Video Telemedicine Experiences In COVID-19 Were Positive, But Physicians And Patients Prefer In-Person Care For The Future.

To help inform policy discussions about postpandemic telemedicine reimbursement and regulations, we conducted dual nationally representative surveys among primary care physicians and patients. Although majorities of both populations reported satisfaction with video visits during the pandemic, 80 percent of physicians would prefer to provide only a small share of care or no care via telemedicine in the future, and only 36 percent of patients would prefer to seek care by video or phone. Most physicians (60 percent) felt that the quality of video telemedicine care was generally inferior to the quality of in-person care, and both patients and physicians cited the lack of physical exam as a key reason (90 percent and 92 percent, respectively). Patients who were older, had less education, or were Asian were less likely to want to use video for future care. Although improvements to home-based diagnostic tools could improve both the quality of and the desire to use telemedicine, virtual primary care will likely be limited in the immediate future. Policies to enhance quality, sustain virtual care, and address inequities in the online setting may be needed.

Engagement With the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Coronavirus Self-Checker and Guidance Provided to Users in the United States From March 23, 2020, to April 19, 2021: Thematic and Trend Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States experienced surges in healthcare needs, which challenged capacity throughout the healthcare system. Stay-at-home orders in many jurisdictions, cancellation of elective procedures, and closures of outpatient medical offices disrupted patient access to care. To inform symptomatic persons about when to seek care and potentially help alleviate the burden on the healthcare system, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and partners developed the CDC Coronavirus Self-Checker ("Self-Checker"). This interactive tool assists individuals seeking information about COVID-19 to determine the appropriate level of care by asking demographic, clinical, and nonclinical questions during an online "conversation." OBJECTIVE: This paper describes user characteristics, trends in use, and recommendations delivered by the Self-Checker between March 23, 2020, and April 19, 2021, for pursuing appropriate levels of medical care depending on the severity of user symptoms. METHODS: User characteristics and trends in completed conversations that resulted in a care message were analyzed. Care messages delivered by the Self-Checker were manually classified into three overarching conversation themes: (1) seek care immediately; (2) take no action, or stay home and self-monitor; and (3) conversation redirected. Trends in 7-day averages of conversations and COVID-19 cases were examined with development and marketing milestones that potentially impacted Self-Checker user engagement. RESULTS: Among 16,718,667 completed conversations, the Self-Checker delivered recommendations for 69.27% (n=11,580,738) of all conversations to "take no action, or stay home and self-monitor"; 28.8% (n=4,822,138) of conversations to "seek care immediately"; and 1.89% (n=315,791) of conversations were redirected to other resources without providing any care advice. Among 6.8 million conversations initiated for self-reported sick individuals without life-threatening symptoms, 59.21% resulted in a recommendation to "take no action, or stay home and self-monitor." Nearly all individuals (99.8%) who were not sick were also advised to "take no action, or stay home and self-monitor." CONCLUSIONS: The majority of Self-Checker conversations resulted in advice to take no action, or stay home and self-monitor. This guidance may have reduced patient volume on the medical system; however, future studies evaluating patients' satisfaction, intention to follow the care advice received, course of action, and care modality pursued could clarify the impact of the Self-Checker and similar tools during future public health emergencies.

Returning to the workplace during the COVID-19 pandemic: A framework to inform business decision-making.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many officebased workplaces closed and a large proportion of the workforce switched to working remotely. Plans to return to the office, however, have been delayed on several occasions due to surges in cases related to virus variants. Recognising that businesses need to know when and how to return safely to their offices, this paper provides a six-part framework to help guide their decisions regarding workplace re-entry.

The public's role in COVID-19 vaccination: Human-centered recommendations to enhance pandemic vaccine awareness, access, and acceptance in the United States.

Given the social and economic upheavals caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, political leaders, health officials, and members of the public are eager for solutions. One of the most promising, if they can be successfully developed, is vaccines. While the technological development of such countermeasures is currently underway, a key social gap remains. Past experience in routine and crisis contexts demonstrates that uptake of vaccines is more complicated than simply making the technology available. Vaccine uptake, and especially the widespread acceptance of vaccines, is a social endeavor that requires consideration of human factors. To provide a starting place for this critical component of a future COVID-19 vaccination campaign in the United States, the 23-person Working Group on Readying Populations for COVID-19 Vaccines was formed. One outcome of this group is a synthesis of the major challenges and opportunities associated with a future COVID-19 vaccination campaign and empirically-informed recommendations to advance public understanding of, access to, and acceptance of vaccines that protect against SARS-CoV-2. While not inclusive of all possible steps than could or should be done to facilitate COVID-19 vaccination, the working group believes that the recommendations provided are essential for a successful vaccination program.

Trends in the Use of Telehealth During the Emergence of the COVID-19 Pandemic - United States, January-March 2020.

In February 2020, CDC issued guidance advising persons and health care providers in areas affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to adopt social distancing practices, specifically recommending that health care facilities and providers offer clinical services through virtual means such as telehealth.* Telehealth is the use of two-way telecommunications technologies to provide clinical health care through a variety of remote methods.† To examine changes in the frequency of use of telehealth services during the early pandemic period, CDC analyzed deidentified encounter (i.e., visit) data from four of the largest U.S. telehealth providers that offer services in all states.§ Trends in telehealth encounters during January-March 2020 (surveillance weeks 1-13) were compared with encounters occurring during the same weeks in 2019. During the first quarter of 2020, the number of telehealth visits increased by 50%, compared with the same period in 2019, with a 154% increase in visits noted in surveillance week 13 in 2020, compared with the same period in 2019. During January-March 2020, most encounters were from patients seeking care for conditions other than COVID-19. However, the proportion of COVID-19-related encounters significantly increased (from 5.5% to 16.2%; p<0.05) during the last 3 weeks of March 2020 (surveillance weeks 11-13). This marked shift in practice patterns has implications for immediate response efforts and longer-term population health. Continuing telehealth policy changes and regulatory waivers might provide increased access to acute, chronic, primary, and specialty care during and after the pandemic.

CDC's Flu on Call Simulation: Testing a National Helpline for Use During an Influenza Pandemic.

During an influenza pandemic, healthcare facilities are likely to be filled to capacity, leading to delays in seeing a provider and obtaining treatment. Flu on Call is a collaborative effort between the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and partners to develop a toll-free telephone helpline to reduce the burden on healthcare facilities and improve access to antivirals for people who are ill during an influenza pandemic. This study tested the feasibility of Flu on Call during a 1-day simulation using a severe pandemic scenario. Trained volunteer actors placed calls to the helpline using prepared scripts that were precoded for an expected outcome ("disposition") of the call. Scripts represented callers who were ill, those calling for someone else who was ill, and callers who were only seeking information. Information specialists and medical professionals managed the calls. Results demonstrated that Flu on Call may effectively assist callers during a pandemic, increase access to antiviral prescriptions, and direct patients to the appropriate level of care. Overall, 84% of calls exactly matched the expected call disposition; few calls (2%) were undermanaged (eg, the caller was ill but not transferred to a medical professional or received advice from the medical professional that was less intensive than what was warranted). Callers indicated a high level of satisfaction (83% reported their needs were met). Because of the high volume of calls that may be received during a severe pandemic, the Flu on Call platform should evolve to include additional triage channels (eg, through internet, chat, and/or text access).

Novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak: Now is the time to refresh pandemic plans.

This article outlines practical steps that businesses can take now to prepare for a pandemic. Given the current growing spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) around the world, it is imperative that businesses review their pandemic plans and be prepared in case this epidemic expands and affects more people and communities. Preparing for a potential infectious disease pandemic from influenza or a novel corona virus is an essential component of a business continuity plan, especially for businesses that provide critical healthcare and infrastructure services. Although many businesses and organisations have a pandemic plan or address pandemic preparedness in their business continuity plans, few have recently tested and updated their plans. Pandemics can not only interrupt an organisation's operations and compromise long-term viability of an enterprise, but also disrupt the provision of critical functions. Businesses that regularly test and update their pandemic plan can significantly reduce harmful impacts to the business, play a key role in protecting employees' and customers' health and safety, and limit the negative impact of a pandemic on the community and economy.

Strategies to Inform Allocation of Stockpiled Ventilators to Healthcare Facilities During a Pandemic.

During a severe pandemic, especially one causing respiratory illness, many people may require mechanical ventilation. Depending on the extent of the outbreak, there may be insufficient capacity to provide ventilator support to all of those in need. As part of a larger conceptual framework for determining need for and allocation of ventilators during a public health emergency, this article focuses on the strategies to assist state and local planners to allocate stockpiled ventilators to healthcare facilities during a pandemic, accounting for critical factors in facilities' ability to make use of additional ventilators. These strategies include actions both in the pre-pandemic and intra-pandemic stages. As a part of pandemic preparedness, public health officials should identify and query healthcare facilities in their jurisdiction that currently care for critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation to determine existing inventory of these devices and facilities' ability to absorb additional ventilators. Facilities must have sufficient staff, space, equipment, and supplies to utilize allocated ventilators adequately. At the time of an event, jurisdictions will need to verify and update information on facilities' capacity prior to making allocation decisions. Allocation of scarce life-saving resources during a pandemic should consider ethical principles to inform state and local plans for allocation of ventilators. In addition to ethical principles, decisions should be informed by assessment of need, determination of facilities' ability to use additional ventilators, and facilities' capacity to ensure access to ventilators for vulnerable populations (eg, rural, inner city, and uninsured and underinsured individuals) or high-risk populations that may be more susceptible to illness.

An Assessment of State Laws Providing Gubernatorial Authority to Remove Legal Barriers to Emergency Response.

Legal Perspectives is aimed at informing healthcare providers, emergency planners, public health practitioners, and other decision makers about important legal issues related to public health and healthcare preparedness and response. The articles describe these potentially challenging topics and conclude with the authors' suggestions for further action. The articles do not provide legal advice. Therefore, those affected by the issues discussed in this column should seek further guidance from legal counsel. Readers may submit topics of interest to the column's editor, Lainie Rutkow, JD, PhD, MPH, at lrutkow@jhu.edu. Governors play a fundamental role in emergency preparedness and can help facilitate rapid responses to emergencies. However, laws that operate successfully under normal circumstances can inadvertently create barriers during emergencies, delaying a timely response. State laws could thus limit, or even prohibit, necessary response efforts. To combat this risk, legislatures have passed emergency powers laws in each state granting governors the authority to declare a state of emergency and to exercise certain emergency powers to meet the needs of the emergency. Researchers conducted a 50-state legal assessment, which identified and examined state laws that give governors the discretion to modify existing laws or create new laws to respond effectively to any type of declared emergency. This article outlines the findings of that assessment, which identified 35 states that explicitly permit governors to suspend or amend both statutes and regulations; 7 states in which governors are permitted to amend regulations during a declared emergency but are not explicitly authorized to modify or remove statutes; and 8 states and the District of Columbia that provide no explicit authority to governors to change statutes or regulations during a declared emergency. The article also provides examples of how this power has been used in the past to demonstrate the utility and scope of this authority in a variety of public health threats.

A Control Banding Framework for Protecting the US Workforce from Aerosol Transmissible Infectious Disease Outbreaks with High Public Health Consequences.

Recent high-profile infectious disease outbreaks illustrate the importance of selecting appropriate control measures to protect a wider range of employees, other than those in healthcare settings. In such settings, where routine exposure risks are often high, control measures may be more available, routinely implemented, and studied for effectiveness. In the absence of evidence-based guidelines or established best practices for selecting appropriate control measures, employers may unduly rely on personal protective equipment (PPE) because of its wide availability and pervasiveness as a control measure, circumventing other effective options for protection. Control banding is one approach that may be used to assign job tasks into risk categories and prioritize the application of controls. This article proposes an initial control banding framework for workers at all levels of risk and incorporates a range of control options, including PPE. Using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) risk groups as a surrogate for toxicity and combining the exposure duration with the exposure likelihood, we can generate the risk of a job task to the worker.

Estimating Weekly Call Volume to a National Nurse Telephone Triage Line in an Influenza Pandemic.

Telephone nurse triage lines, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Flu on Call®, a national nurse triage line, may help reduce the surge in demand for health care during an influenza pandemic by triaging callers, providing advice about clinical care and information about the pandemic, and providing access to prescription antiviral medication. We developed a Call Volume Projection Tool to estimate national call volume to Flu on Call® during an influenza pandemic. The tool incorporates 2 influenza clinical attack rates (20% and 30%), 4 different levels of pandemic severity, and different initial "seed numbers" of cases (10 or 100), and it allows variation in which week the nurse triage line opens. The tool calculates call volume by using call-to-hospitalization ratios based on pandemic severity. We derived data on nurse triage line calls and call-to-hospitalization ratios from experience with the 2009 Minnesota FluLine nurse triage line. Assuming a 20% clinical attack rate and a case hospitalization rate of 0.8% to 1.5% (1968-like pandemic severity), we estimated the nationwide number of calls during the peak week of the pandemic to range from 1,551,882 to 3,523,902. Assuming a more severe 1957-like pandemic (case hospitalization rate = 1.5% to 3.0%), the national number of calls during the peak week of the pandemic ranged from 2,909,778 to 7,047,804. These results will aid in planning and developing nurse triage lines at both the national and state levels for use during a future influenza pandemic.

100 Years of Medical Countermeasures and Pandemic Influenza Preparedness.

The 1918 influenza pandemic spread rapidly around the globe, leading to high mortality and social disruption. The countermeasures available to mitigate the pandemic were limited and relied on nonpharmaceutical interventions. Over the past 100 years, improvements in medical care, influenza vaccines, antiviral medications, community mitigation efforts, diagnosis, and communications have improved pandemic response. A number of gaps remain, including vaccines that are more rapidly manufactured, antiviral drugs that are more effective and available, and better respiratory protective devices.

Contraception as a Medical Countermeasure to Reduce Adverse Outcomes Associated With Zika Virus Infection in Puerto Rico: The Zika Contraception Access Network Program.

The Zika Contraception Access Network established a network of 153 physicians across Puerto Rico as a short-term emergency response during the 2016-2017 Zika virus outbreak to provide client-centered contraceptive counseling and same-day contraception services at no cost for women who chose to prevent pregnancy. Between May 2016 and August 2017, 21 124 women received services. Contraception was used as a medical countermeasure to reduce adverse Zika-related reproductive outcomes during the outbreak and may be considered a key strategy in other emergencies.

Timely Antiviral Administration During an Influenza Pandemic: Key Components.

Prompt treatment of ill persons with influenza antivirals will be an important part of a future pandemic influenza response. This essay reviews key lessons learned from the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and the changing landscape of antiviral drug availability, and identifies and describes the multiple components needed to ensure the timely administration of antiviral drugs during a future pandemic. Fortunately, many of these planning efforts can take place before a pandemic strikes to improve outcomes during a future public health emergency.

Scripted Surge Pharmacy Pandemic Exercise: Testing Vaccine Administration and Antiviral Dispensing.

In 2015, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) collaborated with the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) to develop and conduct the Scripted Surge Pharmacy Pandemic Exercise to assess the capacity of pharmacies to administer vaccines and dispense medications during a severe influenza pandemic and to evaluate their various approaches to this activity. A mass merchant pharmacy and a supermarket pharmacy were recruited in 2 different states. At each pharmacy, 2 consecutive 90-minute exercise runs were completed in which actors, simulating patients, presented themselves to the pharmacy counter and requested a vaccine and/or prescription(s). Each run was slightly different in terms of patient flow, staffing, and physical configuration. Individual plays were timed, and a quality assessment was conducted as each patient left the store. Despite the complexities of the pandemic scenario, the number of vaccines administered and prescriptions dispensed surpassed what that pharmacy could typically accomplish during current peak hours of operation. Furthermore, the number of requests successfully processed increased between the first and second runs at each site, suggesting that processing efficiency improved with practice and experience. Few unexpected outcomes were observed, most of which were attributable to exercise artificialities, and they were judged unlikely to occur under real-world scenarios and routine pharmacy practice. The experience gained from this exercise indicates that pharmacies can likely play an important role in improving access to vaccinations and medications during a future pandemic.

Pharmacist Views on Alternative Methods for Antiviral Distribution and Dispensing During an Influenza Pandemic.

Antiviral drugs are likely to be a frontline countermeasure needed to minimize disease impact during an influenza pandemic. As part of pandemic influenza preparedness efforts, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in coordination with state health departments, has plans in place to distribute and dispense antiviral drugs from public stockpiles. These plans are currently under review and include evaluation of the benefits of commercial distribution and dispensing through community pharmacies. To ensure this alternative distribution and dispensing system is viable, it is critical to assess pharmacist acceptability and to understand the pharmacist perspective on dispensing these antivirals during a response. In this study, we examine community pharmacist reactions to the proposed alternative antiviral distribution and dispensing system using a nationally representative survey of pharmacists. Overall, pharmacists were highly receptive to this alternative system and voiced a willingness to participate personally, and most thought their own pharmacy would participate in such an effort. This was true across pharmacists with different personal and professional backgrounds, as well as those in different pharmacy settings. However, sizable shares of pharmacists said they were worried about facing shortages of the antivirals, the risk of exposure to disease for themselves and their families, managing their usual patients who need their prescriptions filled for medications other than antivirals, keeping order in the pharmacy, and potential liability concerns. These findings should be interpreted as an indication of acceptability of the concept, encouragement for the next steps in alternative distribution and dispensing system design, and a guide to potential barriers that may need to be addressed proactively.

Public Views on Alternative Methods for Antiviral Distribution and Dispensing During an Influenza Pandemic.

Antiviral drugs could play a crucial role in minimizing the impact of a severe influenza pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in coordination with state health departments, has plans to distribute antiviral drugs from federal stockpiles in the case of a pandemic. These plans are currently under review and include evaluation of the benefits of pharmaceutical supply chain distribution and dispensing of antivirals through community pharmacies. While research has shown wide acceptance among pharmacists, public acceptability of going to community pharmacies for stockpiled antivirals in an influenza pandemic is unknown. This study uses the first nationally representative survey of US adults to assess public views of this approach. Overall, there was widespread support for the proposed system, and a majority predicted they would be likely to get antivirals in pharmacies compared to public health clinics. However, preference for using pharmacies dropped substantially when even modest fees were introduced. Those without insurance were less likely to say they would get antivirals and, along with those in lower income groups, were more likely than others to use public health clinics at all cost points. Further, sizable proportions expressed concerns about side effects, a desire to wait until symptoms got worse, and hesitation about using drugs beyond the labeled expiration dates. These factors could decrease uptake of antivirals from any source. Findings should be interpreted as broad acceptability of the concept, encouragement for next steps in system design, and a guide to potential barriers to be addressed.