Dataset Information

Province-Wide Prevalence Testing for SARS-CoV-2 of In-Center Hemodialysis Patients and Staff in Ontario, Canada: A Cross-Sectional Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

People receiving in-center hemodialysis face a high risk for contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and experience poor outcomes. During the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Ontario (between March and June 2020), it was unclear whether asymptomatic or presymptomatic cases were common and whether widespread testing of all dialysis patients and staff would identify cases earlier and prevent transmission. Ontario has a population of about 14.5 million. Approximately 8900 people receive dialysis across 102 in-center dialysis units.

Objective

The objective of this study was to determine participation rates for patients and staff in point prevalence testing in dialysis units across the province and to determine the prevalence of asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection.

Design

Cross-sectional study design.

Setting

In-center hemodialysis units at 27 renal programs across Ontario.

Participants

Patients and staff in in-center dialysis units in Ontario.

Measurements

Participation rates, demographic data, SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates, and COVID-19-related symptom data.

Methods

From June 8 to 30, 2020, all in-center dialysis patients and staff in the Province of Ontario were requested to undergo a symptom screening assessment and nasopharyngeal swab. Testing was done using polymerase chain reaction to detect SARS-CoV-2. A standardized questionnaire of atypical and typical COVID-19-related symptoms was administered to patients, to assess for new or worsening COVID-19-related symptoms.

Results

Patient participation was 83% (7155 of 8612) of which 15 tests were positive: less than 5 (<0.07%) were new positive cases, 7 were false positive, and the remaining were recovered positives. Half of the new positive cases had symptoms. Common symptoms reported included fatigue (4%), falls (4%), runny nose (3%), dyspnea (3%), and cough (3%). Staff participation was 49% (2109 of 4325), and less than 5 (<0.24%) were asymptomatic positive.

Limitations

As point prevalence testing was voluntary, not all patients and staff participated. Lower participation rate may be due to decreasing new cases in Ontario, and testing or pandemic fatigue, among other factors. This study did not use serology to identify prior infections because it was not widely available in Ontario. With respect to the standardized symptom questionnaire, it was only available in English and French and could not be tested due to the urgency of the initiative.

Conclusions

Participation among patients in point prevalence testing was good, but participation among staff was relatively low. Asymptomatic positivity in the dialysis patient and staff population was rare during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario.

SUBMITTER: Sniekers DC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8358577 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHemodialysis patients are at an increased risk of polypharmacy as they have the highest pill burden of all chronically ill patient populations, with an estimated average of 12 medications per day.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate prescribing patterns of outpatient medications in patients receiving in-center hemodialysis. This was done to identify potential candidate medications for future quality improvement initiations to optimize prescribing.DesignWe conducted a descriptive retrospective cross-sectional study in the province of Ontario, Canada, using several linked health care databases housed at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES).SettingWe considered outpatient medications dispensed to patients eligible for the Ontario Drug Benefit program.PatientsPatients were receiving chronic in-center hemodialysis at one of the 69 facilities in the province of Ontario, Canada as of October 1, 2013.MeasurementsWe assessed whether any of our 28 study medications of interest were recently dispensed (within the prior 120 days), the type of prescribing physician, and the associated medication costs. The 28 included medications of interest (ie, proton pump inhibitors, benzodiazepines) were selected because they may not have a true indication for dialysis patients and/or there are safety concerns with their use in this population. Results are presented as median (25th, 75th percentile).MethodsWe conducted this study at ICES according to a prespecified protocol approved by the Research Ethics Board at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (Toronto, Ontario).ResultsA total of 3094 patients on chronic in-center hemodialysis received a study drug of interest (age: 76.5 years [SD: 7.3]), 44% women). Patients were dispensed 11 (8, 14) unique medication products with more than two-thirds of patients dispensed 9 or more different medications. The median number of annual health care visits was 7 (3-15) with more than half the cohort receiving prescriptions from 3 or more specialists. The 10 most commonly dispensed study medications cost more than 3 million dollars in direct costs in 1 year.LimitationsOur study was also subjected to some limitations of health care databases.ConclusionsPolypharmacy is frequent in in-center hemodialysis patients. To decrease polypharmacy and its associated negative outcomes, health care providers need to implement tools to optimize medication use and deprescribe medications that lack evidence for efficacy and safety in hemodialysis patients. Therefore, strategies to improve prescribing and discontinue ineffective medications warrant testing for better patient outcomes and reduced health care costs.

Project description:BackgroundDespite clinical and lifestyle advantages of home hemodialysis (HHD) compared with in-center hemodialysis (ICHD), it remains underutilized in our province. The aim of the study was to explore the patients' perception and to identify the barriers to use of HHD in Saskatchewan, Canada.ObjectivesThe primary objective of the study was to evaluate and explore patient perceptions of HHD and to identify the obstacles for adoption of HHD in Saskatchewan. The secondary objective was to examine variations in the patients' perceptions and barriers to HHD by center (main dialysis units vs satellite dialysis units).DesignThis is a cross-sectional observational survey study.SettingTwo major centers (Regina and Saskatoon) and 5 associated satellite units attached to each center across the province of Saskatchewan.PatientsWe approached all prevalent ICHD patients across Saskatchewan, 398 agreed to participate in the study.MeasurementsSelf-reported barriers to HHD were assessed using a questionnaire.MethodsA questionnaire was designed to determine the patients' perceived barriers to HHD. Descriptive statistics was used to present the data. Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare the patients' responses between main and satellite units.ResultsSatisfaction with current dialysis care (91%), increase in utility bills (65%), fear of catastrophic events at home (59%), medicalization of one's home (54%), and knowledge deficits toward treatment modalities (54%) were the main barriers to HHD uptake. Compared with patients dialyzing in our main units, satellite patients chose not to pursue HHD more frequently because they had greater satisfaction with their current dialysis unit care (97% vs 87%, P < .001), felt more comfortable dialyzing under the supervision of medical staff (95% vs 86%, P < .007), could not afford additional utility costs (92% vs 45%, P < .001), were unaware of the risks and benefits of HHD (83% vs 33%, P < .001), had concerns over time commitments for training to HHD (69% vs 32%, P < .001), and had concern for family burnout (60.8% vs 40.6%, P < .001).LimitationsWe used questionnaires to quantify known barriers, and this prevents inclusion of additional barriers that individual patients may consider important. Cross-sectional data can only be used as a snapshot. Only 398 patients agreed to participate, and the results cannot be generalized to 740 prevalent HD patients. We did not capture data on demographics (age, income, and literacy level), comorbidities, and dialysis vintage, which would have been helpful in interpretation of the results.ConclusionsSatisfaction with in-center care, lack of awareness and education, specifically in the satellite population, concerns with family burnout, expenses associated with utilities, and training time will need to be addressed to increase the uptake of HHD.Trial registrationThe study was not registered on a publicly accessible registry as it did not involve any health care intervention on human participants.

Project description:ImportanceIdentifying conditions that could be prioritized for research based on health care system burden is important for developing a research agenda for the care of hospitalized children. However, existing prioritization studies are decades old or do not include data from both pediatric and general hospitals.ObjectiveTo assess the prevalence, cost, and variation in cost of pediatric hospitalizations at all general and pediatric hospitals in Ontario, Canada, with the aim of identifying conditions that could be prioritized for future research.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based cross-sectional study used health administrative data from 165 general and pediatric hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Children younger than 18 years with an inpatient hospital encounter between April 1, 2014, and March 31, 2019, were included.Main outcomes and measuresCondition-specific prevalence, cost of pediatric hospitalizations, and condition-specific variation in cost per inpatient encounter across hospitals. Variation in cost was evaluated using (1) intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and (2) number of outlier hospitals. Costs were adjusted for inflation to 2018 US dollars.ResultsOverall, 627 314 inpatient hospital encounters (44.8% among children younger than 30 days and 53.0% among boys) at 165 hospitals (157 general and 8 pediatric) costing $3.3 billion were identified. A total of 408 003 hospitalizations (65.0%) and $1.4 billion (43.8%) in total costs occurred at general hospitals. Among the 50 most prevalent and 50 most costly conditions (of 68 total conditions), the top 10 highest-cost conditions accounted for 55.5% of all costs and 48.6% of all encounters. The conditions with highest prevalence and cost included low birth weight (86.2 per 1000 encounters; $676.3 million), preterm newborn (38.0 per 1000 encounters; $137.4 million), major depressive disorder (20.7 per 1000 encounters; $78.3 million), pneumonia (27.3 per 1000 encounters; $71.6 million), other perinatal conditions (68.0 per 1000 encounters; $65.8 million), bronchiolitis (25.4 per 1000 encounters; $54.6 million), and neonatal hyperbilirubinemia (47.9 per 1000 encounters; $46.7 million). The highest variation in cost per encounter among the most costly medical conditions was observed for 2 mental health conditions (other mental health disorders [ICC, 0.28] and anxiety disorders [ICC, 0.19]) and 3 newborn conditions (intrauterine hypoxia and birth asphyxia [ICC, 0.27], other perinatal conditions [ICC, 0.17], and surfactant deficiency disorder [ICC, 0.17]).Conclusions and relevanceThis population-based cross-sectional study of hospitalized children identified several newborn and mental health conditions as having the highest prevalence, cost, and variation in cost across hospitals. Findings of this study can be used to develop a research agenda for the care of hospitalized children that includes general hospitals and to ultimately build a more substantial evidence base and improve patient outcomes.

Project description:ImportanceSevere maternal morbidity is defined by potentially life-threatening conditions. The association between the number of severe maternal morbidity (SMM) indicators and maternal death is not known.ObjectiveTo quantify the association between the number of SMM indicators and maternal mortality.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based cohort study used provincial databases for data on all live birth and stillbirth hospital deliveries among women in Ontario, Canada, from April 1, 2002, to February 18, 2017. Excluded from this cohort were those with invalid identification number, non-Ontario residency, maternal age younger than 10 years or older than 55 years or unknown, or gestational age fewer than 20 weeks or unknown as well as any out-of-hospital births, ectopic pregnancies, or spontaneous or induced abortions.ExposuresNumber of SMM indicators identified between 20 weeks' gestation and 42 days after the index delivery.Main outcomes and measuresMaternal death occurring from delivery to 42 days after the index delivery.ResultsOf the 1?953?943 total births among 1?211?396 women, 181 maternal deaths occurred within 42 days after birth, a rate of 9.3 per 100?000 births. Of the 181 women who died, 123 (68.0%) had at least 1 SMM indicator compared with 1.7% (33?152) of women who survived. Standardized differences suggested that women who died, compared with the women who lived, were older (mean [SD] age, 31.0 [6.2] years vs 30.1 [5.5] years; standardized difference, 0.15) and more likely to reside in a lower-income area (99 [54.7%] vs 832?231 [42.6%]; standardized difference, 0.24), be nulliparous (93 [51.4%] vs 880?386 [45.1%]; standardized difference, 0.13), and be of Afro-Caribbean origin (12 [6.6%] vs 64?948 [3.3%]; standardized difference, 0.15). The most frequent SMM indicators were intensive care unit admission (81 [44.8%]), invasive ventilation (77 [42.5%]), cardiac conditions (69 [38.1%]), complications of obstetric surgery or procedures (32 [17.7%]), and postpartum hemorrhage with blood transfusion (31 [17.1%]). The rate of maternal mortality increased exponentially with the number of SMM indicators: 0 indicators (3.0 per 100?000 births), 1 (71.7 per 100?000 births), 2 (385.9 per 100?000 births), 3 (1274.2 per 100?000 births), 4 (2236.8 per 100?000 births), 5 (4285.7 per 100?000 births), and 6 or more (9422.5 per 100?000 births). Adjusted relative risks for maternal death ranged from 20.1 (95% CI, 11.6-34.7) with 1 SMM indicator to 2192.0 (95% CI, 1287.0-3735.0) with 6 or more SMM indicators compared with 0 indicators.Conclusions and relevanceMaternal death may be associated with the number of SMM indicators and occur in certain identifiable groups of women; targeting preventable SMM indicators or limiting their progression may reduce the number of maternal deaths.