into two groups: 1) Front-line HCWs were defined as those who were working or who have worked in screening areas of the outpatient department (OPD) or COVID-19 isolation wards within the prior 14 days and provided direct care to patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. 2) Second-line HCWs were those who were working in the general OPD or non-COVID-19 areas of our hospital and did not have contact with COVID-19-positive patients. Results A total of 59 HCWs became COVID-19 positive during the study period, 23 as front-line and 36 as second-line HCWs. The mean (SD) duration of work as a front-line worker was 51 and as a second-line worker was 84.4 hours. Fever, cough, body ache, loss of taste, loose stools, palpitation, throat pain, vertigo, vomiting, lung disease, generalized weakness, breathing difficulty, loss of smell, headache, and running nose were present in 21 (35.6%), 15 (25.4%), 9 (15.3%), 10 (16.9%), 3 (5.1%), 5 (8.5%), 5 (8.5%), 1 (1.7%), 4 (6.8%), 2 (3.4%), 11 (18.6%), 4 (6.8%), 9 (15.3%), 6 (10.2%) and 3 (5.1%), respectively. To predict the risk of getting COVID-19 infection in HCWs, binary logistic regression with COVID-19 diagnosis as the output variable was modeled with hours of working in COVID-19 wards as front-line and second-line workers as independent variables. The results showed that there was a 1.18 times increased risk of acquiring the disease for every one-hour excess of working as a front-line worker, whereas, for second-line workers, it was slightly lower, with a 1.11 times increased risk for developing COVID-19 disease with every one hour increase in duty hours. Both these associations were statistically significant (p=0.001 for front-line and 0.006 for second-line HCWs). Conclusion COVID-19 has taught us the importance of COVID-19 appropriate behavior in preventing the spread of respiratory organisms. Our study has shown that both the front-line and second-line HCWs are at increased risk o...