ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Temporary policy changes during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic facilitated rapid expansion of medication for opioid use disorder via telemedicine (tele-MOUD). Evidence for tele-MOUD best practices and its impact on treatment engagement and retention remains limited. This quality improvement initiative compared tele-MOUD implementation among Pennsylvania medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) programs, evaluated sociodemographic characteristics of patients using tele-MOUD, and described trends in tele-MOUD use and patient engagement and retention. METHODS: Five health systems with MOUD programs completed questionnaires regarding their tele-MOUD models and provided aggregated sociodemographic data for MOUD patients with in-person and telemedicine visits in 2020. Three programs provided aggregated monthly appointment data (scheduled, completed, no-show, tele-MOUD visits) over the period in which tele-MOUD scaled up. RESULTS: Differences in tele-MOUD protocols related to provision of tele-MOUD inductions, patient eligibility for tele-MOUD, and operationalization of remote drug testing. Across programs, 88% of prescribers conducted tele-MOUD appointments, and 50% of patients used tele-MOUD in 2020. We observed sociodemographic differences, with a greater proportion of female, White, and non-Hispanic patients using tele-MOUD. Across programs with appointment data, overall patient enrollment increased, and new patient enrollment remained relatively constant. Engagement trends suggested a temporary decline in no-show appointments that aligned with the escalation of tele-MOUD in one program. CONCLUSIONS: Tele-MOUD protocol differences indicate a need for research to inform evidence-based guidance. Findings suggest that patients largely remained engaged and retained in MOUD as tele-MOUD was implemented but reveal inequities in tele-MOUD use, highlighting the need for efforts to overcome technology access barriers and avoid exacerbating disparities in MOUD access.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based rehabilitative interventions, if widely implemented, could equip people with dementia and their families to manage life with the condition and reduce the need for health and care services. The aim of this translational study, building on evidence from the GREAT randomised controlled trial, was to develop a foundation for implementing the GREAT Cognitive Rehabilitation intervention in community-based services for people with mild-to-moderate dementia. METHODS: Key elements of the implementation strategy were identifying and supporting managerial and clinical leadership, conducting collaborative planning and target-setting, training and supporting practitioners, and providing external facilitation. We developed implementation plans with, and trained staff in, 14 organisations. We subsequently worked closely with 11 of these, 10 National Health Service organisations and one private home care provider, to support practitioners to deliver GREAT Cognitive Rehabilitation over a 12-month period. Outcome evaluation examined the perspectives of local steering group members, practitioners and service users, and the reach, effectiveness and cost of the intervention. RESULTS: Implementation was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, but six organisations completed at least six months of intervention delivery. Forty-one practitioners, mainly occupational therapists, provided the intervention, and 54 people with dementia completed a course of GREAT Cognitive Rehabilitation. Goal attainment by people with dementia exceeded levels of improvement seen in the original trial. People with dementia, carers, practitioners and steering group members all evaluated the intervention positively, and economic analysis indicated that the intervention could be provided at modest cost. However, we identified a range of mainly organisational barriers that impeded implementation and limited the potential for sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: GREAT Cognitive Rehabilitation benefits people with dementia, can be delivered effectively at modest cost in routine services, and is viewed positively by people with dementia, family carers and practitioners. To fully realise these benefits and achieve widespread and sustainable implementation, however, requires sufficient resources and a reorientation of service priorities towards preventive and rehabilitative approaches. TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Central Portfolio Management System, registration number 38994.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Dementia , Humans , Dementia/psychology , Cognitive Training , Pandemics , State MedicineABSTRACT
New evidence on the COVID-19 pandemic is being published daily. Ongoing high-quality assessment of this literature is therefore needed to enable clinical practice to be evidence-based. This review builds on a previous scoping review and aimed to identify associations between disease severity and various clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Scopus and LILACS for studies published between January 1, 2019 and March 22, 2020. Clinical studies including ≥10 patients with confirmed COVID-19 of any study design were eligible. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A quality effects model was used for the meta-analyses. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression identified sources of heterogeneity. For hospitalized patients, studies were ordered by overall disease severity of each population and this order was used as the modifier variable in meta-regression. Overall, 86 studies (n = 91,621) contributed data to the meta-analyses. Severe disease was strongly associated with fever, cough, dyspnea, pneumonia, any computed tomography findings, any ground glass opacity, lymphocytopenia, elevated C-reactive protein, elevated alanine aminotransferase, elevated aspartate aminotransferase, older age and male sex. These variables typically increased in prevalence by 30-73% from mild/early disease through to moderate/severe disease. Among hospitalized patients, 30-78% of heterogeneity was explained by severity of disease. Elevated white blood cell count was strongly associated with more severe disease among moderate/severe hospitalized patients. Elevated lymphocytes, low platelets, interleukin-6, erythrocyte sedimentation rate and D-dimers showed potential associations, while fatigue, gastrointestinal symptoms, consolidation and septal thickening showed non-linear association patterns. Headache and sore throat were associated with the presence of disease, but not with more severe disease. In COVID-19, more severe disease is strongly associated with several clinical, laboratory and radiological characteristics. Symptoms and other variables in early/mild disease appear non-specific and highly heterogeneous. Clinical Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020170623.