Exposure of healthcare providers to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a significant safety concern during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, requiring contact/droplet/airborne precautions. Because of global shortages, limited availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) has motivated the development of barrier-enclosure systems, such as aerosol boxes, plastic drapes, and similar protective systems. We examined the available evidence and scientific publications about barrier-enclosure systems for airway management in suspected/ confirmed COVID-19 patients. MEDLINE/Embase/Google Scholar databases (from December 1, 2019 to May 27, 2020) were searched for all articles on barrier enclosures for airway management in COVID-19, including references and websites. All sources were reviewed by a panel of experts using a Delphi method with a modified nominal group technique. Fiftytwo articles were reviewed for their results and level of evidence regarding barrier device feasibility, advantages, protection against droplets and aerosols, effectiveness, safety, ergonomics, and cleaning/disposal. The majority of analysed papers were expert opinions, small case series, technical descriptions, small-sample simulation studies, and pre-print proofs. The use of barrier-enclosure devices adds to the complexity of airway procedures with potential adverse consequences, especially during airway emergencies. Concerns include limitations on the ability to perform airway interventions and the aid that can be delivered by an assistant, patient injuries, compromise of PPE integrity, lack of evidence for added protection of healthcare providers (including secondary aerosolisation upon barrier removal), and lack of cleaning standards. Enclosure barriers for airway management are no substitute for adequate PPE, and their use should be avoided until adequate validation studies can be reported.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Background: Women make up an increasing proportion of the physician workforce in anaesthesia, but they are consistently under-represented in leadership and governance. Methods: We performed an internet-based survey to investigate career opportunities in leadership and research amongst anaesthesiologists. We also explored gender bias attributable to workplace attitudes and economic factors. The survey instrument was piloted, translated into seven languages, and uploaded to the SurveyMonkey® platform. We aimed to collect between 7800 and 13 700 responses from at least 100 countries. Participant consent and ethical approval were obtained. A quantitative analysis was done with c 2 and Cramer's V as a measure of strength of associations. We used an inductive approach and a thematic content analysis for qualitative data on current barriers to leadership and research. Results: The 11 746 respondents, 51.3% women and 48.7% men, represented 148 countries; 35 respondents identified their gender as non-binary. Women were less driven to achieve leadership positions (P<0.001; Cramer's V: 0.11). Being a woman was reported as a disadvantage for leadership and research (P<0.001 for both; Cramer's V: 0.47 and 0.34, respectively). Women were also more likely to be mistreated in the workplace (odds ratio: 10.6; 95% confidence interval: 9.4e11.9; P<0.001), most commonly by surgeons. Several personal, departmental, institutional, and societal barriers in leadership and research were identified, and strategies to overcome them were suggested. Lower-income countries were associated with a significantly smaller gender gap (P<0.001). Conclusions: Whilst certain trends suggest improvements in the workplace, barriers to promotion of women in key leadership and research positions continue within anaesthesiology internationally.

Background. Low-cost, portable fingertip pulse oximeters are widely available to health professionals and the public. They are often not tested to International Organization for Standardization standards, or only undergo accuracy studies in healthy volunteers under ideal laboratory conditions. Objectives. To pragmatically evaluate the agreement between one such device and a conventional bedside pulse oximeter in a clinical setting, in patients with varied comorbidities and skin pigmentations. Methods. A single-centre equipment comparison study was conducted. Simultaneous measurements were obtained in 220 patients with both a Contec CMS50D Fingertip Pulse Oximeter and a Nihon Kohden Life Scope MU-631 RK conventional bedside monitor. Peripheral oxygen saturations (SpO 2) and pulse rates were documented, and patients' skin tone was recorded using the Fitzpatrick scale. Data were assessed using a Bland-Altman analysis with bias, precision and limits of agreement (LOA) calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A priori acceptability for LOA was determined to be 3%, in keeping with international standards. Results. The mean difference (therefore bias) between the conventional and fingertip oximeters for all data was-0.55% (95% CI-0.73-0.36). Upper and lower limits of agreement were 2.16% (95% CI 1.84-2.47) and-3.25% (95% CI-3.56-2.94). Regression analysis demonstrated worsening agreement with decreasing SpO 2. When samples were separated into 'normal' (SpO 2 ≥93%) and 'hypoxaemic' (SpO 2 <93%) groups, the normal range displayed acceptable agreement between the two oximeters (bias-0.20% with LOA 2.20-2.27), while the hypoxaemic group fell outside the study's a priori limits. Heart rate measurements had a mean difference of-0.43 bpm (LOA-5.61-4.76). The study was not powered to detect differences among the skin tones, but demonstrated no trend for this parameter to alter the SpO 2 measurements. Conclusions. During normoxia, portable fingertip pulse oximeters are reliable indicators of SpO 2 and pulse rates in patients with various comorbidities in a pragmatic clinical context. However, they display worsening agreement with conventional pulse oximeters during hypoxaemia. Skin tones do not appear to affect measurements adversely.