BackgroundTo allow better allocation of staff and resources, rapid response teams attending to acutely deteriorating or aggressive patients with suspected or confirmed COVID‐19 infection were pre‐warned with the announcement of 'Code‐95' with calls.AimTo assess healthcare worker (HCW) perspectives on pre‐warning rapid response calls (RRC) with ‘Code‐95’ in announcements when attending to deteriorating or aggressive patients with suspected/confirmed COVID‐19 infection.MethodsDesign: prospective cross‐sectional single‐centre survey of HCW over a 3‐week period. Setting: tertiary public hospital. Participants: HCW caring for deteriorating or aggressive patients. Main outcome measures: the primary outcome was to assess HCW perspectives in attending Code‐95 calls. Secondary outcomes were to identify any differences related to craft group, age, experience or presence of comorbidities.ResultsA total of 297 responses was analysed; 86.7% of HCW (n = 257) attending Code‐95 calls reported anxiety. Medical staff reported greater anxiety in comparison to nursing staff (93.8% vs 78.5%; P = 0.002). Efferent team reported higher anxiety in contrast to afferent team (92.6% vs 58.8%; P = 0.021). There was no significant difference in perceived anxiety based on age (≤40 vs >40 years of age), years of experience (≤5 vs >5 years), comorbidities or mental illness; 54% reported concerns about adequacy of infection‐control policies and personal protective equipment; 45% were worried about inadequate training for responding to Code‐95 calls.ConclusionsMost surveyed HCW supported Code‐95 announcements pre‐warning them of potential COVID‐19 exposure when attending a RRC. However, the majority of HCW reported anxiety when attending these calls. Medical and efferent team HCW perceived greater anxiety compared to nursing and afferent team HCW. The Code‐95 system to pre‐warn rapid response teams may be a useful addition to protecting HCW from infectious diseases, although broader implementation will require greater resourcing, training and support.

Our study provides evidence for the presence of a large cohort of sufferers during the Melbourne Thunderstorm Asthma event of 2016 that did not come to the attention of medical services, implying a potentially hidden and significant susceptible population. Further research should help clarify the true prevalence of vulnerability in the general population, with important public health implications.

Accurate chest X-ray (CXR) interpretation is an essential skill in clinical practice. Previous studies have shown poor accuracy and confidence rates (CR) of CXR interpretation by junior doctors and medical students. We presented 10 chest radiographs via an online questionnaire to Australian medical students and junior doctors, who were asked to identify the radiographic abnormality from a list of 15 options and to rate their confidence for each answer. Of 67 complete responses, junior doctors achieved a mean score of 57.6% and medical students 56.1%, with CR of 67 versus 58% respectively. There was a significant positive relationship between accuracy and CR among junior doctors (Pearson's coefficient + 0.798, P = 0.006) and students (Pearson's coefficient + 0.716, P = 0.020). This study identified similarities in strength and weakness in CXR interpretation between medical students and junior doctors. There was a positive association between test scores and self-rated confidence scores.

No abstract

No abstract