Skip to main content

Table 2 Changes to ECT practice adopted by the surveyed treatment centres during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

From: Impact of COVID-19 on electroconvulsive therapy practice across Canadian provinces during the first wave of the pandemic

 

% of ECT Centres (95% CI*)

 

Ontario

Quebec

Western Canada

Atlantic Canada

Item

“Yes”

“No”

“Yes”

“No”

“Yes”

“No”

“Yes”

“No”

ECT practice was affected by

        
 

Redeployment of professionals

52 (33–70)

48 (30–67)

38 (18–64)

62 (38–82)

40 (17–69)

60 (31–83)

50 (19–81)

50 (19–81)

 

Availability of PPE

46 (28–65)

54 (35–72)

20 (7–45)

80 (55–93)

50 (25–75)

50 (25–75)

60 (23–88)

40 (12–77)

 

Need to facilitate social distancing

74 (55–87)

26 (13–45)

50 (28–72)

50 (28–72)

42 (19–68)

58 (32–81)

80 (38–96)

20 (4–62)

ECT is considered an AGMP†

77 (58–89)

23 (11–42)

80 (55–93)

20 (7–45)

82 (52–95)

18 (5–48)

75 (30–95)

25 (5–70)

COVID-19 measures required a change to the

        
 

ECT delivery room

72 (49–88)

28 (13–51)

73 (43–90)

27 (10–57)

72 (43–90)

27 (10–57)

80 (38–96)

20 (4–62)

  

Modifications to existing suite

22 (9–45)

 

55 (28–79)

 

36 (15–65)

 

0 (0–43)

 
  

Negative pressure room

22 (9–45)

 

0 (0–26)

 

0 (0–26)

 

60 (23–88)

 
  

Operating room/surgical suite

22 (9–45)

 

18 (5–48)

 

36 (15–65)

 

20 (4–62)

 
  

Postanesthesia care unit

6 (1–26)

 

0 (0–26)

 

0 (0–26)

 

0 (0–43)

 
 

Class of administered primary anesthetics

12.5 (4–36)

87.5 (64–97)

0 (0–30)

100 (70–100)

0 (0–26)

100 (74–100)

0 (0–43)

100 (57–100)

 

Dosage of administered primary anesthetics

13 (4–38)

87 (62–96)

0 (0–35)

100 (65–100)

0 (0–28)

100 (72–100)

0 (0–43)

100 (57–100)

 

ECT technique‡

82 (59–94)

18 (6–41)

100 (68–100)

0 (0–32)

82 (52–95)

18 (5–48)

100 (57–100)

0 (0–43)

  

Less seizure threshold titration sessions

18 (6–41)

 

0 (0–32)

 

9 (2–38)

 

0 (0–43)

 
  

Early switch to bilateral electrode placement

12 (3–34)

 

0 (0–32)

 

9 (2–38)

 

0 (0–43)

 
  

Switch to the “half-age” method for dosing

6 (1–27)

 

0 (0–32)

 

9 (2–38)

 

0 (0–43)

 
 

Airway management procedure‡

82 (59–94)

18 (6–41)

44 (19–73)

56 (27–81)

100 (72–100)

0 (28–100)

80 (38–96)

20 (4–62)

  

Eliminating BVM ventilation

6 (1–27)

 

11 (2–44)

 

0 (28–100)

 

0 (0–43)

 
  

Minimizing BVM ventilation

59 (36–78)

 

22 (6–55)

 

100 (72–100)

 

80 (38–96)

 
  

Adding HEPA

29 (13–53)

 

0 (0–30)

 

10 (2–40)

 

0 (0–43)

 
  

Eliminating intubation

6 (1–27)

 

0 (0–30)

 

0 (28–100)

 

0 (0–43)

 
  

Minimizing intubation

12 (3–34)

 

0 (0–30)

 

0 (28–100)

 

20 (4–62)

 
  

Using laryngeal mask

6 (1–27)

 

11 (2–44)

 

0 (28–100)

 

0 (0–43)

 
  

Preoxygenating longer and/or by mask

18 (6–41)

 

0 (0–30)

 

0 (28–100)

 

0 (0–43)

 
  1. Values with the tenths decimal ≥ 5 were rounded up
  2. *95% CIs computed using Wilson’s method for binomial proportions [46,47,48]
  3. †In 3.4% (95% CI, 1.0–11.7) of responding centres, ECT was initially considered an AGMP but then reclassified as a non-AGMP over the course of the first wave of the pandemic.
  4. ‡No follow-up answer options were presented if the “No” response was provided to the screener questions
  5. Abbreviations: AGMP = aerosol generating medical procedures; BVM = bag-valve-mask; CI = confidence interval; COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019; ECT = electroconvulsive therapy; HEPA = high-efficiency particulate air; PPE = personal protective equipment