Emergency health care use and follow-up among sociodemographic groups of children who visit emergency departments for mental health crises

Background:

Previous studies of differences in mental health care associated with children’s sociodemographic status have focused on access to community care. We examined differences associated with visits to the emergency department.

Methods:

We conducted a 6-year population-based cohort analysis using administrative databases of visits (n = 30 656) by children aged less than 18 years (n = 20 956) in Alberta. We measured differences in the number of visits by socioeconomic and First Nations status using directly standardized rates. We examined time to return to the emergency department using a Cox regression model, and we evaluated time to follow-up with a physician by physician type using a competing risks model.

Results:

First Nations children aged 15–17 years had the highest rate of visits for girls (7047 per 100 000 children) and boys (5787 per 100 000 children); children in the same age group from families not receiving government subsidy had the lowest rates (girls: 2155 per 100 000 children; boys: 1323 per 100 000 children). First Nations children (hazard ratio [HR] 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30–2.05), and children from families receiving government subsidies (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.30–1.98) had a higher risk of return to an emergency department for mental health care than other children. The longest median time to follow-up with a physician was among First Nations children (79 d; 95% CI 60–91 d); this status predicted longer time to a psychiatrist (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.32–0.70). Age, sex, diagnosis and clinical acuity also explained post-crisis use of health care.

Interpretation:

More visits to the emergency department for mental health crises were made by First Nations children and children from families receiving a subsidy. Sociodemographics predicted risk of return to the emergency department and follow-up care with a physician.Emergency departments are a critical access point for mental health care for children who have been unable to receive care elsewhere or are in crisis.¹ Care provided in an emergency department can stabilize acute problems and facilitate urgent follow-up for symptom management and family support.^1,2Race, ethnic background and socioeconomic status have been linked to a crisis-oriented care patterns among American children.^3,4 Minority children are less likely than white children to have received mental health treatment before an emergency department visit,^3,4 and uninsured children are less likely to receive an urgent mental health evaluation when needed.⁴ Other studies, however, have shown no relation between sociodemographic status and mental health care,^5,6 and it may be that different health system characteristics (e.g., pay-for-service, insurance coverage, publicly funded care) interact with sociodemographic status to influence how mental health resources are used. Canadian studies are largely absent in this discussion, despite a known relation between lower income and poorer mental health status,⁷ nationwide documentation of disparities faced by Aboriginal children,^8–10 and government-commissioned reviews that highlight deficits in universal access to mental health care.¹¹We undertook the current study to examine whether sociodemographic differences exist in the rates of visits to emergency departments for mental health care and in the use of post-crisis health care services for children in Alberta. Knowledge of whether differences exist for children with mental health needs may help identify children who could benefit from earlier intervention to prevent illness destabilization and children who may be disadvantaged in the period after the emergency department visit. We hypothesized that higher rates of emergency department use, lower rates of follow-up physician visits after the initial emergency department visit, and a longer time to physician follow-up would be observed among First Nations children and children from families receiving government social assistance.     

Effectiveness of quality improvement strategies for coordination of care to reduce use of health care services: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

Frequent users of health care services are a relatively small group of patients who account for a disproportionately large amount of health care utilization. We conducted a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of interventions to improve the coordination of care to reduce health care utilization in this patient group.

Methods:

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception until May 2014 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing quality improvement strategies for the coordination of care of frequent users of the health care system. Articles were screened, and data abstracted and appraised for quality by 2 reviewers, independently. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted.

Results:

We identified 36 RCTs and 14 companion reports (total 7494 patients). Significantly fewer patients in the intervention group than in the control group were admitted to hospital (relative risk [RR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72–0.91). In subgroup analyses, a similar effect was observed among patients with chronic medical conditions other than mental illness, but not among patients with mental illness. In addition, significantly fewer patients 65 years and older in the intervention group than in the control group visited emergency departments (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54–0.89).

Interpretation:

We found that quality improvement strategies for coordination of care reduced hospital admissions among patients with chronic conditions other than mental illness and reduced emergency department visits among older patients. Our results may help clinicians and policy-makers reduce utilization through the use of strategies that target the system (team changes, case management) and the patient (promotion of self-management).Frequent users of health care services represent a relatively small group of patients who account for a disproportionately large amount of health care utilization, including emergency department visits,^1,2 hospital admissions and clinic visits. These patients are often of low socioeconomic status,^3,4 have multiple medical, psychiatric and social disorders^5,6 and have a high mortality.⁷ Frequent use of the health care system contributes to longer wait times and affects the quality of care.^4,8Disproportionate use of health care services by a segment of the population has been identified as a challenge in many countries, including Canada.^9–12 To encourage less resource-intensive care for frequent users, many efforts have been implemented. Some of these interventions, for example, have been designed specifically to transition health care utilization away from the hospital to other settings, such as community-based clinics.¹³Much of the literature has focused on frequent users of emergency departments, with less focus on their use of the health care system in general. One systematic review identified a number of studies that assessed the effect of various interventions, including care coordination.¹⁴ The authors concluded that case management and multidisciplinary teams were likely effective interventions to reduce emergency department visits.Emergency department visits typically represent only a fraction of the cost burden on the health care system. There is a need to understand the impact of interventions aimed at reducing overall health care utilization, including hospital admissions. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of quality improvement strategies for care coordination for patients who are frequent users of the health care system.     

Factors predicting patient use of the emergency department: a retrospective cohort study

Background:

Many studies have shown the tendency for people without a regular care provider or primary physician to make greater use of emergency departments. We sought to determine the effects of three aspects of care provided by primary physicians (physician specialty, continuity of care and comprehensiveness of care) on their patients’ use of the emergency department.

Methods:

Using provincial administrative databases, we created a cohort of 367 315 adults aged 18 years and older. Participants were residents of urban areas of Quebec. Affiliation with a primary physician, the specialty of this physician (i.e., family physician v. specialist), continuity of care (as measured using the Usual Provider Continuity index) and comprehensiveness of care (i.e., number of complete annual examinations) were measured among participants (n = 311 701) who had visited a physician three or more times during a two-year baseline period. We used multivariable negative binomial regression to investigate the relationships between measures of care and the number of visits to emergency departments during a 12-month follow-up period.

Results:

Among participants under 65 years of age, emergency department use was higher for those not affiliated than for those affiliated with a family physician (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05–1.16) or a specialist (IRR 1.10, 95% CI 1.04–1.17). Among patients aged 65 years and older, having a specialist primary physician, as opposed to a family physician, predicted increased use of the emergency department (IRR 1.13, 95% CI 1.09–1.17). Greater continuity of care with a family physician predicted less use of the emergency department only among participants who made 25 or more visits to a physician during the baseline period. Greater continuity of care with a specialist predicted less use of the emergency department overall, particularly among participants with intermediate numbers of multimorbidities and admissions to hospital. Greater comprehensiveness of care by family physicians predicted less use of the emergency department.

Interpretation:

Efforts to increase the proportion of adults affiliated with a family physician should target older adults, people who visit physicians more frequently and people with multiple comorbidities and admissions to hospital.Reforming primary care in Canada has been stimulated in part by increased crowding of emergency departments and evidence that their use, particularly for nonurgent care, may be related to inadequate primary care in the community.^1,2 Restructuring efforts, such as encouraging family physicians to work in multidisciplinary group practices with 24-hour access, are challenged by a relative shortage of family physicians.³ These issues are of particular importance in Quebec; despite relatively high numbers of family physicians per capita, in comparison with other provinces, residents of Quebec have the lowest rates of affiliation with a family physician and have one of the highest rates of seeing specialists.^4,5 In addition, residents of Quebec have among the highest rates of visits to emergency departments in international comparative studies.^6–8Research is needed into the effect that affiliation with a specialist rather than a family physician has on patients’ use of the emergency department, as is research into the continuity and comprehensiveness of care provided by the primary physician, regardless of specialty.Many studies have shown the tendency for people without a regular care provider to use the emergency department more often than people who have a primary physician.^1,9,10 Greater continuity of care with a primary physician has also been associated with fewer visits to the emergency department, but much of this research is cross-sectional, making causal interpretation difficult.¹¹ Furthermore, the distinction between continuity with a family physician versus a specialist primary physician has not been made, although one American study reported that having a specialist primary physician was associated with increased use of emergency departments.⁹We sought to determine whether certain factors predicted patients’ subsequent use of emergency departments, such as the specialty of their primary physician, the continuity of care with that physician and the comprehensiveness of care provided by that physician. To determine whether certain subgroups of the population may derive greater benefit from a particular type of care, we examined the potentially modifying effects of demographic factors, health status and previous use of health services. We restricted our study to residents of urban areas of Quebec for three reasons: rural residents visit the emergency department for primary care more often than residents of urban areas;¹² most specialist care is provided in urban areas; and primary care services in rural areas are more likely to be provided by salaried physicians, whose information is not available in the billing database.     

Regional collaborative home-based palliative care and health care outcomes among adults with heart failure

BackgroundInnovative models of collaborative palliative care are urgently needed to meet gaps in end-of-life care among people with heart failure. We sought to determine whether regionally organized, collaborative, home-based palliative care that involves cardiologists, primary care providers and palliative care specialists, and that uses shared decision-making to promote goal- and need-concordant care for patients with heart failure, was associated with a greater likelihood of patients dying at home than in hospital.MethodsWe conducted a population-based matched cohort study of adults who died with chronic heart failure across 2 large health regions in Ontario, Canada, between 2013 and 2019. The primary outcome was location of death. Secondary outcomes included rates of health care use, including unplanned visits to the emergency department, hospital admissions, hospital lengths of stay, admissions to the intensive care unit, number of visits with primary care physicians or cardiologists, number of home visits by palliative care physicians or nurse practitioners, and number of days spent at home.ResultsPatients who received regionally organized, collaborative, home-based palliative care (n = 245) had a 48% lower associated risk of dying in hospital (relative risk 52%, 95% confidence interval 44%–66%) compared with the matched cohort (n = 1172) who received usual care, with 101 (41.2%) and 917 (78.2%) patients, respectively, dying in hospital (number needed to treat = 3). Additional associated benefits of the collaborative approach included higher rates of clinician home visits, longer time to first hospital admission, shorter hospital stays and more days spent at home.InterpretationAdoption of a model of regionally organized, collaborative, home-based palliative care that uses shared decision-making may improve end-of-life outcomes for people with chronic heart failure.

Innovative models of collaborative, interdisciplinary palliative care that use shared decision-making to promote goal- and need-concordant care are urgently needed to meet rising demand among people with heart failure.^1,2 Between 2010 and 2015, 75% of people with heart failure in Ontario died in hospital, despite 70% of people preferring an out-of-hospital death and 90% preferring end-of-life health care delivery at home.^3–5 Most people also prioritize improvements in quality of life at the end of life over extension of life.⁶ Admission to hospital near the end of life is often perceived as undesirable and may result in the provision of unwanted care, whereas home visits near the end of life tend to focus on comfort and are associated with higher rates of death at home.^4,5,7,8 These preferences are recognized at a system level, such that avoidance of unwanted health care and at-home death are considered quality indicators for end-of-life care.^9–11 However, delivering high-quality care for people with heart failure who are near the end of their life is challenging because of their unpredictable illness course and limited capacity of specialist palliative care.^4,12–14Many studies, including a recent meta-analysis, have shown that home-based palliative care is associated with improved quality of life and symptoms, reduced health care use and a higher likelihood of a home death among people with heart failure. ^{4,8,12,13,15,16} However, only 32% of people with heart failure received home-based palliative care near the end of life in Ontario.^4,8 Several randomized controlled trials explored the effects of collaborative care models for people with heart failure; ^12–16 the results were mixed regarding quality of life, symptoms and health care use.^13,17–21 Some trials reported that palliative care resulted in improvements in quality of life and reductions in burdensome symptoms and hospital admissions, whereas others reported no change in these outcomes.¹³ Most studies were single centre and none evaluated a model of regional organization and in-person home visits as a scalable approach.Given the need to address end-of-life care gaps for people with heart failure, we sought to determine whether regionally organized, collaborative, home-based palliative care (CHPC) — involving cardiology, primary care and palliative care — was associated with increased rates of out-of-hospital death among adults who died with heart failure.     

Telehealthcare for asthma: a Cochrane review

Background:

Telehealthcare has the potential to provide care for long-term conditions that are increasingly prevalent, such as asthma. We conducted a systematic review of studies of telehealthcare interventions used for the treatment of asthma to determine whether such approaches to care are effective.

Methods:

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of Trials, which is derived from systematic searches of bibliographic databases including CENTRAL (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and PsycINFO, as well as other electronic resources. We also searched registers of ongoing and unpublished trials. We were interested in studies that measured the following outcomes: quality of life, number of visits to the emergency department and number of admissions to hospital. Two reviewers identified studies for inclusion in our meta-analysis. We extracted data and used fixedeffect modelling for the meta-analyses.

Results:

We identified 21 randomized controlled trials for inclusion in our analysis. The methods of telehealthcare intervention these studies investigated were the telephone and video- and Internet-based models of care. Meta-analysis did not show a clinically important improvement in patients’ quality of life, and there was no significant change in the number of visits to the emergency department over 12 months. There was a significant reduction in the number of patients admitted to hospital once or more over 12 months (risk ratio 0.25 [95% confidence interval 0.09 to 0.66]).

Interpretation:

We found no evidence of a clinically important impact on patients’ quality of life, but telehealthcare interventions do appear to have the potential to reduce the risk of admission to hospital, particularly for patients with severe asthma. Further research is required to clarify the cost-effectiveness of models of care based on telehealthcare.There has been an increase in the prevalence of asthma in recent decades,^1–3 and the Global Initiative for Asthma estimates that 300 million people worldwide now have the disease.⁴ The highest prevalence rates (30%) are seen in economically developed countries.^5–8 There has also been an increase in the prevalence of asthma affecting both children and adults in many economically developing and transition countries.^9–11Asthma’s high burden of disease requires improvements in access to treatments.^7,12,13 Patterns of help-seeking behaviour are also relevant: delayed reporting is associated with morbidity and the need for emergency care.It is widely believed that telehealthcare interventions may help address some of the challenges posed by asthma by enabling remote delivery of care, facilitating timely access to health advice, supporting self-monitoring and medication concordance, and educating patients on avoiding triggers.^14–16 The precise role of these technologies in the management of care for people with long-term respiratory conditions needs to be established.¹⁷The objective of this study was to systematically review the effectiveness of telehealthcare interventions among people with asthma in terms of quality of life, number of visits to the emergency department and admissions to hospital for exacerbations of asthma.     

Risk of interpersonal violence during and after pregnancy among people with schizophrenia: a population-based cohort study

Background:Schizophrenia is associated with increased risk of experiencing interpersonal violence. Little is known about risk specifically around the time of pregnancy.Methods:This population-based cohort study included all individuals (aged 15–49 yr) listed as female on their health cards who had a singleton birth in Ontario, Canada, between 2004 and 2018. We compared those with and without schizophrenia on their risk of an emergency department (ED) visit for interpersonal violence in pregnancy or within 1 year postpartum. We adjusted relative risks (RRs) for demographics, prepregnancy history of substance use disorder and history of interpersonal violence. In a subcohort analysis, we used linked clinical registry data to evaluate interpersonal violence screening and self-reported interpersonal violence during pregnancy.Results:We included 1 802 645 pregnant people, 4470 of whom had a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Overall, 137 (3.1%) of those with schizophrenia had a perinatal ED visit for interpersonal violence, compared with 7598 (0.4%) of those without schizophrenia, for an RR of 6.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.66–8.37) and an adjusted RR of 3.44 (95% CI 2.86–4.15). Results were similar when calculated separately for the pregnancy (adjusted RR 3.47, 95% CI 2.68–4.51) period and the first year postpartum (adjusted RR 3.45, 95% CI 2.75–4.33). Pregnant people with schizophrenia were equally likely to be screened for interpersonal violence (74.3% v. 73.8%; adjusted RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95–1.04), but more likely to self-report it (10.2% v. 2.4%; adjusted RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.61–4.38), compared with those without schizophrenia. Among patients who did not self-report interpersonal violence, schizophrenia was associated with an increased risk for a perinatal ED visit for interpersonal violence (4.0% v. 0.4%; adjusted RR 6.28, 95% CI 3.94–10.00).Interpretation:Pregnancy and postpartum are periods of higher risk for interpersonal violence among people with schizophrenia compared with those without schizophrenia. Pregnancy is a key period for implementing violence prevention strategies in this population.

Interpersonal violence is defined as the intentional use of force or power against others, including physical, sexual and psychological abuse perpetrated by strangers, acquaintances, family members or intimate partners.^1–5 Around the time of pregnancy, interpersonal violence affects not only the person experiencing it, but also the developing fetus or infant.⁶ Maternal consequences include acute injuries, chronic pain and psychiatric disorders.^7,8 Interpersonal violence is also associated with absent or delayed prenatal care, preterm birth, poor fetal growth, difficulties in maternal–child attachment, and maternal, fetal and neonatal death.^9–14Women with schizophrenia are at high risk of experiencing interpersonal violence during their lifetime from known and unknown perpetrators.^15–17 The lifetime prevalence of physical or sexual assault in this population is 20.7%, about 9 times the risk of those without serious mental illness.¹⁸ Many women with schizophrenia become pregnant, but little is known about their risk of experiencing interpersonal violence around this time.^19,20 In 2 small clinical studies, rates of self-reported interpersonal violence in pregnancy were upward of 20%.^21,22 However, these studies had no comparator groups without schizophrenia, included only self-reported risk and did not evaluate postpartum risk.We sought to compare the risk of an emergency department (ED) visit for interpersonal violence during pregnancy and until 1 year postpartum among people with and without schizophrenia in Ontario. We also sought to compare rates of interpersonal violence screening and disclosure in response to screening in these 2 groups, as well as risk for an ED visit for interpersonal violence in pregnancy or within the first year postpartum among those who did not self-report interpersonal violence. The latter question is important given that people with schizophrenia report being concerned that disclosure of any social issues during the perinatal period could possibly lead to undesirable consequences, such as child apprehension.^23,24     

Rates of health services use among residents of retirement homes in Ontario: a population-based cohort study

Background:Because there are no standardized reporting systems specific to residents of retirement homes in North America, little is known about the health of this distinct population of older adults. We evaluated rates of health services use by residents of retirement homes relative to those of residents of long-term care homes and other populations of older adults.Methods:We conducted a retrospective cohort study using population health administrative data from 2018 on adults 65 years or older in Ontario. We matched the postal codes of individuals to those of licensed retirement homes to identify residents of retirement homes. Outcomes included rates of hospital-based care and physician visits.Results:We identified 54 733 residents of 757 retirement homes (mean age 86.7 years, 69.0% female) and 2 354 385 residents of other settings. Compared to residents of long-term care homes, residents of retirement homes had significantly higher rates per 1000 person months of emergency department visits (10.62 v. 4.48, adjusted relative rate [RR] 2.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.55 to 2.67), hospital admissions (5.42 v. 2.08, adjusted RR 2.77, 95% CI 2.71 to 2.82), alternate level of care (ALC) days (6.01 v. 2.96, adjusted RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.48 to 1.54), and specialist physician visits (6.27 v. 3.21, adjusted RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.61 to 1.68), but a significantly lower rate of primary care visits (16.71 v. 108.47, adjusted RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.14).Interpretation:Residents of retirement homes are a distinct population with higher rates of hospital-based care. Our findings can help to inform policy debates about the need for more coordinated primary and supportive health care in privately operated congregate care homes.

In the continuum of care services and settings for older adults lies home care at one end and long-term care at the other.¹ Home care services may include, but are not limited to, nursing care, personal care, homemaking services, and physiotherapy and occupational therapy for older adults who live independently in their community. Home care services are publicly funded under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP).^2,3 Long-term care homes provide access to 24-hour nursing and personal care and operate at full capacity in Ontario, with waiting lists of 6 months or longer before an older adult in the community could receive an offer for a bed.^2,4 Retirement homes are thought to fit between home care and long-term care in this continuum.¹Retirement homes are referred to as assisted-living facilities in other North American jurisdictions, and they are private, congregate living environments that deliver supportive care to adults who are 65 years of age and older.^3,5,6 These homes are often marketed to provide a lifestyle and community, and they provide a range of assisted-living care services (e.g., meals, nursing services, etc.).^5,7 Retirement homes predominately operate on a private, for-profit business model, and the room, board and services are purchased by residents.^3,5 In Ontario, retirement homes are regulated through an independent, not-for-profit regulator (i.e., Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority [RHRA]).⁵ There are more than 700 licensed retirement homes in Ontario with over 70 000 available beds occupied by over 55 000 residents, which is comparable to the number of available beds in the long-term care sector.^3,5,6,8 Retirement homes are legislated differently from long-term care homes and primarily cater to adults who do not require 24-hour nursing care.^1,5,9 Unlike long-term care homes, no standardized reporting system is available to identify and describe residents of retirement homes.¹⁰ These residents are conceptualized as having fewer needs for care because they reside in a congregate care home to support independent living; however, this has been difficult to verify given there are no population-level data.A body of literature from the United States has described residents of assisted-living facilities and the sector,^11–17 but Canadian literature is comparatively nascent. Canadian studies have investigated transitions to a long-term care home, risk of hospital admission among those who live with dementia, and life events and health conditions associated with the transition to a congregate care setting.^7,9,18–20 At present, a Canadian population-level cohort of residents of retirement homes that describes the individual-level characteristics and use of health services of the older adults who reside in these homes appears to be lacking. Therefore, it is difficult to position this sector in the gradient of services and housing options for older adults in Canada.We created a population-level cohort of residents in retirement homes and sought to evaluate their rates of health services utilization relative to residents of long-term care homes and other populations of older adults (i.e., home care recipients and community-dwelling older adults) in Ontario.     

Risk of infection following a visit to the emergency department: a cohort study

Background:

The risk of infection following a visit to the emergency department is unknown. We explored this risk among elderly residents of long-term care facilities.

Methods:

We compared the rates of new respiratory and gastrointestinal infections among elderly residents aged 65 years and older of 22 long-term care facilities. We used standardized surveillance definitions. For each resident who visited the emergency department during the study period, we randomly selected two residents who did not visit the emergency department and matched them by facility unit, age and sex. We calculated the rates and proportions of new infections, and we used conditional logistic regression to adjust for potential confounding variables.

Results:

In total, we included 1269 residents of long-term care facilities, including 424 who visited the emergency department during the study. The baseline characteristics of residents who did or did not visit the emergency department were similar, except for underlying health status (visited the emergency department: mean Charlson Comorbidity Index 6.1, standard deviation [SD] 2.5; did not visit the emergency department: mean Charlson Comorbidity index 5.5, SD 2.7; p < 0.001) and the proportion who had visitors (visited the emergency department: 46.9%; did not visit the emergency department: 39.2%; p = 0.01). Overall, 21 (5.0%) residents who visited the emergency department and 17 (2.0%) who did not visit the emergency department acquired new infections. The incidence of new infections was 8.3/1000 patient-days among those who visited the emergency department and 3.4/1000 patient-days among those who did not visit the emergency department. The adjusted odds ratio for the risk of infection following a visit to the emergency department was 3.9 (95% confidence interval 1.4–10.8).

Interpretation:

A visit to the emergency department was associated with more than a threefold increased risk of acute infection among elderly people. Additional precautions should be considered for residents following a visit to the emergency department.Infections associated with health care are an important health risk. A recent survey by the World Health Organization reported that 8.7% of patients in hospital developed such infections.^1,2 The third leading cause of death in the United States is health care–associated deaths, with over 100 000 people dying from infections associated with health care each year.³ In Canada, a point-prevalence survey found that 11.6% of adults in hospital experience a health care–associated infection.⁴Little attention has been paid to infections acquired in other health care settings. Visiting an emergency department has been identified as a risk for disease during outbreaks of measles^5,6 and SARS,^7,8 but little is known about the potential risk of endemic infection from exposure in this setting. A visit to the emergency department differs from a stay in hospital: exposure and duration of contact with other patients is shorter, but the number and density of patients with acute illness with whom there could be contact is higher.Elderly residents of long-term care facilities are likely to be at the greatest risk of morbidity and mortality from communicable diseases acquired in the emergency department. When residents are transferred to the emergency department for assessment, they are likely to have longer stays and to be cared for in multibed observation areas and corridors.⁹ If they acquire an infection while in the emergency department, these residents may be the source of an outbreak upon return to their facility; this can lead to increases in workload and costs. A Canadian study estimated the cost of an influenza outbreak to be over $6000 per 30-day period, with an estimated incidence of death of 0.75/100 residents during the same period.¹⁰ In this study, we explored the risk of acute respiratory and gastrointestinal infection associated with a visit to the emergency department among elderly residents of long-term care facilities.     

First Nations status and emergency department triage scores in Alberta: a retrospective cohort study

Background:Previous studies have found that race is associated with emergency department triage scores, raising concerns about potential health care inequity. As part of a project on quality of care for First Nations people in Alberta, we sought to understand the relation between First Nations status and triage scores.Methods:We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of health administrative data from April 2012 to March 2017 to evaluate acuity of triage scores, categorized as a binary outcome of higher or lower acuity score. We developed multivariable multilevel logistic mixed-effects regression models using the levels of emergency department visit, patient (for patients with multiple visits) and facility. We further evaluated the triage of visits related to 5 disease categories and 5 specific diagnoses to better compare triage outcomes of First Nations and non–First Nations patients.Results:First Nations status was associated with lower odds of receiving higher acuity triage scores (odds ratio [OR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92–0.94) compared with non–First Nations patients in adjusted models. First Nations patients had lower odds of acute triage for all 5 disease categories and for 3 of 5 diagnoses, including long bone fractures (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.76–0.88), acute upper respiratory infection (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84–0.98) and anxiety disorder (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.60–0.74).Interpretation:First Nations status was associated with lower odds of higher acuity triage scores across a number of conditions and diagnoses. This may reflect systemic racism, stereotyping and potentially other factors that affected triage assessments.

Health outcomes are markedly worse for First Nations than non–First Nations people. Although this is largely because of inequities in the social determinants of health,^1–4 inequities in the provision of health care also exist.^5,6 Emergency departments serve as a point of accessible health care. Status First Nations patients make up 4.8% of unique patients and 9.4% of emergency visits in Alberta,⁷ and Canadian studies describe First Nations patients’ experiences with racism when seeking emergency care.^8,9Evaluating triage contributes empirically to understanding the health care of First Nations patients insofar as triage is a quantifiable, intermediate process by which systemic racism¹⁰ may influence patient outcomes. The Canadian Triage Acuity Scale¹¹ is a 5-level scale used to classify the severity of patient symptoms. Triage nurses use a brief assessment, medical history, and presenting signs and symptoms to assign each patient a triage score that determines the priority in which the patient should be seen by a provider. Therefore, accurate triage is important for patient health outcomes.¹² In practice, triage is a social interaction where local practice, biases, stereotypes and communication barriers come into play. Studies have found that women receive less acute triage scores than men,^13,14 and that racial minority^13,15–17 and Indigenous^18–20 patients receive less acute triage scores than white or non-Indigenous patients. Indeed, Indigenous patients in Canada have described a perception “of social triaging in the [emergency department], whereby decisions about who is seen first seemed to them [to be] based less on triaged clinical priorities but on the social positioning of the patient.”²¹ Differential triage scores for minority populations raise health equity concerns.As part of a larger mixed-methods project evaluating the quality of emergency care for First Nations people in Alberta, we sought to evaluate quantitative differences in emergency visit characteristics and outcomes of First Nations and non–First Nations people in Alberta. Specifically, we aimed to estimate the relation between First Nations status and acuity of triage, and to evaluate whether predictors of acuity differ by First Nations status.     

Geographic concentration of SARS-CoV-2 cases by social determinants of health in metropolitan areas in Canada: a cross-sectional study

Background:Understanding inequalities in SARS-CoV-2 transmission associated with the social determinants of health could help the development of effective mitigation strategies that are responsive to local transmission dynamics. This study aims to quantify social determinants of geographic concentration of SARS-CoV-2 cases across 16 census metropolitan areas (hereafter, cities) in 4 Canadian provinces, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.Methods:We used surveillance data on confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and census data for social determinants at the level of the dissemination area (DA). We calculated Gini coefficients to determine the overall geographic heterogeneity of confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 in each city, and calculated Gini covariance coefficients to determine each city’s heterogeneity by each social determinant (income, education, housing density and proportions of visible minorities, recent immigrants and essential workers). We visualized heterogeneity using Lorenz (concentration) curves.Results:We observed geographic concentration of SARS-CoV-2 cases in cities, as half of the cumulative cases were concentrated in DAs containing 21%–35% of their population, with the greatest geographic heterogeneity in Ontario cities (Gini coefficients 0.32–0.47), followed by British Columbia (0.23–0.36), Manitoba (0.32) and Quebec (0.28–0.37). Cases were disproportionately concentrated in areas with lower income and educational attainment, and in areas with a higher proportion of visible minorities, recent immigrants, high-density housing and essential workers. Although a consistent feature across cities was concentration by the proportion of visible minorities, the magnitude of concentration by social determinant varied across cities.Interpretation:Geographic concentration of SARS-CoV-2 cases was observed in all of the included cities, but the pattern by social determinants varied. Geographically prioritized allocation of resources and services should be tailored to the local drivers of inequalities in transmission in response to the resurgence of SARS-CoV-2.

The COVID-19 epidemic in Canada has varied in size and trajectory across provinces and large cities.^1,2 At the national level³ and within regions,^4,5 the burden of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and severe COVID-19 outcomes has fallen disproportionately on socially and economically marginalized communities. ⁶ Social determinants of health refer to nonmedical factors influencing health outcomes, and structural determinants encompass cultural norms, policies and institutions that generate social stratification and determine socioeconomic position.^7,8 In Canada and elsewhere, data have consistently highlighted the importance of determinants such as household size and density, work in essential services and structural racism (measured by proxy) in the relative risk of COVID-19.^9–17Understanding the factors associated with geographic patterns of transmission within cities can help identify the populations and, specifically, the contexts with the greatest risks. Geographic analyses can enable better allocation of resources, tailoring of policies and implementation of context-specific strategies to more effectively and efficiently curb local transmission. ¹⁸ Although respiratory virus transmission is often geographically clustered within a city,¹⁹ the early public health response to SARS-CoV-2 transmission in Canada did little to take within-city clustering into account.^20,21 Similarly, few studies have quantified and compared the geographic concentration of SARS-CoV-2 cases by social determinants across Canada, and the extent to which the magnitude of inequalities might vary among cities and provinces.^19,22 We therefore sought to quantify and compare the magnitude of geographic concentration of SARS-CoV-2 cases by area-level social determinants of health across metropolitan areas in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, Canada.     

A population-based analysis of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on common abdominal and gynecological emergency department visits

BACKGROUND:Reduced use of the emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic may result in increased disease acuity when patients do seek health care services. We sought to evaluate emergency department visits for common abdominal and gynecologic conditions before and at the beginning of the pandemic to determine whether changes in emergency department attendance had serious consequences for patients.METHODS:We conducted a population-based analysis using administrative data to evaluate the weekly rate of emergency department visits pre-COVID-19 (Jan. 1–Mar. 10, 2020) and during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (Mar. 11–June 30, 2020), compared with a historical control period (Jan. 1–July 1, 2019). All residents of Ontario, Canada, presenting to the emergency department with appendicitis, cholecystitis, ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage were included. We evaluated weekly incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of emergency department visits, management strategies and clinical outcomes.RESULTS:Across all study periods, 39 691 emergency department visits met inclusion criteria (40.2 % appendicitis, 32.1% miscarriage, 21.3% cholecystitis, 6.4% ectopic pregnancy). Baseline characteristics of patients presenting to the emergency department did not vary across study periods. After an initial reduction in emergency department visits, presentations for cholecystitis and ectopic pregnancy quickly returned to expected levels. However, presentations for appendicitis and miscarriage showed sustained reductions (IRR 0.61–0.80), with 1087 and 984 fewer visits, respectively, after the start of the pandemic, relative to 2019. Management strategies, complications and mortality rates were similar across study periods for all conditions.INTERPRETATION:Although our study showed evidence of emergency department avoidance in Ontario during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, no adverse consequences were evident. Emergency care and outcomes for patients were similar before and during the pandemic.

Avoidance of the emergency department for conditions that may require urgent surgery has been a global concern during the COVID-19 pandemic, and could result in higher case severity and morbidity.^1–3 Resource constraints and provider concerns around the safety of surgery^4–6 may influence rates of nonoperative management for abdominal and gynecological emergencies,⁷ even when existing nonoperative options are not optimal. Limited data suggest that patients with appendicitis and cholecystitis, the 2 most common abdominal emergencies that routinely require operative management,^8,9 may be more likely to avoid the hospital,¹⁰ present with more severe illness^9,10 and be managed nonoperatively during the pandemic, with uncertain consequences for patient outcomes.^10–13 Similarly, the management of early pregnancy complications (i.e., miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy) may be medical or surgical, depending on patient preference and pregnancy characteristics (e.g., stability, gestational age).¹⁴ Up to 80% of women experiencing miscarriage routinely access emergency services; however, there are concerns that women requiring emergency care for miscarriages are avoiding the emergency department.¹⁵ Reduced access to emergency care for early pregnancy complications may result in more adverse outcomes; a study in Italy found an increased rate of ruptured ectopic pregnancy in the early months of the pandemic.¹⁶We sought to characterize the impact of COVID-19 on emergency department visits for and management of appendicitis, cholecystitis, miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy. We aimed to determine if there was a difference in the rate of patients presenting to the emergency department before and during the pandemic, whether a reduction in emergency department visits for these conditions resulted in adverse patient outcomes and whether the proportion of patients undergoing operative management differed before and during the pandemic.     

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in health care workers from 10 hospitals in Quebec,Canada: a cross-sectional study

Background:The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected health care workers. We sought to estimate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among hospital health care workers in Quebec, Canada, after the first wave of the pandemic and to explore factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity.Methods:Between July 6 and Sept. 24, 2020, we enrolled health care workers from 10 hospitals, including 8 from a region with a high incidence of COVID-19 (the Montréal area) and 2 from low-incidence regions of Quebec. Eligible health care workers were physicians, nurses, orderlies and cleaning staff working in 4 types of care units (emergency department, intensive care unit, COVID-19 inpatient unit and non-COVID-19 inpatient unit). Participants completed a questionnaire and underwent SARS-CoV-2 serology testing. We identified factors independently associated with higher seroprevalence.Results:Among 2056 enrolled health care workers, 241 (11.7%) had positive SARS-CoV-2 serology. Of these, 171 (71.0%) had been previously diagnosed with COVID-19. Seroprevalence varied among hospitals, from 2.4% to 3.7% in low-incidence regions to 17.9% to 32.0% in hospitals with outbreaks involving 5 or more health care workers. Higher seroprevalence was associated with working in a hospital where outbreaks occurred (adjusted prevalence ratio 4.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.63–6.57), being a nurse or nursing assistant (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.34, 95% CI 1.03–1.74) or an orderly (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.49, 95% CI 1.12–1.97), and Black or Hispanic ethnicity (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.41, 95% CI 1.13–1.76). Lower seroprevalence was associated with working in the intensive care unit (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.30–0.71) or the emergency department (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.39–0.98).Interpretation:Health care workers in Quebec hospitals were at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly in outbreak settings. More work is needed to better understand SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics in health care settings.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected health care workers. In France, Spain, Italy, Germany and the United States, at least 10% of cases reported in spring 2020 were in health care workers.¹ In Quebec, 25% (14 177 of 56 565) of all cases declared during the first wave of the pandemic, from March to July 2020, were in health care workers,² about one-third of whom were working in acute care hospitals.¹ The Montréal area was the most affected region in Quebec and Canada during the first wave, reaching a COVID-19 incidence rate of 1336 per 100 000 population.²The number of COVID-19 cases reported among health care workers underestimated the number of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 during that period, given limited testing leading to undiagnosed asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic infections.³ Seroprevalence studies are an important tool to determine the proportion of people infected with SARS-CoV-2, both in the general population and among health care workers.⁴ After the first wave in Quebec, SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in adults aged 18–69 years was found to be low (3.1% in Montréal and 1.3% in less affected regions), but this proportion could be much higher among health care workers who had to work despite the general shutdown of social and economic activities, especially if they were exposed to major outbreaks.⁵Only 2 other Canadian studies provide SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence estimates among health care workers, and both studies were from a single centre.^6,7 Outside Canada, most seroprevalence studies among health care workers include a single site and do not provide a representative estimate for a defined region.⁸ Several studies have reported a higher seroprevalence among health care workers from units treating patients with COVID-19 (COVID-19 units) compared with other units (non–COVID-19 units), emergency departments or intensive care units.^9,10 Other studies have not identified such associations.^11,12 In this study, we aimed to assess the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibody among hospital health care workers from a variety of settings after the first pandemic wave in Quebec, and to explore factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity.     

Reduction of radial-head subluxation in children by triage nurses in the emergency department: a cluster-randomized controlled trial

Background:

Radial-head subluxation is an easily identified and treated injury. We investigated whether triage nurses in the emergency department can safely reduce radial-head subluxation at rates that are not substantially lower than those of emergency department physicians.

Methods:

We performed an open, noninferiority, cluster-randomized control trial. Children aged 6 years and younger who presented to the emergency department with a presentation consistent with radial-head subluxation and who had sustained a known injury in the previous 12 hours were assigned to either nurse-initiated or physician-initiated treatment, depending on the day. The primary outcome was the proportion of children who had a successful reduction (return to normal arm usage). We used a noninferiority margin of 10%.

Results:

In total, 268 children were eligible for inclusion and 245 were included in the final analysis. Of the children assigned to receive physician-initiated care, 96.7% (117/121) had a successful reduction performed by a physician. Of the children assigned to receive nurse-treatment care, 84.7% (105/124) had a successful reduction performed by a nurse. The difference in the proportion of successful radial head subluxations between the groups was 12.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.8% to 19.7%). Noninferiority of nurse-initiated radial head subluxation was not shown.

Interpretation:

In this trial, the rate of successful radial-head subluxation performed by nurses was inferior to the physician success rate. Although the success rate in the nurse-initiated care group did not meet the non-inferiority margin, nurses were able to reduce radial head subluxation for almost 85% of children who presented with probable radial-head subluxation. Trial registration: Clinical Trials.gov, no. {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00993954","term_id":"NCT00993954"}}NCT00993954.Radial-head subluxation is a common arm injury among young children and often results in a visit to the emergency department.¹ This type of injury occurs when forceful longitudinal traction is applied to an extended and pronated forearm.² Radial-head subluxation is easily recognized by its clinical presentation and can be treated by a simple reduction technique involving hyperpronation or supination and flexion of the injured arm.^3–7Despite the ease of diagnosis and treatment, children with radial-head subluxation often wait hours in the emergency department for a reduction that takes minutes to perform.⁸ These visits have direct health care costs and involve time and stress for the child and their family. Early treatment and shorter wait times correlate with patient satisfaction.^9,10 Patient satisfaction is comparable when minor injuries are cared for by a nurse instead of by a physician.^11–13 Nurse-initiated treatments are increasingly a focus of health care.^14–17Treatment of radial-head subluxation is an appropriate area to consider nurse-initiated care. Our objective was to determine whether triage nurses, trained in the recognition and treatment of radial-head subluxation, could successfully reduce radial-head subluxation at a rate similar to that of physicians.     

Parents’ perspectives on SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations for children: a qualitative analysis

Background:Uptake of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine for children aged 5–11 years has been lower than anticipated in Canada. Although research has explored parental intentions toward SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for children, parental decisions regarding vaccinations have not been studied in-depth. We sought to explore reasons why parents chose to vaccinate or not vaccinate their children against SARS-CoV-2 to better understand their decisions.Methods:We conducted a qualitative study involving in-depth individual interviews with a purposive sample of parents in the Greater Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada. We conducted interviews via telephone or video call from February to April 2022 and analyzed the data using reflexive thematic analysis.Results:We interviewed 20 parents. We found that parental attitudes toward SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations for their children represented a complex continuum of concern. We identified 4 cross-cutting themes: the newness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and the evidence supporting their use; the perceived politicization of guidance for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination; the social pressure surrounding SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations; and the weighing of individual versus collective benefits of vaccination. Parents found making a decision about vaccinating their child challenging and expressed difficulty sourcing and evaluating evidence, determining the trustworthiness of guidance, and balancing their own conceptions of health care decisions with societal expectations and political messaging.Interpretation:Parents’ experiences making decisions regarding SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for their children were complex, even for those who were supportive of SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations. These findings provide some explanation for the current patterns of uptake of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among children in Canada; health care providers and public health authorities can consider these insights when planning future vaccine rollouts.

In November 2021, children aged 5–11 years became eligible to receive the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in Canada.¹ Before regulatory approval of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for children, about two-thirds of parents in Canada reported a willingness to have their child receive the vaccine.^2–4 However, uptake of the vaccine for this age group has been lower than initial evidence of parental intent suggested. As of October 2022, only 47% of 5- to 11-year-old children in Canada had received at least 1 dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and 42% had completed their primary series, compared with 90% and 88%, respectively, of people aged 12 years and older; rates in Ontario were similar.⁵Considerable research has evaluated parental intention to vaccinate their children against SARS-CoV-2 in Canada^2–4,6–8 and internationally,^9–16 but few studies have explored parents’ decisions to have their children vaccinated or not, once eligible.¹⁷ Given the observed discrepancy between parental intention and decision to seek vaccination for their children against SARS-CoV-2, it is critical to investigate how and why parents make their decisions. Understanding the factors that influence parents to seek vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 for their children, or not, would help inform policies and interventions focused on this population and would help health care professionals understand parents’ perspectives and concerns.Vaccine hesitancy is defined by the World Health Organization as a “delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite availability of vaccination services.”¹⁸ This definition is often used to describe individuals who have apprehension about vaccination, choose to delay vaccination or refuse vaccines entirely.¹⁹ Attitudes toward SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for children have received much attention in the literature, but most studies have used quantitative surveys to measure vaccine hesitancy; in-depth qualitative evidence on the reasons underlying those attitudes and decisions is needed. Although the spectrum of hesitancy for SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is acknowledged in the literature;^20–22 the full range and nature of these perspectives, and the experiences of parents related to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination decisions for their children, has not yet been explored. We sought to understand why parents chose to seek vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 for their children or not, and to capture the nuances of these decisions.     

Hospital factors associated with maternal and neonatal outcomes of deliveries to patients with a previous cesarean delivery: an ecological study

Background:Recommendations for deliveries of pregnant patients with a previous cesarean delivery and the type of hospitals deemed safe for these deliveries have evolved in recent years, although no studies have examined hospital factors and associated safety. We sought to evaluate maternal and neonatal outcomes among patients with a previous cesarean delivery by hospital tier and volume.Methods:We carried out an ecological study of singleton live births delivered at term gestation to patients with a previous cesarean delivery in all Canadian hospitals (excluding Quebec), 2013–2019. We obtained data from the Discharge Abstract Database of the Canadian Institute for Health Information. The primary outcomes were severe maternal morbidity or mortality (SMMM), and serious neonatal morbidity or mortality (SNMM). We used regression modelling to examine hospital tier (tier 4 hospitals being those that provide the highest level of care) and volume; we also identified hospitals with high rates of SMMM and SNMM using within-tier comparisons and comparisons with the overall rate.Results:We included 235 442 deliveries to patients with a previous cesarean delivery; SMMM and SNMM rates were 14.6 per 1000 deliveries and 4.6 per 1000 live births, respectively. Among patients with a parity of 1, SMMM rates were lower in tier 1 hospitals (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52–0.89) and higher in tier 4 hospitals (adjusted IRR 1.41, 95% CI 1.05–1.91) than in tier 2 hospitals; SNMM rates did not differ by hospital tier. Rates of SNMM increased with increasing hospital volume (adjusted IRR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00–1.04) and increasing rates of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (adjusted IRR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01–1.04). Most hospitals had relatively low SMMM and SNMM rates, although a few hospitals in each tier and volume category had significantly higher rates than others.Interpretation:Adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes among patients with a previous cesarean delivery showed no clear pattern of decreasing SMMM and SNMM with increasing tiers of service and hospital volume. All hospitals, irrespective of tier or size, should continually review their rates of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.

The approach to delivery for patients with a previous cesarean delivery has undergone substantial changes over the last few decades in Canada, the United States and elsewhere. Rates of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery (VBAC) in Canada increased rapidly, from less than 5% of deliveries in the late 1970s to peak at more than 35% in the mid-1990s.^1–4 However, this trend reversed sharply after studies in the mid-1990s showed that attempted VBAC (as opposed to elective repeat cesarean delivery) was associated with higher rates of severe maternal morbidity and of fetal and infant morbidity and mortality.^5–9 The decline has partly reversed after the release of a guideline from the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) in 2005, and the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference in 2010, which affirmed that patients with 1 previous transverse lower-segment cesarean section and no contraindications could be offered a trial of labour with appropriate discussion of risks and benefits.^10,11Recommendations regarding hospitals deemed safe for delivering patients with a previous cesarean delivery have also evolved. The 1998 and 1999 guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) required hospitals attempting trials of labour to have “ready availability of emergency care” or “immediate availability of emergency care.”^12,13 After the publication of these guidelines, about 30% of hospitals in the US stopped offering trial-of-labour services to patients with a previous cesarean delivery because they could not provide immediate surgical and anesthesia services, which compelled many patients who had opted for a trial of labour to travel to hospitals far from their homes and families.^14–16 More recently, guidelines have attempted to balance clinical safety with the challenges associated with such social disruption. The current ACOG guideline states that a trial of labour can be attempted in a level 1 maternity care facility (i.e., a hospital providing basic obstetric services), which has “the ability to begin emergency cesarean delivery within a time interval that best incorporates maternal and fetal risks and benefits.”¹⁷ Similarly, the current SOGC guideline states that hospitals providing trial-of-labour services should have “the resources to perform an emergency cesarean section.”¹⁸ This change in recommendations has led to an increase in the number of hospitals that offer trials of labour, though concerns about inadequate access to such delivery options persist.^19,20Although clinical guidelines regarding hospitals deemed safe for delivering patients with a previous cesarean delivery have changed in recent years, to our knowledge, no studies have evaluated hospital factors and associated safety issues. We sought to evaluate maternal and infant outcomes of deliveries to patients with a previous cesarean delivery by tier of obstetric service and hospital delivery volume.     

Incidence of childhood cancer in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background:The COVID-19 pandemic has had a major impact on access to health care resources. Our objective was to estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence of childhood cancer in Canada. We also aimed to compare the proportion of patients who enrolled in clinical trials at diagnosis, presented with metastatic disease or had an early death during the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic compared with previous years.Methods:We conducted an observational study that included children younger than 15 years with a new diagnosis of cancer between March 2016 and November 2020 at 1 of 17 Canadian pediatric oncology centres. Our primary outcome was the monthly age-standardized incidence rates (ASIRs) of cancers. We evaluated level and trend changes using interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients who were enrolled in a clinical trial, who had metastatic or advanced disease and who died within 30 days. We compared the baseline and pandemic periods using rate ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Results:Age-standardized incidence rates during COVID-19 quarters were 157.7, 164.6, and 148.0 per million, respectively, whereas quarterly baseline ASIRs ranged between 150.3 and 175.1 per million (incidence RR 0.93 [95% CI 0.78 to 1.12] to incidence RR 1.04 [95% CI 0.87 to 1.24]). We found no statistically significant level or slope changes between the projected and observed ASIRs for all new cancers (parameter estimate [β], level 4.98, 95% CI −15.1 to 25.04, p = 0.25), or when stratified by cancer type or by geographic area. Clinical trial enrolment rate was stable or increased during the pandemic compared with baseline (RR 1.22 [95% CI 0.70 to 2.13] to RR 1.71 [95% CI 1.01 to 2.89]). There was no difference in the proportion of patients with metastatic disease (RR 0.84 [95% CI 0.55 to 1.29] to RR 1.22 [0.84 to 1.79]), or who died within 30 days (RR 0.16 [95% CI 0.01 to 3.04] to RR 1.73 [95% CI 0.38 to 15.2]).Interpretation:We did not observe a statistically significant change in the incidence of childhood cancer, or in the proportion of children enrolling in a clinical trial, presenting with metastatic disease or who died early during the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, which suggests that access to health care in pediatric oncology was not reduced substantially in Canada.

Concerns have been raised that the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted health care–seeking behaviours and access to health care, affecting the diagnosis and management of other conditions such as cancer. Studies conducted in the Netherlands and United Kingdom using administrative data have shown as much as a 50% reduction in cancer incidence in adults after March 2020.^1,2 Other studies in adult populations thus far have shown a decrease in the number of new cancer diagnoses, and cancer-related medical visits, therapies and surgeries, ^1,3–5 raising concerns about potential excess cancer mortality in the upcoming years.⁶ This may be explained partly by the suspension or reduction of cancer-screening procedures, such as mammography, colonoscopy and cervical cytology by up to 90%,^3,5,7 because these screening initiatives play a critical role in the detection of cancers in adults. A 2020 retrospective single-centre cohort study in Japan that involved 123 patients with colorectal cancer reported that significantly more of these patients presented with complete intestinal obstruction, which suggests that detection delays might have contributed to diagnosis at later stages of the disease.⁸ It is unclear whether these findings apply to childhood cancer because cancer screening is not part of routine pediatric care, and early detection may not be as important in childhood cancer than in its adult counterpart.⁹In children, case series and single-centre retrospective cohort studies, notably from Italy and the United States, suggested a marked reduction in incident cancers, along with high acuity of care at presentation.^10–13 Similar concerns of delayed clinical presentation were raised in other pediatric patient populations, with reports of children presenting at late stages of sepsis or diabetic ketoacidosis, which suggests a delay in seeking care.^14,15It is possible that fear of COVID-19 dissuaded families with children from seeking care for nonspecific symptoms such as pain, headache or fatigue, which are typical triggers leading to a pediatric cancer diagnosis. Understanding the indirect effects of health policies during the COVID-19 pandemic is important to guide policy-making and mitigate barriers to essential health care in future public health crises.Our objective was to measure the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions on the incidence of childhood cancer in Canada. We also aimed to compare the proportion of patients who enrolled in clinical trials at diagnosis, presented with metastatic disease or died during the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic compared with previous years.     

San Francisco Syncope Rule to predict short-term serious outcomes: a systematic review

Background:

The San Francisco Syncope Rule has been proposed as a clinical decision rule for risk stratification of patients presenting to the emergency department with syncope. It has been validated across various populations and settings. We undertook a systematic review of its accuracy in predicting short-term serious outcomes.

Methods:

We identified studies by means of systematic searches in seven electronic databases from inception to January 2011. We extracted study data in duplicate and used a bivariate random-effects model to assess the predictive accuracy and test characteristics.

Results:

We included 12 studies with a total of 5316 patients, of whom 596 (11%) experienced a serious outcome. The prevalence of serious outcomes across the studies varied between 5% and 26%. The pooled estimate of sensitivity of the San Francisco Syncope Rule was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79–0.93), and the pooled estimate of specificity was 0.52 (95% CI 0.43–0.62). There was substantial between-study heterogeneity (resulting in a 95% prediction interval for sensitivity of 0.55–0.98). The probability of a serious outcome given a negative score with the San Francisco Syncope Rule was 5% or lower, and the probability was 2% or lower when the rule was applied only to patients for whom no cause of syncope was identified after initial evaluation in the emergency department. The most common cause of false-negative classification for a serious outcome was cardiac arrhythmia.

Interpretation:

The San Francisco Syncope Rule should be applied only for patients in whom no cause of syncope is evident after initial evaluation in the emergency department. Consideration of all available electrocardiograms, as well as arrhythmia monitoring, should be included in application of the San Francisco Syncope Rule. Between-study heterogeneity was likely due to inconsistent classification of arrhythmia.Syncope is defined as sudden, transient loss of consciousness with the inability to maintain postural tone, followed by spontaneous recovery and return to pre-existing neurologic function.^1–5 It represents a common clinical problem, accounting for 1%–3% of visits to the emergency department and up to 6% of admissions to acute care hospitals.^6,7Assessment of syncope in patients presenting to the emergency department is challenging because of the heterogeneity of underlying pathophysiologic processes and diseases. Although many underlying causes of syncope are benign, others are associated with substantial morbidity or mortality, including cardiac arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism and occult hemorrhage.^4,8–10 Consequently, a considerable proportion of patients with benign causes of syncope are admitted for inpatient evaluation.^11,12 Therefore, risk stratification that allows for the safe discharge of patients at low risk of a serious outcome is important for efficient management of patients in emergency departments and for reduction of costs associated with unnecessary diagnostic workup.^12,13In recent years, various prediction rules based on the probability of an adverse outcome after an episode of syncope have been proposed.^3,14–16 However, the San Francisco Syncope Rule, derived by Quinn and colleagues in 2004,³ is the only prediction rule for serious outcomes that has been validated in a variety of populations and settings. This simple, five-step clinical decision rule is intended to identify patients at low risk of short-term serious outcomes^3,17 (Box 1).

Box 1:

San Francisco Syncope Rule³

AimPrediction of short-term (within 30 days) serious outcomes in patients presenting to the emergency department with syncope.DefinitionsSyncope: Transient loss of consciousness with return to baseline neurologic function. Trauma-associated and alcohol- or drug-related loss of consciousness excluded, as is definite seizure or altered mental status.Serious outcome: Death, myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, pulmonary embolism, stroke, subarachnoid hemorrhage, significant hemorrhage or any condition causing or likely to cause a return visit to the emergency department and admission to hospital for a related event.Selection of predictors in multivariable analysis: Fifty predictor variables were evaluated for significant associations with a serious outcome and combined to create a minimal set of predictors that are highly sensitive and specific for prediction of a serious outcome.Clinical decision ruleFive risk factors, indicated by the mnemonic “CHESS,” were identified to predict patients at high risk of a serious outcome:

• C – History of congestive heart failure
• H – Hematocrit < 30%
• E – Abnormal findings on 12-lead ECG or cardiac monitoring¹⁷ (new changes or nonsinus rhythm)
• S – History of shortness of breath
• S – Systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg at triage

Note: ECG = electrocardiogram.The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of the San Francisco Syncope Rule in predicting short-term serious outcome for patients presenting to the emergency department with syncope.