Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Prev Med Rep ; 28: 101831, 2022 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1926841

ABSTRACT

In safety-net healthcare systems, colonoscopy completion within 1-year of an abnormal fecal immunochemical test (FIT) result rarely exceeds 50%. Understanding how electronic health records (EHR) documented reasons for missed colonoscopy match or differ from patient-reported reasons, is critical to optimize effective interventions to address this challenge. We conducted a convergent mixed-methods study which included a retrospective analysis of EHR data and semi-structured interviews of adults 50-75 years old, with abnormal FIT results between 2014 and 2020 in a large safety-net healthcare system. Of the 299 patients identified, 59.2% (n = 177) did not complete a colonoscopy within one year of their abnormal result. EHR abstraction revealed a documented reason for lack of follow-up colonoscopy in 49.2% (n = 87/177); patient-level (e.g., declined colonoscopy; 51.5%) and multi-factorial reasons (e.g., lost to follow-up; 37.9%) were most common. In 18 patient interviews, patient (e.g., fear of colonoscopy), provider (e.g., lack of result awareness), and system-level reasons (e.g., scheduling challenges) were most common. Only three reasons for lack of colonoscopy overlapped between EHR data and patient interviews (competing health issues, lack of transportation, and abnormal FIT result attributed to another cause). In a cohort of safety-net patients with abnormal FIT results, the most common reasons for lack of follow-up were patient-related. Our analysis revealed a discordance between EHR documented and patient-reported reasons for lack of colonoscopy after an abnormal FIT result. Mixed-methods analyses, as in the present study, may give us the greatest insight into modifiable determinants to develop effective interventions beyond quantitative and qualitative data analysis alone.

2.
Clin Infect Dis ; 71(10): 2702-2707, 2020 12 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1059704

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) who serve on the front lines of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have been at increased risk for infection due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in some settings. Healthcare-acquired infection has been reported in similar epidemics, but there are limited data on the prevalence of COVID-19 among HCWs and their associated clinical outcomes in the United States. METHODS: We established 2 high-throughput employee testing centers in Seattle, Washington, with drive-through and walk-through options for symptomatic employees in the University of Washington Medicine system and its affiliated organizations. Using data from these testing centers, we report the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among symptomatic employees and describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes among employees with COVID-19. RESULTS: Between 12 March 2020 and 23 April 2020, 3477 symptomatic employees were tested for COVID-19 at 2 employee testing centers; 185 (5.3%) employees tested positive for COVID-19. The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was similar when comparing frontline HCWs (5.2%) with nonfrontline staff (5.5%). Among 174 positive employees reached for follow-up at least 14 days after diagnosis, 6 reported COVID-related hospitalization; all recovered. CONCLUSIONS: During the study period, we observed that the prevalence of positive SARS-CoV-2 tests among symptomatic HCWs was comparable to that of symptomatic nonfrontline staff. Reliable and rapid access to testing for employees is essential to preserve the health, safety, and availability of the healthcare workforce during this pandemic and to facilitate the rapid return of SARS-CoV-2-negative employees to work.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Health Personnel , Humans , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2 , Washington/epidemiology
3.
JAMA Netw Open ; 3(10): e2021767, 2020 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-942312
4.
J Am Coll Surg ; 231(3): 316-324.e1, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-599260

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Washington State experienced the first major outbreak of COVID-19 in the US and despite a significant number of cases, has seen a relatively low death rate per million population compared with other states with major outbreaks, and has seen a substantial decrease in the projections for healthcare use, that is, "flattening the curve." This consensus report seeks to identify the key factors contributing to the effective health system disaster response in western WA. METHODS: A multidisciplinary, expert panel including individuals and organizations who were integral to managing the public health and emergency healthcare system response were engaged in a consensus process to identify the key themes and lessons learned and develop recommendations for ongoing management of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Six key themes were identified, including early communication and coordination among stakeholders; regional coordination of the healthcare system response; rapid development and access to viral testing; proactive management of long-term care and skilled nursing facilities; proactive management of vulnerable populations; and effective physical distancing in the community. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the lessons learned in each of the areas identified by the panel, 11 recommendations are provided to support the healthcare system disaster response in managing future outbreaks.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Communicable Disease Control/organization & administration , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , COVID-19 , Communication , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Emergency Medical Services/organization & administration , Humans , Long-Term Care/organization & administration , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2 , Stakeholder Participation , Washington/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL