Clinician Perspectives of COVID-19-Related Cancer Drug Funding Measures in Ontario.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Naipaul RD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8025744 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the drivers of distress and motivations faced by interdisciplinary clinicians who were on the frontline caring for patients with COVID-19.Design50 semistructured interviews. Transcripts were analysed using qualitative thematic analysis.SettingA safety-net hospital in Denver, Colorado.ParticipantsInterdisciplinary frontline clinicians including physicians, advance practice providers, nurses, respiratory therapists and paramedics providing inpatient hospital care to patients hospitalised for COVID-19.ResultsFifty clinicians (32 women and 18 men) participated. Five themes with respective subthemes (in parentheses) were identified: depersonalisation and barriers to care (impeding rapport and compassion, focusing on infection risk at the expense of high-quality care, grief from witnessing patients suffer in isolation), powerless in uncertainty (inescapable awareness of personal risk, therapeutic doubt in a void of evidence, confronting ethical dilemmas, struggling with dynamic and unfamiliar challenges), overwhelmed and exhausted (burden of personal protective equipment (PPE), information overload and confusion, overstretched by additional responsibilities at work, compounded by personal life stressors, feeling vulnerable and dispensable, compassion fatigue, distress from the disproportionate impact on socially oppressed communities), bolstering morale and confidence (motivated by community and family support, equipped with data), and driven by moral duty (responsibility to patient care and community, collegial solidarity and collaboration, contributing to the greater good).ConclusionFrontline clinicians reported distress due to the challenges of PPE, uncertainty and powerlessness, new responsibilities at work and home, losing control of their schedules, grief from witnessing patients suffer in isolation and witnessing healthcare disparities exacerbated by this pandemic. Clinicians feel supported by their colleagues, families, and community and were driven by a sense of moral duty. Healthcare system should adopt strategies to minimise distress faced by interdisciplinary clinicians on the frontline of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8098296 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study examined clinician insights into telehealth assessment services for autism spectrum disorder implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. 35 clinicians from multiple disciplines across 17 sites in the Autism Care Network were interviewed. Themes identified through qualitative analyses included factors related to confidence in diagnosis (impressions of in-home observation; child and family factors that affected diagnostic confidence; changes in rapport); patient and family factors related to telehealth (perceived family benefits of and barriers to telehealth; factors related to healthcare disparities; factors specific to non-native English speakers); and institutional and workplace factors related to transitioning to telehealth (institutional support; changes to efficacy, attendance, and work satisfaction). Results suggest that telehealth has potential to be an effective tool in autism assessment practice.
| S-EPMC8804366 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on non-natural manners of death in Ontario is not known. Understanding the indirect consequences of the pandemic and related public health measures (i.e. lockdown) fills a vital need to inform best practice in public health and guide policy decisions.MethodsThe Office of the Chief Coroner and the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service (OCC-OFPS) investigate sudden and unexpected deaths in the province of Ontario. The number of homicides, suicides, and accidental deaths (non-natural deaths=77,655) were extracted from the centralized Coroner's Information System database (total deaths=197,966), across four provincially defined stages of lockdown related to the COVID-19 pandemic (March 17 to December 31, 2020), and crude rates (per 100,000 people) were compared to the previous eleven years.FindingsThere was no major change to the rate of homicides during 2020 compared to 2009-2019 (RR 1⋅1, 95% CI 0⋅95-1⋅2; p=0⋅19; estimated annual effect=21 more deaths in 2020). The rate of suicides also did not show an overall major change in 2020 (RR 1⋅02, 95% CI 0⋅96-1⋅1; p=0⋅50; estimated annual effect=27 more deaths in 2020). However, during the first stage of lockdown (Stage 0), there was a decrease in the rate of suicides compared to all combinations of recent years from 2013 onwards (RRs 0⋅82-0⋅86, combined 95% CI 0⋅69-0⋅99; max p=0⋅039; estimated effect of 30 less deaths in Stage 0). There was an excess of over 1,500 accidental drug-related deaths that occurred during 2020 (RR 2⋅5, 95% CI 2⋅4-2⋅7; p<0⋅001). This finding held up to 'interrupted time series' robustness testing, indicating that 2020 had substantially more drug-related deaths, even when accounting for the linear increasing trend over time. Although motor vehicle collision associated fatalities appeared to decrease slightly in 2020 (RR 0⋅89, 95% CI 0⋅81-0⋅96; p=0⋅0039; estimated annual effect of 78 less deaths), we could not conclude any lockdown-associated effect, particularly when compared to 2019 (RR 0⋅26, 95% CI 0⋅75-1⋅1; p=0⋅26).InterpretationIn Ontario, the short-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic did not greatly increase homicide or suicide rates, nor decrease motor vehicle collision fatality rates; however, the longer-term impact of the pandemic remains to be elucidated and ongoing vigilance is warranted in the event that other trends emerge. Accidental drug-related fatalities substantially increased during all stages of the lockdown, marking an urgent need for consideration in policy. These results highlight the vital role of death investigation systems in providing high quality and timely data to inform public health recommendations.
| S-EPMC8671724 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceDeferred diabetic foot screening and delays in timely care of acute foot complications during the COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to an increase in limb loss.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with diabetes-related care measures, foot complications, and amputation.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based cohort study included all adult residents of Ontario, Canada, with diabetes and compared the rates of selected outcomes from January 1, 2020, to February 23, 2021, vs January 1, 2019, to February 23, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresComprehensive in-person diabetes care assessment, including foot examination; hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measurement; emergency department visit or hospitalization for diabetic foot ulceration, osteomyelitis, or gangrene; lower extremity open or endovascular revascularization; minor (toe or partial-foot) amputation; and major (above-ankle) leg amputation. Rates and rate ratios (RRs) comparing 2020-2021 vs 2019-2020 for each measure were calculated for 10-week periods, anchored relative to onset of the pandemic on March 11, 2020 (11th week of 2020).ResultsOn March 11, 2020, the study included 1 488 605 adults with diabetes (median [IQR] age, 65 [55-74] years; 776 665 [52.2%] men), and on March 11, 2019, the study included 1 441 029 adults with diabetes (median [IQR] age, 65 [55-74] years; 751 459 [52.1%] men). After the onset of the pandemic, rates of major amputation in 2020-2021 decreased compared with 2019-2020 levels. The RR for the prepandemic period from January 1 to March 10 was 1.05 (95% CI, 0.88-1.25), with RRs in the pandemic periods ranging from 0.86 (95% CI, 0.72-1.03) in May 20 to July 28 to 0.95 (95% CI, 0.80-1.13) in October 7 to December 15. There were no consistent differences in demographic characteristics or comorbidities of patients undergoing amputation in the 2020-2021 vs 2019-2020 periods. Rates of comprehensive in-person diabetes care assessment and HbA1c measurement declined sharply and remained below 2019-2020 levels (eg, in-person assessment, March 11 to May 19: RR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.28-0.28). The rates of emergency department visits (eg, March 11 to May 19: RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.61-0.75), hospitalization (eg, March 11 to May 19: RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.68-0.87), open revascularization (eg, March 11 to May 19: RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.56-0.79), endovascular revascularization (March 11 to May 19: RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61-0.81), and minor amputation (March 11 to May 19: RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60-0.83) initially dropped but recovered to 2019-2020 levels over the study period.Conclusions and relevanceIn this population-based cohort study, disruptions in care related to the COVID-19 pandemic were not associated with excess leg amputations among people living with diabetes. As the pandemic ends, improved prevention and treatment of diabetic foot complications will be necessary to maintain these positive results.
| S-EPMC8733837 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Responses to the COVID-19 outbreak resulted in one of the largest short-term decreases in anthropogenic emissions in modern history. To date, there has been no comprehensive assessment of the impact of lockdowns on air quality and human health. Using global satellite observations and ground measurements from 36 countries in Europe, North America, and East Asia, we find that lockdowns led to reductions in NO2 concentrations globally, resulting in ~32,000 avoided premature mortalities, including ~21,000 in China. However, we do not find corresponding reductions in PM2.5 and ozone globally. Using satellite measurements, we show that the disconnect between NO2 and ozone changes stems from local chemical regimes. The COVID-related lockdowns demonstrate the need for targeted air quality policies to reduce the global burden of air pollution, especially related to secondary pollutants.
| S-EPMC8139585 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundReal-world evidence (RWE) can provide postmarket data to inform whether funded cancer drugs yield expected outcomes and value for money, but it is unclear how to incorporate RWE into Canadian cancer drug funding decisions. As part of the Canadian Real-World Evidence Value for Cancer Drugs (CanREValue) Collaboration, this study aimed to explore stakeholder perspectives on the current state of RWE in Canada to inform a Canadian framework for use of RWE in cancer drug funding decisions.MethodsThis was a qualitative descriptive study. Qualitative semistructured interviews were conducted from April to July 2018. Participants were Canadian and international stakeholders who had experience with RWE and drug funding decision-making. Thematic analysis was used to analyze data.ResultsThirty stakeholders participated in the study. Five themes were identified. Stakeholders indicated that RWE had value in cancer drug funding decisions. However, a cultural shift is needed to adopt RWE in decision-making. Further, the Canadian infrastructure for real-world data is currently inadequate for decision-making, and there is a need for committed investment in building capacity to collect and analyze RWE. Finally, there is a need for increased collaboration among key stakeholders.InterpretationThe findings of this study suggest that if RWE is to be used in drug funding decisions, there is a need for a cultural shift, improved data infrastructure, committed investment in capacity building and increased stakeholder collaboration. Together with local stakeholder engagement, application of these findings may contribute to optimizing implementation of RWE.
| S-EPMC7721249 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients with cancer have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This effect has included the adverse outcomes in patients with cancer who develop COVID-19, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the delivery of cancer care, and the severe disruption to cancer research. However, patients with cancer are a heterogeneous population, and recent studies have now documented factors that allow risk stratification of patients with cancer in order to optimize care. In this review, we highlight data at the intersection of COVID-19 and cancer, including the biological interplay between the two diseases and practical recommendations for the treatment of patients with cancer during the pandemic. We additionally discuss the potential long-lasting impact of the pandemic on cancer care due to its deleterious effect on cancer research, as well as biological insights from the cancer research community that could help develop novel therapies for all patients with COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7528740 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is an urgent need to identify and address factors influencing uptake and equitable access to monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment for high-risk outpatients with COVID-19.ObjectiveTo assess clinician knowledge, beliefs, and experiences regarding obtaining mAb treatment for eligible patients.Design and participantsSurvey of clinicians (N = 374) practicing in the state of Colorado who care for patients with COVID-19 in primary care, emergency medicine, and other clinical settings.Main measure(s)Diffusion of innovation theory concepts including knowledge, perceived strength of evidence, barriers, and experience with, ease of use, preparedness, and feasibility, appropriateness, and acceptability of mAb referral systems and processes.Key resultsMost respondents indicated little to no knowledge about mAb therapies for COVID-19 (67%, 74%, 77%, for bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab+etesivimab, and casirivimab+imdevimab, respectively). About half reported little to no familiarity with eligibility criteria (50.9%) and did not know the strength of evidence (31%, 43%, 52%, for bamlanivimab, bamlanivimab+etesivimab, and casirivimab+imdevimab, respectively). Lack of knowledge or confidence in treatment was a top barrier to mAbs use; other barriers included complicated referral processes, patients not eligible when seen, and out-of-pocket costs concerns. Respondents rated four mAb referral steps as generally acceptable, appropriate, and feasible to complete in their primary outpatient clinical setting. Only 24% indicated their clinical setting was very prepared to facilitate referrals, 40% had ever referred a patient for mAbs, and 43% intended to refer a patient in the next month.ConclusionsClinician education on strength of evidence and eligibility criteria for mAbs is needed. However, education alone is not sufficient. Given the urgent need to rapidly scale up access to treatment and reduce hospitalizations and death from COVID-19, more efficient, equitable systems and processes for referral and delivery of care, such as those coordinated by health systems, public health departments, or disaster management services, are warranted.
| S-EPMC9255528 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST1076 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionThis paper describes the funding rates established in Ontario to reflect best practices in hospital-based care delivery for these endoscopic procedures: colonoscopy, colonoscopy biopsy, gastroscopy, gastroscopy biopsy, and colonoscopy combined with gastroscopy.MethodsThe funding rates are based on direct costs and were established using a micro-costing approach after receipt of inputs from 3 working groups and a review of the administrative data and literature, where applicable. The first group advised on nursing activities, time, and staffing ratios along the patient pathway for each of the procedures. The second group provided recommendations about the duration for each procedure, and the third group provided information about supplies and equipment, their use, and costs.ResultsThe resulting funding rates are $161.18 for colonoscopy and $151.08 for gastroscopy (without accompanying interventions), $16.06 for colonoscopy biopsy and $8.22 for gastroscopy biopsy (added to the respective procedures), and $207.26 for combined colonoscopy and gastroscopy. Detailed costs for each component embedded in the rates are also provided.ConclusionsThe rates came into effect in April 2018. The process and outcomes described here allowed for a transparent pricing mechanism in which funding follows the patient, clinical expert consensus is the basis for practice, and providers and payers both understand the components.
| S-EPMC6476446 | biostudies-literature