Search

Abstract Background Social isolation and loneliness (SIL) worsens mortality and other outcomes among older adults as much as smoking. We previously tested the impact of the HOW R U? intervention using peer support from similar-aged volunteers and demonstrated reduced SIL among older adults discharged from the emergency department (ED). Generativity, defined as “the interest in establishing and guiding the next generation,” can provide an alternative theoretical basis for reducing SIL via intergenerational programs between members of younger and older generations. The current protocol will examine the impact of younger intergenerational volunteers providing the HOW RU? intervention. Methods In this randomized clinical trial, we will compare the following three arms: (1) the standard same-generation peer support HOW R U? intervention, (2) HOW R U? intervention delivered by intergenerational volunteers, and (3) a common wait-list control group. Outcome assessors will be blinded to the intervention. Trained volunteers will deliver 12 weekly telephone support calls. We will recruit participants ≥ 70 years of age with baseline loneliness (six-item De Jong loneliness score of 2 or greater) from two EDs. Research staff will assess SIL, depression, quality of life, functional status, generativity, and perceived benefit at baseline, at 12 weeks, and 24 weeks post-intervention. Discussion We hypothesize participants receiving the intergenerational intervention will show improved outcomes compared to the control group and peer support HOW R U? intervention. We also hypothesize that participants with higher perceptions of generativity will have greater reductions in SIL than their lower generativity counterparts. Aging is experienced diversely, and social interventions combatting associated SIL should reflect that diversity. As part of a program of research following the Obesity-Related Behavioral Intervention Trials (ORBIT) model, the findings of this RCT will be used to define which intervention characteristics are most effective in reducing SIL. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05998343 Protocol ID:21-0074E. Registered on 24 July 2023.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are a gold standard in research and crucial to our understanding of resuscitation science. Many trials in resuscitation have had neutral findings, questioning which treatments are effective in cardiac resuscitation. While it is possible than many interventions do not improve patient outcomes, it is also possible that the large proportion of neutral findings are partially due to design limitations. RCTs can be challenging to implement, and require extensive resources, time, and funding. In addition, conducting RCTs in the out-of-hospital setting provides unique challenges that must be considered for a successful trial. This article will outline many important aspects of conducting trials in resuscitation in the out-of-hospital setting including patient and outcome selection, trial design, and statistical analysis.

The GENCOV study aims to identify patient factors which affect COVID-19 severity and outcomes. Here, we aimed to evaluate patient characteristics, acute symptoms and their persistence, and associations with hospitalization. Participants were recruited at hospital sites across the Greater Toronto Area in Ontario, Canada. Patient-reported demographics, medical history, and COVID-19 symptoms and complications were collected through an intake survey. Regression analyses were performed to identify associations with outcomes including hospitalization and COVID-19 symptoms. In total, 966 responses were obtained from 1106 eligible participants (87% response rate) between November 2020 and May 2022. Increasing continuous age (aOR: 1.05 [95%CI: 1.01–1.08]) and BMI (aOR: 1.17 [95%CI: 1.10–1.24]), non-White/European ethnicity (aOR: 2.72 [95%CI: 1.22–6.05]), hypertension (aOR: 2.78 [95%CI: 1.22–6.34]), and infection by viral variants (aOR: 5.43 [95%CI: 1.45–20.34]) were identified as risk factors for hospitalization. Several symptoms including shortness of breath and fever were found to be more common among inpatients and tended to persist for longer durations following acute illness. Sex, age, ethnicity, BMI, vaccination status, viral strain, and underlying health conditions were associated with developing and having persistent symptoms. By improving our understanding of risk factors for severe COVID-19, our findings may guide COVID-19 patient management strategies by enabling more efficient clinical decision making.

IntroductionVirtual patient care has seen incredible growth since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. To provide greater access to safe and timely urgent care, in the fall of 2020, the Ministry of Health introduced a pilot program of 14 virtual urgent care (VUC) initiatives across the province of Ontario. The objective of this paper was to describe the overall design, facilitators, barriers, and lessons learned during the implementation of seven emergency department (ED) led VUC pilot programs in Ontario, Canada.MethodsWe assembled an expert panel of 13 emergency medicine physicians and researchers with experience leading and implementing local VUC programs. Each VUC program lead was asked to describe their local pilot program, share common facilitators and barriers to adoption of VUC services, and summarize lessons learned for future VUC design and development.ResultsModels of care interventions varied across VUC pilot programs related to triage, staffing, technology, and physician remuneration. Common facilitators included local champions to guide program delivery, provincial funding support, and multi-modal marketing and promotions. Common barriers included behaviour change strategies to support adoption of a new service, access to high-quality information technology to support new workflow models that consider privacy, risk, and legal perspectives, and standardized data collection which underpin overall objective impact assessments.ConclusionsThese pilot programs were rapidly implemented to support safe access to care and ED diversion of patients with low acuity issues during the COVID-19 pandemic. The heterogeneity of program implementation respects local autonomy yet may present challenges for sustainability efforts and future funding considerations.

Abstract Objective eCTAS is a real‐time electronic decision‐support tool designed to standardize the application of the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS). This study addresses the variability of CTAS score distributions across institutions pre‐ and post‐eCTAS implementation. Methods We used population‐based administrative data from 2016–2018 from all emergency departments (EDs) that had implemented eCTAS for 9 months. Following a 3‐month stabilization period, we compared 6 months post‐eCTAS data to the same 6 months the previous year (pre‐eCTAS). We included triage encounters of adult (≥17 years) patients who presented with 1 of 16 pre‐specified, high‐volume complaints. For each ED, consistency was calculated as the absolute difference in CTAS distribution compared to the average of all included EDs for each presenting complaint. Pre‐eCTAS and post‐eCTAS change scores were compared using a paired‐samples t‐test. We also assessed if eCTAS modifiers were associated with triage consistency. Results There were 363,214 (183,231 pre‐eCTAS, 179,983 post‐eCTAS) triage encounters included from 35 EDs. Triage scores were more consistent (P

Background Time to treatment is critical for survival from sudden cardiac arrest. Every minute delay in defibrillation results in a 7% to 10% reduction in survival. This is particularly problematic in rural and remote regions, where emergency medical service response is prolonged and automated external defibrillators (AEDs) are often not available. Our primary objective was to examine the feasibility of a novel AED drone delivery method for rural and remote sudden cardiac arrest. A secondary objective was to compare response times between AED drone delivery and ambulance to mock sudden cardiac arrest resuscitations. Methods and Results We conducted 6 simulations in 2 rural communities in southern Ontario, Canada. In the first 2 simulations, the drone and ambulance were dispatched from the same paramedic base. In simulations 3 and 4, the drone and ambulance were dispatched from separate paramedic bases; and in simulations 5 and 6, the drone was dispatched from an optimized location. During each simulation, a “mock” call was placed to 911 and a single AED drone and an ambulance were simultaneously dispatched to a predetermined destination. On scene, trained first responders retrieved the AED from the drone and initiated resuscitative efforts on a mannequin until paramedics arrived. No difficulties were encountered during drone activation by dispatch, ascent, landing, or bystander retrieval of the AED from the drone. During simulations 1 and 2, the distance to the scene was 6.6 km. For simulations 3 and 4, the ambulance response distance increased to 8.8 km while drone remained at 6.6 km; and in simulations 5 and 6, the ambulance response distance was 20 km compared with 9 km for the drone. During each flight, the AED drone arrived on scene before the ambulance, between 1.8 and 8.0 minutes faster. Conclusions This study suggests AED drone delivery is feasible, with the potential for improvements in response time during simulated sudden cardiac arrest scenarios. Further research is required to determine the appropriate system configuration for AED drone delivery in an integrated emergency medical service system as well as optimal strategies to simplify bystander application of a drone‐delivered AED.

BackgroundRemote ischemic conditioning (RIC) is a noninvasive therapeutic strategy that uses brief cycles of blood pressure cuff inflation and deflation to protect the myocardium against ischemia–reperfusion injury. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the impact of RIC on myocardial salvage index, infarct size, and major adverse cardiovascular events when initiated before catheterization. Methods and ResultsElectronic searches of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were conducted and reference lists were hand searched. Randomized controlled trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with and without RIC for patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction were included. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts, assessed quality of the studies, and extracted data. Data were pooled using random‐effects models and reported as mean differences and relative risk with 95% confidence intervals. Eleven articles (9 randomized controlled trials) were included with a total of 1220 patients (RIC+PCI=643, PCI=577). Studies with no events were excluded from meta‐analysis. The myocardial salvage index was higher in the RIC+PCI group compared with the PCI group (mean difference: 0.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.02–0.14). Infarct size was reduced in the RIC+PCI group compared with the PCI group (mean difference: −2.46; 95% confidence interval, −4.66 to −0.26). Major adverse cardiovascular events were lower in the RIC+PCI group (9.5%) compared with the PCI group (17.0%; relative risk: 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.40–0.82). ConclusionsRIC appears to be a promising adjunctive treatment to PCI for the prevention of reperfusion injury in patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction; however, additional high‐quality research is required before a change in practice can be considered.

BackgroundIn 2020, the Ministry of Health (MoH) in Ontario, Canada, introduced a virtual urgent care (VUC) pilot program to provide alternative access to urgent care services and reduce the need for in-person emergency department (ED) visits for patients with low acuity health concerns. ObjectiveThis study aims to compare the 30-day costs associated with VUC and in-person ED encounters from an MoH perspective. MethodsUsing administrative data from Ontario (the most populous province of Canada), a population-based, matched cohort study of Ontarians who used VUC services from December 2020 to September 2021 was conducted. As it was expected that VUC and in-person ED users would be different, two cohorts of VUC users were defined: (1) those who were promptly referred to an ED by a VUC provider and subsequently presented to an ED within 72 hours (these patients were matched to in-person ED users with any discharge disposition) and (2) those seen by a VUC provider with no referral to an in-person ED (these patients were matched to patients who presented in-person to the ED and were discharged home by the ED physician). Bootstrap techniques were used to compare the 30-day mean costs of VUC (operational costs to set up the VUC program plus health care expenditures) versus in-person ED care (health care expenditures) from an MoH perspective. All costs are expressed in Canadian dollars (a currency exchange rate of CAD $1=US $0.76 is applicable). ResultsWe matched 2129 patients who presented to an ED within 72 hours of VUC referral and 14,179 patients seen by a VUC provider without a referral to an ED. Our matched populations represented 99% (2129/2150) of eligible VUC patients referred to the ED by their VUC provider and 98% (14,179/14,498) of eligible VUC patients not referred to the ED by their VUC provider. Compared to matched in-person ED patients, 30-day costs per patient were significantly higher for the cohort of VUC patients who presented to an ED within 72 hours of VUC referral ($2805 vs $2299; difference of $506, 95% CI $139-$885) and significantly lower for the VUC cohort of patients who did not require ED referral ($907 vs $1270; difference of $362, 95% CI 284-$446). Overall, the absolute 30-day costs associated with the 2 VUC cohorts were $18.9 million (ie, $6.0 million + $12.9 million) versus $22.9 million ($4.9 million + $18.0 million) for the 2 in-person ED cohorts. ConclusionsThis costing evaluation supports the use of VUC as most complaints were addressed without referral to ED. Future research should evaluate targeted applications of VUC (eg, VUC models led by nurse practitioners or physician assistants with support from ED physicians) to inform future resource allocation and policy decisions.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has forced the implementation of physical distancing and self-isolation strategies worldwide. However, these measures have significant potential to increase social isolation and loneliness. Among older people, loneliness has increased from 40% to 70% during COVID-19. Previous research indicates loneliness is strongly associated with increased mortality. Thus, strategies to mitigate the unintended consequences of social isolation and loneliness are urgently needed. Following the Obesity-Related Behavioural Intervention Trials model for complex behavioural interventions, we describe a protocol for a three-arm randomised clinical trial to reduce social isolation and loneliness.Methods and analysis A multicentre, outcome assessor blinded, three-arm randomised controlled trial comparing 12 weeks of: (1) the HOspitals WoRking in Unity (‘HOW R U?’) weekly volunteer-peer support telephone intervention; (2) ‘HOW R U?’ deliver using a video-conferencing solution and (3) a standard care group. The study will follow Consolidated Standard of Reporting Trials guidelines.We will recruit 24–26 volunteers who will receive a previously tested half day lay-training session that emphasises a strength-based approach and safety procedures. We will recruit 141 participants ≥70 years of age discharged from two participating emergency departments or referred from hospital family medicine, geriatric or geriatric psychiatry clinics. Eligible participants will have probable baseline loneliness (score ≥2 on the de Jong six-item loneliness scale). We will measure change in loneliness, social isolation (Lubben social network scale), mood (Geriatric Depression Score) and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) at 12–14 weeks postintervention initiation and again at 24–26 weeks.Ethics and dissemination Approval has been granted by the participating research ethics boards. Participants randomised to standard care will be offered their choice of telephone or video-conferencing interventions after 12 weeks. Results will be disseminated through journal publications, conference presentations, social media and through the International Federation of Emergency Medicine.Trial registration number NCT05228782.

IntroductionIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ontario Ministry of Health introduced a pilot program of 14 virtual urgent care (VUC) initiatives across the province to encourage physical distancing and provision of care by telephone and video-enabled visits. The implementation of the VUC pilot is currently being evaluated by an external academic team. The objective of this study was to understand patient experiences with VUC to determine barriers and facilitators to optimal virtual care as it rapidly expands during the current pandemic and beyond.MethodThe qualitative component of the evaluation used one-on-one telephone interviews with patients, families, providers, and program administrators as the main method of data collection. Patient and family participants were invited to participate by the triage nurse after their VUC visit. Data analysis, using thematic analysis, occurred in conjunction with data collection to monitor emerging themes and areas for further exploration.ResultsBetween April and October 2021, we completed 14 patient and/or family interviews from a representative cross-section of 6 pilot sites. Participants had a range of presenting complaints including infection, injury, medication side effects, and abdominal pain. The vast majority of participants were female (90%), and 70% were VUC patients themselves. Our analysis identified three key themes in the data which characterise patient and family member experience with VUC: a) emphasis on access to the ED; b) efficiency and quality of care; c) obtaining reassurance and next steps.ConclusionVirtual care options are valued by patients and families; however, the nature of care needed by those accessing VUC and who can best provide that care needs to be evaluated to position it for sustainability. Understanding how virtual care performs from both a provider and patient perspective during the current crisis has implications for designing alternative care options beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background To summarise specific adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19.Methods We searched 32 databases through 27 October 2020. We included randomised trials comparing any of the drugs of interest to placebo or standard care, or against each other. We conducted fixed-effects pairwise meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation approach.Results We included 16 randomised trials which enrolled 8152 patients. For most interventions and outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low to low except for gastrointestinal adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine, which was moderate certainty. Compared with standard care or placebo, low certainty evidence suggests that remdesivir may not have an important effect on acute kidney injury (risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 21 more) or cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 12 fewer to 19 more). Low certainty evidence suggests that hydroxychloroquine may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity (RD 10 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 more to 30 more) and cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 33 more per 1000, 95% CI 18 fewer to 84 more), whereas moderate certainty evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea (RD 106 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 175 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 62 more per 1000, 95% CI 23 more to 110 more) compared with standard care or placebo. Low certainty evidence suggests lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea (RD 168 more per 1000, 95% CI 58 more to 330 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 160 more per 1000, 95% CI 100 more to 210 more) compared with standard care or placebo.Discussion Hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting and may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity and cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting. Remdesivir may have no important effect on risk of acute kidney injury or cognitive dysfunction/delirium. These findings provide important information to support the development of evidence-based management strategies for patients with COVID-19.

Introduction There is considerable variability in symptoms and severity of COVID-19 among patients infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Linking host and virus genome sequence information to antibody response and biological information may identify patient or viral characteristics associated with poor and favourable outcomes. This study aims to (1) identify characteristics of the antibody response that result in maintained immune response and better outcomes, (2) determine the impact of genetic differences on infection severity and immune response, (3) determine the impact of viral lineage on antibody response and patient outcomes and (4) evaluate patient-reported outcomes of receiving host genome, antibody and viral lineage results.Methods and analysis A prospective, observational cohort study is being conducted among adult patients with COVID-19 in the Greater Toronto Area. Blood samples are collected at baseline (during infection) and 1, 6 and 12 months after diagnosis. Serial antibody titres, isotype, antigen target and viral neutralisation will be assessed. Clinical data will be collected from chart reviews and patient surveys. Host genomes and T-cell and B-cell receptors will be sequenced. Viral genomes will be sequenced to identify viral lineage. Regression models will be used to test associations between antibody response, physiological response, genetic markers and patient outcomes. Pathogenic genomic variants related to disease severity, or negative outcomes will be identified and genome wide association will be conducted. Immune repertoire diversity during infection will be correlated with severity of COVID-19 symptoms and human leucocyte antigen-type associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants can learn their genome sequencing, antibody and viral sequencing results; patient-reported outcomes of receiving this information will be assessed through surveys and qualitative interviews.Ethics and dissemination This study was approved by Clinical Trials Ontario Streamlined Ethics Review System (CTO Project ID: 3302) and the research ethics boards at participating hospitals. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and end-users.

Introduction Falling on level ground is now the most common cause of traumatic intracranial bleeding worldwide. Older adults frequently present to the emergency department (ED) after falling. It can be challenging for clinicians to determine who requires brain imaging to rule out traumatic intracranial bleeding, and often head injury decision rules do not apply to older adults who fall. The goal of our study is to derive a clinical decision rule, which will identify older adults who present to the ED after a fall who do not have clinically important intracranial bleeding.Methods and analysis This is a prospective cohort study enrolling patients aged 65 years or older, who present to the ED of 11 hospitals in Canada and the USA within 48 hours of having a fall. Patients are included if they fall on level ground, off a chair, toilet seat or out of bed. The primary outcome is the diagnosis of clinically important intracranial bleeding within 42 days of the index ED visit. An independent adjudication committee will determine the primary outcome, blinded to all other data. We are collecting data on 17 potential predictor variables. The treating physician completes a study data form at the time of initial assessment, prior to brain imaging. Data extraction is supplemented by an independent, structured electronic medical record review. We will perform binary recursive partitioning using Classification and Regression Trees to derive a clinical decision rule.Ethics and dissemination The study was initially approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Committee and subsequently approved by the research ethics boards governing all participating sites. We will disseminate our results by journal publication, presentation at international meetings and social media.Trial registration number NCT03745755.

Objectives Point-of-care ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia (POCUS-GRA) provides safe, rapid analgesia for older people with hip fractures but is rarely performed in the emergency department (ED). Self-perceived inadequate training and time to perform POCUS-GRA are the two most important barriers. Our objective is to assess the feasibility of a proposed multicentre, stepped-wedge cluster randomised clinical trial (RCT) to assess the impact of a knowledge-to-practice (KTP) intervention on delirium.Design Open-label feasibility study.Setting An academic tertiary care Canadian ED (annual visits 60 000).Participants Emergency physicians working at least one ED shift per week, excluding those already performing POCUS-GRA more than four times per year.Intervention A KTP intervention, including 2-hour structured training sessions with procedure bundle and email reminders.Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary feasibility outcome is the proportion of eligible physicians that completed training and subsequently performed POCUS-GRA. Secondary outcome is the time needed to complete POCUS-GRA. We also test the feasibility of the enrolment, consent and randomisation processes for the future stepped-wedge cluster RCT (NCT02892968).Results Of 36 emergency physicians, 4 (12%) were excluded or declined participation. All remaining 32 emergency physicians completed training and 31 subsequently treated at least one eligible patient. Collectively, 27/31 (87.1%) performed 102 POCUS-GRA blocks (range 1–20 blocks per physician). The median (IQR) time to perform blocks was 15 (10–20) min, and reduction in pain was 6/10 (3–7) following POCUS-GRA. There were no reported complications.Conclusion Our KTP intervention, consent process and randomisation were feasible. The time to perform POCUS-GRA rarely exceeded 30 min, Our findings reinforce the existing data on the safety and effectiveness of POCUS-GRA, mitigate perceived barriers to more widespread adoption and demonstrate the feasibility of trialling this intervention for the proposed stepped-wedge cluster RCT.Trial registration number Clinicaltrials.gov #02892968

Objective The objective of this qualitative study was to evaluate the perceived impact and value of the Return Visit Quality Programme (RVQP), a mandatory province-wide emergency department audit programme.Design We employed an interpretive descriptive qualitative approach with maximum variation sampling to ensure diverse representation across several geographical and institutional factors. RVQP programme leads were invited to participate in semistructured interviews and snowball sampling was used to reach non-lead physicians to capture the perspectives of those working within the programme.Setting In Ontario’s RVQP, participating emergency departments must audit their return visits resulting in admission to identify issues that can be addressed through quality improvement initiatives.Participants Between June and August 2018, we interviewed 32 participants (local programme leads and non-lead physicians) from 23 out of the 86 participating centres.Results Participants’ perceived impact and value of the programme was associated with the existence (or absence) and nature of the local quality improvement culture, the implementation approach of the programme within their emergency departments, and key aspects of the programme pertaining to medicolegal concerns and resource availability.Conclusions This study of an innovative, large-scale programme aimed at promoting continuous quality improvement in emergency departments showed that while its perceived impact has been meaningful, there are key structural and operational elements that support and hinder this aim. Healthcare leaders should consider these findings when looking to implement large-scale audit or quality improvement programmes.