Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
BMJ Open ; 12(9): e061025, 2022 09 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2038306

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of changes in use of care and implementation of hospital reorganisations spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic (first wave) on the acute management times of patients who had a stroke and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). DESIGN: Two cohorts of patients who had an STEMI and stroke in the Aquitaine Cardio-Neuro-Vascular (CNV) registry. SETTING: 6 emergency medical services, 30 emergency units (EUs), 14 hospitalisation units and 11 cathlabs in the Aquitaine region. PARTICIPANTS: This study involved 9218 patients (6436 patients who had a stroke and 2782 patients who had an STEMI) in the CNV Registry from January 2019 to August 2020. METHOD: Hospital reorganisations, retrieved in a scoping review, were collected from heads of hospital departments. Other data were from the CNV Registry. Associations between reorganisations, use of care and care management times were analysed using multivariate linear regression mixed models. Interaction terms between use-of-care variables and period (pre-wave, per-wave and post-wave) were introduced. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: STEMI cohort, first medical contact-to-procedure time; stroke cohort, EU admission-to-imaging time. RESULTS: Per-wave period management times deteriorated for stroke but were maintained for STEMI. Per-wave changes in use of care did not affect STEMI management. No association was found between reorganisations and stroke management times. In the STEMI cohort, the implementation of systematic testing at admission was associated with a 41% increase in care management time (exp=1.409, 95% CI 1.075 to 1.848, p=0.013). Implementation of plan blanc, which concentrated resources in emergency activities, was associated with a 19% decrease in management time (exp=0.801, 95% CI 0.639 to 1.023, p=0.077). CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic did not markedly alter the functioning of the emergency network. Although stroke patient management deteriorated, the resilience of the STEMI pathway was linked to its stronger structuring. Transversal reorganisations, aiming at concentrating resources on emergency care, contributed to maintenance of the quality of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04979208.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction , Stroke , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Pandemics , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/methods , Registries , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction/epidemiology , ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction/therapy , Stroke/epidemiology , Stroke/therapy
2.
Vaccine ; 39(44): 6539-6544, 2021 10 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1440394

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Deciding how best to invest in healthcare is never an easy task and prioritization is therefore an area of great interest for policymakers. Too low public vaccine confidence, which results in insufficient vaccine uptake, remains an area of concern for EU policy-makers. Within the European Joint action on vaccination, a work-package dedicated to research aims to define tools and methods for priority-setting in the field of vaccination research. We therefore propose a prioritization framework to identify research priorities towards generating and synthesizing evidence to support policies and strategies aiming at increasing vaccine coverage. MATERIALS/METHODS: We used a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method inspired by the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative developed by Rudan et al. This quantitative methodology follows a series of steps involving different groups of experts and relevant stakeholders. The first step consists in identifying key research questions through a broad consultation. In parallel, a first group of experts is tasked to select criteria for prioritization of research questions, taking into consideration the ultimate goal of the exercise. Another group of experts is then requested to assess a weight to each of the criteria, using pair-wise comparisons. The final step consists in gathering experts who will assess each research question against the weighted criteria. This evaluation leads to assigning a score to each individual research question, which can then be ranked in order of priority. RESULTS: We focused our work on four pre-selected pilot vaccines (pertussis, measles containing combination vaccines, influenza and HPV). The consultation generated 124 questions, which were secondarily sorted and re-worded to obtain 27 questions to be ranked. Criteria for setting priorities were the following: accessibility, answerability, deliverability, disease prevalence/incidence, effectiveness, equity, generalization, and territory. During a final face-to-face meeting international experts ranked the 27 questions and agreed on a consensual list of six top-priorities. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a transparent, evidence-based rigorous framework to defined key research questions to generate evidence towards the design of policies and strategies to increase vaccine coverage. Results were disseminated broadly and submitted to the EC for potential funding in the context of The Horizon Europe Program. The same process will be conducted in 2021 to identify vaccination research priorities regarding all vaccines used in the EU as well as COVID-19 vaccines.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , COVID-19 , Influenza Vaccines , COVID-19 Vaccines , Child , Europe , Health Priorities , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination , Vaccination Coverage
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL