Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), continues to spread globally despite the worldwide implementation of preventive measures to combat the disease. Although most COVID‐19 cases are characterised by a mild, self‐limiting disease course, a considerable subset of patients develop a more severe condition, varying from pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to multi‐organ failure (MOF). Progression of COVID‐19 is thought to occur as a result of a complex interplay between multiple pathophysiological mechanisms, all of which may orchestrate SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and contribute to organ‐specific tissue damage. In this respect, dissecting currently available knowledge of COVID‐19 immunopathogenesis is crucially important, not only to improve our understanding of its pathophysiology but also to fuel the rationale of both novel and repurposed treatment modalities. Various immune‐mediated pathways during SARS‐CoV‐2 infection are relevant in this context, which relate to innate immunity, adaptive immunity, and autoimmunity. Pathological findings in tissue specimens of patients with COVID‐19 provide valuable information with regard to our understanding of pathophysiology as well as the development of evidence‐based treatment regimens. This review provides an updated overview of the main pathological changes observed in COVID‐19 within the most commonly affected organ systems, with special emphasis on immunopathology. Current management strategies for COVID‐19 include supportive care and the use of repurposed or symptomatic drugs, such as dexamethasone, remdesivir, and anticoagulants. Ultimately, prevention is key to combat COVID‐19, and this requires appropriate measures to attenuate its spread and, above all, the development and implementation of effective vaccines. © 2021 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Retention of resuscitation skills is usually assessed at a predefined moment, which enables participants to prepare themselves, possibly introducing bias. In this multicenter study, we evaluated the retention of knowledge and skills in pediatric basic life support (PBLS) amongst 58 pediatricians and pediatric residents with an unannounced examination. Practical PBLS skills were assessed with a validated scoring instrument, theoretical knowledge with a 10-item multiple-choice test (MCQ). Participants self-assessed their PBLS capabilities using five-point Likert scales. Background data were collected with a questionnaire. Of our participants, 21% passed the practical PBLS exam: 29% failed on compressions/ventilations, 31% on other parts of the algorithm, 19% on both. Sixty-nine percent passed the theoretical test. Participants who more recently completed a PBLS course performed significantly better on the MCQ (p = 0.03). This association was less clear-cut for performance on the practical exam (p = 0.11). Older, attending pediatricians with more years of experience in pediatrics performed less well than their younger colleagues (p < 0.05). Fifty-one percent of the participants considered themselves competent in PBLS. No correlation was found between self-assessed PBLS capabilities and actual performance on the practical exam (p = 0.25).

Background: Peer-led basic life support training in medical school may be an effective and valued way of teaching medical students, yet no research has been conducted to evaluate the effect on the self-efficacy of medical students. High self-efficacy stimulates healthcare professionals to initiate and continue basic life support despite challenges.Methods: A randomized controlled trial, in which medical students received pediatric basic life support (PBLS) training, provided by either near-peer instructors or expert instructors. The students were randomly assigned to the near-peer instructor group (n = 105) or expert instructor group (n = 108). All students received two hours of PBLS training in groups of approximately 15 students. Directly after this training, self-efficacy was assessed with a newly developed questionnaire, based on a validated scoring tool. A week after each training session, students performed a practical PBLS exam and completed another questionnaire to evaluate skill performance and self-efficacy, respectively.Results: Students trained by near-peers scored significantly higher on self-efficacy regarding all aspects of PBLS. Theoretical education and instructor feedback were equally valued in both groups. The scores for the practical PBLS exam and the percentage of students passing the exam were similar in both groups.Conclusions: Our findings point towards the fact that near-peer-trained medical students can develop a higher level of PBLS-related self-efficacy than expert-trained students, with comparable PBLS skills in both training groups. The exact relationship between peer teaching and self-efficacy and between self-efficacy and the quality of real-life pediatric resuscitation should be further explored.Trial registration: ISRCTN,ISRCTN69038759. Registered December 12th, 2019 – Retrospectively registered.

Background: The Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, and Exposure (ABCDE) approach is widely recommended and taught in many resuscitation courses. This study assessed the adherence to the ABCDE algorithm and whether this was affected by the instruction method used to teach this approach. Methods: Randomized controlled trial in which simulation was used as investigational method. Between June 2017 and January 2018, neonatal healthcare providers routinely participated in simulated neonatal advanced life support (NALS) scenarios, using a high-fidelity manikin. They were randomly assigned to a video-based instruction (intervention group) or a conventional lecture (control group) as the method of instruction. One blinded researcher evaluated the adherence to the ABCDE approach on video with an assessment tool specifically designed and tested for this study. The primary outcomes were: 1) the overall adherence and 2) the between-group difference in individual adherence to the ABCDE approach, both expressed as a percentage score. Secondary outcomes were: 1) the scores of each profession category (nurses, neonatal ward clinicians, fellows/neonatologists) and 2) the scores for the separate domains (A, B, C, D, and E) of the algorithm. Results: Seventy-two participants were assessed. Overall mean (SD) percentage score (i.e. overall adherence) was 31.5% (19.0). The video-based instruction group (28 participants) adhered better to the ABCDE approach than the lecture group (44 participants), with mean (SD) scores of 38.8% (18.7) and 27.8% (18.2), respectively (p = 0.026). The difference in adherence between both groups could mainly be attributed to differences in the adherence to domain B (p = 0.023) and C (p = 0.007). Neonatal ward clinicians (39.9% (18.2)) showed better adherence than nurses (25.0% (15.2)), independent of the study group (p = 0.010). Conclusions: Overall adherence to the ABCDE algorithm was rather low. Video-based instruction resulted in better adherence to the ABCDE approach during NALS training than lecturing. Trial registration: ISRCTN registry, trial ID ISRCTN95998973, retrospectively registered on October 13th, 2020.

Objective: To determine the validity, reliability, feasibility and applicability of a neonatal intubation scoring instrument.Design: Prospective observational study.Setting: Simulation-based research and training centre (Center for Advanced Pediatric and Perinatal Education), California, USA.Subjects: Forty clinicians qualified for neonatal intubation.Interventions: Videotaped elective intubations on a neonatal patient simulator were scored by two independent raters. One rater scored the intubations twice. We scored the preparation of equipment and premedication, intubation performance, tube position/fixation, communication, number of attempts, duration and successfulness of the procedure.Main outcome measures: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated for intrarater and inter-rater reliability. Kappa coefficients for individual items and mean kappa coefficients for all items combined were calculated. Construct validity was assessed with one-way analysis of variance using the hypothesis that experienced clinicians score higher than less experienced clinicians. The approximate time to score one intubation and the instrument’s applicability in another setting were evaluated.Results: ICCs for intrarater and inter-rater reliability were 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 0.99) and 0.89 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.96), and mean kappa coefficients were 0.93 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.01) and 0.71 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.92), respectively. There were no differences between the more and less experienced clinicians regarding preparation, performance, communication and total scores. The experienced group scored higher only on tube position/fixation (p=0.02). Scoring one intubation took approximately 15 min. Our instrument, developed in The Netherlands, could be readily applied in the USA.Conclusions: Our scoring instrument for simulated neonatal intubations appears to be reliable, feasible and applicable in another centre. Construct validity could not be established.

To evaluate neonatal and paediatric life support training practices across Europe. We conducted a descriptive study. Paediatric residents, general paediatricians, and subspecialists were surveyed to assess how paediatric basic and advanced life support (PBLS/PALS) and neonatal life support (NLS) are practically arranged and utilised throughout Europe. A mini-Delphi approach was used for survey development. Eligible professionals in general and university hospitals received a web link to the survey. 498 respondents from 16 countries were included. A large majority of responses came from the Netherlands (n = 393) and Belgium (n = 42). Therefore, analysis was based on these responses. PBLS was more frequently offered than PALS and NLS, though not to all professionals caring for children. For PBLS, PALS, and NLS, official recertification varied between 35–75%. Approximately 80–90% had read the latest guidelines, at least partially. Sixty to seventy percent felt capable of instant PALS, 75–90% considered themselves able to perform PBLS and NLS instantly. Not reading the guidelines and less confidence about instant resuscitation seemed to occur more often in the lower and higher age/experience groups compared to the intermediate age/experience groups. A quarter of the respondents <30 years did not feel prepared for instant PALS. General paediatricians appeared to feel most capable of instant resuscitation. General and university hospitals had rather similar training practices and facilities. Manikins were predominantly low-fidelity, especially in general hospitals. Barriers to course participation were high costs, lack of time, the non-compulsory status, remote location, and unavailability of courses. Although most paediatric professionals receive life support training, guideline reading, recertification, training utilisation, and resuscitation preparedness require improvement. Barriers to course participation should be addressed.