Project description:BackgroundThe Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic generated an unprecedented volume of evolving clinical guidelines that strained existing clinical information systems and necessitated rapid innovation in emergency departments (EDs).ObjectivesOur team aimed to harness new COVID-19-related reliance on digital clinical support tools to re-envision how all clinical guidelines are stored and accessed in our ED.MethodsWe used a design-thinking approach including empathizing, defining the problem, ideating, prototyping, and testing to develop a low-cost, homegrown clinical information hub: E*Drive. To measure impact, we compared web traffic on E*Drive to our legacy cloud-based folder system and conducted a survey of end-users using a validated health technology utilization instrument.ResultsOur final product, E*Drive, is a centralized clinical information hub storing everything from clinical guidelines to discharge resources. Clinical guidelines are standardized and housed within the high-traffic E*Drive platform to increase accessibility. Since launch, E*Drive has averaged 84 unique weekly users, compared with less than one weekly user on the legacy system. We surveyed 52 clinicians for a total response rate of 47%. Prior to the E*Drive rollout, 12.5% of ED clinicians felt confident accessing clinical information on the legacy system, whereas 76.6% of ED clinicians felt they could more easily access clinical information using E*Drive.ConclusionThe COVID pandemic revealed vulnerabilities within our information dissemination system and presented an opportunity to improve clinical information delivery. Centralized web-based clinical information hubs designed around the clinician end-user experience can increase clinical guideline access in the ED.
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID 19 pandemic adversely impacted delivery of preventive, routine, urgent, and essential care worldwide. Dialysis access care was particularly affected due to the lack of specific guidelines regarding procedures for its creation and maintenance. Early guidance by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid was inadvertently interpreted as guidance to stop dialysis access procedures. Prompt action by professional societies was needed to furnish detailed guidance to establish essential nature of these procedures.MethodsThe American Society of Diagnostic and Interventional Nephrology (ASDIN) issued a joint statement with Vascular Access Society of the Americas (VASA) - "Maintaining Lifelines for ESKD Patients" to clearly establish the role of vascular access as a lifeline for ESKD (End Stage Kidney Disease) patients and the importance and urgency of its timely management. ASDIN also conducted a survey in mid-2020, that was administered to the ASDIN database as well as shared with the general public via the organization's social media platforms. The respondents reported their experiences in the care of dialysis access, practice patterns and the utility of the ASDIN-VASA statement during the COVID 19 pandemic.ResultsOf the 2030 individual surveys sent, 581 were opened and 53 (9.1%) responses were received from different parts of the country and from different practice settings. ASDIN COVID 19 triage document was frequently utilized and 83% of respondents found the document valuable. The survey also revealed multiple obstacles, including logistical and financial issues that led to significant disruption of services.ConclusionsThe care of dialysis access was significantly affected in the United States during the COVID 19 pandemic due to multiple reasons. ASDIN actions provided valuable specific guidance regarding and explored barriers to dialysis access care. We describe those results and discuss strategies to prevent COVID 19 transmission with innovative strategies of providing access care. Individualized decision making is of essence when considering dialysis access procedures.
Project description:Australian regulations strictly limit early withdrawals from retirement plan accounts. However, in 2020, the Government made otherwise illiquid plan balances temporarily liquid, offering emergency relief during the pandemic. The COVID-19 Early Release Scheme allowed participants in financial hardship easy access to up to $A20,000 of savings over two rounds. We use administrative and survey data from a large retirement plan to describe how and why participants withdrew savings under the scheme. A majority report that they needed the money immediately but around one quarter said they anticipated future needs. Most thought about the decision for less than a week, acted soon after each round opened, and withdrew as much as they could. Many people did not estimate, or appear to have mis-estimated, the impact the withdrawal could have on their retirement savings. Our findings offer insights into preferences for liquidity. They also raise questions about whether the features of the early release scheme, and their implied endorsement by the Government, influenced some withdrawers more than personal deliberations over financial welfare.
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to the rapid and widespread adoption of telehealth. There is a need for more evidence regarding the appropriateness of telehealth, as well as greater understanding of barriers to its sustained use within surgery in Australia.MethodsA survey weblink was sent via email to 5558 Australian Fellows of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons in August 2020. A single reminder email followed this 2 weeks later. Mixed methods analysis was performed of the survey data.ResultsThere were 683 (12.3%) complete responses. Telehealth (telephone or video-link) consultations were undertaken by 638 (85%) respondents as a result of the pandemic, with 583 (85%) of these expressing a desire for continued access to telehealth. Seventy-seven percent of respondents felt that a satisfactory level of care could be delivered via telehealth in half or more consultations. However, only 38% of respondents felt that quality of care was equivalent comparing telehealth and face-to-face consultations, with the inability to perform a clinical examination a frequent concern. The majority agreed that telehealth was appropriate for clinical meetings and arranging investigations (91% each), whereas only 22% and 17%, respectively, felt telehealth was an appropriate means to break bad news and manage conflict. Medicolegal, technical and financial concerns were raised as prominent barriers to the sustained use of telehealth.ConclusionSurgeons show good insight into the clinical appropriateness and limitations of telehealth. Medicolegal, technical and financial barriers need to be addressed in order to fully utilize the benefits of telehealth into the future.
Project description:ObjectiveAnnotated clinical samples taken from patients are a foundation of translational medical research and give mechanistic insight into drug trials. Prior research by the Tissue Directory and Coordination Centre (TDCC) indicated that researchers, particularly those in industry, face many barriers in accessing patient samples. The arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic to the UK produced an immediate and extreme shockwave, which impacted on the ability to undertake all crucial translational research. As a national coordination centre, the TDCC is tasked with improving efficiency in the biobanking sector. Thus, we took responsibility to identify and coordinate UK tissue sample collection organisations (biobanks) able to collect COVID-19-related samples for researchers between March and September 2020.FindingsAlmost a third of UK biobanks were closed during the first wave of the UK COVID-19 pandemic. Of the remainder, 43% had limited capabilities while 26% maintained normal activity. Of the nationally prioritised COVID-19 interventional studies, just three of the five that responded to questioning were collecting human samples. Of the 41 requests for COVID-19 samples received by the TDCC, only four could be fulfilled due to a lack of UK coordinated strategy. Meanwhile, in the background there are numerous reports that sample collections in the UK remain largely underutilised.ConclusionThe response to a pandemic demands high level co-ordinated research responses to reduce mortality. Our study highlights the lack of efficiency and coordination between human sample collections and clinical trials across the UK. UK sample access is not working for researchers, clinicians or patients. A radical change is required in the strategy for sample collection and distribution to maximise this valuable resource of human-donated samples.
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, technological advancements, regulatory waivers, and user acceptance have converged to boost telehealth activities. Due to the state of emergency, regulatory waivers in the United States have made it possible for providers to deliver and bill for services across state lines for new and established patients through Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)- and non-HIPAA-compliant platforms with home as the originating site and without geographic restrictions. Platforms have been developed or purchased to perform videoconferencing, and interdisciplinary dialysis teams have adapted to perform virtual visits. Telehealth experiences and challenges encountered by dialysis providers, clinicians, nurses, and patients have exposed health care disparities in areas such as access to care, bandwidth connectivity, availability of devices to perform telehealth, and socioeconomic and language barriers. Future directions in telehealth use, quality measures, and research in telehealth use need to be explored. Telehealth during the public health emergency has changed the practice of health care, with the post-COVID-19 world unlikely to resemble the prior era. The future impact of telehealth in patient care in the United States remains to be seen, especially in the context of the Advancing American Kidney Health Initiative.
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, has been characterized by unprecedented rates of spatio-temporal spread. Here, we summarize the main events in the pandemic's timeline and evaluate what has been learnt by the public health community. We also discuss the implications for future public health policy and, specifically, the practice of epidemic control. We critically analyze this ongoing pandemic's timeline and contrast it with the 2002-2003 SARS outbreak. We identify specific areas (e.g., pathogen identification and initial reporting) wherein the international community learnt valuable lessons from the SARS outbreak. However, we also identify the key areas where international public health policy failed leading to the exponential spread of the pandemic. We outline a clear agenda for improved pandemic control in the future.
Project description:In over half of US states, health planning boards monitor and control the supply of health care through certificate of need (CON) laws. The COVID-19 pandemic led several states to impose moratoria on CON regulations, hoping to bolster hospital and skilled nursing facility (SNF) beds. Using a difference-in-difference research design, we leverage 2015 to 2021 cost report data from SNFs to study the association between COVID-related CON moratoria and health care supply. Counties that imposed moratoria experienced a slight decline in per-capita SNF bed count. However, once adjusted for potential differential shocks in pre-pandemic high utilization counties, we find little evidence that moratoria led to increased nursing home capacity, overall or by urbanicity. In the context of nursing homes, we conclude that CON deregulation was relatively ineffective at mitigating pandemic-era supply concerns.