Aerosol-generating Medical Procedures Research Articles

Quantifying Ventilation Design, Room Layout, and Occupant Activity Parameters during Aerosol-Generating Medical Procedures in Hospitals

The risk of airborne disease transmission in hospital rooms during aerosol-generating medical procedures is known to be influenced by the size of the room, air ventilation rate, input-to-output flow ratio, vent surface area, and vent location. However, quantitative recommendations for each ventilation design parameter are scarce. Moreover, room layout and occupant activity parameters, such as furniture locations and healthcare worker movement, are often omitted from studies on airborne disease transmission in hospital settings. As a result, the development of policies and technologies aimed at mitigating airborne disease transmission in hospitals has been limited. To address this shortfall, this study is aimed at first characterizing existing ventilation, room layout, and occupancy parameters in hospital rooms where aerosol generation medical procedures (AGMPs) occur and then testing the hypotheses that ventilation, room layout, and occupancy parameters vary significantly between hospital rooms and, in some cases, with time. Information on AGMPs was collected via a survey circulated to healthcare workers within British Columbia’s Interior Health Authority (IHA), while hospital room and ventilation system information was collected by reviewing drawing packages of 37 IHA hospital rooms. The survey results indicate that AGMPs commonly occur in trauma, ICU, or general ward rooms with positive or negative pressure ventilation systems. Statistical tests, with room type (trauma, ICU, or general), room pressure (positive or negative), and/or time as independent variables, show that variables relating to ventilation (number of supply vents, supply and exhaust vent location, ventilation rate, and supply and exhaust area) and room layout (congestion score, room volume, light area, and number of lights) vary with room type but not with room pressure. Occupant activity variables (number of workers, number of moving workers, and speed score) also vary with room type, although to differing extent with room pressure and time. The survey and drawing review data presented in this study can help guide systematic comparisons of mitigative technologies as well as parametric investigations on how room layout, ventilation, and operational parameters influence airborne disease spread. This is a crucial first step in achieving quantitative and clinically relevant recommendations for mitigating airborne disease transmission in healthcare settings.

A two-center experience: The impact of COVID-19 on two brachytherapy programs in Ontario - virtual care, service suspension and radiation therapy workflow

IntroductionMost brachytherapy (BT) procedures require general anesthesia and are therefore considered aerosol generating medical procedures (AGMPs). The COVID-19 pandemic impacted BT as services were prioritized by balancing the harm associated with COVID-19 infection versus the effect of delay of potentially curative treatment. This article summarizes the impact of the pandemic on BT programs in two cancer centers in a Canadian province. MethodsAs part of a quality assurance project, a retrospective study was conducted for the first five months of the pandemic (March 1 to July 31, 2020). Chart review and COVID-19 related mitigation strategies were identified by BT Clinical Specialist Radiation Therapists (bCSRT) in each center using electronic medical records, departmental reports, policies and procedures. ResultsImpact included start of virtual care (VC), shortened fractionation, suspension of services and workflow changes. Both centers implemented VC strategies to reduce clinic visits: “same-day size and treat” strategy for post-operative endometrial cancer patients and virtual patient education for all patients. BT services that were suspended were low-dose-rate and high-dose-rate (HDR) prostate treatments (Center 1), lung and esophagus HDR treatments (Center 2). Workflow changes that affected staff and patients in both centers included COVID-19 screening and the use of personal protective equipment. The centers were marginally different in workflow adjustments for AGMP procedures. Those considered high-risk AGMP and low-risk cancer were suspended temporarily with alternate treatment strategies sought for some patients. Others had temporizing treatment such as androgen deprivation therapy to facilitate oncological safe deferral of procedures. ConclusionBoth BT programs delivered treatment to most patients with minimal delays and cancellations, where feasible. Some of the pandemic workflow changes continued to the current state of the pandemic. Long-term follow-up is needed to assess the impact of COVID-19 and treatment interruptions on oncologic outcomes.

Adherence with standard guidelines among doctors involved in aerosol generating procedures to control COVID-19 transmission.

To review the strategies for controlling COVID-19 transmission among doctors involved in aerosol generating procedures. A cross-sectional study was conducted in Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, Islamabad from September to November 2020, using a 21-itemed initially piloted self-administered questionnaire designed on Google forms. It was shared with doctors involved in Aerosol generating medical procedures (AGMPs) by using social media applications. After the data was collected, it was analyzed using SPSS version 21. A total of 136 doctors participated in the study that included 59 female and 77 male participants. Our 67 (49.3%) participants screened their patients for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 before a routine checkup. The most common disinfectant used for reusable medical equipment by 62 (45.6%) respondents was alcohol swab, 57 (41.9%) did not disinfect reusable equipment and 17 (12.5%) used Dettol water spray. Majority of the doctors involved in AGMPS are not following the guidelines provided by international and national bodies. As such adherence to guidelines can help prevent COVID19 transmission in frontline doctors especially those involved in aerosol generating procedures.

Aerosol Box Use in Reducing Health Care Worker Contamination During Airway Procedures (AIRWAY Study)

The aerosol box has been used during the management of patients with COVID-19 to reduce health care practitioner (HCP) exposure during aerosol-generating medical procedures (AGMPs). Little is known about the effect of aerosol box use on HCP contamination and AGMP procedure time. To investigate whether use of an aerosol box during AGMPs reduces HCP contamination or influences the time to successful completion and first-pass success rate for endotracheal intubation (ETI) and laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion. This multicenter, simulation-based, randomized clinical trial was conducted from May to December 2021 at tertiary care pediatric hospitals. Participant teams performed 3 simulated patient scenarios: bag-valve-mask ventilation, ETI, and LMA insertion. During the scenarios, aerosols were generated using Glo Germ. Teams of 2 HCPs were randomly assigned to control (no aerosol box) or intervention groups (aerosol box). Statistical analysis was performed from July 2022 to February 2023. The aerosol box (or SplashGuard CG) is a transparent, plastic barrier covering the patient's head and shoulders with access ports allowing HCPs to manage the airway. The primary outcome was surface area of contamination (AOC) on participants. Secondary outcomes were time to successful completion and first-pass success rates for ETI and LMA insertion. A total of 64 teams (128 participants) were enrolled, with data from 61 teams (122 participants) analyzed. Among the 122 participants analyzed, 79 (64.8%) were female and 85 (69.7%) were physicians. Use of an aerosol box was associated with a 77.5% overall decreased AOC to the torso (95% CI, -86.3% to -62.9%; P < .001) and a 60.7% overall decreased AOC to the facial area (95% CI, -75.2% to -37.8%; P < .001) in airway HCPs. There was no statistically significant difference in surface contamination after doffing personal protective equipment between groups. Time to completing ETI was longer in the aerosol box group compared with the control group (mean difference: 10.2 seconds; 95% CI, 0.2 to 20.2 seconds; P = .04), but there was no difference between groups for LMA insertion (mean difference: 2.4 seconds; 95% CI, -8.7 to 13.5 seconds; P = .67). In this randomized clinical trial of aerosol box use in AGMPs, use of an aerosol box reduced contamination deposition on HCPs' torso and face predoffing; the use of an aerosol box delayed time to successful intubation. These results suggest that the incremental benefits of reduced surface contamination from aerosol box use should be weighed against delayed time to complete intubation, which may negatively affect patient outcome. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04880668.

COVID-19 RISK IN THE CARDIAC CATHETERIZATION LABORATORY

COVID-19 RISK IN THE CARDIAC CATHETERIZATION LABORATORY

Management of hospitalized patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: review

SARS-CoV-2 is the leading agent of the current pandemic and is the cause of severe acute respiratory syndrome. Thus, hospital procedures are considered factors of high risk of contamination, with a high possibility of causing viral spread, in addition to nosocomial contamination. This article was developed with the objective of presenting a review of the current protocols that aim to guide on the approach of patients with COVID-19, as well as the recommendations recommended in relation to aerosol-generating medical procedures. To this end, a study of narrative literature review was carried out. In order to prevent infections, as current recommendations recommend the mandatory use of masks, aprons, gloves and eye protection. Regarding orotraqueal intubation and mechanical ventilation, you should choose the most experienced doctor on the team and prefer “fast sequence intubation”. In the case of a tracheostomy, it must be performed following all the steps defined in the protocols. In relation to cardiopulmonary resuscitation, there must be five health professionals with functions very well applied and reviewed, according to the practices of maintenance, ventilation, medication administration and completion of resuscitation. Within the intensive care unit, it is necessary to assess the expandability of the location, such as the increase in the multidisciplinary team. During a pandemic, it is imperative that a risk-benefit assessment is carried out before indicating surgery. Therefore, it is evident that changes in world protocols are important for minimizing aerosols, offering greater safety to all involved, whether they are professionals or patients.

Protected 911: Development, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Prehospital COVID-19 High-Risk Response Team.

Patients with COVID-19 who require aerosol-generating medical procedures (such as endotracheal intubation) are challenging for paramedic services. Although potentially lifesaving for patients, aerosolizing procedures carry an increased risk of infection for paramedics, owing to the resource limitations and complexities of the pre-hospital setting. In this paper, we describe the development, implementation, and evaluation of a novel pre-hospital COVID-19 High-Risk Response Team (HRRT) in Peel Region in Ontario, Canada. The mandate of the HRRT was to attend calls for patients likely to require aerosolizing procedures, with the twofold goal of mitigating against COVID-19 infections in the service while continuing to provide skilled resuscitative care to patients. Modelled after in-hospital ‘protected code blue’ teams, operationalizing the HRRT required several significant changes to standard paramedic practice, including the use of a three-person crew configuration, dedicated safety officer, call–response checklists, multiple redundant safety procedures, and enhanced personal protective equipment. Less than three weeks after the mandate was given, the HRRT was operational for a 12-week period during the first wave of COVID-19 in Ontario. HRRT members attended ~70% of calls requiring high risk procedures and were associated with improved quality of care indicators. No paramedics in the service contracted COVID-19 during the program.

Assessment of Risk Factors for Coronavirus Disease-2019 in Healthcare Workers: A Case-Control Study.

Background and aimsWith the rise of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) cases globally, the infection among frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) escalates many folds. There is, however, limited literature from low middle-income countries regarding risk factors for COVID-19 infection in HCWs. We conducted a case–control study to evaluate the risk factors of COVID-19 infection to HCWs.Materials and methodsThis case–control study was conducted in a designated COVID-19 hospital. Eighty-one HCWs involved in direct care of COVID-19 patients, identified as cases, and 266 were recruited as controls. Telephonic interviews with participants were conducted, and information regarding demographic variables, chemoprophylaxis, exposure to infected patients, and adherence to infection prevention and control (IPC) measures was collected.ResultsWe observed a statistically significant difference in the number of times training session for IPC measures attended by HCWs (p = 0.02), performance of aerosol-generating medical procedures (AGMPs) (p <0.001), practices of donning and doffing of personal protective equipment (PPE) (p <0.001), hand hygiene (p <0.001), and decontamination of highly touched surfaces (p <0.001). Logistic regression analysis revealed if the decontamination of highly touched surfaces is decreased by one unit, the odds of getting COVID-19 infection is multiplied by a factor of 0.41 and AGMPs decrease the risk of being a case by 0.76.ConclusionThis study highlighted that inadequate observation of IPC methods increases the risk of COVID-19 infection to frontline HCWs, whereas performance of AGMPs does not enhance the risk. In this study, HCWs undertaking an AGMP, because of concern of acquiring infection, were more diligent during procedures and hence had lesser infection.How to cite this articleKerai S, Singh R, Saxena KN, Desai SD. Assessment of Risk Factors for Coronavirus Disease-2019 in Healthcare Workers: A Case–Control Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(1):76–84.

Airborne SARS-CoV-2 in home and hospital environments investigated with a high-powered air sampler

BackgroundThe initial aim was to study the effects of face masks worn by recently infected individuals on the airborne spread of SARS-CoV-2, but findings motivated us to proceed with comparing the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in air samples near infected individuals at home with those near infected intensive care unit (ICU) patients.AimTo assess the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in the air of homes of infected individuals and in ICU rooms of critically ill patients with COVID-19 who were undergoing different forms of potential aerosol-generating medical procedures.MethodsA high-volume air sampler method was developed that used a household vacuum cleaner with surgical face masks serving as sample filters. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was harvested from these filters and analysed by polymerase chain reaction. Fog experiments were performed to visualize the airflow around the air sampler. Air samples were acquired in close proximity of infected individuals, with or without wearing face masks, in their homes. Environmental air samples remote from these infected individuals were also obtained, plus samples near patients in the ICU undergoing potential aerosol-generating medical procedures.FindingsWearing a face mask resulted in a delayed and reduced flow of the fog into the air sampler. Face masks worn by infected individuals were found to contain SARS-CoV-2 RNA in 71% of cases. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in air samples regardless of mask experiments. The proportion of positive air samples was higher in the homes (29/41; 70.7%) than in the ICU (4/17; 23.5%) (P < 0.01).ConclusionSARS-CoV-2 RNA could be detected in air samples by using a vacuum cleaner based air sampler method. Air samples in the home environment of recently infected individuals contained SARS-CoV-2 RNA nearly three times more frequently by comparison with those obtained in ICU rooms during potential aerosol-generating medical procedures.

Sheet Barrier and Intubating Stylet

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a respiratory syndrome caused by SARS-CoV-2, can be transmitted through respiratory droplets and aerosols of droplet nuclei. Aerosol-generating medical procedures (AGMP) are needed to take care of critically ill patients but place health care providers at risk of infection. With limited supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE), barrier systems were developed to help protect health care providers during tracheal intubation. The video intubating stylet shows promise to become the preferred intubation device in conjunction with plastic sheet barriers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Impact of personal protective equipment on neonatal resuscitation procedures: a randomised, cross-over, simulation study

Background and objectiveHealthcare providers should use personal protective equipment (PPE) when performing aerosol-generating medical procedures during highly infectious respiratory pandemics. We aimed to compare the timing of neonatal resuscitation procedures...

The status of laparoscopic surgery in the COVID-19 crisis: a narrative review of current recommendations

SARS-CoV2 (COVID-19) is an unprecedented pandemic which has required thoughtful resource management for all specialties, including general surgery. There is uncertainty regarding risks of virus aerosolization and laparoscopic surgery. This narrative review discusses these concerns of virus exposure and transmission for health care workers in the operating room by summarizing currently available recommendations and describing our institution's experience. Our virology review was performed by compiling published data on various viruses' presence in blood, peritoneal fluid and surgical smoke. Our recommendations review was performed by researching official organizational guidelines and medical archives (medRxiv) pre-prints. SARS-CoV-2 is mainly transmitted via respiratory droplets. Previous studies have demonstrated the ability of other viruses to form aerosol particles in peritoneal fluid and surgical smoke. Aerosol-generating medical procedures (AGMPs) are considered important risks for nosocomial transmission of viruses, but there is no consensus to include all surgical procedures as so. Most local and international organizations highlight the concerns surrounding laparoscopy, but are not strictly discouraging this modality. They recommend proceeding with caution to minimize surgical smoke exposure by ensuring the use of filtration systems, tight air-seals and fewer incisions. We can extrapolate from other viruses that SARS-CoV-2 may present a potential infectious risk in the operating room. Until evidence arises otherwise, we recommend considering all surgical procedures to be aerosolizing. Laparoscopy continues to be a safe and appropriate modality. Full airborne personal protective equipment (PPE) should be utilized in all emergent cases, and droplet PPE only in urgent elective cases for asymptomatic, screen- and test-negative patients.

Airflow dispersion during common neonatal resuscitation procedures: A simulation study.

Aerosol generating medical procedures (AGMPs) are common during newborn resuscitation. Neonates with respiratory viruses such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection may pose a risk to healthcare workers. International guidelines differ on methods to minimize the risk due to limited data. We examined the expiratory airflow dispersion during common neonatal resuscitation AGMPs using infant simulators. Expiratory airflow dispersion in term and preterm manikins was simulated (n = 288) using fine particle smoke at tidal volumes of 5 ml/kg. Using ImageJ, we quantified dispersion during common airway procedures including endotracheal tube (ETT) and T-piece ventilation. Maximal expiratory dispersion distances for the unsupported airway and disconnected uncuffed ETT scenarios were 30.2 and 22.7 cm (term); 22.1 and 17.2 cm (preterm), respectively. Applying T-piece positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) via an ETT (ETTPEEP ) generated no expiratory dispersion but increased tube leak during term simulation, while ventilation breaths (ETTVENT ) caused significant expiratory dispersion and leak. There was no measurable dispersion during face mask ventilation. For term uncuffed ETT ventilation, the particle filter eliminated expiratory dispersion but increased leak. No expiratory dispersion and negligible leak were observed when combining a cuffed ETT and filter. Angulated T-pieces generated the greatest median dispersion distances of 35.8 cm (ETTPEEP ) and 23.3 cm (ETTVENT ). Airflow dispersion during neonatal AGMPs is greater than previously postulated and potentially could contaminate healthcare providers during resuscitation of infants infected with contagious viruses such as SARS-CoV-2. It is possible to mitigate this risk using particle filters and cuffed ETTs. Applicability in the clinical setting requires further evaluation.

A Novel Cough Simulation Device for Education of Risk Mitigation Techniques During Aerosol-Generating Medical Procedures.

The COVID-19 pandemic has drawn attention to aerosol-generating medical procedures (AGMPs) in health care environments as a potential mode of transmission. Many organizations and institutions have published AGMP safety guidelines, and several mention the use of simulation in informing their recommendations; however, current methods used to simulate aerosol generation are heterogenous. Creation of a high-fidelity, easily producible aerosol-generating cough simulator would meet a high-priority educational need across all medical specialties. In this communication, we describe the design, construction, and user study of a novel cough simulator, which demonstrates the utility of simulation in raising AGMP safety awareness for providers of all roles, specialties, and training levels.

Intubator Performance and Contamination with the Use of Barrier Enclosure Devices: Results from a Simulated COVID-19 Resuscitation.

IntroductionMedical institutions are using barrier enclosure devices during intubation procedures and other aerosol-generating medical procedures without evidence of their effectiveness or usability, potentially compromising patient care, and provider safety. Our objective was to determine the degree of protection offered by these devices and explore other usability factors for two popular barrier systems.MethodsA simulated trial comparing an intubation box, a frame and plastic tarp system, and unprotected intubation was performed in an academic emergency department. Ten emergency physicians were recruited to participate. Our primary outcome was the degree of contamination from secretions measured by average surface area exposed to phosphorescent material. Secondary outcomes included: laryngoscopy time and time to barrier application, unsuccessful intubation attempts, and usability ratings for each system. Descriptive statistics were reported for all variables of interest and a linear mixed model was used to analyze contamination and laryngoscopy time. Usability was captured through electronic questionnaires using a five-point Likert scale.ResultsContamination was more prevalent with the box, compared to the frame and tarp, and no device, however, this did not achieve statistical significance (13.2% versus 8.1% versus 12.2%, P = 0.17). A barrier system delayed intubation when compared to using no system (no system = 24.4 s [95% CI 17.3–27.5], frame = 54.4 s [95% CI 13.8–95.0], box = 33.8 s [95% CI 21.4–46.1], P = 0.02). In assessing usability, 30% of users preferred the use of a box barrier, 40% of users preferred the frame, and 30% would not use either in future intubation.ConclusionsCompared to no barrier protection, an intubation box enclosure offers limited additional protection. A frame and tarp system reduces exposure at the expense of visibility and operator comfort. Finally, barrier systems do not appear to have a clinically significant impact on airway management.

Anesthesiology and Critical Care Response to COVID-19 in Resource-Limited Settings: Experiences from Nepal.

It is difficult to predict the future course and length of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has devastated health care systems in low- and middle-income countries. Anesthesiology and critical care services are hard hit because many hospitals have stopped performing elective surgeries, staff and scarce hospital resources have been diverted to manage COVID-19 patients, and several makeshift COVID-19 units had to be set up. Intensive care units are overwhelmed with critically ill patients. In these difficult times, low- and middle-income countries need to improvise, perform indigenous research, adapt international guidelines to suit local needs, and target attainable clinical goals.

Risk factors and protective measures for healthcare worker infection during highly infectious viral respiratory epidemics: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

To investigate risk factors for healthcare worker (HCW) infection in viral respiratory pandemics: severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), SARS CoV-1, influenza A H1N1, influenza H5N1. To improve understanding of HCW risk management amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases from conception until July 2020 for studies comparing infected HCWs (cases) and noninfected HCWs (controls) and risk factors for infection. Outcomes included HCW types, infection prevention practices, and medical procedures. Pooled effect estimates with pathogen-specific stratified meta-analysis and inverse variance meta-regression analysis were completed. We used the GRADE framework to rate certainty of evidence. (PROSPERO no. CRD42020176232, 6 April 2020.). In total, 54 comparative studies were included (n = 191,004 HCWs). Compared to nonfrontline HCWs, frontline HCWs were at increased infection risk (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.24-2.22), and the risk was greater for HCWs involved in endotracheal intubations (risk difference, 35.2%; 95% CI, 21.4-47.9). Use of gloves, gown, surgical mask, N95 respirator, face protection, and infection training were each strongly protective against infection. Meta-regression showed reduced infection risk in frontline HCWs working in facilities with infection designated wards (OR, -1.04; 95% CI, -1.53 to -0.33, P = .004) and performing aerosol-generating medical procedures in designated centers (OR, -1.30; 95% CI, -2.52 to -0.08; P = .037). During highly infectious respiratory pandemics, widely available protective measures such as use of gloves, gowns, and face masks are strongly protective against infection and should be instituted, preferably in dedicated settings, to protect frontline HCW during waves of respiratory virus pandemics.

491. Aerosol-Generating Medical Procedures: Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and Emerging Viruses

BackgroundDuring the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many questions arose regarding risks for hospital-acquired or nosocomial transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Aerosol generating medical procedures (AGMPs), techniques that can generate infectious, virus-laden aerosols, could potentially amplify transmission among healthcare workers (HCWs). Thus, it was widely recommended that HCWs use airborne precautions when performing AGMPs. However, in clinical settings it is often unclear what procedures constitute AGMPs and how the risk varies by procedure or pathogen. We set out to further define AGMPs and assess the risk for nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and other high-risk viruses via AGMPs.MethodsWe identified potential AGMPs and emerging viruses that were high-risk for nosocomial transmission through reviewing experimental and clinical data. Potential AGMPs were those associated with previous virus transmission or mechanically capable of transmission. High-risk viruses were defined as those that cause severe disease in humans for which limited therapies or interventions exist, are infectious via aerosols in humans or non-human primates (NHPs), found in the respiratory tract of infected humans or NHPs, and had previous evidence of nosocomial transmission.ResultsWe identified multiple potential AGMPs, which could be divided into those that generate aerosols or induce a patient to form aerosols, as well as eight families of high-risk viruses. All of the viruses were emerging zoonotic RNA viruses. In the family Coronaviridae, we identified potential evidence for SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2 transmission via AGMPs. SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 were also found to be similarly stable when aerosolized.ConclusionMultiple emerging zoonotic viruses pose a high risk for nosocomial transmission through a variety of AGMPs. Given the similar stability of SARS-CoV-2 with SARS-CoV-1 when aerosolized and prior nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-1 via AGMPs, we suspect that certain AGMPs pose an increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Additional experimental studies and on-site clinical sampling during AGMPs are necessary to further risk stratify AGMPs.Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

492. Canadian consensus of COVID-19 policy and management aspects

BackgroundAs evidence rapidly changes, a need for consensus in hospital policy and management aspects of COVID-19 patient care are needed. This study describes areas where consensus exists and is needed in infection control, and occupational health policy.MethodsAn online survey was sent to the membership of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease (n~700). The survey included questions about COVID-19 patient and outbreak management, personal protective equipment (PPE), and occupational health considerations.ResultsOur preliminary results (n=24) were from infectious disease MD/NP or infection control medical directors. All respondents agreed treatment of COVID-19 patients should only occur in the context of a clinical trial. Of 18 centers with neonatal populations, the majority (64.2%) did not have any neonatal specific treatment guidelines. Well-babies born to COVID-19 positive moms, are all being tested (10 of 10 respondents). Variation in practice on when to remove a patient from additional precautions and potential aerosol generating medical procedures (Table 1, 2). Universal masking is in place for all clinical staff (100%), non-clinical staff (70.8%), essential visitors or patient caregivers (70.8%), and universal eye protection is in place for clinical staff (93.3%), but there was a lack of consensus in PPE conservation strategies (Table 3). Most staff do not use neck PPE (68.2%), however there was comments of it being requested by anesthesiologists at 2 sites (Table 2). Healthcare trainees or workers in these groups were restricted from caring for COVID-19 patients; Age >65 years (54.5%) and immunocompromised status (54.5%). COVID-19 positive staff can return to work 14 days after symptom onset (84.2%).Table 1. Areas of COVID-19 management lacking consensus. Not all respondents answered every question. The percentage in brackets was calculated with the number of respondents per question as the denominator. Table 2. Procedures considered as aerosol generating medical procedures (AGMPs). Respondents (n=24) were allowed to select more than one option. Table 3. Personal protective equipment (PPE) conservation strategies (n=24). Not all respondents answered every question. The percentage in brackets was calculated with the number of respondents per question as the denominator. NA corresponds to the question not asked in the survey. ConclusionAcross Canada, while there are areas of consensus in outbreak definitions, universal masking of clinical staff. There is significant variation in practice with respect to discontinuing additional precautions or outbreak measures, asymptomatic testing, AGMP definitions, PPE conservation strategies including reprocessing. As evidence evolves, national infection control guidelines will be important to improve standardization of practice and optimize patient care and staff safety.Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Surgical anesthesia for proximal arm surgery in the awake patient

This education article discusses a combination of brachial plexus and peripheral nerve blocks aimed at providing complete surgical anesthesia to the proximal arm, while consistently avoiding diaphragmatic paresis. This type...