COVID-19 vaccine-related presumed allergic reactions and second dose administration by using a two-step graded protocol.

Background: Acute allergic reactions to messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines are rare but may limit public health immunization efforts. Objectives: To characterize suspected allergic reactions to the first dose of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccine and to assess the safety and utility of a two-step graded-dose protocol for the second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in patients with a history of low suspicion of anaphylaxis to their first dose. Methods: This was a retrospective evaluation of referrals to the allergy and immunology clinic for a presumed allergic reaction to the first dose of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) between December 17, 2020, and February 28, 2021. Recommendations for the second dose and outcomes were evaluated by trained board-certified allergists. Results: Seventy-seven patients presented with a Pfizer-BioNTech reaction (56 [72.7%]) or with a Moderna reaction (21 [27.3%]). Most patients (69.7%) had symptom onset within 4 hours. Most commonly reported symptoms were cutaneous (51.9%), cardiovascular (48.1%), and respiratory (33.8%) symptoms. Recommendations included to proceed with the single dose (70.1%), two-step graded dose (19.5%), or deferral (10.4%). Twelve of 15 patients completed the second dose with a graded-dose protocol. Of these patients, five reported at least one or more similar symptoms as experienced with their first dose. Conclusion: Of the patients with presumed allergic reactions to their first dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, most were able to safely receive the second dose. For those with a low suspicion of anaphylaxis, the two-step graded protocol with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was well tolerated. A graded-dose protocol could be an effective strategy for second-dose vaccination in those who may otherwise defer the second dose.

Developing a model for primary care quality improvement success: a comparative case study in rural, urban and Kaupapa Maori organisations.

Introduction Primary care is under pressure to achieve accessible, equitable, quality health care, while being increasingly under resourced. There is a need to understand factors that influence quality improvement (QI) to support a high-performing primary care system. Literature highlights the impact of context on QI but there is little primary care research on this topic. Aim This qualitative case study research seeks to discover the contextual factors influencing QI in primary care, and how the relationships between contextual factors, the QI initiative, and the implementation process influence outcomes. Methods The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to frame this qualitative study exploring primary care experiences in depth. Six sites were selected to provide a sample of rural, urban and Kaupapa Maori settings. Qualitative data was collected via semi-structured interviews and compared and contrasted with the organisational documents and data provided by participants. Results Cases reported success in achieving improved outcomes for patients, practices, and staff. Strong internal cultures of 'Clan' and 'Adhocracy' typologies supported teamwork, distributed leadership, and a learning climate to facilitate iterative sensemaking activities. To varying degrees, external network relationships provided resources, knowledge, and support. Discussion Organisations were motivated by a combination of patient/community need and organisational culture. Network relationships assisted to varying degrees depending on need. Engaged and distributed leadership based on teamwork was observed, where leadership was shared and emerged at different levels and times as the need arose. A learning climate was supported to enable iterative sensemaking activities to achieve success.

Contextual antecedents of quality improvement: a comparative case study in rural, urban and Kaupapa Māori general practice.

Introduction The impact of contextual factors on primary health-care quality improvement is significant. In-depth research is required to identify the key contextual factors that influence quality improvement initiatives to develop high-performing primary health-care systems. Aim This research seeks to answer two questions; what are the contextual factors influencing primary care improvement initiatives?; and how do contextual factors, the quality improvement initiative and the implementation process influence one another and the overall improvement outcomes? Methods A multi-case study methodology was used to explore the complexities of the phenomena in situ . Three sites where successful quality improvement had occurred were selected by purposeful theoretical sampling to provide a sample of rural, urban and Kaupapa Maori general practice settings typical of the New Zealand environment. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with team members and triangulated with secondary data provided by the organisations. Results The quality improvement topic and the approach taken were intrinsically linked to context. Sites reported success in achieving the desired outcomes benefitting the patients, practice and staff. Teams did not use formal improvement methods, instead relying on established relationships and elements of change management methods. The culture in all three cases was a large component of why and how these initiatives were successful. Discussion Intrinsic motivation was generated by community connections and networks. This combined with a learning climate generated by distributed leadership and teamwork enabled success. Iterative reflection and sensemaking processes were able to deliver quality improvement success in primary care without the use of formal improvement methods.

Respiratory syncytial virus outbreak on an adult stem cell transplant unit.

BACKGROUND: An increase in respiratory syncytial virus type B (RSV-B) infections was detected on an adult hematology/oncology and stem cell transplant unit during March 2015. This prompted an outbreak investigation. METHODS: Nosocomial cases were defined as RSV-B-positive patients who developed respiratory virus symptoms ≥ 7 days after admission to the unit or were readmitted with symptoms ≤ 7 days since last discharge from the unit. Strict outbreak control measures were implemented to stop the outbreak. RESULTS: During the outbreak, 19 cases of RSV-B were detected, 14 among patients and 5 among health care workers (HCWs). Additionally, 2 HCWs tested positive for respiratory syncytial virus type A and 1 tested positive for influenza B among the 27 symptomatic HCWs evaluated. No specific antiviral therapy was given and all cases recovered without progression to lower respiratory tract infection. After no new cases were identified for 2 weeks, the outbreak was declared over. CONCLUSIONS: High vigilance for respiratory viruses on high-risk inpatient units is required for detection and prevention of potential outbreaks. Multiple respiratory viruses with outbreak potential were identified among HCWs. HCWs with respiratory virus symptoms should not provide direct patient care. Absence of lower respiratory tract infection suggests lower virulence of RSV-B, compared with respiratory syncytial virus type A, among immunocompromised adults.