Review of Community Pharmacy Staff Educational Needs for Supporting Mental Health Consumers and Carers

Development of a mental health education package for community pharmacy staff should be informed by mental health consumers/carers’ needs, expectations and experiences, and staff knowledge, skills and attitudes. This review (1) explored research on community pharmacy practice and service provision for mental health consumers/carers, and (2) identified validated methods for assessing staff knowledge, skills and attitudes about mental illness to inform the development of a training questionnaire. A literature scan using key words knowledge, skills, attitudes, and beliefs combined with community pharmacy, pharmacist, and pharmacy support staff, and mental illness, depression, anxiety was conducted. A small number of studies were found that used reliable methods to assess pharmacists’ training needs regarding mental illness and treatment options. There was little published specifically in relation to depression and anxiety in community pharmacy practice. No studies assessed the training needs of pharmacy support staff. A systematic analysis of pharmacy staff learning needs is warranted

Proceedings of The HKIE Geotechnical Division 42nd Annual Seminar: A New Era of Metropolis and Infrastructure Developments in Hong Kong, Challenges and Opportunities to Geotechnical Engineering

This seminar proceedings contain articles on the various research ideas of the academic community and practitioners presented at The HKIE Geotechnical Division 42nd Annual Seminar (GDAS2022). GDAS2022 was organized by the Geotechnical Division, The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers on 13th May 2022. Seminar Title: The HKIE Geotechnical Division 42nd Annual SeminarSeminar Acronym: GDAS2022Seminar Date: 13 May 2022Seminar Location:  Hong KongSeminar Organizers: Geotechnical Division, The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers Link to the GDAS2021 Proceedings: Proceedings of The HKIE Geotechnical Division 41st Annual Semina

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83–7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97–2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14–1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25–1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable

The value of open-source clinical science in pandemic response: lessons from ISARIC

International audienc