Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Burn inhalation injury (BII) is a major cause of burn-related mortality and morbidity. Despite published practice guidelines, no consensus exists for the best strategies regarding diagnosis and management of BII. A modified DELPHI study using the RAND/UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) Appropriateness Method (RAM) systematically analysed the opinions of an expert panel. Expert opinion was combined with available evidence to determine what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate judgement in the diagnosis and management of BII. Methods A 15-person multidisciplinary panel comprised anaesthetists, intensivists and plastic surgeons involved in the clinical management of major burn patients adopted a modified Delphi approach using the RAM method. They rated the appropriateness of statements describing diagnostic and management options for BII on a Likert scale. A modified final survey comprising 140 statements was completed, subdivided into history and physical examination (20), investigations (39), airway management (5), systemic toxicity (23), invasive mechanical ventilation (29) and pharmacotherapy (24). Median appropriateness ratings and the disagreement index (DI) were calculated to classify statements as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate. Results Of 140 statements, 74 were rated as appropriate, 40 as uncertain and 26 as inappropriate. Initial intubation with ≥ 8.0 mm endotracheal tubes, lung protective ventilatory strategies, initial bronchoscopic lavage, serial bronchoscopic lavage for severe BII, nebulised heparin and salbutamol administration for moderate-severe BII and N-acetylcysteine for moderate BII were rated appropriate. Non-protective ventilatory strategies, high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, high-frequency percussive ventilation, prophylactic systemic antibiotics and corticosteroids were rated inappropriate. Experts disagreed (DI ≥ 1) on six statements, classified uncertain: the use of flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy to guide fluid requirements (DI = 1.52), intubation with endotracheal tubes of internal diameter < 8.0 mm (DI = 1.19), use of airway pressure release ventilation modality (DI = 1.19) and nebulised 5000IU heparin, N-acetylcysteine and salbutamol for mild BII (DI = 1.52, 1.70, 1.36, respectively). Conclusions Burns experts mostly agreed on appropriate and inappropriate diagnostic and management criteria of BII as in published guidance. Uncertainty exists as to the optimal diagnosis and management of differing grades of severity of BII. Future research should investigate the accuracy of bronchoscopic grading of BII, the value of bronchial lavage in differing severity groups and the effectiveness of nebulised therapies in different severities of BII. Graphical Abstract

Common causes of death in COVID-19 due to SARS-CoV-2 include thromboembolic disease, cytokine storm and adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Our aim was to develop a system for early detection of disease pattern in the emergency department (ED) that would enhance opportunities for personalised accelerated care to prevent disease progression. A single Trust’s COVID-19 response control command was established, and a reporting team with bioinformaticians was deployed to develop a real-time traffic light system to support clinical and operational teams. An attempt was made to identify predictive elements for thromboembolism, cytokine storm and ARDS based on physiological measurements and blood tests, and to communicate to clinicians managing the patient, initially via single consultants. The input variables were age, sex, and first recorded blood pressure, respiratory rate, temperature, heart rate, indices of oxygenation and C-reactive protein. Early admissions were used to refine the predictors used in the traffic lights. Of 923 consecutive patients who tested COVID-19 positive, 592 (64%) flagged at risk for thromboembolism, 241/923 (26%) for cytokine storm and 361/923 (39%) for ARDS. Thromboembolism and cytokine storm flags were met in the ED for 342 (37.1%) patients. Of the 318 (34.5%) patients receiving thromboembolism flags, 49 (5.3% of all patients) were for suspected thromboembolism, 103 (11.1%) were high-risk and 166 (18.0%) were medium-risk. Of the 89 (9.6%) who received a cytokine storm flag from the ED, 18 (2.0% of all patients) were for suspected cytokine storm, 13 (1.4%) were high-risk and 58 (6.3%) were medium-risk. Males were more likely to receive a specific traffic light flag. In conclusion, ED predictors were used to identify high proportions of COVID-19 admissions at risk of clinical deterioration due to severity of disease, enabling accelerated care targeted to those more likely to benefit. Larger prospective studies are encouraged.