Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Nutrients ; 14(5)2022 Mar 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1732146

ABSTRACT

Up to two-thirds of older Canadian adults have high nutrition risk, which predisposes them to frailty, hospitalization and death. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of a brief education intervention on nutrition risk and use of adaptive strategies to promote dietary resilience among community-dwelling older adults living in Alberta, Canada, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study design was a single-arm intervention trial with pre-post evaluation. Participants (N = 28, age 65+ years) in the study completed a survey online or via telephone. Questions included the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS), SCREEN-14, a brief poverty screen, and a World Health Organization-guided questionnaire regarding awareness and use of nutrition-related services and resources (S and R). A brief educational intervention involved raising participant awareness of available nutrition S and R. Education was offered via email or postal mail with follow-up surveys administered 3 months later. Baseline and follow-up nutrition risk scores, S and R awareness and use were compared using paired t-test. Three-quarters of participants had a high nutrition risk, but very few reported experiencing financial strain or food insecurity. Those at high nutrition risk were more likely to report eating alone, compared to those who scored as low risk. There was a significant increase in awareness of 20 S and R as a result of the educational intervention, but no change in use. The study shows increasing individual knowledge about services and resources in the community is not sufficient to change use of these services or improve nutrition risk.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Independent Living , Aged , Alberta/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
2.
JCO Oncol Pract ; 18(1): e60-e71, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1403282

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Provider well-being has become the fourth pillar of the quadruple aim for providing quality care. Exacerbated by the global COVID-19 pandemic, provider well-being has become a critical issue for health care systems worldwide. We describe the prevalence and key system-level drivers of burnout in oncologists in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional survey study conducted in November-December 2019 of practicing cancer care physicians (surgical, medical, radiation, gynecologic oncology, and hematology) in Ontario, Canada. Ontario is Canada's largest province (with a population of 14.5 million), and has a single-payer publicly funded cancer system. The primary outcome was burnout experience assessed through the Maslach Burnout Inventory. RESULTS: A total of 418 physicians completed the questionnaire (response rate was 44% among confirmed oncologists). Seventy-three percent (n = 264 of 362) of oncologists had symptoms of burnout (high emotional exhaustion and/or depersonalization scores). Significant drivers of burnout identified in multivariable regression modeling included working in a hectic or chaotic atmosphere (odds ratio [OR] = 15.5; 95% CI, 3.4 to 71.5; P < .001), feeling unappreciated on the job (OR = 7.9; 95% CI, 2.9 to 21.3; P < .001), reporting poor or marginal control over workload (OR = 7.9; 95% CI, 2.9 to 21.3; P < .001), and not being comfortable talking to peers about workplace stress (OR = 3.0; 95% CI, 1.1 to 7.9; P < .001). Older age (≥ 56 years) was associated with lower odds of burnout (OR = 0.16; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.4; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Nearly three quarters of participants met predefined standardized criteria for burnout. This number is striking, given the known impact of burnout on provider mental health, patient safety, and quality of care, and suggests Oncologists in Ontario may be a vulnerable group that warrants attention. Health care changes being driven by the COVID-19 pandemic provide an opportunity to rebuild new systems that address drivers of burnout. Creating richer peer-to-peer and leadership engagement opportunities among early- to mid-career individuals may be a worthwhile organizational strategy.


Subject(s)
Burnout, Professional , COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Physicians , Aged , Burnout, Professional/epidemiology , Burnout, Psychological , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Job Satisfaction , Ontario/epidemiology , Pandemics , Prevalence , SARS-CoV-2 , Workplace
3.
Blood ; 136(Supplement 1):38-39, 2020.
Article in English | PMC | ID: covidwho-1339045

ABSTRACT

Background:Novel coronavirus infection (SARS CoV-2 or COVID-19) is associated with a high risk of thrombotic complications, including macro- and micro-thrombi in major organs, leading to increased morbidity and mortality. Anticoagulant use, mainly heparin, which has both anticoagulant and anti-inflammatory properties, has been suggested as potentially beneficial. However, the optimal dose of anticoagulant for patients with COVID-19 is unknown. Establishing the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy and determining the role of biomarkers for patient risk stratification may help to improve outcomes in COVID-19.Methods:This single-center retrospective cohort study is part of an ongoing Quality Improvement project on the use of an anti-factor Xa-driven heparin protocol, which includes a low-dose intravenous (IV) unfractionated heparin (UFH) option, being conducted at our medical center. Data on the type, dose, and indication for anticoagulation as well as outcomes including thrombosis, bleeding and survival was collected for inpatients diagnosed with COVID-19 between mid-March and June 15, 2020. To address COVID-coagulopathy we developed a d-dimer-based anticoagulation protocol for patients with COVID-19 (Figure 1). We recorded anticoagulant use as either standard prophylactic, escalated prophylactic (low-dose intravenous unfractionated heparin titrated to achieve an anti-factor Xa level of 0.1-0.3 anti-Xa units or enoxaparin 0.5mg/kg subcutaneously every 12 hours) or standard therapeutic dose used during the hospitalization. The primary endpoints assessed were ISTH-defined major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) events and survival. Secondary endpoints included incidence of breakthrough thrombosis and duration of hospitalization.Results:A total of 263 patients with COVID-19 were reviewed. Of these, 68.44% of patients received prophylactic, 12.55% escalated prophylactic and 19.01% therapeutic dosage. Of total, 129 (49%) were receiving ICU level of care. No major bleeding events were observed. The incidence of CRNMB was 4.56% in the whole cohort, which did not differ significantly between the escalated prophylactic and therapeutic groups (12% and 12.12%, respectively). Patients treated with standard prophylaxis had less CRNMB (1.11%), but this was not statistically significant in a multivariate analysis that included other confounding factors such as age, sex, ethnicity, BMI, comorbidity, HASBLED bleeding risk, and sepsis induced coagulopathy score (SICS).The mortality rate was 12.6% in the whole cohort (7.22%, 21.21% and 26% in prophylactic, escalated prophylactic, and therapeutic dosage, respectively). Factors significantly associated with increased mortality included age and ICU level of care (HR 1.10, 95%CI [1.05, 1.15] and HR 20.42, 95%CI [2.84, 146.72], respectively). The use of therapeutic dose heparin and high-flow nasal cannula demonstrate a survival benefit in multivariate analysis (HR 0.13, 95%CI [0.04,0.44] and HR 0.23, 95%CI [0.07, 0.72], respectively;Figure 2).Breakthrough thrombosis occurred in 7 (2.66%) patients;1 (0.56%), 1 (3.03%) and 5 (10%)) in prophylactic, escalated prophylactic and therapeutic dosage, respectively but very few diagnostic tests were performed during this time period. Duration of hospitalization was significantly longer in the therapeutic dose group when compared to escalated prophylaxis and standard prophylactic groups.Conclusion:In this cohort of inpatients with COVID-19, there were no major bleeding events related to any dose of heparin or LMWH prophylaxis. By multivariate analysis, implementation of a d-dimer-titrated anticoagulation strategy was not associated with increased CRNMB. Therapeutic dose heparin based on a d-dimer-driven anticoagulation protocol was associated with a survival benefit in COVID19-infected patients. Limitations of this study include the retrospective observational nature and a lack of a uniform diagnostic protocol for patients with suspected VTE. Although no significant difference in bleeding events were observed in our study subgroups, andomized clinical trials are necessary to determine optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy in the COVID-19 population.

4.
Thrombosis Update ; : 100055, 2021.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-1260879

ABSTRACT

Background While Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) during hospitalization despite prophylactic anticoagulation, there is a lack of evidence-based guidelines for dose escalation of anticoagulation for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods This single-center retrospective cohort study was part of a quality improvement program evaluating safety and efficacy of anticoagulation protocols at our large, metropolitan public hospital. We implemented a D-dimer-based guideline for dosing unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in COVID-19 hospitalized patients that allowed for up-titration from standard prophylactic dosing to escalated prophylactic dosing or therapeutic dosing based on patient risk and presence of known or highly suspected VTE. Primary endpoints were International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH)-defined major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) events and in-hospital survival. Findings Among 262 COVID-19-infected patients hospitalized between March 15th and June 15th, 2020, 125 (73.1%) were male. Highest anticoagulation dose was: 65.3% prophylactic, 13.4% escalated prophylactic, 21.4% therapeutic. The dose was uptitrated in 83 (31.6%) patients. Bleeding events were comparable between the therapeutic (12.5%) and escalated prophylactic groups (11.4%), but significantly higher than in the prophylactic group (1.2%). In-hospital survival at 28 days was superior among patients whose anticoagulation was uptitrated to either escalated prophylactic or therapeutic (77.6%), compared to those receiving fixed prophylactic (56.7%) or fixed therapeutic (26.7%) dosing (p = 0.001). Conclusion A dynamic, D-dimer based dose escalation of anticoagulation for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 may improve in-hospital mortality without increasing fatal bleeding.

5.
Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol ; 21(1): 38-45, 2021 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-998486

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The WHO announced the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak as a pandemic in February 2020 with over 15 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 globally to date. Otolaryngologists are at a high risk of contracting COVID-19 during this pandemic if there is inadequate and improper personal protective equipment provision, as we are dealing with diseases of the upper-aerodigestive tract and routinely engaged in aerosol-generating procedures. RECENT FINDINGS: This article discusses the background and transmission route for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, its viral load and temporal profile as well as precaution guidelines in outpatient and operative setting in otorhinolaryngology. SUMMARY: As it is evident that COVID-19 can be transmitted at presymptomatic or asymptomatic period of infections, it is essential to practice ear, nose, and throat surgery with high vigilance in a safe and up-to-standard protection level during the pandemic. This article provides a summary for guidelines and recommendations in otorhinolaryngology.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Otolaryngology/methods , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Aerosols , Ambulatory Care Facilities , Asymptomatic Infections , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/prevention & control , Nasopharynx/virology , Oropharynx/virology , Otorhinolaryngologic Surgical Procedures/methods , Personal Protective Equipment , Physical Examination , Viral Load
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL