Not all scientific publications are equally useful to policy-makers tasked with mitigating the spread and impact of diseases, especially at the start of novel epidemics and pandemics. The urgent need for actionable, evidence-based information is paramount, but the nature of preprint and peer-reviewed articles published during these times is often at odds with such goals. For example, a lack of novel results and a focus on opinions rather than evidence were common in coronavirus disease (COVID-19) publications at the start of the pandemic in 2019. In this work, we seek to automatically judge the utility of these scientific articles, from a public health policy making persepctive, using only their titles.

Deep learning natural language processing (NLP) models were trained on scientific COVID-19 publication titles from the CORD-19 dataset and evaluated against expert-curated COVID-19 evidence to measure their real-world feasibility at screening these scientific publications in an automated manner.

This work demonstrates that it is possible to judge the utility of COVID-19 scientific articles, from a public health policy-making perspective, based on their title alone, using deep natural language processing (NLP) models.

NLP models can be successfully trained on scienticic articles and used by public health experts to triage and filter the hundreds of new daily publications on novel diseases such as COVID-19 at the start of pandemics.

The sudden onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was accompanied by a myriad of ethical issues that prompted the issuing of various ethical guidance documents for health care professionals in clinical, research, and public health settings throughout the United Kingdom (UK) of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The aim of this review was to identify the main principles in ethical guidance documents published in the UK and Ireland during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This review used a qualitative systematic review methodology with thematic synthesis to analyze the included ethics-related guidance documents, as defined in this review, published in the UK and Ireland from March 2020 through March 2022. The search included a general search in Google Scholar and a targeted search on the websites of the relevant professional bodies and public health authorities in the two countries. The ethical principles in these documents were analyzed using the constant comparative method (CCM).

Forty-four guidance documents met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Ten main ethical principles were identified, namely: fairness, honesty, minimizing harm, proportionality, responsibility, autonomy, respect, informed decision making, duty of care, and reciprocity.

The guidelines did not present the ethical principles in equal detail. Some principles lacked definitions, leaving them vulnerable to misinterpretation by the documents’ end users. Priority was frequently given to collectivist ethics over individualistic approaches. Further clarity is required in future ethical guidance documents to better guide health care professionals in similar situations.

This study describes the local Emergency Medical Services (EMS) response and patient encounters corresponding to the civil unrest occurring over a four-day period in Spring 2020 in Indianapolis, Indiana (USA).

This study describes the non-conventional EMS response to civil unrest. The study included patients encountered by EMS in the area of the civil unrest occurring in Indianapolis, Indiana from May 29 through June 1, 2020. The area of civil unrest defined by Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department covered 15 blocks by 12 blocks (roughly 4.0 square miles) and included central Indianapolis. The study analyzed records and collected demographics, scene times, interventions, dispositions, EMS clinician narratives, transport destinations, and hospital course with outcomes from receiving hospitals for patients extracted from the area of civil unrest by EMS.

Twenty-nine patients were included with ages ranging from two to sixty-eight years. In total, EMS transported 72.4% (21 of 29) of the patients, with the remainder declining transport. Ballistic injuries from gun violence accounted for 10.3% (3 of 29) of injuries. Two additional fatalities from penetrating trauma occurred among patients without EMS contact within and during the civil unrest. Conditions not involving trauma occurred in 37.9% (11 of 29). Among transported patients, 33.3% (7 of 21) were admitted to the hospital and there was one fatality.

While most EMS transports did not result in hospitalization, it is important to note that the majority of EMS calls did result in a transport. There was a substantial amount of non-traumatic patient encounters. Trauma in many of the encounters was relatively severe, and the findings imply the need for rapid extraction methods from dangerous areas to facilitate timely in-hospital stabilization.

Interest in nuclear power as a cleaner and alternative energy source is increasing in many countries. Despite the relative safety of nuclear power, large-scale disasters such as the Fukushima Daiichi (Japan) and Chernobyl (Ukraine) meltdowns are a reminder that emergency preparedness and safety should be a priority. In an emergency situation, there is a need to balance the tension between a rapid response, preventing harm, protecting communities, and safeguarding workers and responders. The first line of defense for workers and responders is personal protective equipment (PPE), but the needs vary by situation and location. Better understanding this is vital to inform PPE needs for workers and responders during nuclear and radiological power plant accidents and emergencies.

The aim of this study was to identify and describe the PPE used by different categories of workers and responders during nuclear and radiological power plant accidents and emergencies.

A systematic literature review format following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines was utilized. Databases SCOPUS, PubMed, EMBASE, INSPEC, and Web of Science were used to retrieve articles that examined the PPE recommended or utilized by responders to nuclear radiological disasters at nuclear power plants (NPPs).

The search terms yielded 6,682 publications. After removal of duplicates, 5,587 sources continued through the systematic review process. This yielded 23 total articles for review, and five articles were added manually for a total of 28 articles reviewed in this study. Plant workers, decontamination or decommissioning workers, paramedics, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), emergency medical technicians, military, and support staff were the categories of responders identified for this type of disaster. Literature revealed that protective suits were the most common item of PPE required or recommended, followed by respirators and gloves (among others). However, adherence issues, human errors, and physiological factors frequently emerged as hinderances to the efficacy of these equipment in preventing contamination or efficiency of these responders.

If worn correctly and consistently, PPE will reduce exposure to ionizing radiation during a nuclear and radiological accident or disaster. For the best results, standardization of equipment recommendations, clear guidelines, and adequate training in its use is paramount. As fields related to nuclear power and nuclear medicine expand, responder safety should be at the forefront of emergency preparedness and response planning.

To provide standardized recommendations for the emergency department (ED) response to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) events by combining the human factors/ergonomics method of hierarchical task analysis with the theoretical framework for Work as Imagined versus Work as Done.

Document analyses were used to represent CBRN response operational procedures. Semi-structured interviews using scenario cards were carried out with 57 first receivers (ED staff) to represent CBRN practice at 2 acute hospitals in England.

Variability existed in general organizational responsibilities associated with the CBRN response. Variability was further evident in top level CBRN tasks and CBRN phases at both EDs. Operational procedures focused on tasks such as documentation, checking, and timing. CBRN practice focused on patient needs through assessment, treatment, and diagnosis.

The findings provide top-down and bottom-up insights to enhance the ED CBRN response through standardization. The standardized CBRN action card template embeds the choice approach to standardization. The standardized CBRN framework implements the streamlined categorization of CBRN phases. Work as Imagined versus Work as Done is a useful theoretical framework to unpack a complex sociotechnical system, and hierarchical task analysis is an effective system mapping tool in health care.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had important consequences on the health system. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were a key element in the response and were forced to modify their daily procedures. The main objective of this study was to find out if there were differences in response times and in the profile of patients treated by the Advanced Life Support (ALS) units of Servicio de Asistencia Médica Urgente (SAMU)-Asturias, the EMS of the Principality of Asturias, between the pre-pandemic period and the pandemic period.

This was a descriptive, cross-sectional, observational, and retrospective study that included all patients treated by SAMU-Asturias ALS from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2020.

The pandemic has had an impact on daily activity of SAMU-Asturias, with a 9.2% decrease in daily ALS services during the pandemic, longer prehospital times during the pandemic period (mean = 54’35”; SD = 0’48”; P = 0.00) mainly due to an increase in scene time (mean = 28’01”; SD = 12’57”; P = 0.00), and a slight increase in the average age of patients during the pandemic in relation to the pre-pandemic period. No differences were found between the types of incidents for ALS or between the resolution of the patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic mainly affects prehospital times in an emergency service, with no differences being observed in types of incidents; in EMS future pandemic planning, this should be taken into consideration.

The aim of this review was to summarize current evidence from the United States on the effectiveness of practices and interventions for preventing, recognizing, and controlling occupationally acquired infectious diseases in Emergency Medical Service (EMS) clinicians.

PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and SCOPUS were searched from January 1, 2006 through March 15, 2022 for studies in the United States that involved EMS clinicians and firefighters, reported on one or more workplace practices or interventions that prevented or controlled infectious diseases, and included outcome measures. Eleven (11) observational studies reported on infection prevention and control (IPC) practices providing evidence that hand hygiene, standard precautions, mandatory vaccine policies, and on-site vaccine clinics are effective. Less frequent handwashing (survey-weight adjusted odds ratio [OR] 4.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 17.27) and less frequent hand hygiene after glove use (survey-weight adjusted OR 10.51; 95% CI, 2.54 to 43.45) were positively correlated with nasal colonization of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) or PPE breach were correlated with higher severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) seropositivity (unadjusted risk ratio [RR] 4.2; 95% CI, 1.03 to 17.22). Workers were more likely to be vaccinated against influenza if their employer offered the vaccine (unadjusted OR 3.3; 95% CI, 1.3 to 8.3). Active, targeted education modules for H1N1 influenza were effective at increasing vaccination rates and the success of on-site vaccine clinics.

Evidence from the United States exists on the effectiveness of IPC practices in EMS clinicians, including hand hygiene, standard precautions, mandatory vaccine policies, and vaccine clinics. More research is needed on the effectiveness of PPE and vaccine acceptance.

The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in prehospital emergency care has significantly increased since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Several studies investigating the potential effects of PPE use by Emergency Medical Service providers on the quality of chest compressions during resuscitation have been inconclusive.

This study aimed to determine whether the use of PPE affects the quality of chest compressions or influences select physiological biomarkers that are associated with stress.

This was a prospective randomized, quasi-experimental crossover study with 35 Emergency Medical Service providers who performed 20 minutes of chest compressions on a manikin. Two iterations were completed in a randomized order: (1) without PPE and (2) with PPE consisting of Tyvek, goggles, KN95 mask, and nitrile gloves. The rate and depth of chest compressions were measured. Salivary cortisol, lactate, end-tidal carbon dioxide (EtCO2), and body temperature were measured before and after each set of chest compressions.

There were no differences in the quality of chest compressions (rate and depth) between the two groups (P >.05). After performing chest compressions, the group with PPE did not have elevated levels of cortisol, lactate, or EtCO2 when compared to the group without PPE, but did have a higher body temperature (P <.001).

The use of PPE during resuscitation did not lower the quality of chest compressions, nor did it lead to higher stress-associated biomarker levels, with the exception of body temperature.

The increasing number of COVID-19 cases, as well as the overwhelming workload, constitutes a serious occupational health threat to Emergency Room (ER) nurses working on the frontlines. In Lebanon, where unstable socio-economic conditions reign, the Covid-19 outbreak was added to the plethora of daily challenges faced by healthcare workers. The study’s objective is to explore how Lebanese ER nurses perceived their duty on the frontlines amid the Covid-19 pandemic.

This study employed a descriptive exploratory qualitative design. 15 Lebanese ER nurses working directly with Covid-19 patients were recruited from 3 university hospitals in Beirut. Interviews were held for data collection until data saturation. Subsequent analysis was done via coding of the transcribed verbatim.

The findings showed significant gaps related to preparedness, support, and governmental action. Similarly, the frontliners faced serious challenges that increased their stress levels both physically and mentally. Furthermore, some participants were subject to stigma and had to face irresponsible behaviors during triage. Participants emphasized the need to guarantee a safe environment at work, to provide Covid-19 patients with the needed care.

ER nurses struggled during this pandemic while working on the frontlines. They described their experience as not satisfying, with high levels of stress, danger, and challenges.

An Emergency Medical Service (EMS) is defined as a complete system that responds to public medical and surgical emergencies with prompt and adequate emergency care. Ambulance services are also classified as EMS in modern medical history. In the Nepalese context, prehospital care is very limited, and the EMS system is still a new concept in Nepal. In a study in the emergency room at Patan Hospital in Kathmandu, only 9.9% of patients came by ambulance, 53.6% by taxi, 11.4% by private car, 13.5% by bus, 5.4% by bicycle, and another 6.2% came with alternative routes.

This study aims to investigate the constraints, challenges, and achievements made by ambulances services during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

The study design was phenomenological and the method was qualitative. In-depth interviews (IDIs) were conducted with six human resources working from the COVID-19 first wave pandemic in the ambulance service of Nepal Ambulance Service (NAS), Kathmandu.

Four themes were generated from IDIs: (1) challenges in service delivery; (2) constraints on service delivery; (3) working experiences; and (4) achievements of ambulatory service providers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Under these four themes, 12 sub-themes were constructed. The new nature of disease (COVID-19) in the first wave led to fear and anxiety, which also forced them to think about quitting the job; however, later on with proper training and safety measures, it led to working for COVID-19 patient transfers from home to hospital, as well as hospital to hospital, and proper prehospital care services were provided. The major challenges faced by ambulatory service providers were long working hours, wearing a single personal protective equipment (PPE) for long hours, confusing locations to pick up patients, and both stigma and discrimination.

From IDIs, it was concluded that although constraints and challenges arise during a pandemic, from proper guidance and support through NAS, they are able to provide proper prehospital care for the patient. Challenges like fear, heavy workload, PPE, and other material barriers do not hamper in service delivery.

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is a critical part of Disaster Medicine and has the ability to limit morbidity and mortality in a disaster event with sufficient training and experience. Emergency systems in Armenia are in an early stage of development and there is no Emergency Medicine residency training in the country. As a result, EMS physicians are trained in a variety of specialties.

Armenia is also a country prone to disasters, and recently, the Armenian EMS system was challenged by two concurrent disasters when the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War broke out in the midst of the SARS-CoV-2/coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

This study aims to assess the current state of disaster preparedness of the Armenian EMS system and the effects of the simultaneous pandemic and war on EMS providers.

This was a cross-sectional study conducted by anonymous survey distributed to physicians still working in the Yerevan EMS system who provided care to war casualties and COVID-19 patients.

Survey response rate was 70.6%. Most participants had been a physician (52.1%) or EMS physician (66.7%) for three or less years. The majority were still in residency (64.6%). Experience in battlefield medicine was limited prior to the war, with the majority reporting no experience in treating mass casualties (52.1%), wounds from explosives (52.1%), or performing surgical procedures (52.1%), and many reporting minimal to no experience in treating gunshot wounds (62.5%), severe burns (64.6%), and severe orthopedic injuries (64.6%). Participants had moderate experience in humanitarian medicine prior to war. Greater experience in battlefield medicine was found in participants with more than three years of experience as a physician (z-score −3.26; P value <.01) or as an EMS physician (z-score −2.76; P value <.01) as well as being at least 30 years old (z-score −2.11; P value = .03). Most participants felt they were personally in danger during the war at least sometimes (89.6%).

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and simultaneous 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, EMS physicians in Armenia had limited training and experience in Disaster Medicine. This system, and the frontline physicians on whom it relies, was strained by the dual disaster, highlighting the need for Disaster Medicine training in all prehospital medical providers.

The aim of this study was to examine safety-related contamination threats and risks to health-care workers (HCWs) due to the reuse of personal protective equipment (PPE) among emergency department (ED) personnel.

We used a Participatory Design (PD) approach to conduct task analysis (TA) of PPE use and reuse. TA identified the steps, risks, and protective behaviors involved in PPE reuse. We used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance for PPE donning and doffing specifying the recommended task order. Then, we convened subject matter experts (SMEs) with relevant backgrounds in Patient Safety, Human Factors and Emergency Medicine to iteratively identify and map the tasks, risks, and protective behaviors involved in the PPE use and reuse.

Two emerging threats were associated with behaviors in donning, doffing, and re-using PPE: (i) direct exposure to contaminant, and (ii) transmission/spread of contaminant. Protective behaviors included: hand hygiene, not touching the patient-facing surface of PPE, and ensuring a proper fit and closure of all PPE ties and materials.

TA was helpful revealed that the procedure for donning and doffing of re-used PPE does not protect ED personnel from contaminant spread and risk of exposure, even with protective behaviors present (e.g., hand hygiene, respirator use, etc.). Future work should make more apparent the underlying risks associated with PPE use and reuse.

Tracheal intubation is a high-risk intervention for exposure to airborne infective pathogens, including the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). During the recent pandemic, personal protective equipment (PPE) was essential to protect staff during intubation but is recognized to make the practical conduct of anesthesia and intubation more difficult. In the early phase of the coronavirus pandemic, some simple alterations were made to the emergency anesthesia standard operating procedure (SOP) of a prehospital critical care service to attempt to maintain high intubation success rates despite the challenges posed by wearing PPE. This retrospective observational cohort study aims to compare first-pass intubation success rates before and after the introduction of PPE and an altered SOP.

A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted from January 1, 2019 through August 30, 2021. The retrospective analysis used prospectively collected data using prehospital electronic patient records. Anonymized data were held in Excel (v16.54) and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (v28). Patient inclusion criteria were those of all ages who received a primary tracheal intubation attempt outside the hospital by critical care teams. March 27, 2020 was the date from which the SOP changed to mandatory COVID-19 SOP including Level 3 PPE – this date is used to separate the cohort groups.

Data were analyzed from 1,266 patients who received primary intubations by the service. The overall first-pass intubation success rate was 89.7% and the overall intubation success rate was 99.9%. There was no statistically significant difference in first-pass success rate between the two groups: 90.3% in the pre-COVID-19 group (n = 546) and 89.3% in the COVID-19 group (n = 720); Pearson chi-square 0.329; P = .566. In addition, there was no statistical difference in overall intubation success rate between groups: 99.8% in the pre-COVID-19 group and 100.0% in the COVID-19 group; Pearson chi-square 1.32; P = .251.

Non-drug-assisted intubations were more than twice as likely to require multiple attempts in both the pre-COVID-19 group (n = 546; OR = 2.15; 95% CI, 1.19-3.90; P = .01) and in the COVID-19 group (n = 720; OR = 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.1; P = <.001).

This study presents simple changes to a prehospital intubation SOP in response to COVID-19 which included mandatory use of PPE, the first intubator always being the most experienced clinician, and routine first use of video laryngoscopy (VL). These changes allowed protection of the clinical team while successfully maintaining the first-pass and overall success rates for prehospital tracheal intubation.