Assessing a New Prescreening Score for the Simplified Evaluation of the Clinical Quality and Relevance of eHealth Apps: Instrument Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, more than 250 eHealth solutions were added to app stores each day, or 90,000 in the year; however, the vast majority of these solutions have not undergone clinical validation, their quality is unknown, and the user does not know if they are effective and safe. We sought to develop a simple prescreening scoring method that would assess the quality and clinical relevance of each app. We designed this tool with 3 health care stakeholder groups in mind: eHealth solution designers seeking to evaluate a potential competitor or their own tool, investors considering a fundraising candidate, and a hospital clinician or IT department wishing to evaluate a current or potential eHealth solution. OBJECTIVE: We built and tested a novel prescreening scoring tool (the Medical Digital Solution scoring tool). The tool, which consists of 26 questions that enable the quick assessment and comparison of the clinical relevance and quality of eHealth apps, was tested on 68 eHealth solutions. METHODS: The Medical Digital Solution scoring tool is based on the 2021 evaluation criteria of the French National Health Authority, the 2022 European Society of Medical Oncology recommendations, and other provided scores. We built the scoring tool with patient association and eHealth experts and submitted it to eHealth app creators, who evaluated their apps via the web-based form in January 2022. After completing the evaluation criteria, their apps obtained an overall score and 4 categories of subscores. These criteria evaluated the type of solution and domain, the solution's targeted population size, the level of clinical assessment, and information about the provider. RESULTS: In total, 68 eHealth solutions were evaluated with the scoring tool. Oncology apps (22%, 20/90) and general health solutions (23%, 21/90) were the most represented. Of the 68 apps, 32 (47%) were involved in remote monitoring by health professionals. Regarding clinical outcomes, 5% (9/169) of the apps assessed overall survival. Randomized studies had been conducted for 21% (23/110) of the apps to assess their benefit. Of the 68 providers, 38 (56%) declared the objective of obtaining reimbursement, and 7 (18%) out of the 38 solutions seeking reimbursement were assessed as having a high probability of reimbursement. The median global score was 11.2 (range 4.7-17.4) out of 20 and the distribution of the scores followed a normal distribution pattern (Shapiro-Wilk test: P=.33). CONCLUSIONS: This multidomain prescreening scoring tool is simple, fast, and can be deployed on a large scale to initiate an assessment of the clinical relevance and quality of a clinical eHealth app. This simple tool can help a decision-maker determine which aspects of the app require further analysis and improvement.

Acute Care Reimagined: Home Hospital Care Can Support the Triple Aim and Reduce Health Disparities.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Home hospital care (HHC) is a new and exciting concept that holds the promise of achieving all three components of the Triple Aim and reducing health disparities. As an innovative care delivery model, HHC substitutes traditional inpatient hospital care with hospital care at home for older patients with certain conditions. Studies have shown evidence of reduced cost of care, improved patient satisfaction, and enhanced quality and safety of care for patients treated through this model. The steady growth in Medicare Advantage enrollment and the expansion in 2020 of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospitals Without Walls program to include acute hospital care at home creates an opportunity for hospitals to implement such programs and be financially rewarded for reducing costs. Capacity constraints exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic suggest that now is the ideal time for healthcare leaders to test and advance the concept of HHC in their communities.

Service user experiences and views regarding telemental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: A co-produced framework analysis.

BACKGROUND: The prominence of telemental health, including providing care by video call and telephone, has greatly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there are clear variations in uptake and acceptability, and concerns that digital exclusion may exacerbate previous inequalities in access to good quality care. Greater understanding is needed of how service users experience telemental health, and what determines whether they engage and find it acceptable. METHODS: We conducted a collaborative framework analysis of data from semi-structured interviews with a sample of people already experiencing mental health problems prior to the pandemic. Data relevant to participants' experiences and views regarding telemental health during the pandemic were identified and extracted. Data collection and analysis used a participatory, coproduction approach where researchers with relevant lived experience, contributed to all stages of data collection, analysis and interpretation of findings alongside clinical and academic researchers. FINDINGS: The experiences and preferences regarding telemental health care of the forty-four participants were dynamic and varied across time and settings, as well as between individuals. Participants' preferences were shaped by reasons for contacting services, their relationship with care providers, and both parties' access to technology and their individual preferences. While face-to-face care tended to be the preferred option, participants identified benefits of remote care including making care more accessible for some populations and improved efficiency for functional appointments such as prescription reviews. Participants highlighted important challenges related to safety and privacy in online settings, and gave examples of good remote care strategies they had experienced, including services scheduling regular phone calls and developing guidelines about how to access remote care tools. DISCUSSION: Participants in our study have highlighted advantages of telemental health care, as well as significant limitations that risk hindering mental health support and exacerbate inequalities in access to services. Some of these limitations are seen as potentially removable, for example through staff training or better digital access for staff or service users. Others indicate a need to maintain traditional face-to-face contact at least for some appointments. There is a clear need for care to be flexible and individualised to service user circumstances and preferences. Further research is needed on ways of minimising digital exclusion and of supporting staff in making effective and collaborative use of relevant technologies.

Stroke Care in the United Kingdom During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has potentially caused indirect harm to patients with other conditions via reduced access to health care services. We aimed to describe the impact of the initial wave of the pandemic on admissions, care quality, and outcomes in patients with acute stroke in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Registry-based cohort study of patients with acute stroke admitted to hospital in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland between October 1, 2019, and April 30, 2020, and equivalent periods in the 3 prior years. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen hospitals provided data for a study cohort of 184 017 patients. During the lockdown period (March 23 to April 30), there was a 12% reduction (6923 versus 7902) in the number of admissions compared with the same period in the 3 previous years. Admissions fell more for ischemic than hemorrhagic stroke, for older patients, and for patients with less severe strokes. Quality of care was preserved for all measures and in some domains improved during lockdown (direct access to stroke unit care, 1-hour brain imaging, and swallow screening). Although there was no change in the proportion of patients discharged with good outcome (modified Rankin Scale score, ≤2; 48% versus 48%), 7-day inpatient case fatality increased from 6.9% to 9.4% (P<0.001) and was 22.0% in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 (adjusted rate ratio, 1.41 [1.11-1.80]). CONCLUSIONS: Assuming that the true incidence of acute stroke did not change markedly during the pandemic, hospital avoidance may have created a cohort of untreated stroke patients at risk of poorer outcomes or recurrent events. Unanticipated improvements in stroke care quality should be used as an opportunity for quality improvement and to learn about how to develop resilient health care systems.

Association between live childhood vaccines and COVID-19 outcomes: a national-level analysis.

We investigated whether countries with higher coverage of childhood live vaccines [BCG or measles-containing-vaccine (MCV)] have reduced risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related mortality, while accounting for known systems differences between countries. In this ecological study of 140 countries using publicly available national-level data, higher vaccine coverage, representing estimated proportion of people vaccinated during the last 14 years, was associated with lower COVID-19 deaths. The associations attenuated for both vaccine variables, and MCV coverage became no longer significant once adjusted for published estimates of the Healthcare access and quality index (HAQI), a validated summary score of healthcare quality indicators. The magnitude of association between BCG coverage and COVID-19 death rate varied according to HAQI, and MCV coverage had little effect on the association between BCG and COVID-19 deaths. While there are associations between live vaccine coverage and COVID-19 outcomes, the vaccine coverage variables themselves were strongly correlated with COVID-19 testing rate, HAQI and life expectancy. This suggests that the population-level associations may be further confounded by differences in structural health systems and policies. Cluster randomised studies of booster vaccines would be ideal to evaluate the efficacy of trained immunity in preventing COVID-19 infections and mortality in vaccinated populations and on community transmission.

Right Under Our Noses: Nursing Homes and COVID-19.

A medical mission volunteer bears witness to nightmarish inequalities.

COVID-19 International Collaborative Research by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service Using Its Nationwide Real-world Data: Database, Outcomes, and Implications.

This article aims to introduce the inception and operation of the COVID-19 International Collaborative Research Project, the world's first coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) open data project for research, along with its dataset and research method, and to discuss relevant considerations for collaborative research using nationwide real-world data (RWD). COVID-19 has spread across the world since early 2020, becoming a serious global health threat to life, safety, and social and economic activities. However, insufficient RWD from patients was available to help clinicians efficiently diagnose and treat patients with COVID-19, or to provide necessary information to the government for policy-making. Countries that saw a rapid surge of infections had to focus on leveraging medical professionals to treat patients, and the circumstances made it even more difficult to promptly use COVID-19 RWD. Against this backdrop, the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) of Korea decided to open its COVID-19 RWD collected through Korea's universal health insurance program, under the title of the COVID-19 International Collaborative Research Project. The dataset, consisting of 476 508 claim statements from 234 427 patients (7590 confirmed cases) and 18 691 318 claim statements of the same patients for the previous 3 years, was established and hosted on HIRA's in-house server. Researchers who applied to participate in the project uploaded analysis code on the platform prepared by HIRA, and HIRA conducted the analysis and provided outcome values. As of November 2020, analyses have been completed for 129 research projects, which have been published or are in the process of being published in prestigious journals.

Following the science? Comparison of methodological and reporting quality of covid-19 and other research from the first wave of the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Following the initial identification of the 2019 coronavirus disease (covid-19), the subsequent months saw substantial increases in published biomedical research. Concerns have been raised in both scientific and lay press around the quality of some of this research. We assessed clinical research from major clinical journals, comparing methodological and reporting quality of covid-19 papers published in the first wave (here defined as December 2019 to May 2020 inclusive) of the viral pandemic with non-covid papers published at the same time. METHODS: We reviewed research publications (print and online) from The BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, from first publication of a covid-19 research paper (February 2020) to May 2020 inclusive. Paired reviewers were randomly allocated to extract data on methodological quality (risk of bias) and reporting quality (adherence to reporting guidance) from each paper using validated assessment tools. A random 10% of papers were assessed by a third, independent rater. Overall methodological quality for each paper was rated high, low or unclear. Reporting quality was described as percentage of total items reported. RESULTS: From 168 research papers, 165 were eligible, including 54 (33%) papers with a covid-19 focus. For methodological quality, 18 (33%) covid-19 papers and 83 (73%) non-covid papers were rated as low risk of bias, OR 6.32 (95%CI 2.85 to 14.00). The difference in quality was maintained after adjusting for publication date, results, funding, study design, journal and raters (OR 6.09 (95%CI 2.09 to 17.72)). For reporting quality, adherence to reporting guidelines was poorer for covid-19 papers, mean percentage of total items reported 72% (95%CI:66 to 77) for covid-19 papers and 84% (95%CI:81 to 87) for non-covid. CONCLUSIONS: Across various measures, we have demonstrated that covid-19 research from the first wave of the pandemic was potentially of lower quality than contemporaneous non-covid research. While some differences may be an inevitable consequence of conducting research during a viral pandemic, poor reporting should not be accepted.

Nursing home oversight during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Regulatory oversight has been a central strategy to assure nursing home quality of care for decades. In response to COVID-19, traditional elements of oversight that relate to resident care have been curtailed in favor of implementing limited infection control surveys and targeted complaint investigations. We seek to describe the state of nursing home oversight during the pandemic to facilitate a discussion of whether and how these activities should be altered going forward. DESIGN AND SETTING: In a retrospective study, we describe national oversight activities in January-June 2020 and compare these activities to the same time period from 2019. We also examine state-level oversight activities during the peak months of the pandemic. PARTICIPANTS: United States nursing homes. DATA: Publicly available Quality, Certification, and Oversight Reports (QCOR) data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). MEASUREMENTS: Number of standard, complaint, and onsite infection surveys, number of deficiencies from standard and complaint surveys, number of citations by deficiency tag, and number and amount of civil monetary penalties. RESULTS: The number of standard and complaint surveys declined considerably in the second quarter of 2020 relative to the same time frame in 2019. Deficiency citations generally decreased to near zero by April 2020 with the exception of infection prevention and control deficiencies and citations for failure to report COVID-19 data to the national health safety network. Related enforcement actions were down considerably in 2020, relative to 2019. CONCLUSION: In the months since COVID-19 first impacted nursing homes, regulatory oversight efforts have fallen off considerably. While CMS implemented universal infection control surveys and targeted complaint investigations, other routine aspects of oversight dropped in light of justifiable limits on nursing home entry. Going forward, we must develop policies that allow regulators to balance the demands of the pandemic while fulfilling their responsibilities effectively.