Health system adaptions to improve care for people living with non-communicable diseases during COVID-19 in low-middle income countries: A scoping review.

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, access to health care for people living with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) has been significantly disrupted. Calls have been made to adapt health systems and innovate service delivery models to improve access to care. We identified and summarized the health systems adaptions and interventions implemented to improve NCD care and their potential impact on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: We comprehensively searched Medline/PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Global Health, PsycINFO, Global Literature on coronavirus disease, and Web of Science for relevant literature published between January 2020 and December 2021. While we targeted articles written in English, we also included papers published in French with abstracts written in English. Results: After screening 1313 records, we included 14 papers from six countries. We identified four unique health systems adaptations/interventions for restoring, maintaining, and ensuring continuity of care for people living with NCDs: telemedicine or teleconsultation strategies, NCD medicine drop-off points, decentralization of hypertension follow-up services and provision of free medication to peripheral health centers, and diabetic retinopathy screening with a handheld smartphone-based retinal camera. We found that the adaptations/interventions enhanced continuity of NCD care during the pandemic and helped bring health care closer to patients using technology and easing access to medicines and routine visits. Telephonic aftercare services appear to have saved a significant amount of patients' time and funds. Hypertensive patients recorded better blood pressure controls over the follow-up period. Conclusions: Although the identified measures and interventions for adapting health systems resulted in potential improvements in access to NCD care and better clinical outcomes, further exploration is needed to establish the feasibility of these adaptations/interventions in different settings given the importance of context in their successful implementation. Insights from such implementation studies are critical for ongoing health systems strengthening efforts to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 and future global health security threats for people living with NCDs.

Approaching the COVID-19 Pandemic Response With a Health Equity Lens: A Framework for Academic Health Systems.

Racially and ethnically diverse and socioeconomically disadvantaged communities have historically been disproportionately affected by disasters and public health emergencies in the United States. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Minority Health established the National Consensus Panel on Emergency Preparedness and Cultural Diversity to provide guidance to agencies and organizations on developing effective strategies to advance emergency preparedness and eliminate disparities among racially and ethnically diverse communities during these crises. Adopting the National Consensus Panel recommendations, the Johns Hopkins Medicine Office of Diversity, Inclusion, and Health Equity; Language Services; and academic-community partnerships used existing health equity resources and expertise to develop an operational framework to support the organization's COVID-19 response and to provide a framework of health equity initiatives for other academic medical centers. This operational framework addressed policies to support health equity patient care and clinical operations, accessible COVID-19 communication, and staff and community support and engagement, which also supported the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health Care. Johns Hopkins Medicine identified expanded recommendations for addressing institutional policy making and capacity building, including unconscious bias training for resource allocation teams and staff training in accurate race, ethnicity, and language data collection, that should be considered in future updates to the National Consensus Panel's recommendations.

Do recipients of the first dose of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in December have a legal case against the UK government's decision to postpone their second dose?

The Covid-19 pandemic in the UK has been greatly worsened by the mutation of the virus, which began in the South East and was rapidly spreading and in danger of overwhelming the NHS as hospital admissions and deaths continued to rise. In consequence, the Chief Medical Officers of all four nations supported the UK government's sudden decision to delay the second dose of the Pfizer/BioNtech and Oxford/AstraZeneka vaccines for 12 weeks (instead of 3) so that more people in the most vulnerable population groups would receive a first dose and some immunity sooner. The expectation is that this strategy would reduce hospital admissions and deaths. This article considers key medical and legal issues arising from this decision and discusses inter alia rationing of scarce resources, fairness, whether it is for the greater good, consent, individual human rights, negligence and claims for potential or actual injury.

A Commons for a Supply Chain in the Post-COVID-19 Era: The Case for a Reformed Strategic National Stockpile.

Policy Points Reflecting on current response deficiencies, we offer a model for a national contingency supply chain cell (NCSCC) construct to manage the medical materials supply chain in support of emergencies, such as COVID-19. We develop the following: a framework for governance and response to enable a globally independent supply chain; a flexible structure to accommodate the requirements of state and county health systems for receiving and distributing materials; and a national material "control tower" to improve transparency and real-time access to material status and location. CONTEXT: Much of the discussion about the failure of the COVID-19 supply chain has centered on personal protective equipment (PPE) and the degree of vulnerability of care. Prior research on supply chain risks have focused on mitigating the risk of disruptions of specific purchased materials within a bounded region or on the shifting status of cross-border export restrictions. But COVID-19 has impacted every purchase category, region, and border. This paper is responsive to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine recommendation to study and monitor disasters and to provide governments with course of action to satisfy legislative mandates. METHODS: Our analysis draws on our observations of the responses to COVID-19 in regard to acquisition and contracting problem-solving, our review of field discussions and interactions with experts, a critique of existing proposals for managing the strategic national stockpile in the United States a mapping of the responses to national contingency planning phases, and the identification of gaps in current national healthcare response policy frameworks and proposals. FINDINGS: Current proposals call for augmenting a system that has failed to deliver the needed response to COVID-19. These proposals do not address the key attributes for pandemic plan renewal: flexibility, traceability and transparency, persistence and responsiveness, global independence, and equitable access. We offer a commons-based framework for achieving the opportunities and risks which are responsive to a constellation of intelligence assets working in and across focal targets of global supply chain risk. CONCLUSIONS: The United States needs a "commons-based strategy" that is not simply a stockpile repository but instead is a network of repositories, fluid inventories, and analytic monitoring governed by the experts. We need a coordinated effort, a "commons" that will direct both conventional and new suppliers to meet demands and to eliminate hoarding and other behaviors.