BACKGROUND: Orthotopic heart transplantation (OHT) recipients may be particularly vulnerable to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OHT during the pandemic presents unique challenges in terms of feasibility and safety. METHODS: Chart review was performed for consecutive OHT recipients with COVID-19 and waitlisted patients who underwent OHT from March 1, 2020 to May 15, 2020. RESULTS: Of the approximately 400 OHT recipients followed at our institution, 22 acquired COVID-19. Clinical characteristics included median age 59 (range, 49−71) years, 14 (63.6%) were male, and median time from OHT to infection was 4.6 (2.5−20.6) years. Symptoms included fever (68.2%), gastrointestinal complaints (55%), and cough (46%). COVID-19 was severe or critical in 5 (23%). All patients had elevated inflammatory biomarkers. Immunosuppression was modified in 85% of patients. Most (n = 16, 86.4%) were hospitalized, 18% required intubation, and 14% required vasopressor support. Five patients (23%) expired. None of the patients requiring intubation survived. Five patients underwent OHT during the pandemic. They were all males, ranging from 30 to 59 years of age. Two were transplanted at United Network of Organ Sharing Status 1 or 2, 1 at Status 3, and 2 at Status 4. All were successfully discharged and are alive without allograft dysfunction or rejection. One contracted mild COVID-19 after the index hospitalization. CONCLUSION: OHT recipients with COVID-19 appear to have outcomes similar to the general population hospitalized with COVID-19. OHT during the pandemic is feasible when appropriate precautions are taken. Further study is needed to guide immunosuppression management in OHT recipients affected by COVID-19.

The SSC has not been implemented throughout all operating departments in Ireland. Where it has been introduced there has been a perceived positive change in safety culture. However, overall greater education, endorsement, teamwork, and communication will be required to optimise the potential benefits associated with this safety instrument. In order to properly determine the benefit of the SSC following its implementation, a formal audit of morbidity and mortality is required.

Introduction: Standardization of interfacility transport handover is associated with improved shared mental model development, efficiency, and teaming. We sought to build upon previously published data by evaluating 1-year follow-up data, assessing face-validity, and describing sustainability. Methods: We performed a pre-post, retrospective cohort study in a stand-alone, tertiary, pediatric referral center for children 0–18 years of age transported to our pediatric intensive care unit, neonatal intensive care unit, or emergency department from October 2016 to November 2017. Handover was standardized using multidisciplinary checklists, didactics, and simulation. Data were collected for three 8-week periods (preintervention, postintervention, and 1-year follow-up). Outcomes included shared mental model index (shared mental model congruence expressed as an index, percent congruence regarding healthcare data), teaming data (efficiency, attendance, interruptions, interdependence), and face validity (5-point, Likert scale questionnaires). Statistics included 1-way analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis, chi-square, and descriptive statistics. Results: One hundred forty-eight handovers (50 preintervention, 50 postintervention, and 48 at 1-year) were observed in the emergency department (41%), pediatric intensive care unit (45%), and neonatal intensive care unit (14%). No differences were noted in demographics, diagnoses, PIM-3-ROM, length of stay, mortality, ventilation, or vasoactive use. Sustained improvements were observed in shared mental model congruence expressed as an index (38% to 82%), physician attendance (76% to 92%), punctuality (91.5% to 97.5%), interruptions (40% to 10%), provision of anticipatory guidance (42% to 85%), and handover summarization (42% to 85%, all P < 0.01). Efficiency was maintained throughout (mean duration 4.5 ± 2.1 minutes). Face validity data revealed handover satisfaction, effective communication, and perceived professionalism. Conclusions: Enhancements in teaming, shared mental model development, and face validity were achieved and sustained 1-year following handover standardization with only minimal reeducation during the study period.

Considerable enhancements in handover quality, team participation, and the development of a shared mental model after standardization of interfacility transport handover were noted. These findings were achieved without compromising handover efficiency.

No abstract

The results have demonstrated that there is a relationship between aptitude and ability to perform both basic laparoscopic tasks and laparoscopic colectomy on a simulator. The findings suggest that there may be a role for the consideration of an individual's inherent baseline ability when trying to design and optimise technical teaching curricula for advanced laparoscopic procedures.

Introduction: Saliva represents a less invasive alternative to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection. SalivaDirect is a nucleic acid extraction-free method for detecting SARS-CoV2 in saliva specimens. Studies evaluating the concordance of gold standard NPS and newly developed SalivaDirect protocols are limited. The aim of our study was to assess SalivaDirect as an alternative method for COVID-19 testing. Methods: Matching NPS and saliva samples were analysed from a cohort of symptomatic (n=127) and asymptomatic (n=181) participants recruited from hospital and university settings, respectively. RNA was extracted from NPS while saliva samples were subjected to the SalivaDirect protocol before RT-qPCR analysis. The presence of SARS-Cov-2 was assessed using RdRp and N1 gene targets in NPS and saliva, respectively. Results: Overall we observed 94.3% sensitivity (95% CI 87.2-97.5%), and 95.9% specificity (95% CI 92.4-97.8%) in saliva when compared to matching NPS samples. Analysis of concordance demonstrated 95.5% accuracy overall for the saliva test relative to NPS, and a very high level of agreement (κ coefficient = 0.889, 95% CI 0.833–0.946) between the two sets of specimens. Fourteen of 308 samples were discordant, all from symptomatic patients. Ct values were >30 in 13/14 and >35 in 6/14 samples. No significant difference was found in the Ct values of matching NPS and saliva sample (p=0.860). A highly significant correlation (r = 0.475, p<0.0001) was also found between the Ct values of the concordant positive saliva and NPS specimens. Conclusions: Use of saliva processed according to the SalivaDirect protocol represents a valid method to detect SARS-CoV-2. Accurate and less invasive saliva screening is an attractive alternative to current testing methods based on NPS and would afford greater capacity to test asymptomatic populations especially in the context of frequent testing.

Introduction: Saliva represents a less invasive alternative to nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) detection. SalivaDirect is a nucleic acid extraction-free method for detecting SARS-CoV2 in saliva specimens. Studies evaluating the concordance of gold standard NPS and newly developed SalivaDirect protocols are limited. The aim of our study was to to assess SalivaDirect as an alternative method for COVID-19 testing. Methods: Matching NPS and saliva samples were analysed from a cohort of symptomatic (n=127) and asymptomatic (n=181) participants recruited from hospital and university settings, respectively. RNA was extracted from NPS while saliva samples were subjected to the SalivaDirect protocol before RT-qPCR analysis. The presence of SARS-Cov-2 was assessed using RdRP and N1 gene targets in NPS and saliva, respectively. Results: Overall we observed 94.3% sensitivity (95% CI 87.2-97.5%), and 95.9% specificity (95% CI 92.4-97.8%) in saliva when compared to matching NPS samples. Analysis of concordance demonstrated 95.5% accuracy overall for the saliva test relative to NPS, and a very high level of agreement (κ coefficient = 0.889, 95% CI 0.833–0.946) between the two sets of specimens. Fourteen of 308 samples were discordant, all from symptomatic patients. Ct values were >30 in 13/14 and >35 in 6/14 samples. No significant difference was found in the Ct values of matching NPS and saliva sample (p=0.860). A highly significant correlation (r = 0.475, p<0.0001) was also found between the Ct values of the concordant positive saliva and NPS specimens. Conclusions: Use of saliva processed according to the SalivaDirect protocol represents a valid method to detect SARS-CoV-2. Accurate and less invasive saliva screening is an attractive alternative to current testing methods based on NPS and would afford greater capacity to test asymptomatic populations especially in the context of frequent testing.