Impact of COVID 19 on the provision of surgical services in Ontario, Canada: population-based analysis
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gomez D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7799281 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the immediate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cervical screening, colposcopy and treatment volumes in Ontario, Canada.DesignPopulation-based retrospective observational study.SettingOntario, Canada.PopulationPeople with a cervix age of 21-69 years who completed at least one cervical screening cytology test, colposcopy or treatment procedure for cervical dysplasia between January 2019 and August 2020.MethodsAdministrative databases were used to compare cervical screening cytology, colposcopy and treatment procedure volumes before (historical comparator) and during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic (March-August 2020).Main outcome measuresChanges in cervical screening cytology, colposcopy and treatment volumes; individuals with high-grade cytology awaiting colposcopy.ResultsDuring the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the monthly average number of cervical screening cytology tests, colposcopies and treatments decreased by 63.8% (range: -92.3 to -41.0%), 39.7% (range: -75.1 to -14.3%) and 31.1% (range: -43.5 to -23.6%), respectively, when compared with the corresponding months in 2019. Between March and August 2020, on average 292 (-51.0%) fewer high-grade cytological abnormalities were detected through screening each month. As of August 2020, 1159 (29.2%) individuals with high-grade screening cytology were awaiting follow-up colposcopy.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a substantial impact on key cervical screening and follow-up services in Ontario. As the pandemic continues, ongoing monitoring of service utilisation to inform system response and recovery is required. Future efforts to understand the impact of COVID-19-related disruptions on cervical cancer outcomes will be needed.Tweetable abstractCOVID-19 has had a substantial impact on cervical screening and follow-up services in Ontario, Canada.
| S-EPMC8209864 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The global pandemic caused by COVID-19 has had a significant global impact on healthcare systems. One implication of this pandemic is the cancellation of elective cardiac surgeries and the centralization of services. As a result, hospitals in Europe, North America, and the United Kingdom have had to alter the services offered to patients to be able to cope with service provision for COVID infected patients. Data should be collected during this period to provide a good insight following the lockdown period to understand the implication of such service alteration. Future research should also focus on the effects on long-term mortality and morbidity as well as financial implications on hospitals as a result of these changes.
| S-EPMC7276906 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn March 2020, the Ontario government declared a state of emergency due to the growing risk of COVID-19. In response, new guidance for the management of opioid agonist therapy (OAT) was released, which included the expansion of eligibility for take-home doses. We investigated the impact of these changes on trends in the distribution of take-home doses of OAT.MethodsWe conducted a population-based time series analysis among residents of Ontario, Canada who were dispensed OAT between June 25, 2019 and November 30, 2020. For each week of the study period, we calculated the percentage of people dispensed (a) methadone and (b) buprenorphine/naloxone by the number of take-home doses received. We used interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models to estimate changes in the percentage of people dispensed each category of take-home doses in the weeks following the declaration of the state of emergency and release of the OAT dispensing guidance.ResultsFollowing the state of emergency and release of the OAT dispensing guidance, there was a significant increase in the percentage of Ontarians dispensed 7 to 13 (3.6% increase; p = 0.033) and 14 or more (0.8% increase; p<0.001) take-home doses of methadone, and in the percentage of people dispensed 7 to 13 (4.3% increase; p = 0.001), 14 to 27 (2.8% increase; p<0.001), and 28 or more (0.3% increase; p = 0.008) take-home doses of buprenorphine/naloxone. There were significant decreases in the percentage of Ontarians receiving daily dispensed buprenorphine/naloxone (-3.1%; p = 0.001), as well as the percentage dispensed 1 to 6 take-home doses of methadone (-4.5%; p = 0.001) and buprenorphine/naloxone (-4.9%; p = 0.001).ConclusionThe new guidance for dispensing OAT in Ontario resulted in increases in the duration of take-home doses of methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone supplied. However, given that changes were small, strategies to improve retention in OAT and ensure equitable access to take-home dosing should continue.
| S-EPMC8885322 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Strategies to ramp up breast cancer screening after COVID-19 require data on the influence of the pandemic on groups of women with historically low screening uptake. Using data from Ontario, Canada, our objectives were to 1) quantify the overall pandemic impact on weekly bilateral screening mammography rates (per 100,000) of average-risk women aged 50-74 and 2) examine if COVID-19 has shifted any mammography inequalities according to age, immigration status, rurality, and access to material resources. Using a segmented negative binomial regression model, we estimated the mean change in rate at the start of the pandemic (the week of March 15, 2020) and changes in weekly trend of rates during the pandemic period (March 15-December 26, 2020) compared to the pre-pandemic period (January 3, 2016-March 14, 2020) for all women and for each subgroup. A 3-way interaction term (COVID-19*week*subgroup variable) was added to the model to detect any pandemic impact on screening disparities. Of the 3,481,283 mammograms, 8.6 % (n = 300,064) occurred during the pandemic period. Overall, the mean weekly rate dropped by 93.4 % (95 % CI 91.7 % - 94.8 %) at the beginning of COVID-19, followed by a weekly increase of 8.4 % (95 % CI 7.4 % - 9.4 %) until December 26, 2020. The pandemic did not shift any disparities (all interactions p > 0.05) and that women who were under 60 or over 70, immigrants, or with a limited access to material resources had persistently low screening rate in both periods. Interventions should proactively target these underserved populations with the goals of reducing advanced-stage breast cancer presentations and mortality.
| S-EPMC10787238 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsIn June 2016, the Ontario, Canada government implemented the Ontario Naloxone Program for Pharmacies (ONPP), authorizing pharmacists to provide injectable naloxone kits at no charge to all Ontario residents. In March 2018, the program was amended to include intranasal naloxone and remove the requirement to present a government health card to the dispensing pharmacist. We examined whether these changes increased naloxone dispensing through the ONPP.DesignPopulation-based time-series analysis using interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models.SettingOntario, Canada.ParticipantsAll Ontario residents between 1 July 2016 and 31 March 2020.MeasurementsMonthly rates of pharmacy naloxone dispensing.FindingsOverall, 199 484 individuals were dispensed a naloxone kit during the study period. In the main analysis, the rate of pharmacy naloxone dispensing increased by 65.1% following program changes (55.6-91.8 kits per 100 000 population between February 2018 and May 2018; P = 0.01). In subgroup analyses, naloxone dispensing increased among individuals receiving opioid agonist therapy (OAT) (3374.9-7264.2 kits per 100 000 OAT recipients; P = 0.04) among individuals receiving other prescription opioids (192.8-381.8 kits per 100 000 population prescribed opioids; P < 0.01), among individuals with past opioid exposure (134.7-205.6 kits per 100 000 population with past opioid exposure; P < 0.01) and in urban centers (56.2-91.4 kits per 100 000 population; P < 0.01). We did not observe a clear impact on pharmacy-dispensed naloxone to individuals with no or unknown opioid exposure (34.4-39.3 kits per 100 000 population with no/unknown opioid exposure; P = 0.42) and in rural regions (50.4-97.2 kits per 100 000 population; P = 0.09).ConclusionsChanges to the Ontario Naloxone Program for Pharmacies to add intranasal naloxone and remove the requirement to present a government health card appeared to increase pharmacy-based naloxone dispensing uptake in Ontario, Canada, particularly among individuals at high risk of inadvertent opioid overdose.
| S-EPMC8247272 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe assessed the impact of COVID-19, which includes the declaration of a state of emergency and subsequent release of pandemic-specific OAT guidance (March 17, 2020 to March 23, 2020) on the prevalence of OAT discontinuation.MethodsWe conducted a population-based time series analysis using interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models among Ontario residents who were stable (>60 days of continuous use) and not yet stable on OAT. Specifically, we examined whether COVID-19 impacted the weekly percentage of individuals who discontinued OAT, overall and stratified by treatment type (methadone vs. buprenorphine/naloxone). Additionally, we compared demographic characteristics and patient outcomes among people stable on OAT who discontinued treatment during (March 17, 2020 to November 30, 2020) and prior (July 3, 2019 to March 16, 2020) to the pandemic.ResultsThe weekly prevalence of OAT discontinuation across the study period ranged between 0.6% and 1.1%, among those stable on treatment compared to 7.3% and 16.6%, among those not stable on treatment. Following COVID-19, there was no significant change in the percentage of Ontarians who discontinued OAT, regardless of whether they were stabilized on treatment. Among those stable on OAT, a similar proportion of patients restarted therapy and experienced opioid-related harm following an OAT discontinuation. However, mortality following OAT discontinuation must be noted, as approximately 1.4% and 0.8% of people who discontinued methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone respectively, died within 30 days of discontinuation.ConclusionsTrends in the prevalence of OAT discontinuation did not significantly change during the first eight months of the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC9008980 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveSignificant changes to the delivery of obstetrical care that occurred with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic may be associated with higher risks of adverse maternal outcomes. We evaluated preeclampsia/HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets) syndrome and composite severe maternal morbidity (SMM) among pregnant people who gave birth during the COVID-19 pandemic and compared these data with those of people who gave birth before the pandemic in Ontario, Canada.MethodsThis was a population-based, retrospective cohort study using linked administrative data sets from ICES. Data on pregnant people at ≥20 weeks gestation who gave birth between March 15, 2020, and September 30, 2021, were compared with those of pregnant people who gave birth within the same date range for the years 2015-2019. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the effect of the pandemic period on the odds of preeclampsia/HELLP syndrome and composite SMM, adjusting for maternal baseline characteristics and comorbidities.ResultsThere were no differences between the study periods in the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for preeclampsia/HELLP syndrome among primiparous (aOR 1.00; 95% CI 0.91-1.11) and multiparous (aOR 0.94; 95% CI 0.81-1.09) patients and no differences for composite SMM (primiparous, aOR 1.00; 95% CI 0.95-1.05; multiparous, aOR 1.01; 95% CI 0.95-1.08).ConclusionAdverse maternal outcomes were not higher among pregnant people who gave birth during the first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada, when compared with those who gave birth before the pandemic.
| S-EPMC8979839 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA number of highly effective COVID-19 vaccines have been developed and approved for mass vaccination. We evaluated the impact of vaccination on COVID-19 outbreak and disease outcomes in Ontario, Canada.MethodsWe used an agent-based transmission model and parameterized it with COVID-19 characteristics, demographics of Ontario, and age-specific clinical outcomes. We implemented a two-dose vaccination program according to tested schedules in clinical trials for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, prioritizing healthcare workers, individuals with comorbidities, and those aged 65 and older. Daily vaccination rate was parameterized based on vaccine administration data. Using estimates of vaccine efficacy, we projected the impact of vaccination on the overall attack rate, hospitalizations, and deaths. We further investigated the effect of increased daily contacts at different stages during vaccination campaigns on outbreak control.ResultsMaintaining non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) with an average of 74% reduction in daily contacts, vaccination with Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines was projected to reduce hospitalizations by 27.3% (95% CrI: 22.3% - 32.4%) and 27.0% (95% CrI: 21.9% - 32.6%), respectively, over a one-year time horizon. The largest benefits of vaccination were observed in preventing deaths with reductions of 31.5% (95% CrI: 22.5% - 39.7%) and 31.9% (95% CrI: 22.0% - 41.4%) for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively, compared to no vaccination. We found that an increase of only 10% in daily contacts at the end of lockdown, when vaccination coverage with only one dose was 6%, would trigger a surge in the outbreak. Early relaxation of population-wide measures could lead to a substantial increase in the number of infections, potentially reaching levels observed during the peak of the second wave in Ontario.ConclusionsVaccination can substantially mitigate ongoing COVID-19 outbreaks. Sustaining population-wide NPIs, to allow for a sufficient increase in population-level immunity through vaccination, is essential to prevent future outbreaks.
| S-EPMC7980181 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and early survival among newly diagnosed cancer patients.MethodsThis retrospective population-based cohort study used linked administrative datasets from Ontario, Canada. Adults (≥18 years) who received a cancer diagnosis between March 15 and December 31, 2020, were included in a pandemic cohort, while those diagnosed during the same dates in 2018/2019 were included in a pre-pandemic cohort. All patients were followed for one full year after the date of diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to assess survival in relation to the pandemic, patient characteristics at diagnosis, and the modality of first cancer treatment as a time-varying covariate. Interaction terms were explored to measure the pandemic association with survival for each cancer type.ResultsAmong 179,746 patients, 53,387 (29.7%) were in the pandemic cohort and 37,741 (21.0%) died over the first post-diagnosis year. No association between the pandemic and survival was found when adjusting for patient characteristics at diagnosis (HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.96-1.01]), while marginally better survival was found for the pandemic cohort when the modality of treatment was additionally considered (HR 0.97 [95% CI 0.95-0.99]). When examining each cancer type, only a new melanoma diagnosis was associated with a worse survival in the pandemic cohort (HR 1.25 [95% CI 1.05-1.49]).ConclusionsAmong patients able to receive a cancer diagnosis during the pandemic, one-year overall survival was not different than those diagnosed in the previous 2 years. This study highlights the complex nature of the COVID-19 pandemic impact on cancer care.
| S-EPMC10242323 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 imposed substantial health and economic burdens. Comprehensive population-based estimates of health care costs for COVID-19 are essential for planning and policy evaluation. We estimated publicly funded health care costs in 2 Canadian provinces during the pandemic's first wave.MethodsIn this historical cohort study, we linked patients with their first positive SARS-CoV-2 test result by June 30, 2020, in 2 Canadian provinces (British Columbia and Ontario) to health care administrative databases and matched to negative or untested controls. We stratified patients by highest level of initial care: community, long-term care, hospital (without admission to the intensive care unit [ICU]) and ICU. Mean publicly funded health care costs for patients and controls, mean net (attributable to COVID-19) costs and total costs were estimated from 30 days before to 120 days after the index date, or to July 31, 2020, in 30-day periods for patients still being followed by the start of each period.ResultsWe identified 2465 matched people with a positive test result for SARS-CoV-2 in BC and 28 893 in Ontario. Mean age was 53.4 (standard deviation [SD] 21.8) years (BC) and 53.7 (SD 22.7) years (Ontario); 55.7% (BC) and 56.1% (Ontario) were female. Net costs in the first 30 days after the index date were $22 010 (95% confidence interval [CI] 19 512 to 24 509) and $15 750 (95% CI 15 354 to 16 147) for patients admitted to hospital, and $65 828 (95% CI 58 535 to 73 122) and $56 088 (95% CI 53 721 to 58 455) for ICU patients in BC and Ontario, respectively. In the community and long-term care settings, net costs were near 0. Total costs for all people, from 30 days before to 30 days after the index date, were $22 128 330 (BC) and $175 778 210 (Ontario).InterpretationDuring the first wave, we found that mean costs attributable to COVID-19 were highest for patients with ICU admission and higher in BC than Ontario. Reducing the number of people who acquire COVID-19 and severity of illness are required to mitigate the economic impact of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9497846 | biostudies-literature