Quality of patient decision aids to support the public making COVID-19 decisions: An online environmental scan.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and appraise the quality of COVID-19 patient decision aids (PtDAs). METHODS: We conducted an environmental scan of online publicly available COVID-19 PtDAs. Two reviewers independently searched and extracted data. We calculated median International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) scores and proportion scoring > 70% on Patient Education Materials Information Tool (PEMAT) adequate for understandability and actionability. RESULTS: Of 876 resources identified, 12 were PtDAs. Decisions focused on initial COVID-19 vaccination series (n = 9), location of care for elderly (n = 2), and social distancing (n = 1). All 12 PtDAs were written materials and two had accompanying videos. The median IPDAS score minimizing risk of biased decisions was 4 of 6 items (IQR 1, range 2-4). For PEMAT, 92% had adequate for understandability and none for actionability. CONCLUSIONS: We identified few online publicly available COVID-19 PtDAs and none were about COVID-19 vaccination boosters or treatment. PtDAs scored poorly on actionability and none met all IPDAS criteria for minimizing risk of biased decisions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: PtDA developers for COVID-19 and future pandemics should ensure their PtDAs meet all IPDAS criteria for minimizing risk of bias, have adequate scores for actionability, and are disseminated in the A to Z inventory.

Use telehealth as needed: telehealth substitutes in-person primary care and associates with the changes in unplanned events and follow-up visits.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth rapidly expanded since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to understand how telehealth can substitute in-person services by 1) estimating the changes in non-COVID emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and care costs among US Medicare beneficiaries by visit modality (telehealth vs. in-person) during the COVID-19 pandemic relative to the previous year; 2) comparing the follow-up time and patterns between telehealth and in-person care. METHODS: A retrospective and longitudinal study design using US Medicare patients 65 years or older from an Accountable Care Organization (ACO). The study period was April-December 2020, and the baseline period was March 2019 - February 2020. The sample included 16,222 patients, 338,872 patient-month records and 134,375 outpatient encounters. Patients were categorized as non-users, telehealth only, in-person care only and users of both types. Outcomes included the number of unplanned events and costs per month at the patient level; number of days until the next visit and whether the next visit happened within 3-, 7-, 14- and 30-days at the encounter level. All analyses were adjusted for patient characteristics and seasonal trends. RESULTS: Beneficiaries who used only telehealth or in-person care had comparable baseline health conditions but were healthier than those who used both types of services. During the study period, the telehealth only group had significantly fewer ED visits/hospitalizations and lower Medicare payments than the baseline (ED 13.2, 95% CI [11.6, 14.7] vs. 24.6 per 1,000 patients per month and hospitalization 8.1 [6.7, 9.4] vs. 12.7); the in-person only group had significantly fewer ED visits (21.9 [20.3, 23.5] vs. 26.1) and lower Medicare payments, but not hospitalizations; the both-types group had significantly more hospitalizations (23.0 [21.4, 24.6] vs. 17.8). Telehealth was not significantly different from in-person encounters in number of days until the next visit (33.4 vs. 31.2 days) or the probabilities of 3- and 7-day follow-up visits (9.2 vs. 9.3% and 21.8 vs.23.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients and providers treated telehealth and in-person visits as substitutes and used either depending on medical needs and availability. Telehealth did not lead to sooner or more follow-up visits than in-person services.

The Relative Importance of Hospital Discharge and Patient Composition in Changing Post-Acute Care Utilization and Outcomes Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic changed care delivery. But the mechanisms of changes were less understood. Objectives: Examine the extent to which the volume and pattern of hospital discharge and patient composition contributed to the changes in post-acute care (PAC) utilization and outcomes during the pandemic. Research design: Retrospective cohort study. Medicare claims data on hospital discharges in a large healthcare system from March 2018 to December 2020. Subjects: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, 65 years or older, hospitalized for non-COVID diagnoses. Measures: Hospital discharges to Home Health Agencies (HHA), Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNF), and Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (IRF) versus home. Thirty- and ninety-day mortality and readmission rates. Outcomes were compared before and during the pandemic with and without adjustment for patient characteristics and/or interactions with the pandemic onset. Results: During the pandemic, hospital discharges declined by 27%. Patients were more likely to be discharged to HHA (+4.6%, 95% CI [3.2%, 6.0%]) and less likely to be discharged to either SNF (-3.9%, CI [-5.2%, -2.7%]) or to home (-2.8% CI [-4.4%, -1.3%]). Thirty- and ninety-day mortality rates were significantly higher by 2% to 3% points post-pandemic. Readmission were not significantly different. Up to 15% of the changes in discharge patterns and 5% in mortality rates were attributable to patient characteristics. Conclusions: Shift in discharge locations were the main driver of changes in PAC utilization during the pandemic. Changes in patient characteristics explained only a small portion of changes in discharge patterns and were mainly channeled through general impacts rather than differentiated responses to the pandemic.

Decisions and Decisional Needs of Canadians From all Provinces and Territories During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Population-Based Cross-sectional Surveys.

BACKGROUND: Never before COVID-19 had Canadians faced making health-related decisions in a context of significant uncertainty. However, little is known about which type of decisions and the types of difficulties that they faced. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify the health-related decisions and decisional needs of Canadians. METHODS: Our study was codesigned by researchers and knowledge users (eg, patients, clinicians). Informed by the CHERRIES (the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys) reporting guideline, we conducted 2 online surveys of random samples drawn from the Leger consumer panel of 400,000 Canadians. Eligible participants were adults (≥18 years) who received or were receiving any health services in the past 12 months for themselves (adults) or for their child (parent) or senior with cognitive impairment (caregiver). We assessed decisions and decisional needs using questions informed by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, including decisional conflict and decision regret using the Decision Conflict Scale (DCS) and the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), respectively. Descriptive statistics were conducted for adults who had decided for themselves or on behalf of someone else. Significant decisional conflict (SDC) was defined as a total DCS score of >37.5 out of 100, and significant decision regret was defined as a total DRS score of >25 out of 100. RESULTS: From May 18 to June 4, 2021, 14,459 adults and 6542 parents/caregivers were invited to participate. The invitation view rate was 15.5% (2236/14,459) and 28.3% (1850/6542); participation rate, 69.3% (1549/2236) and 28.7% (531/1850); and completion rate, 97.3% (1507/1549) and 95.1% (505/531), respectively. The survey was completed by 1454 (97.3%) adults and 438 (95.1%) parents/caregivers in English (1598/1892, 84.5%) or French (294/1892, 15.5%). Respondents from all 10 Canadian provinces and the northern territories represented a range of ages, education levels, civil statuses, ethnicities, and annual household income. Of 1892 respondents, 541 (28.6%) self-identified as members of marginalized groups. The most frequent decisions were (adults vs parents/caregivers) as follows: COVID-19 vaccination (490/1454, 33.7%, vs 87/438, 19.9%), managing a health condition (253/1454, 17.4%, vs 47/438, 10.7%), other COVID-19 decisions (158/1454, 10.9%, vs 85/438, 19.4%), mental health care (128/1454, 8.8%, vs 27/438, 6.2%), and medication treatments (115/1454, 7.9%, vs 23/438, 5.3%). Caregivers also reported decisions about moving family members to/from nursing or retirement homes (48/438, 11.0%). Adults (323/1454, 22.2%) and parents/caregivers (95/438, 21.7%) had SDC. Factors making decisions difficult were worrying about choosing the wrong option (557/1454, 38.3%, vs 184/438, 42.0%), worrying about getting COVID-19 (506/1454, 34.8%, vs 173/438, 39.5%), public health restrictions (427/1454, 29.4%, vs 158/438, 36.1%), information overload (300/1454, 20.6%, vs 77/438, 17.6%), difficulty separating misinformation from scientific evidence (297/1454, 20.4%, vs 77/438, 17.6%), and difficulty discussing decisions with clinicians (224/1454, 15.4%, vs 51/438, 11.6%). For 1318 (90.6%) adults and 366 (83.6%) parents/caregivers who had decided, 353 (26.8%) and 125 (34.2%) had significant decision regret, respectively. In addition, 1028 (50%) respondents made their decision alone without considering the opinions of clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: During COVID-19, Canadians who responded to the survey faced several new health-related decisions. Many reported unmet decision-making needs, resulting in SDC and decision regret. Interventions can be designed to address their decisional needs and support patients facing new health-related decisions.

Primary Care Patients' and Staff's Perceptions of Self-Rooming as Alternative to Waiting Rooms.

PURPOSE: Most patients are escorted to exam rooms (escorted rooming) although patients directing themselves to their exam room (self-rooming) saves patient and staff time while increasing patient satisfaction. This study assesses patient and staff perceptions after pragmatic implementation of self-rooming. METHODS: In October-December 2020, we surveyed patients and staff in 25 primary care clinics after our institution expanded self-rooming from 4 specially built clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic. Semi-structured surveys asked about rooming process used, rooming process preferred, and perceptions of self-rooming compared with escorted rooming. RESULTS: Most patients (n = 1,561) preferred self-rooming (86%), especially among patients aged <65 years and in family medicine clinics. Few patients felt less welcomed (10.6%), less cared about (6.8%), more isolated (15.6%), more lost/confused (7.6%), or more frustrated (3.2%) with self-rooming compared with escorted rooming. Early-adopter clinics that implemented self-rooming ≤2016 had even lower rates of patients feeling more isolated, lost/confused, or frustrated with self-rooming compared with escorted rooming.Over one-half of staff (n = 241; 180 clinical, 61 nonclinical) preferred self-rooming (59%) and thought most patients liked self-rooming (65.8%), especially among clinical staff and in early adopter clinics (≤2016). Few staff reported worse waiting times for patients (12.4%), medical assistants (MAs) (15.9%), and clinicians (16.4%) or worse crowding in waiting areas (1.7%) and hallways (10.1%). Unlike patient-reported confusion (7.6%), most staff thought self-rooming led to more patient confusion (63.8%), except in early-adopter clinics (44.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Self-rooming is a patient-centered innovation that is also acceptable to staff. We demonstrated that pragmatic implementation is feasible across primary care without expensive technology or specially designed buildings.

Priority III: top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities identified using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

OBJECTIVES: A rapid review is a form of evidence synthesis considered a resource-efficient alternative to the conventional systematic review. Despite a dramatic rise in the number of rapid reviews commissioned and conducted in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, published evidence on the optimal methods of planning, doing, and sharing the results of these reviews is lacking. The Priority III study aimed to identify the top 10 unanswered questions on rapid review methodology to be addressed by future research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership approach was adopted. This approach used two online surveys and a virtual prioritization workshop with patients and the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers, and funders to identify and prioritize unanswered questions. RESULTS: Patients and the public, researchers, reviewers, clinicians, policymakers, and funders identified and prioritized the top 10 unanswered research questions about rapid review methodology. Priorities were identified throughout the entire review process, from stakeholder involvement and formulating the question, to the methods of a systematic review that are appropriate to use, through to the dissemination of results. CONCLUSION: The results of the Priority III study will inform the future research agenda on rapid review methodology. We hope this will enhance the quality of evidence produced by rapid reviews, which will ultimately inform decision-making in the context of healthcare.

Advancing Precision Vaccinology by Molecular and Genomic Surveillance of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Germany, 2021.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive pathogen genomic surveillance represents a powerful tool to complement and advance precision vaccinology. The emergence of the Alpha variant in December 2020 and the resulting efforts to track the spread of this and other severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants of concern led to an expansion of genomic sequencing activities in Germany. METHODS: At Robert Koch Institute (RKI), the German National Institute of Public Health, we established the Integrated Molecular Surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 (IMS-SC2) network to perform SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance at the national scale, SARS-CoV-2-positive samples from laboratories distributed across Germany regularly undergo whole-genome sequencing at RKI. RESULTS: We report analyses of 3623 SARS-CoV-2 genomes collected between December 2020 and December 2021, of which 3282 were randomly sampled. All variants of concern were identified in the sequenced sample set, at ratios equivalent to those in the 100-fold larger German GISAID sequence dataset from the same time period. Phylogenetic analysis confirmed variant assignments. Multiple mutations of concern emerged during the observation period. To model vaccine effectiveness in vitro, we employed authentic-virus neutralization assays, confirming that both the Beta and Zeta variants are capable of immune evasion. The IMS-SC2 sequence dataset facilitated an estimate of the SARS-CoV-2 incidence based on genetic evolution rates. Together with modeled vaccine efficacies, Delta-specific incidence estimation indicated that the German vaccination campaign contributed substantially to a deceleration of the nascent German Delta wave. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 molecular and genomic surveillance may inform public health policies including vaccination strategies and enable a proactive approach to controlling coronavirus disease 2019 spread as the virus evolves.

Methodological guidance for incorporating equity when informing rapid-policy and guideline development.

OBJECTIVES: We provide guidance for considering equity in rapid reviews through examples of published COVID-19 rapid reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This guidance was developed based on a series of methodological meetings, review of internationally renowned guidance such as the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-Equity) guideline. We identified Exemplar rapid reviews by searching COVID-19 databases and requesting examples from our team. RESULTS: We proposed the following key steps: 1. involve relevant stakeholders with lived experience in the conduct and design of the review; 2. reflect on equity, inclusion and privilege in team values and composition; 3. develop research question to assess health inequities; 4. conduct searches in relevant disciplinary databases; 5. collect data and critically appraise recruitment, retention and attrition for populations experiencing inequities; 6. analyse evidence on equity; 7. evaluate the applicability of findings to populations experiencing inequities; and 8. adhere to reporting guidelines for communicating review findings. We illustrated these methods through rapid review examples. CONCLUSION: Implementing this guidance could contribute to improving equity considerations in rapid reviews produced in public health emergencies, and help policymakers better understand the distributional impact of diseases on the population.

Families' healthcare experiences for children with inherited metabolic diseases: protocol for a mixed methods cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Children with inherited metabolic diseases (IMDs) often have complex and intensive healthcare needs and their families face challenges in receiving high-quality, family centred health services. Improvement in care requires complex interventions involving multiple components and stakeholders, customised to specific care contexts. This study aims to comprehensively understand the healthcare experiences of children with IMDs and their families across Canada. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A two-stage explanatory sequential mixed methods design will be used. Stage 1: quantitative data on healthcare networks and encounter experiences will be collected from 100 parent/guardians through a care map, 2 baseline questionnaires and 17 weekly diaries over 5-7 months. Care networks will be analysed using social network analysis. Relationships between demographic or clinical variables and ratings of healthcare experiences across a range of family centred care dimensions will be analysed using generalised linear regression. Other quantitative data related to family experiences and healthcare experiences will be summarised descriptively. Ongoing analysis of quantitative data and purposive, maximum variation sampling will inform sample selection for stage 2: a subset of stage 1 participants will participate in one-on-one videoconference interviews to elaborate on the quantitative data regarding care networks and healthcare experiences. Interview data will be analysed thematically. Qualitative and quantitative data will be merged during analysis to arrive at an enhanced understanding of care experiences. Quantitative and qualitative data will be combined and presented narratively using a weaving approach (jointly on a theme-by-theme basis) and visually in a side-by-side joint display. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol and procedures were approved by the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario's Research Ethics Board, the University of Ottawa Research Ethics Board and the research ethics boards of each participating study centre. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences.

PROTOCOL: Barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

Background: There is a need for the development of comprehensive, global, evidence-based guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development. Stakeholders are any individual or group who is responsible for or affected by health- and healthcare-related decisions. This includes patients, the public, providers of health care and policymakers for example. As part of the guidance development process, Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium set out to conduct four concurrent systematic reviews to summarise the evidence on: (1) existing guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development, (2) barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development, (3) managing conflicts of interest in stakeholder engagement in guideline development and (4) measuring the impact of stakeholder engagement in guideline development. This protocol addresses the second systematic review in the series. Objectives: The objective of this review is to identify and synthesise the existing evidence on barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development. We will address this objective through two research questions: (1) What are the barriers to multi-stakeholder engagement in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist? (2) What are the facilitators to multi-stakeholder engagement in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist? Search Methods: A comprehensive search strategy will be developed and peer-reviewed in consultation with a medical librarian. We will search the following databases: MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Sociological Abstracts. To identify grey literature, we will search the websites of agencies who actively engage stakeholder groups such as the AHRQ, Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR), INVOLVE, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the PCORI. We will also search the websites of guideline-producing agencies, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, Australia's National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the WHO. We will invite members of the team to suggest grey literature sources and we plan to broaden the search by soliciting suggestions via social media, such as Twitter. Selection Criteria: We will include empirical qualitative and mixed-method primary research studies which qualitatively report on the barriers or facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development. The population of interest is stakeholders in health guideline development. Building on previous work, we have identified 13 types of stakeholders whose input can enhance the relevance and uptake of guidelines: Patients, caregivers and patient advocates; Public; Providers of health care; Payers of health services; Payers of research; Policy makers; Program managers; Product makers; Purchasers; Principal investigators and their research teams; and Peer-review editors/publishers. Eligible studies must describe stakeholder engagement at any of the following steps of the GIN-McMaster Checklist for Guideline Development. Data Collection and Analysis: All identified citations from electronic databases will be imported into Covidence software for screening and selection. Documents identified through our grey literature search will be managed and screened using an Excel spreadsheet. A two-part study selection process will be used for all identified citations: (1) a title and abstract review and (2) full-text review. At each stage, teams of two review authors will independently assess all potential studies in duplicate using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data will be extracted by two review authors independently and in duplicate according to a standardised data extraction form. Main Results: The results of this review will be used to inform the development of guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. This guidance will be official GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group guidance. The GRADE system is internationally recognised as a standard for guideline development. The findings of this review will assist organisations who develop healthcare, public health and health policy guidelines, such as the World Health Organization, to involve multiple stakeholders in the guideline development process to ensure the development of relevant, high quality and transparent guidelines.

A multistakeholder development process to prioritize and translate COVID-19 health recommendations for patients, caregivers and the public. A case study of the COVID-19 recommendation map.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To develop a digital communication tool to improve the implementation of up-to-date COVID-19 recommendations. Specifically, to improve patient, caregiver and public understanding of healthcare recommendations on prevention, diagnoses and treatment. METHODS: Multi-stakeholder engagement design. In conjunction with the COVID-19 Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization RecMap, we co-developed a stakeholder prioritization, drafting and editing process to enhance guideline communication and understanding. RESULTS: This paper presents the multi-stakeholder development process with three distinct plain language recommendation formats: formal recommendation, good practice statement, and additional guidance. Our case study of COVID-19 plain language recommendations PLRs addresses both public health interventions (e.g., vaccination, face masks) and clinical interventions (e.g., home pulse oximetry). CONCLUSION: This paper presents a novel approach to engaging stakeholders in improving the communication and understanding of published guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Risk from delayed or missed care and non-COVID-19 outcomes for older patients with chronic conditions during the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with chronic illnesses avoided regular medical care, raising concerns about long-term complications. Our objective was to identify a population of older patients with chronic conditions who may be at risk from delayed or missed care (DMC) and follow their non-COVID outcomes during the pandemic. METHODS: We used a retrospective matched cohort design using Medicare claims and electronic health records at a large health system with community and academic clinics. Participants included 14,406 patients over 65 years old with two or more chronic conditions who had 1 year of baseline data and up to 9 months of postpandemic follow-up from March 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020; and 14,406 matched comparison patients from 1 year prior. Risk from DMC was defined by 13 indicators, including chronic conditions, frailty, disability affecting the use of telehealth, recent unplanned acute care, prior missed outpatient care, and social determinants of health. Outcomes included mortality, inpatient events, Medicare payments, and primary care and specialty care visits (in-person and telehealth). RESULTS: A total of 25% of patients had four or more indicators for risk from DMC. Per 1000 patients annually, those with four or more indicators had increased mortality of 19 patients (95% confidence interval, 4 to 32) and decreased utilization, including unplanned events (-496 events, -611 to -381) and primary care visits (-1578 visits, -1793 to -1401). CONCLUSIONS: Older patients who had four or more indicators for risk from DMC had higher mortality and steep declines in inpatient and outpatient utilization during the pandemic.

Disparities in the Use of In-Person and Telehealth Primary Care Among High- and Low-Risk Medicare Beneficiaries During COVID-19.

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a difference-in-differences design to estimate differences in primary care outpatient clinic visit utilization among high- and low-risk Medicare aging beneficiaries from an Accountable Care Organization during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to a control cohort from the previous year. High-risk was defined as having a Hierarchical Condition Category score of 2 or higher. A total of 582 101 patient-month records were analyzed. After adjusting for patient characteristics, those in the high-risk group had 339 (95% CI [333, 345]) monthly outpatient encounters (in-person and telehealth) per 1000 patients compared to 186 (95% CI [182, 190]) in the low-risk group. This represented a 22.8% and 26.5% decline from the previous year in each group, respectively. Within each group, there was lower utilization among those who were older, male, or dually eligible for Medicaid in the high-risk group and among those who were younger, male, or non-white in the low-risk group. Telehealth use was less common among patients who were older, dually eligible for Medicaid or living in rural/suburban areas compared to urban areas. All results were significant at the 95% level. We found significant disparities based on age, gender, insurance status, and non-white race in primary care utilization during the pandemic among Medicare beneficiaries. With the exception of gender, these disparities differed between high- and low-risk groups. Interventions targeting these vulnerable groups may improve health equity in the setting of public health emergencies.

Using Statewide Electronic Health Record and Influenza Vaccination Data to Plan and Prioritize COVID-19 Vaccine Outreach and Communications in Wisconsin Communities.

The University of Wisconsin Neighborhood Health Partnerships Program used electronic health record and influenza vaccination data to estimate COVID-19 relative mortality risk and potential barriers to vaccination in Wisconsin ZIP Code Tabulation Areas. Data visualization revealed four groupings to use in planning and prioritizing vaccine outreach and communication based on ZIP Code Tabulation Area characteristics. The program provided data, visualization, and guidance to health systems, health departments, nonprofits, and others to support planning targeted outreach approaches to increase COVID-19 vaccination uptake. (Am J Public Health. 2021;111(12):2111-2114. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306524).

Rapid incidence estimation from SARS-CoV-2 genomes reveals decreased case detection in Europe during summer 2020.

By October 2021, 230 million SARS-CoV-2 diagnoses have been reported. Yet, a considerable proportion of cases remains undetected. Here, we propose GInPipe, a method that rapidly reconstructs SARS-CoV-2 incidence profiles solely from publicly available, time-stamped viral genomes. We validate GInPipe against simulated outbreaks and elaborate phylodynamic analyses. Using available sequence data, we reconstruct incidence histories for Denmark, Scotland, Switzerland, and Victoria (Australia) and demonstrate, how to use the method to investigate the effects of changing testing policies on case ascertainment. Specifically, we find that under-reporting was highest during summer 2020 in Europe, coinciding with more liberal testing policies at times of low testing capacities. Due to the increased use of real-time sequencing, it is envisaged that GInPipe can complement established surveillance tools to monitor the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In post-pandemic times, when diagnostic efforts are decreasing, GInPipe may facilitate the detection of hidden infection dynamics.

AcademyHealth Annual Research Meeting (ARM): A Selection of Abstracts Accepted for Oral Presentation, 2021.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: To investigate the extent to which telehealth visits mitigated COVID-19 pandemic-related impacts on in-person outpatient visits among Medicare beneficiaries, including those who are high-cost high-need. High-cost high-need patients were defined as those 65 years or older and with 2 or higher Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCC) scores. STUDY DESIGN: A difference-in-difference design was used to estimate the change in outpatient in-person and telehealth utilization for the COVID-19 pandemic cohort compared to the control cohort in the prior year. POPULATION STUDIED: Medicare patients from an Accountable Care Organization (ACO) were used as the study sample. The pandemic cohort was defined as those enrolled in the ACO in 2019-2020 (N = 21,361). The control cohort was defined as those enrolled in the ACO in 2018-2019 (N = 20,028). The study period was defined as April-September 2020 for the pandemic cohort and the same months in 2019 for the control cohort, with the preceding 12 months used as the baseline periods, respectively. Over 740,000 patient-month records were analyzed using logistic and negative binomial regressions. The models were adjusted for patient-level characteristics, including HCC scores, which reflect the complexity of patient health conditions and risk for future healthcare costs. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The total number of outpatient encounters (in-person and telehealth) in both primary and specialty care decreased by 41.5% in April 2020 compared to the pre-pandemic period. Telehealth comprised 78% of all outpatient encounters in April 2020 but declined to 22% by the end of September 2020. Only about 40% of all patients had at least one telehealth encounter between April-September 2020. Compared to the control cohort, the pandemic cohort experienced a monthly average of 113 fewer primary care encounters per 1000 patients (OR: 0.75, 95% CI: [0.73, 0.77]) and 49 fewer specialty care encounters (OR: 0.82, 95% CI: [0.80, 0.85]) over the six-month study period. This represented a decline of 25.6% and 17.3% in primary care and specialty encounters, respectively, among high-cost high-need patients. High-cost high-need patients or those with disabilities were more likely to use telehealth and experienced a lesser reduction in outpatient care utilization than other Medicare beneficiaries (OR: 1.20 and 1.06). Medicare beneficiaries with dual Medicaid coverage, those of non-white race/ethnic groups, and those living in rural/suburban areas were less likely to use telehealth and experienced a greater reduction in total outpatient care (OR: 0.86, 0.96 and 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: While there was a substantial significant increase in telehealth use in April 2020, utilization declined significantly during the six-month study period, and did not fully mitigate the decline in in-person outpatient visits resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. While high-cost high-need Medicare patients and those with disabilities were more likely to use telehealth, disparities in telehealth usage and reductions in outpatient care remain among low-income, non-white, and rural Medicare beneficiaries. IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY OR PRACTICE: Older patients insured by Medicare, including those with high-cost high-need or disabilities were able to make use of telehealth services for outpatient visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health policies and interventions should target improving telehealth access and delivery for advancing sustainability and equity among Medicare beneficiaries. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.