Quality of healthcare and admission rates for acute cardiac events during COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective cohort study on ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in China.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate changes in admission rates for and quality of healthcare of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) during the period of the COVID-19 outbreak and postoutbreak. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study among patients with STEMI in the outbreak time and the postoutbreak time. DESIGN: To examine the changes in the admission rates and in quality of healthcare, by comparison between periods of the postoutbreak and the outbreak, and between the postoutbreak and the corresponding periods. SETTING: Data for this analysis were included from patients discharge diagnosed with STEMI from all the hospitals of Suzhou in each month of the year until the end of July 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 1965 STEMI admissions. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of moecondary outcomnthly STEMI admissions, and the secondary outcomes were the quality metrics of STEMI healthcare. RESULTS: There were a 53% and 38% fall in daily admissions at the phase of outbreak and postoutbreak, compared with the 2019 corresponding. There remained a gap in actual number of postoutbreak admissions at 306 and the predicted number at 497, an estimated 26 deaths due to STEMI would have been caused by not seeking healthcare. Postoutbreak period of 2020 compared with corresponding period of 2019, the percentage of cases transferred by ambulance decreased from 9.3% to 4.2% (p=0.013), the door-to-balloon median time increased from 17.5 to 34.0 min (p=0.001) and the rate of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) therapy declined from 71.3% to 60.1% (p=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The impact of public health restrictions may lead to unexpected out-of-hospital deaths and compromised quality of healthcare for acute cardiac events. Delay or absence in patients should be continuously considered avoiding the secondary disaster of the pandemic. System delay should be modifiable for reversing the worst clinical outcomes from the COVID-19 outbreak, by coordination measures with focus on the balance between timely PCI procedure and minimising contamination of cardiac catheterisation rooms.

Pharmaceutical Industry's Engagement in the Global Equitable Distribution of COVID-19 Vaccines: Corporate Social Responsibility of EUL Vaccine Developers.

(1) Objectives: Inequality in the global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has brought about great challenges in terms of resolving the pandemic. Although vaccine manufacturers are undoubtedly some of the most influential players, studies on their role in global vaccine distribution have been scarce. This study examined whether the pharmaceutical industry is acting according to the principles of corporate social responsibility (CSR) during the pandemic. (2) Methods: Three categories were used to analyze the CSR of vaccine developers. The first was research and development: effectiveness, funding, and profits were measured. The second was transparency and accountability: the transparency of clinical trials and vaccine contracts was analyzed. The final was vaccine delivery: the status of the provision of vaccines to COVAX and lower-income countries, intellectual property management, manufacturing agreements, and equitable pricing were measured. (3) Results: Vaccine developers have acquired large profits. The vaccine delivery category faces the most challenges. Participation of pharmaceutical companies through COVAX was significantly low, and most vaccine supply agreements were secretive, bilateral deals. It was not clear if companies were maintaining equitable pricing. The evaluation indicated that the companies' CSR practices have differed during the pandemic. (4) Conclusions: Our study contributes to the methodology of assessing the CSR of vaccine developers. This would help understand the current COVID-19 vaccine distribution inequality and propose that pharmaceutical companies re-examine their roles and social responsibilities.

Disparities in COVID-19 Vaccination among Low-, Middle-, and High-Income Countries: The Mediating Role of Vaccination Policy.

Inequity in the access to and deployment of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines has brought about great challenges in terms of resolving the pandemic. Aiming to analyze the association between country income level and COVID-19 vaccination coverage and explore the mediating role of vaccination policy, we conducted a cross-sectional ecological study. The dependent variable was COVID-19 vaccination coverage in 138 countries as of May 31, 2021. A single-mediator model based on structural equation modeling was developed to analyze mediation effects in different country income groups. Compared with high-income countries, upper-middle- (ß = -1.44, 95% CI: -1.86--1.02, p < 0.001), lower-middle- (ß = -2.24, 95% CI: -2.67--1.82, p < 0.001), and low- (ß = -4.05, 95% CI: -4.59--3.51, p < 0.001) income countries had lower vaccination coverage. Vaccination policies mediated 14.6% and 15.6% of the effect in upper-middle- (ß = -0.21, 95% CI: -0.39--0.03, p = 0.020) and lower-middle- (ß = -0.35, 95% CI: -0.56--0.13, p = 0.002) income countries, respectively, whereas the mediation effect was not significant in low-income countries (ß = -0.21, 95% CI: -0.43-0.01, p = 0.062). The results were similar after adjusting for demographic structure and underlying health conditions. Income disparity remains an important cause of vaccine inequity, and the tendency toward "vaccine nationalism" restricts the functioning of the global vaccine allocation framework. Stronger mechanisms are needed to foster countries' political will to promote vaccine equity.

A stepped wedge cluster randomized control trial to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of optimized initiatives in improving quality of care for ST segment elevation myocardial infarction in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.

BACKGROUND: The National Chest Pain Center Accreditation Program (CHANGE) is the first hospital-based, multifaceted, nationwide quality improvement (QI) initiative, to monitor and improve the quality of the ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) care in China. The QI initiatives, as implementation strategies, include a bundle of evidence-based interventions adapted for implementation in China. During the pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), fear of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, national lockdowns, and altered health care priorities have highlighted the program's importance in improving STEMI care quality. This study aims to minimize the adverse impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the quality of STEMI care, by developing interventions that optimize the QI initiatives, implementing and evaluating the optimized QI initiatives, and developing scale-up activities of the optimized QI initiatives in response to COVID-19 and other public health emergencies. METHODS: A stepped wedge cluster randomized control trial will be conducted in three selected cities of China: Wuhan, Suzhou, and Shenzhen. Two districts have been randomly selected in each city, yielding a total of 24 registered hospitals. This study will conduct a rollout in these hospitals every 3 months. The 24 hospitals will be randomly assigned to four clusters, and each cluster will commence the intervention (optimized QI initiatives) at one of the four steps. We will conduct hospital-based assessments, questionnaire surveys among health care providers, community-based household surveys, and key informant interviews during the trial. All outcome measures will be organized using the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance) framework, including implementation outcomes, service outcomes (e.g., treatment time), and patient outcomes (e.g., in-hospital mortality and 1-year complication). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework will be used to identify factors that influence implementation of the optimized QI interventions. DISCUSSION: The study findings could be translated into a systematic solution to implementing QI initiatives in response to COVID-19 and future potential major public health emergencies. Such actionable knowledge is critical for implementors of scale-up activities in low- and middle-income settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR 2100043319 . Registered on 10 February 2021.

Hospitals' responsibility in response to the threat of infectious disease outbreak in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: Implications for low- and middle-income countries.

The WHO declared the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak as a public health emergency of international concern on January 30, 2020, and then a pandemic on March 11, 2020. COVID-19 affected over 200 countries and territories worldwide, with 25,541,380 confirmed cases and 852,000 deaths associated with COVID-19 globally, as of September 1, 2020.1 While facing such a public health emergency, hospitals were on the front line to deliver health care and psychological services. The early detection, diagnosis, reporting, isolation, and clinical management of patients during a public health emergency required the extensive involvement of hospitals in all aspects. The response capacity of hospitals directly determined the outcomes of the prevention and control of an outbreak. The COVID-19 pandemic has affected almost all nations and territories regardless of their development level or geographic location, although suitable risk mitigation measures differ between developing and developed countries. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the consequences of the pandemic could be more complicated because incidence and mortality might be associated more with a fragile health care system and shortage of related resources.2, 3 As evidenced by the situation in Bangladesh, India, Kenya, South Africa, and other LMICs, socioeconomic status (SES) disparity was a major factor in the spread of disease, potentially leading to alarmingly insufficient preparedness and responses in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic.4 Conversely, the pandemic might also bring more unpredictable socioeconomic and long-term impacts in LMICs, and those with lower SES fare worse in these situations. This review aimed to summarize the responsibilities of and measures taken by hospitals in combatting the COVID-19 outbreak. Our findings are hoped to provide experiences, as well as lessons and potential implications for LMICs.

Public health preparedness and responses to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in South Asia: a situation and policy analysis.

Like rest of the world, the South Asian region is facing enormous challenges with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The socioeconomic context of the eight South Asian countries is averse to any long-term lockdown program, but the region still observed stringent lockdown close to two months. This paper analyzed major measures in public health preparedness and responses in those countries in the pandemic. The research was based on a situation analysis to discuss appropriate plan for epidemic preparedness, strategies for prevention and control measures, and adequate response management mechanism. Based on the data from March 21 to June 26, 2020, it appeared lockdown program along with other control measures were not as effective to arrest the exponential growth of fortnightly COVID-19 cases in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan. However, Bhutan, Maldives and Sri Lanka have been successfully limiting the spread of the disease. The in-depth analysis of prevention and control measures espoused densely populated context of South Asia needs community-led intervention strategy, such as case containment, in order to reverse the growing trend, and adopt the policy of mitigation instead of suppression to formulate COVID-19 action plan. On the other hand, mechanism for response management encompassed a four-tier approach of governance to weave community-led local bodies with state, national and international governance actors for enhancing the countries' emergency operation system. It is concluded resource-crunch countries in South Asia are unable to cope with the disproportionate demand of capital and skilled health care workforce at the time of the pandemic. Hence, response management needs an approach of governance maximization instead of resource maximization. The epidemiologic management of population coupled with suitable public health prevention and control measures may be a more appropriate strategy to strike a balance between economy and population health during the time of pandemic.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: how countries should build more resilient health systems for preparedness and response.

OBJECTIVE: A resilient health system plays a crucial role in pandemic preparedness and response. Although the World Health Organization (WHO) has required all states parties to strengthen core capacities to respond to public health emergencies under the International Health Regulations (2005), the actions of most countries to combating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has showed that they are not well-prepared. This cross-sectional study aimed to examine the health system resilience of selected countries and analyze their strategies and measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This study selected five countries including the Iran, Japan, Republic of Korea (South Korea), the U.K., and the U.S., based on the severity of the national epidemic, the geographical location, and the development level. Cumulative number of death cases derived from WHO COVID-19 dashboard was used to measure the severity of the impact of the pandemic in each country; WHO State Parties Self-Assessment Annual Reporting (SPAR) Scores and Global Health Security (GHS) Index were applied to measure the national health system resilience; and research articles and press materials were summarized to identify the strategies and measures adopted by countries during response to COVID-19. This study applied the resilient health systems framework to analyze health system resilience in the selected countries from five dimensions, including awareness, diversity, self-regulation, integration and adaptation. RESULTS: The SPAR Scores and GHS Index of the four developed countries, Japan, South Korea, the U.K. and the U.S. were above the global and regional averages; the SPAR Scores of Iran were above the global average while the GHI Index lain below the global average. In terms of response strategies, Japan, the U.K. and the U.S. invested more health resources in the treatment of severe patients, while South Korea and Iran had adopted a strategy of extensive testing and identification of suspected patients. In terms of specific measures, all the five countries adopted measures such as restrictions on entry and international travel, closure of schools and industries, lockdown and quarantine. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of implementing these measures varied across countries, based on the response strategies. CONCLUSION: Although SPAR Scores and GHS Index have evaluated the national core capacities for preparedness and response, the actions to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the fact that most countries still do not build resilient health systems in response to public health emergencies. Health system strengthening and health security efforts should be pursued in tandem, as part of the same mutually reinforcing approach to developing resilient health systems.