Karen Hui Qi Toh1, Ahmed Barazanchi1, Nigel S Rajaretnam2, Jeffrey Tan3, Tara Linton4, Mark Murray5, Paul Fagan6, Jonathan Koea1. 1. North Shore Hospital, Waitemata District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand. 2. Waikato Hospital, Waikato District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand. 3. Christchurch Hospital, Canterbury District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand. 4. Middlemore Hospital, Counties Manukau District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand. 5. Wellington Hospital, Capital and Coast District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand. 6. Auckland City Hospital, Auckland District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Worldwide, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has significantly challenged the delivery of healthcare. New Zealand (NZ) faced similar potential challenges despite being geographically isolated. Given the rapid change in the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals in NZ were tasked with formulating their own COVID-19 responses based on the Ministry of Health's (MoH) recommendations. METHODS: This paper evaluates how six metropolitan general surgical departments in NZ had responded to COVID-19 in terms of changes made to rosters, theatres, clinics, acute admissions as well as additional measures taken to reduce the risk of staff exposure. It also explores how NZ fared in comparison with international guidelines and recommendations. Data from each centre were provided by an appointed clinician. RESULTS: All centres had adapted new rosters and a restructuring of teams. Handovers, multidisciplinary team meetings and educational sessions were held virtually. Different strategies were implemented to ration hospital resources and reduce the risk of staff exposure. Non-urgent operations, endoscopies and clinics were deferred with allocation of dedicated COVID-19 operating theatres. Potential COVID-19 suspects were screened prior to admission and treated separately. Various admission and imaging pathways were utilised to increase efficiency. CONCLUSION: General surgical departments in NZ had implemented a comprehensive COVID-19 response but there is room to work towards a more unified national response. Our analysis shows that these centres across NZ had taken a similar approach which was aligned with international practices.
BACKGROUND: Worldwide, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has significantly challenged the delivery of healthcare. New Zealand (NZ) faced similar potential challenges despite being geographically isolated. Given the rapid change in the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals in NZ were tasked with formulating their own COVID-19 responses based on the Ministry of Health's (MoH) recommendations. METHODS: This paper evaluates how six metropolitan general surgical departments in NZ had responded to COVID-19 in terms of changes made to rosters, theatres, clinics, acute admissions as well as additional measures taken to reduce the risk of staff exposure. It also explores how NZ fared in comparison with international guidelines and recommendations. Data from each centre were provided by an appointed clinician. RESULTS: All centres had adapted new rosters and a restructuring of teams. Handovers, multidisciplinary team meetings and educational sessions were held virtually. Different strategies were implemented to ration hospital resources and reduce the risk of staff exposure. Non-urgent operations, endoscopies and clinics were deferred with allocation of dedicated COVID-19 operating theatres. Potential COVID-19 suspects were screened prior to admission and treated separately. Various admission and imaging pathways were utilised to increase efficiency. CONCLUSION: General surgical departments in NZ had implemented a comprehensive COVID-19 response but there is room to work towards a more unified national response. Our analysis shows that these centres across NZ had taken a similar approach which was aligned with international practices.
Authors: Ahmed Barazanchi; Sameer Bhat; Cameron Iain Wells; Ashish Taneja; Andrew Donald MacCormick; Andrew Graham Hill Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2022-01-09 Impact factor: 2.374