Multijurisdictional outbreak of COVID-19 associated with a wake/funeral event in a northern Saskatchewan First Nations community.

Background: Sixty-eight laboratory-confirmed cases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (12 in Alberta [AB], 56 in Saskatchewan [SK]) were linked to a gathering at a hospital in Alberta on June 1-4, 2020, and a wake/funeral in a First Nations community in northern Saskatchewan on June 9-11, 2020. Objective: The objectives were to provide a comprehensive description of the epidemiology of the outbreak and describe the chains of transmission to inform the hypothesis that there were multiple introductions of COVID-19 at the wake/funeral. Methods: Case investigation and contact tracing was conducted by local public health in AB and SK. The Public Health Agency of Canada conducted a centralized case analysis. An epidemic curve and a Gantt chart for period of communicability were created to support or refute whether there had been multiple introductions of COVID-19 at the wake/funeral. Results: Illness onset dates ranged from May 31 to July 1, 2020. Ages ranged from 2 to 80 years (median age=43 years). Five cases were hospitalized; there were no deaths. The available case exposure information supports the hypothesis that there had been multiple introductions of COVID-19 at the wake/funeral. Public health authorities in AB and SK declared the outbreak over on July 20, 2020; based on two incubation periods (i.e. 28 days) following the illness onset of the last primary case. Conclusion: During multijurisdictional outbreaks, data sharing, coordination across health authorities and centralized analysis is essential to understanding the events that lead to the outbreak and possible hypotheses around chains of transmission.

Integrating clinical medicine and population health: where to from here?

Efforts to contain healthcare costs have led a renewed clinician interest in addressing population-level outcomes, with some proposing that the integration of population health into clinical practice represents a novel concept entitled "clinical population medicine" (CPM). This commentary offers an examination of the function and utility of CPM. In reviewing relevant literature, we note several inconsistencies in CPM's purported mandate, which ranges from simply incorporating the social determinants of health into clinical practice to broad involvement in community health planning. The latter of these seems to overlap, and potentially conflict, with the work of public health practitioners, and cited examples of activities used to define "CPM" seem to apply a label to established clinician activities around the determinants of health that would be captured more simply as research, evaluation, or advocacy undertaken by clinicians in other areas of practice. Our analysis suggests that CPM may have value in encouraging clinicians to incorporate community determinants and contextual considerations into their practices, but must take care to remain complementary and distinct from public health practice.