Epidemics have the potential to severely strain intensive care resources and may require an increase in intensive care capability. Few intensivists have direct experience of rapidly expanding intensive care services in response to an epidemic. This contribution presents the recommendations of an expert group from Hong Kong and Singapore who had direct experience of expanding intensive care services in response to the epidemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome. These recommendations cover training, infection control, staffing, communication and ethical issues. The issue of what equipment to purchase is not addressed. Early preparations should include fit testing of negative pressure respirators, training of reserve staff, sourcing of material for physical modifications to the ICU, development of infection control policies and training programmes, and discussion of triage and quarantine issues.

Guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organisation state that healthcare workers should wear N95 masks or higher-level protection during all contact with suspected severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). In areas where N95 masks are not available, multiple layers of surgical masks have been tried to prevent transmission of SARS. The in vivo filtration capacity of a single surgical mask is known to be poor. However, the filtration capacity of a combination of masks is unknown. This was a crossover trial of one, two, three and five surgical masks in six volunteers to determine the in vivo filtration efficiency of wearing more than one surgical mask. We used a Portacount to measure the difference in ambient particle counts inside and outside the masks. The best combination of five surgical masks scored a fit factor of 13.7, which is well below the minimum level of 100 required for a half face respirator. Multiple surgical masks filter ambient particles poorly. They should not be used as a substitute for N95 masks unless there is no alternative.

SummaryWe investigated the performance of a closed-loop system for administration of general anaesthesia, using the bispectral index as a target for control. One hundred patients undergoing gynaecological or general surgery were studied. In 60 patients, anaesthesia was maintained by intravenous infusion of a propofol/alfentanil mixture. In 40, an isoflurane/nitrous oxide based technique was used. For each technique, patients were randomly allocated to receive either closed-loop or manually controlled administration of the relevant agents (propofol/alfentanil or isoflurane), with an intra-operative target bispectral index of 50 in all cases. Closed-loop and manually controlled administration of anaesthesia resulted in similar intra-operative conditions and initial recovery characteristics. During maintenance of anaesthesia, cardiovascular and electro-encephalographic variables did not differ between closedloop and manual control groups and deviation of bispectral index from the target value was similar. Intra-operative concentrations of propofol, alfentanil and isoflurane were within normal clinical ranges. Episodes of light anaesthesia were more common in the closed-loop group for patients receiving propofol/alfentanil anaesthesia and in the manual group for patients receiving isoflurane/ nitrous oxide anaesthesia. Convenience aside, the closed-loop system showed no clinical advantage over conventional, manually adjusted techniques of anaesthetic administration.

Guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization state that healthcare workers should wear N95 masks or higher-level protection during all contact with suspected cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome. Before use, the manufacturer recommends performing a user seal check to ensure that the mask is fitted correctly. This study aimed to test the ability of the user seal check to detect poorly fitting masks. This study is a retrospective review of a mask-fitting programme carried out in the intensive care unit of the Prince of Wales Hospital in Hong Kong. In this programme, all staff were tested with two types of N95 mask and one type of N100 mask. The results of the documented user seal check were then compared with the formal fit-test results from a PortaCount. Using a PortaCount reading of 100 as the criterion for a correctly fitted mask, the user seal check wrongly indicated that the mask fitted on 18-31% of occasions, and wrongly indicated that it did not fit on 21-40% of occasions. These data indicate that the user seal check should not be used as a surrogate fit test. Its usefulness as a pre-use test must also be questioned.