Airway management in patients with suspected or confirmed cervical spine injury

Summary: Background: There are concerns that airway management in patients with suspected or confirmed cervical spine injury may exacerbate an existing neurological deficit, cause a new spinal cord injury or be hazardous due to precautions to avoid neurological injury. However, there are no evidence‐based guidelines for practicing clinicians to support safe and effective airway management in this setting. Methods: An expert multidisciplinary, multi‐society working party conducted a systematic review of contemporary literature (January 2012–June 2022), followed by a three‐round Delphi process to produce guidelines to improve airway management for patients with suspected or confirmed cervical spine injury. Results: We included 67 articles in the systematic review, and successfully agreed 23 recommendations. Evidence supporting recommendations was generally modest, and only one moderate and two strong recommendations were made. Overall, recommendations highlight key principles and techniques for pre‐oxygenation and facemask ventilation; supraglottic airway device use; tracheal intubation; adjuncts during tracheal intubation; cricoid force and external laryngeal manipulation; emergency front‐of‐neck airway access; awake tracheal intubation; and cervical spine immobilisation. We also signpost to recommendations on pre‐hospital care, military settings and principles in human factors. Conclusions: It is hoped that the pragmatic approach to airway management made within these guidelines will improve the safety and efficacy of airway management in adult patients with suspected or confirmed cervical spine injury

Outreach:Impact on Skills and Future Careers of Postgraduate Practitioners Working with the Bristol ChemLabS Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning

Postgraduate engagement in delivering outreach activities is more commonplace than it once was. However, the impact on postgraduate students (typically studying for a Ph.D. degree) of participating in the delivery of these outreach activities has rarely, if ever, been recorded. The Bristol ChemLabS Outreach program has been running for ca. 17 years, and in that time, many postgraduate students have been involved (approximately 500), with around 250 typically for up to 3 years. We sought to investigate the impact of outreach engagement on postgraduate alumni who were involved in the program for over 3 years (32) and how the experiences and training of the outreach program had impacted on their careers postgraduation. Thirty of the 32 postgraduates engaged and ∼70% reported that their outreach experience had influenced their decision making on future careers. Many respondents reported that the skills and experiences gained through outreach participation had contributed to success in applying for and interviewing at their future employers. All respondents reported that outreach had helped them to develop key skills that were valued in the workplace, specifically, communication, teamwork, organizational skills, time planning, event planning, and event management. Rather than a pleasant distraction or an opportunity to supplement income, all participants noted that they felt there were many additional benefits and that this was time well spent. Outreach should not be viewed as a distraction to science research but rather an important enhancement to it provided that the program is well constructed and seeks to develop those delivering the outreach activities

Single-dose BNT162b2 vaccine protects against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection

The BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) is being utilised internationally for mass COVID-19 vaccination. Evidence of single-dose protection against symptomatic disease has encouraged some countries to opt for delayed booster doses of BNT162b2, but the effect of this strategy on rates of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection remains unknown. We previously demonstrated frequent pauci- and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst healthcare workers (HCWs) during the UK’s first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, using a comprehensive PCR-based HCW screening programme (Rivett et al., 2020; Jones et al., 2020). Here, we evaluate the effect of first-dose BNT162b2 vaccination on test positivity rates and find a fourfold reduction in asymptomatic infection amongst HCWs ≥12 days post-vaccination. These data provide real-world evidence of short-term protection against asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection following a single dose of BNT162b2 vaccine, suggesting that mass first-dose vaccination will reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as well as the burden of COVID-19 disease

Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

Background: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. Methods: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. Findings: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96–1·28). Interpretation: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme

Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. METHODS: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. FINDINGS: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96-1·28). INTERPRETATION: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Local economic development, industrial policy and sustainable development in South Africa : a critical reflection on three new policy frameworks

Thesis (MPhil (School of Public Management and Planning))--Stellenbosch University, 2008.This dissertation considers the coherence of the prescriptions contained within three recently released government frameworks: the National Framework for Sustainable Development, National Industrial Policy Framework and National Framework for Local Economic Development. A central assumption in this regard is that a level of coherence in policy prescriptions is necessary for effective and complementary implementation. Each of these frameworks has been developed in the context of renewed commitment from the South African state to halve unemployment and poverty by 2014. It is likely therefore that the frameworks will affect resource allocation with outcomes which will have impacts on South African society at large. Thus coherence is an important consideration. The analysis is undertaken against the background of: - a limited literature review on policy-making (within the broader policy studies field), - a discussion of the political economy of South Africa, and - a consideration of certain key debates within the global ‘development’ discourse. This includes particular reference to the concepts of ‘sustainable development’, ‘industrial development’ and ‘local economic development’ within that discourse. In addition, in order to gain some insight into the policy-making processes that were followed in the production of each of the frameworks, a limited number of key informant interviews was conducted. These interviews highlight certain elements and factors that impacted on the final policy products and the compromises that were reached around policy content. The body of the analysis - a comparative content analysis of the frameworks - is undertaken through a discussion of the manner in which the frameworks deal with four cross-cutting themes. These four cross-cutting themes are: eco-system considerations, social considerations, economic considerations and institutional/ governance considerations. This comparative reading of the frameworks exposes certain divergent policy prescriptions and confirms that disagreement exists within government itself on the country’s desired development path. The conclusion then discusses what is required to put in place a coherent policy making system in South Africa. It is proposed that the accommodation of policy coherence should not come at the expense of diversity and the expression of ‘profanity’ (contestation). The value of deliberative democracy, pluralism and complexity are highlighted in this regard. A number of recommendations are made