A meta-analysis of influenza vaccination following correspondence: Considerations for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: High vaccination rates are needed to protect against influenza and to end the COVID-19 pandemic. Health authorities need to know if supplementing mass communications with direct correspondence to the community would increase uptake. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to determine if sending a single written message directly to individuals increases influenza vaccine uptake, and a secondary objective is to identify any identified content shown to increase influenza vaccine uptake. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and PubMed were searched for RCTs testing a single correspondence for members of the community in OECD countries to obtain influenza vaccination. A meta-analysis with inverse-variance, random-effects modelling was used to estimate a mean, weighted risk ratio effect size measure of vaccine uptake. Studies were quality assessed and analysis was undertaken to account for potential publication bias. RESULTS: Twenty-eight randomized controlled trials were included, covering 45 interventions. Of the 45 interventions, 37 (82.2%) report an increase in influenza vaccination rates. A formal meta-analysis shows that sending a single written message increased influenza vaccine uptake by 16%, relative to the no contact comparator group (RR = 1.16, 95% CI [1.13-1.20], Z = 9.25, p < .001). Analysis shows that the intervention is effective across correspondence type, age group, time, and location, and after allowing for risk of publication bias. LIMITATIONS: The generalizability of results across the OECD may be questioned. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The implication for public health authorities organizing vaccination programs for influenza, and arguably also for COVID-19, is that sending written vaccination correspondence to members of the community is likely to increase uptake. This study is pre-registered on osf.io; details can be found at https://osf.io/98mr7.

Virtual geriatric clinics and the COVID-19 catalyst: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: During the current COVID-19 health crisis virtual geriatric clinics have become increasingly utilised to complete outpatient consultations, although concerns exist about feasibility of such virtual consultations for older people. The aim of this rapid review is to describe the satisfaction, clinic productivity, clinical benefit, and costs associated with the virtual geriatric clinic model of care. METHODS: A rapid review of PubMed, MEDLINE and CINAHL databases was conducted up to April 2020. Two independent reviewers extracted the information. Four subdomains were focused on: satisfaction with the virtual geriatric clinic, clinic productivity, clinical benefit to patients, costs and any challenges associated with the virtual clinic process. RESULTS: Nine studies with 975 patients met our inclusion criteria. All were observational studies. Seven studies reported patients were satisfied with the virtual geriatric clinic model of care. Productivity outcomes included reports of cost-effectiveness, savings on transport, and improved waiting list metrics. Clinical benefits included successful polypharmacy reviews, and reductions in acute hospitalisation rates. Varying challenges were reported for both clinicians and patients in eight of the nine studies. Hearing impairments and difficulty with technology added to anxieties experienced by patients. Physicians missed the added value of a thorough physical examination and had concerns about confidentiality. CONCLUSION: Virtual geriatric clinics demonstrate evidence of productivity, benefit to patients, cost effectiveness and patient satisfaction with the treatment provided. In the current suboptimal pandemic climate, virtual geriatric clinics may allow Geriatricians to continue to provide an outpatient service, despite the encountered inherent challenges.

Are Virtual Fracture Clinics During the COVID-19 Pandemic a Potential Alternative for Delivering Fracture Care? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Virtual fracture clinics are an alternative to the traditional model of fracture care. Since their introduction in 2011, they have become increasingly used in the United Kingdom and Ireland. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) health crisis has driven institutions to examine such innovative solutions to manage patient care. The current controversies include quantifying safety outcomes, such as potential delayed or missed injuries, inadequate treatment, and medicolegal claims. Questions also exist regarding the potential for cost reductions and efficiencies that may be achieved. Physical distancing has limited the number of face-to-face consultations, so this review was conducted to determine if virtual fracture clinics can provide an acceptable alternative in these challenging times. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The aim of this systematic review was to describe (1) adverse outcomes, (2) cost reductions, and (3) efficiencies associated with the virtual fracture clinic model. METHODS: A systematic review of the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases was conducted from database inception to March 2020. The keywords "virtual" or "telemedicine" or "telehealth" or "remote" or "electronic" AND "fracture" or "trauma" or "triage" AND "clinic" or "consultation" were entered, using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Inclusion criteria included adults and children treated for injuries by a virtual clinic model at the initial review. Eligible injuries included injuries deemed to not need surgical intervention, and those able to be treated remotely using defined protocols. Exclusion criteria consisted of patients reviewed by telemedicine using video links or in person at the initial review. Initially, 1065 articles were identified, with 665 excluded as they did not relate to virtual fracture clinics. In all, 400 articles were screened for eligibility, and 27 full-text reviews were conducted on 18 studies (30,512 virtual fracture clinic encounters). Three subdomains focusing on adverse outcomes, cost reductions, and efficiencies were recorded. The term adverse outcomes was used to describe any complications, further surgeries, re-referrals back to the clinic, or deviations from the protocols. Efficiency described the number of patients reviewed and discharged using the model, savings in clinic slots, reduced waiting times, or a reduction in consumption of resources such as radiographs. All studies were observational and the quality was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa tool, which demonstrated a median score of 6 ± 1.8, indicating moderate quality. RESULTS: Six studies reported adverse outcomes in detail, with events ranging from inappropriate splinting, deviations from protocols, and one patient underwent an osteotomy for a malunion. Efficiency varied from direct discharge proportions of 18% in early studies to 100% once the virtual fracture clinic model was more established. Cost reductions compared with estimates derived from conventional fracture clinics varied from USD 53 to USD 297 and USD 39,125 to USD 305876 compared with traditional fracture clinic visits. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual fracture clinics may provide a means to treat patients remotely, using agreed-upon protocols. They have an important role in the current COVID-19 pandemic, due to the possibility to provide ongoing care in an otherwise challenging setting. More robust studies looking at this model of care will be needed to assess its long-term effects on patients, institutions, and health care systems. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.