Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza outbreak in Australia : impact on emergency departments

Executive summary\ud Objective:\ud The aims of this study were to identify the impact of Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza on Australian Emergency Departments (EDs) and their staff, and to inform planning, preparedness, and response management arrangements for future pandemics, as well as managing infectious patients presenting to EDs in everyday practice.\ud Methods\ud This study involved three elements:\ud 1. The first element of the study was an examination of published material including published statistics. Standard literature research methods were used to identify relevant published articles. In addition, data about ED demand was obtained from Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA) publications, with several state health departments providing more detailed data.\ud 2. The second element of the study was a survey of Directors of Emergency Medicine identified with the assistance of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM). This survey retrieved data about demand for ED services and elicited qualitative comments on the impact of the pandemic on ED management.\ud 3. The third element of the study was a survey of ED staff. A questionnaire was emailed to members of three professional colleges—the ACEM; the Australian College of Emergency Nursing (ACEN); and the College of Emergency Nursing Australasia (CENA). The overall response rate for the survey was 18.4%, with 618 usable responses from 3355 distributed questionnaires. Topics covered by the survey included ED conditions during the (H1N1) 2009 influenza pandemic; information received about Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza; pandemic plans; the impact of the pandemic on ED staff with respect to stress; illness prevention measures; support received from others in work role; staff and others’ illness during the pandemic; other factors causing ED staff to miss work during the pandemic; and vaccination against Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analysed.\ud Results:\ud The results obtained from Directors of Emergency Medicine quantifying the impact of the pandemic were too limited for interpretation. Data sourced from health departments and published sources demonstrated an increase in influenza-like illness (ILI) presentations of between one and a half and three times the normal level of presentations of ILIs. Directors of Emergency Medicine reported a reasonable level of preparation for the pandemic, with most reporting the use of pandemic plans that translated into relatively effective operational infection control responses. Directors reported a highly significant impact on EDs and their staff from the pandemic. Growth in demand and related ED congestion were highly significant factors causing distress within the departments. Most (64%) respondents established a ‘flu clinic’ either as part of Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza Outbreak in Australia: Impact on Emergency Departments.\ud the ED operations or external to it. They did not note a significantly higher rate of sick leave than usual.\ud Responses relating to the impact on staff were proportional to the size of the colleges. Most respondents felt strongly that Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza had a significant impact on demand in their ED, with most patients having low levels of clinical urgency. Most respondents felt that the pandemic had a negative impact on the care of other patients, and 94% revealed some increase in stress due to lack of space for patients, increased demand, and filling staff deficits. Levels of concern about themselves or their family members contracting the illness were less significant than expected. Nurses displayed significantly higher levels of stress overall, particularly in relation to skill-mix requirements, lack of supplies and equipment, and patient and patients’ family aggression. More than one-third of respondents became ill with an ILI. Whilst respondents themselves reported taking low levels of sick leave, respondents cited difficulties with replacing absent staff. Ranked from highest to lowest, respondents gained useful support from ED colleagues, ED administration, their hospital occupational health department, hospital administration, professional colleges, state health department, and their unions. Respondents were generally positive about the information they received overall; however, the volume of information was considered excessive and sometimes inconsistent. The media was criticised as scaremongering and sensationalist and as being the cause of many unnecessary presentations to EDs. Of concern to the investigators was that a large proportion (43%) of respondents did not know whether a pandemic plan existed for their department or hospital. A small number of staff reported being redeployed from their usual workplace for personal risk factors or operational reasons. As at the time of survey (29 October –18 December 2009), 26% of ED staff reported being vaccinated against Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza. Of those not vaccinated, half indicated they would ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ not get vaccinated, with the main reasons being the vaccine was ‘rushed into production’, ‘not properly tested’, ‘came out too late’, or not needed due to prior infection or exposure, or due to the mildness of the disease.\ud Conclusion:\ud Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza had a significant impact on Australian Emergency Departments. The pandemic exposed problems in existing plans, particularly a lack of guidelines, general information overload, and confusion due to the lack of a single authoritative information source. Of concern was the high proportion of respondents who did not know if their hospital or department had a pandemic plan. Nationally, the pandemic communication strategy needs a detailed review, with more engagement with media networks to encourage responsible and consistent reporting. Also of concern was the low level of immunisation, and the low level of intention to accept vaccination. This is a problem seen in many previous studies relating to seasonal influenza and health care workers. The design of EDs needs to be addressed to better manage infectious patients. Significant workforce issues were confronted in this pandemic, including maintaining appropriate staffing levels; staff exposure to illness; access to, and appropriate use of, personal protective equipment (PPE); and the difficulties associated with working in PPE for prolonged periods. An administrative issue of note was the reporting requirement, which created considerable additional stress for staff within EDs. Peer and local support strategies helped ensure staff felt their needs were provided for, creating resilience, dependability, and stability in the ED workforce. Policies regarding the establishment of flu clinics need to be reviewed. The ability to create surge capacity within EDs by considering staffing, equipment, physical space, and stores is of primary importance for future pandemics

The People's Trial : supporting the public's understanding of randomised trials

Acknowledgements The People’s Trial team members acknowledge with gratitude the study participants. We would also like to acknowledge and thank Simone Lepage, Aoife O’Shaughnessy, and Louise Foley for their support with the research project. We would also like to thank Rob & Paul Digital Design™, Galway, Ireland. In addition, we would like to thank Marina Zaki for her support of The People’s Trial, in particular her expertise in promoting The People’s Trial through social media channels. Funding This research was funded by the Health Research Board in Ireland, through the Health Research Board – Trials Methodology Research Network as part of a Knowledge Exchange and Dissemination Scheme Award (grant reference KEDS-2018-012) 2018. The funder of the study had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing of the report. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

COHESION: a core outcome set for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity in outcomes reported in trials of interventions for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy (NE) makes evaluating the effectiveness of treatments difficult. Developing a core outcome set for NE treatment would enable researchers to measure and report the same outcomes in future trials. This would minimise waste, ensure relevant outcomes are measured and enable evidence synthesis. Therefore, we aimed to develop a core outcome set for treating NE.METHODS: Outcomes identified from a systematic review of the literature and interviews with parents were prioritised by stakeholders (n = 99 parents/caregivers, n = 101 healthcare providers, and n = 22 researchers/ academics) in online Delphi surveys. Agreement on the outcomes was achieved at online consensus meetings attended by n = 10 parents, n = 18 healthcare providers, and n = 13 researchers/ academics.RESULTS: Seven outcomes were included in the final core outcome set: survival; brain injury on imaging; neurological status at discharge; cerebral palsy; general cognitive ability; quality of life of the child, and adverse events related to treatment.CONCLUSION: We developed a core outcome set for the treatment of NE. This will allow future trials to measure and report the same outcomes and ensure results can be compared. Future work should identify how best to measure the COS

Does reading a book in bed make a difference to sleep in comparison to not reading a book in bed? : The People's Trial- an online, pragmatic, randomised trial

Acknowledgements The People’s Trial team members acknowledge with gratitude the study participants. We would also like to acknowledge and thank Claire O’Connell, Simone Lepage, Aoife O’Shaughnessy and Louise Foley for their support with the research project. Trial funder This research was funded by the Health Research Board in Ireland, through the Health Research Board – Trials Methodology Research Network as part of a Knowledge Exchange and Dissemination Scheme Award 2018 (grant reference KEDS-2018-012). The funder of the study had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The genetics of the mood disorder spectrum:genome-wide association analyses of over 185,000 cases and 439,000 controls

Background Mood disorders (including major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder) affect 10-20% of the population. They range from brief, mild episodes to severe, incapacitating conditions that markedly impact lives. Despite their diagnostic distinction, multiple approaches have shown considerable sharing of risk factors across the mood disorders. Methods To clarify their shared molecular genetic basis, and to highlight disorder-specific associations, we meta-analysed data from the latest Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC) genome-wide association studies of major depression (including data from 23andMe) and bipolar disorder, and an additional major depressive disorder cohort from UK Biobank (total: 185,285 cases, 439,741 controls; non-overlapping N = 609,424). Results Seventy-three loci reached genome-wide significance in the meta-analysis, including 15 that are novel for mood disorders. More genome-wide significant loci from the PGC analysis of major depression than bipolar disorder reached genome-wide significance. Genetic correlations revealed that type 2 bipolar disorder correlates strongly with recurrent and single episode major depressive disorder. Systems biology analyses highlight both similarities and differences between the mood disorders, particularly in the mouse brain cell-types implicated by the expression patterns of associated genes. The mood disorders also differ in their genetic correlation with educational attainment – positive in bipolar disorder but negative in major depressive disorder. Conclusions The mood disorders share several genetic associations, and can be combined effectively to increase variant discovery. However, we demonstrate several differences between these disorders. Analysing subtypes of major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder provides evidence for a genetic mood disorders spectrum

Bipolar multiplex families have an increased burden of common risk variants for psychiatric disorders.

Multiplex families with a high prevalence of a psychiatric disorder are often examined to identify rare genetic variants with large effect sizes. In the present study, we analysed whether the risk for bipolar disorder (BD) in BD multiplex families is influenced by common genetic variants. Furthermore, we investigated whether this risk is conferred mainly by BD-specific risk variants or by variants also associated with the susceptibility to schizophrenia or major depression. In total, 395 individuals from 33 Andalusian BD multiplex families (166 BD, 78 major depressive disorder, 151 unaffected) as well as 438 subjects from an independent, BD case/control cohort (161 unrelated BD, 277 unrelated controls) were analysed. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) for BD, schizophrenia (SCZ), and major depression were calculated and compared between the cohorts. Both the familial BD cases and unaffected family members had higher PRS for all three psychiatric disorders than the independent controls, with BD and SCZ being significant after correction for multiple testing, suggesting a high baseline risk for several psychiatric disorders in the families. Moreover, familial BD cases showed significantly higher BD PRS than unaffected family members and unrelated BD cases. A plausible hypothesis is that, in multiplex families with a general increase in risk for psychiatric disease, BD development is attributable to a high burden of common variants that confer a specific risk for BD. The present analyses demonstrated that common genetic risk variants for psychiatric disorders are likely to contribute to the high incidence of affective psychiatric disorders in the multiplex families. However, the PRS explained only part of the observed phenotypic variance, and rare variants might have also contributed to disease development

Pandemic (H1N1) Influenza 2009 and Australian emergency departments: Implications for policy, practice and pandemic preparedness

Objective: To describe the reported impact of Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 on EDs, so as to inform future pandemic policy, planning and response management. Methods: This study comprised an issue and theme analysis of publicly accessible literature, data from jurisdictional health departments, and data obtained from two electronic surveys of ED directors and ED staff. The issues identified formed the basis of policy analysis and evaluation. Results: Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 had a significant impact on EDs with presentation for patients with ‘influenza-like illness’ up to three times that of the same time in previous years. Staff reported a range of issues, including poor awareness of pandemic plans, patient and family aggression, chaotic information flow to themselves and the public, heightened stress related to increased workloads and lower levels of staffing due to illness, family care duties and redeployment of staff to flu clinics. Staff identified considerable discomfort associated with prolonged times wearing personal protective equipment. Staff believed that the care of non-flu patients was compromised during the pandemic as a result of overwork, distraction from core business and the difficulties associated with accommodating infectious patients in an environment that was not conducive. Conclusions: This paper describes the breadth of the impact of pandemics on ED operations. It identifies a need to address a range of industrial, management and procedural issues. In particular, there is a need for a single authoritative source of information, the re-engineering of EDs to accommodate infectious patients and organizational changes to enable rapid deployment of alternative sources of care

COHESION: A core outcome set for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy

Background: Heterogeneity in outcomes reported in trials of interventions for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy (NE) makes evaluating the effectiveness of treatments difficult. Developing a core outcome set for NE treatment would enable researchers to measure and report the same outcomes in future trials. This would minimise waste, ensure relevant outcomes are measured and enable evidence synthesis. Therefore, we aimed to develop a core outcome set for treating NE.Methods: Outcomes identified from a systematic review of the literature and interviews with parents were prioritised by stakeholders (n = 99 parents/caregivers, n = 101 healthcare providers, and n = 22 researchers/ academics) in online Delphi surveys. Agreement on the outcomes was achieved at online consensus meetings attended by n = 10 parents, n = 18 healthcare providers, and n = 13 researchers/ academics.Results: Seven outcomes were included in the final core outcome set: survival; brain injury on imaging; neurological status at discharge; cerebral palsy; general cognitive ability; quality of life of the child, and adverse events related to treatment.Conclusion: We developed a core outcome set for the treatment of NE. This will allow future trials to measure and report the same outcomes and ensure results can be compared. Future work should identify how best to measure the COS.Impact: We have identified seven outcomes that should be measured and reported in all studies for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy. Previously, a core outcome set for neonatal encephalopathy treatments did not exist. This will help to reduce heterogeneity in outcomes reported in clinical trials and other studies, and help researchers identify the best treatments for neonatal encephalopathy