Timeliness and Modality of Treatment for New Cancer Diagnoses During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Canada.

Importance: The impact of COVID-19 on the modality and timeliness of first-line cancer treatment is unclear yet critical to the planning of subsequent care. Objective: To explore the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with modalities of and wait times for first cancer treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective population-based cohort study using administrative data was conducted in Ontario, Canada, among adults newly diagnosed with cancer between January 3, 2016, and November 7, 2020. Participants were followed up from date of diagnosis for 1 year, until death, or until June 26, 2021, whichever occurred first, to ensure a minimum of 6-month follow-up time. Exposures: Receiving a cancer diagnosis in the pandemic vs prepandemic period, using March 15, 2020, the date when elective hospital procedures were halted. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was a time-to-event variable describing number of days from date of diagnosis to date of receiving first cancer treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation) or to being censored. For each treatment modality, a multivariable competing-risk regression model was used to assess the association between time to treatment and COVID-19 period. A secondary continuous outcome was defined for patients who were treated 6 months after diagnosis as the waiting time from date of diagnosis to date of treatment. Results: Among 313 499 patients, the mean (SD) age was 66.4 (14.1) years and 153 679 (49.0%) were male patients. Those who were diagnosed during the pandemic were less likely to receive surgery first (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99) but were more likely to receive chemotherapy (sHR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.23-1.30) or radiotherapy (sHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20) first. Among patients who received treatment within 6 months from diagnosis (228 755 [73.0%]), their mean (SD) waiting time decreased from 35.1 (37.2) days to 29.5 (33.6) days for surgery, from 43.7 (34.1) days to 38.4 (30.6) days for chemotherapy, and from 55.8 (41.8) days to 49.0 (40.1) days for radiotherapy. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the pandemic was significantly associated with greater use of nonsurgical therapy as initial cancer treatment. Wait times were shorter in the pandemic period for those treated within 6 months of diagnosis. Future work needs to examine how these changes may have affected patient outcomes to inform future pandemic guideline development.

Complications Following Elective Major Noncardiac Surgery Among Patients With Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Importance: There is an urgent need for evidence to inform preoperative risk assessment for the millions of people who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection and are awaiting elective surgery, which is critical to surgical care planning and informed consent. Objective: To assess the association of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection with death, major adverse cardiovascular events, and rehospitalization after elective major noncardiac surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study included adults who had received a polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 infection within 6 months prior to elective major noncardiac surgery in Ontario, Canada, between April 2020 and October 2021, with 30 days follow-up. Exposures: Positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test result. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the composite of death, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause rehospitalization within 30 days after surgery. Results: Of 71 144 patients who underwent elective major noncardiac surgery (median age, 66 years [IQR, 57-73 years]; 59.8% female), 960 had prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (1.3%) and 70 184 had negative test results (98.7%). Prior infection was not associated with the composite risk of death, major adverse cardiovascular events, and rehospitalization within 30 days of elective major noncardiac surgery (5.3% absolute event rate [n = 3770]; 960 patients with a positive test result; adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.68-1.21). There was also no association between prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 and postoperative outcomes when the time between infection and surgery was less than 4 weeks (aRR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.64-2.09) or less than 7 weeks (aRR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56-1.61) and among those who were previously vaccinated (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.52-1.26). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, prior infection with SARS-CoV-2 was not associated with death, major adverse cardiovascular events, or rehospitalization following elective major noncardiac surgery, although low event rates and wide 95% CIs do not preclude a potentially meaningful increase in overall risk.

Characterizing the Impact of Procedure Funding on the Covid-19 Generated Procedure Gap in Ontario: A Population-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Surgical procedures in Canada were historically funded through global hospital budgets. Activity-based funding models were developed to improve access, equity, timeliness and value of care for priority areas. COVID-19 upended health priorities and resulted in unprecedented disruptions to surgical care which created a significant procedure gap. We hypothesized that activity-based funding models influenced the magnitude and trajectory of this procedure gap. METHODS: Population-based analysis of procedure rates comparing pandemic (March 1, 2020 to December 31, 2021) to a pre-pandemic baseline (January 1, 2017 to February 29, 2020) in Ontario, Canada. Poisson generalized estimating equation models were used to predict expected rates in the pandemic based on the pre-pandemic baseline. Analyses were stratified by procedure type (out-patient, in-patient), body region, and funding category (activity-based funding programs vs. global budget). RESULTS: 281,328 fewer scheduled procedures were performed during the COVID-19 period compared to the pre-pandemic baseline (Rate Ratio 0.78; 95%CI 0.77-0.80). In-patient procedures saw a larger reduction (24.8%) in volume compared to out-patient procedures (20.5%). An increase in the proportion of procedures funded through activity-based programs was seen during the pandemic (52%) relative to the pre-pandemic baseline (50%). Body systems funded predominantly through global hospital budgets (e.g. gynecology, otologic surgery) saw the least months at or above baseline volumes whereas those with multiple activity-based funding options (e.g. musculoskeletal, abdominal) saw the most months at or above baseline volumes. CONCLUSIONS: Those needing procedures funded though global hospital budgets may have been disproportionately disadvantaged by pandemic-related health care disruptions.

Incident Cancer Detection During Multiple Waves of COVID-19: The Tsunami After the Earthquake.

No population-based study exists to demonstrate the full-spectrum impact of COVID-19 on hindering incident cancer detection in a large cancer system. Building upon our previous publication in JNCCN, we conducted an updated analysis using 12 months of new data accrued in the pandemic era (extending the study period from September 26, 2020, to October 2, 2021) to demonstrate how multiple COVID-19 waves affected the weekly cancer incidence volume in Ontario, Canada, and if we have fully cleared the backlog at the end of each wave.

Perceptions of Ontario health system leaders on single-entry models for managing the COVID-19 elective surgery backlog: an interpretive descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated pre-existing challenges with respect to access to elective surgery across Canada, and a single-entry model (SEM) approach has been proposed as an equitable and efficient method to help manage the backlog. With Ontario's recent investment in centralized surgical wait-list management, we sought to understand the views of health system leaders on the role of SEMs in managing the elective surgery backlog. METHODS: We used the qualitative method of interpretive description to explore participant perspectives and identify practical strategies for policy-makers, administrators and clinical leaders. We conducted semistructured interviews with health system leaders from across Ontario on Zoom between March and June 2021. We used snowball and purposive sampling. Inclusion criteria included Ontario health care leaders, fluent in English or French, in positions relevant to managing the elective surgery backlog. Exclusion criteria were individuals who work outside Ontario, or do not hold relevant roles. RESULTS: Our interviews with 10 health system leaders - including hospital chief executive officers, surgeons, administrators and policy experts - resulted in 5 emergent domains: perceptions of the backlog, operationalizing and financing SEMs, barriers, facilitators, and equity and patient factors. All participants emphasized the need for clinical leaders to champion SEMs and the utility of SEMs in managing wait-lists for high-volume, low-acuity, low-complexity and low-variation surgeries. INTERPRETATION: Although SEMs are no panacea, the participants in our study stated that they believe SEMs can improve quality and reduce variability in wait times when SEMs are designed to address local needs and are implemented with buy-in from champions. Health care leaders should consider SEMs for improving surgical backlog management in their local jurisdictions.

Protocol for a scoping review on transition-related surgery procedures, outcome measures and access to care.

INTRODUCTION: Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals often identify with a gender different to the one assigned at birth. Transition is a term used to describe the process TGD individuals take to live as their true gender. Surgery can be a very important aspect of care for members of TGD communities. Transition-related surgery (TRS) refers to many different types of surgeries completed to meet a TGD individual's gender-related goals. While various systematic reviews have attempted to synthesise the existing peer-reviewed literature around aspects of TRS, there are few scoping reviews in this area. Our scoping review aims to address this gap through providing an up-to-date overview of the TRS literature in order to provide an overarching view of the topic. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: This review will follow the methods outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology for scoping reviews and will be reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. A search of nine scientific databases resulted in 20 062 potential articles. After removing duplicates, articles will be screened for inclusion using Covidence. Data extraction and synthesis will be carried out using NVivo and reviewed by team members. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this study is a scoping review of the existing literature, no ethics review is required. The findings from this review will be disseminated through multiple pathways including open access publication, submission to conferences, social media and Listservs. The findings of the study will also be readily available to clinicians, organizations, interest groups, and policy-makers.

Shared care in surgery: Practical considerations for surgical leaders.

The recent COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted limitations in current healthcare systems and needed strategies to increase surgical access. This article presents a team-based integration model that embraces intra-disciplinary collaboration in shared clinical care, professional development, and administrative processes to address this surge in demand for surgical care. Implementing this model will require communicating the rationale for and benefits of shared care, while shifting patient trust to a team of providers. For the individual surgeon, advantages of clinical integration through shared care include decreased burnout and professional isolation, and more efficient transitions into and out of practice. Advantages to the system include greater surgeon availability, streamlined disease site wait lists, and promotion of system efficiency through a centralized distribution of clinical resources. We present a framework to stimulate national dialogue around shared care that will ultimately help overcome system bottlenecks for surgical patients and provide support for health professionals.