Background: The professional quality of life of healthcare professionals in emergency departments may be compromised during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objectives: This study aims to examine professional quality of life and resilience as well as their relationships among emergency department healthcare professionals in Hong Kong during the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods: This study employed a cross-sectional design. Healthcare professionals (doctors and nurses) working in emergency departments in Hong Kong were recruited via snowball sampling. The Professional Quality of Life Scale, version 5, and the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale were used to assess their positive (compassion satisfaction) and negative (secondary traumatic stress and burnout) aspects of professional quality of life and self-reported resilience. Socio-demographics and work-related characteristics were also analysed. Results: A total of 106 participants provided valid responses. The results showed an overall moderate level of compassion satisfaction, secondary traumatic stress and burnout among emergency department healthcare professionals. The mean score of the 10-item Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale was 23.8. Backward linear regression analyses revealed self-reported resilience was the only significant predictor of compassion satisfaction (regression coefficient B = 0.875; p < 0.001), secondary traumatic stress (B = −0.294, p < 0.001) and burnout (B = −0.670; p < 0.001), explaining 70.6%, 18.5% and 59.8% of total variance, respectively. Conclusion: Emergency department healthcare professionals in Hong Kong experienced an overall moderate level of professional quality of life during the COVID-19 outbreak. Those with a higher level of self-reported resilience had better compassion satisfaction and lower levels of secondary traumatic stress and burnout. The results support the importance of developing interventions that foster resilience among this group of emergency department healthcare professionals to combat COVID-19.

Background: Adrenaline autoinjectors (AAInj) facilitates early administration of adrenaline and remains the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis. However, only a minority of anaphylaxis survivors in Hong Kong are prescribed AAInj and formal guidance do not exist. International anaphylaxis guidelines have been largely based on Western studies, which may not be as relevant for non-Western populations. Objective: To formulate a set of consensus statements on the prescription of AAInj in Hong Kong. Methods: Consensus statements were formulated by the Hong Kong Anaphylaxis Consortium by the Delphi method. Agreement was defined as greater than or equal to 80% consensus. Subgroup analysis was performed to investigate differences between allergy and emergency medicine physicians. Results: A total of 7 statements met criteria for consensus with good overall agreement between allergy and emergency medicine physicians. AAInj should be used as first-line treatment and prescribed for all patients at risk of anaphylaxis. This should be prescribed prior to discharge from the Accident and Emergency Department together with an immediate referral to an allergy center. The decision for prescribing AAInj should be based

The finger counting method outperforms the commonly used age-based weight estimation formulae in children aged 1-9 years presenting to the ED in Hong Kong.

To evaluate the performance of five existing age-based weight estimation formulae-the original and updated Advanced Paediatric Life Support (APLS) formulae, Luscombe formula, Best Guess formula, Chinese Age Weight Rule (CAWR)-as well as a new two-part weight estimation formula, the Chinese Age Weight Rule-3 (CAWR-3), in Hong Kong children presenting to the emergency department (ED). Methods: Data based on children aged 1-12 who presented to the ED of a tertiary referral centre in Hong Kong over a six-month period. Actual weight was compared against estimated weight from the weight estimation formulae. Level of agreement was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis using mean percentage difference (MPD) and 95% limits of agreement (LOA). Root mean squared error (RMSE) and proportions of weight estimates within 10%, 15% and 20% of actual weight were calculated. Results: A total of 4600 children were included. The CAWR-3 outperformed the five existing weight estimation formulae. The CAWR-3 had the least MPD in age 4-12 (MPD +3.2%), as well as the second least MPD in age 1-12 (MPD-0.7%). The CAWR-3 had narrowest 95% LOA in age 1-3 (95% LOA-32.6% to 21.9%) and the second narrowest 95% LOA in age 1-12 (95% LOA-37.5% to 36.1%). The CAWR-3 had the smallest RMSE of 6.33 kg in age 4-12 and the smallest RMSE of 4.90 kg in age 1-12. Furthermore, the CAWR-3 had the highest proportion of weight estimates within 10%, 15% and 20% of actual weight. Conclusion: The CAWR-3 outperforms the five existing age-based weight estimation formulae in Hong Kong children presenting to the emergency department. (Hong Kong j.emerg.med. 2016;23:3-12) 目的：評估現有的五個以年齡為基礎的體重估算公式，在到診急診室(E D)的香港兒童的表現  高級兒科生命支持原版和更新公式，勒斯科姆公式，最佳推測公式，中國年齡體重規則(CAWR)，以 及一個新的分兩步體重估算公式-中國年齡體重規則-3(CAWR-3)。方法：數據基於 6 個月內到診香 港一所ED的1-12歲兒童。比較估算公式推定的重量和實際重量的一致性。一致性的水平以奧特曼分析， 用平均百分比差異(MP D)和一致性的 95 ％界限(LOA)評估。計算均方根誤差(RMS E)和估計 體重在實際重量的10％、15％和20％以內的比例。結果：共包括有4600名兒童。CAWR-3的表現優於現 有的五個體重估算公式。 CAWR-3 的 MPD 在 4-12 歲兒童最小(MPD +3.2％)，在 1-12 歲年齡層 MPD (MPD-0.7％)為第二最小。在 1-3 歲兒童 CAWR-3 的 95％LOA(95％LOA-32.6％至 21.9％)為最 窄，在 1-12 歲的 95％LOA(95％LOA-37.5％至 36.1％)為第二最窄。 CAWR-3 在 4-12 歲兒童的 RMSE 為 6.33 公斤屬最小，在 1-12 歲兒童的 RMSE 為 4.90 公斤也是最小。此外， CAWR-3 的重量估計在實際