Objective: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of contracting Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) during an epidemic. We explored the emotions, perceived stressors, and coping strategies of healthcare workers who worked during a MERS-CoV outbreak in our hospital. Design:A cross-sectional descriptive survey design. Setting:A tertiary care hospital.Participants: HCWs (150) who worked in high risk areas during the April-May 2014 MERS-CoV outbreak that occurred in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Methods:We developed and administered a "MERS-CoV staff questionnaire" to study participants. The questionnaire consisted of 5 sections with 72 questions. The sections evaluated hospital staffs emotions, perceived stressors, factors that reduced their stress, coping strategies, and motivators to work during future outbreaks. Responses were scored on a scale from 0-3. The varying levels of stress or effectiveness of measures were reported as mean and standard deviation, as appropriate. Results:Completed questionnaires were returned by 117 (78%) of the participants. The results had many unique elements. HCWs ethical obligation to their profession pushed them to continue with their jobs. The main sentiments centered upon fear of personal safety and well-being of colleagues and family. Positive attitudes in the workplace, clinical improvement of infected colleagues, and stoppage of disease transmission among HCWs after adopting strict protective measures alleviated their fear and drove them through the epidemic. They appreciated recognition of their efforts by hospital management and expected similar acknowledgment, infection control guidance, and equipment would entice them to work during future epidemics. Conclusion:The MERS-CoV outbreak was a distressing time for our staff. Hospitals can enhance HCWs experiences during any future MERS-CoV outbreak by focusing on the above mentioned aspects.

outbreak were included. Their characteristics, ICU course, management, and outcome were evaluated. RESULTS: Fourteen subjects, including 3 health-care workers, met study criteria. Besides 2 health-care workers, all subjects had comorbidities. Predominant symptoms were fever, cough, and dyspnea. The worst median P aO 2 /F IO 2 ratio of 118 post-intubation was seen on the third day, and median APACHE II score was 27. All subjects received lung-protective ventilation and 1 mg/kg/d methylprednisolone infusion for ARDS. Eleven subjects received ribavirin and peginterferon ␣-2a. Subjects had a critical ICU course and required neuromuscular blockade (n ‫؍‬ 11; 79%), required rescue therapy for respiratory failure (n ‫؍‬ 8; 57%), developed shock (n ‫؍‬ 10; 71%), and required renal replacement therapy (n ‫؍‬ 8; 57%). Declining C-reactive protein levels correlated with clinical improvement despite continued positive real-time polymerase chain reaction results. Nine subjects died in ICU. Five subjects, including 3 health-care workers, were discharged from hospital and were alive after 1 y. CONCLUSIONS: Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus pneumonia with ARDS has high mortality in subjects with comorbidities. The mainstay of treatment is meticulous ARDS management. Those who survived the acute infection and its complications remained well after 1 y in our study. The role of ribavirin and interferon warrants urgent further evaluation.

In Muslim patients, the concept of terminal withdrawal and organ donation after brain death is still not well accepted. Future multicenter studies, involving palliative teams, should focus on improving these issues.

BACKGROUND: Initiation of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) on the wards is not universally accepted. Medical emergency teams (METs) provide acute care and monitoring to deteriorating patients on the general wards. Whether it is safe for an MET to start NIV in ward patients with respiratory distress remains unclear. METHODS: We evaluated 1,123 MET calls in 30,217 ward patients between January 2009 and June 2011 from the prospectively maintained MET database in our tertiary care hospital. We identified ward patients with acute desaturation (< 90%) and tachypnea (breathing frequency > 28 breaths/min), for whom an MET was called. Subjects transferred to the ICU at the end of an MET call were excluded. The remaining ward subjects were divided into 2 groups: patients who were not started on NIV by the MET; versus patients who were started on NIV by the MET. The primary outcome was endotracheal intubation or ICU transfer within 48 hours of MET activation. Secondary outcome measures were 28-day mortality and ICU mortality. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-eight MET subjects met the study criteria, and 109 immediate ICU transfers were excluded. Of the remaining 129 ward subjects, 54 were in the NIV group, and 75 in the no-NIV group. The NIV group subjects were sicker (mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score 17.6 ؎ 5.1 versus 14.4 ؎ 5, P < .001). Subjects with pulmonary edema, COPD exacerbation, or asthma exacerbation were more likely, while those with pneumonia were less likely to be placed on NIV. The primary outcome was reached in 2/54 (3.7%) of the NIV subjects and 12/75 (16%) of the no-NIV subjects (P ‫؍‬ .03). There was no significant difference (P > .30) between the groups in 28-day mortality (7.4% vs 13.3%) or ICU mortality (3.7% vs 8%). CONCLUSIONS: In selected ward patients, especially those with COPD or pulmonary edema, NIV can be safely initiated by an MET.

No abstract