Respiratory infectious disease outbreaks among people experiencing homelessness: a systematic review of prevention and mitigation strategies.

PURPOSE: People experiencing homelessness (PEH) are at increased risk of respiratory infections and associated morbidity and mortality. To characterize optimal intervention strategies, we completed a systematic review of mitigation strategies for PEH to minimize the spread and impact of respiratory infectious disease outbreaks, including COVID-19. METHODS: The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (#2020 CRD42020208964) and was consistent with the preferred reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. A search algorithm containing keywords that were synonymous to the terms "Homeless" and "Respiratory Illness" was applied to the six databases. The search concluded on September 22, 2020. Quality assessment was performed at the study level. Steps were conducted by two independent team members. RESULTS: A total of 4468 unique titles were retrieved with 21 meeting criteria for inclusion. Interventions included testing, tracking, screening, infection prevention and control, isolation support, and education. Historically, there has been limited study of intervention strategies specifically for PEH across the world. CONCLUSIONS: Staff and organizations providing services for people experiencing homelessness face specific challenges in adhering to public health guidelines such as physical distancing, isolation, and routine hygiene practices. There is a discrepancy between the burden of infectious diseases among PEH and specific research characterizing optimal intervention strategies to mitigate transmission in the context of shelters. Improving health for people experiencing homelessness necessitates investment in programs scaling existing interventions and research to study new approaches.

How Accurate Are Home Blood Pressure Devices in Use? A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Out of office blood pressure measurements, using either home monitors or 24 hour ambulatory monitoring, is widely recommended for management of hypertension. Though validation protocols, meant to be used by manufacturers, exist for blood pressure monitors, there is scant data in the literature about the accuracy of home blood pressure monitors in actual clinical practice. We performed a chart review in the blood pressure assessment clinic at a tertiary care centre. METHODS: We assessed the accuracy of home blood pressure monitors used by patients seen in the nephrology clinic in Ottawa between the years 2011 to 2014. We recorded patient demographics and clinical data, including the blood pressure measurements, arm circumference and the manufacturer of the home blood pressure monitor. The average of BP measurements performed with the home blood pressure monitor, were compared to those with the mercury sphygmomanometer. We defined accuracy based on a difference of 5 mm Hg in the blood pressure values between the home monitor and mercury sphygmomanometer readings. The two methods were compared using a Bland-Altman plot and a student's t-test. RESULTS: The study included 210 patients. The mean age of the study population was 67 years and 61% was men. The average mid-arm circumference was 32.2 cms. 30% and 32% of the home BP monitors reported a mean systolic and diastolic BP values, respectively, different from the mercury measurements by 5 mm Hg or more. There was no significant difference between the monitors that were accurate versus those that were not when grouped according to the patient characteristics, cuff size or the brand of the home monitor. CONCLUSIONS: An important proportion of home blood pressure monitors used by patients seen in our nephrology clinic were inaccurate. A re-validation of the accuracy and safety of the devices already in use is prudent before relying on these measurements for clinical decisions.