An outpatient model of care for COVID-19 infected kidney transplant patients - The hospital-at-home.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is protracted and episodic surges from viral variants continue to place significant strain on healthcare systems. COVID-19 vaccines, antiviral therapy and monoclonal antibodies have significantly reduced COVID-19 associated morbidity and mortality. Concurrently, telemedicine has gained acceptance as a model of care and a tool for remote monitoring. These advances allow us to safely transit our inpatient-based care for COVID-19 infected kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) to a hospital-at-home (HaH) model of care. METHODS: KTRs with PCR-proven COVID-19 infection were triaged by teleconsult and laboratory tests. Suitable patients were enrolled into the HaH. Remote monitoring via teleconsults were conducted daily until patients were de-isolated based on a time-based criterion. Monoclonal antibodies were administered in a dedicated clinic where indicated. RESULTS: Eighty-one KTRs with COVID-19 were enrolled into the HaH between February and June 2022, 70 (86.4%) completed HaH recovery without complications. Eleven (13.6%) patients required inpatient hospitalization for medical issues (n = 8) and weekend monoclonal antibody infusion (n = 3). Patients requiring inpatient hospitalization had longer transplant vintage (15 years vs. 10 years, p = .03), anaemia (haemoglobin 11.6 g/dL vs. 13.1 g/dL, p = .01), lower eGFR (39.8 vs. 62.9 mL/min/1.73 m2 , p < .05) and lower RBD levels (<50 AU/mL vs. 1435 AU/mL, p = .02). HaH saved 753 inpatient patient-days with no deaths observed. Hospital admission rates from the HaH programme was 13.6%. Patients who required inpatient care had direct access admission without utilization of emergency department resources. CONCLUSION: Selected KTRs with COVID-19 infection can be safely managed in a HaH programme; alleviating strain on inpatient and emergency healthcare resources.

Psychological distress and associated factors among kidney transplant recipients and living kidney donors during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused significant psychological distress globally. Our study assessed the prevalence of psychological distress and associated factors during COVID-19 pandemic among kidney transplant recipients and kidney donors. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 497 participants (325 recipients and 172 donors) was conducted from 1st May to 30th June 2020 in Singapore. The survey questionnaire assessed knowledge levels of COVID-19, socio-demographic data, health status, psychosocial impact of COVID-19, and precautionary behaviors during the pandemic. Psychological distress was defined as having anxiety, depression, or stress measured by the validated Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-21. Linear regression analyses were used to assess factors associated with higher psychological distress. RESULTS: The prevalence of psychological distress was 14.3% (95% confidence interval: 11.5-17.6%) in the overall population; it was 12.8% (9.79-16.6%) in recipients and 13.4% (9.08-19.6%) in donors with no significant difference (P = 0.67). Younger age (21-49 vs. ≥50 years), unmarried status, non-Singapore citizen, worse health conditions, and worrying about physical and mental health were associated with higher psychological distress. Malays (versus Chinese), taking precautionary measures (hand sanitization), and receiving enough information about COVID-19 were associated with lower psychological distress. No interactions were observed between recipients and donors. CONCLUSIONS: At least one in ten recipients and donors suffer from psychological distress during COVID-19 pandemic. Focused health education to younger adults, unmarried individuals, non-Singapore citizens, and those with poor health status could potentially prevent psychological distress in recipients and donors.

Evaluation of an educational video providing key messages for doctors to counsel families following a first afebrile seizure.

AIM: The aim was to evaluate an educational video in educating doctors on the key messages and follow-up pathways following a first afebrile seizure presentation. A multidisciplinary expert team developed the video (http://www.pennsw.org.au/families/resources/first-seizure-pack-and-video) based on available evidence and best-practice. It contains a role-play between the parent/child and physician. It addresses: key messages to impart following a first seizure, seizure first aid, safety messages including necessary precautions post-discharge, contents of the First Seizure Pack for families, follow-up pathway and issues for discussion with the paediatrician at a later appointment. METHODS: Paediatric/Emergency department (ED) trainees across three Australian sites were recruited during terms 1 and 2, 2019. A repeated measures design was used. Multilevel modelling analyses were performed. The primary outcome was clinician knowledge. Secondary outcomes were confidence in answering questions and counselling families. Qualitative data on the utility, strengths and weaknesses of the video were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 127 participants consented, one withdrew prior to commencing. A total of 126 baseline surveys, 115 follow-up surveys and 45 1-month follow-up surveys were returned. Viewing the video significantly improved knowledge of key messages at immediate follow-up (P < 0.001) and 1-month follow-up (P = 0.048). Likewise, confidence was significantly improved; 96.5% of responders found the video useful, 90.3% were likely to use the resource in the future and 82% would change their approach to counselling. Most liked aspects of the resource were clarity/conciseness of the information (n = 70) and comprehensiveness (n = 38). CONCLUSION: This education video significantly improved clinician knowledge and confidence in counselling families following first seizure.

Developing consensus measures for global programs: lessons from the Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases Hypertension research program.

BACKGROUND: The imperative to improve global health has prompted transnational research partnerships to investigate common health issues on a larger scale. The Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases (GACD) is an alliance of national research funding agencies. To enhance research funded by GACD members, this study aimed to standardise data collection methods across the 15 GACD hypertension research teams and evaluate the uptake of these standardised measurements. Furthermore we describe concerns and difficulties associated with the data harmonisation process highlighted and debated during annual meetings of the GACD funded investigators. With these concerns and issues in mind, a working group comprising representatives from the 15 studies iteratively identified and proposed a set of common measures for inclusion in each of the teams' data collection plans. One year later all teams were asked which consensus measures had been implemented. RESULTS: Important issues were identified during the data harmonisation process relating to data ownership, sharing methodologies and ethical concerns. Measures were assessed across eight domains; demographic; dietary; clinical and anthropometric; medical history; hypertension knowledge; physical activity; behavioural (smoking and alcohol); and biochemical domains. Identifying validated measures relevant across a variety of settings presented some difficulties. The resulting GACD hypertension data dictionary comprises 67 consensus measures. Of the 14 responding teams, only two teams were including more than 50 consensus variables, five teams were including between 25 and 50 consensus variables and four teams were including between 6 and 24 consensus variables, one team did not provide details of the variables collected and two teams did not include any of the consensus variables as the project had already commenced or the measures were not relevant to their study. CONCLUSIONS: Deriving consensus measures across diverse research projects and contexts was challenging. The major barrier to their implementation was related to the time taken to develop and present these measures. Inclusion of consensus measures into future funding announcements would facilitate researchers integrating these measures within application protocols. We suggest that adoption of consensus measures developed here, across the field of hypertension, would help advance the science in this area, allowing for more comparable data sets and generalizable inferences.

COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among kidney transplant recipients in Singapore.

Introduction: A successful vaccination programme forms the cornerstone of controlling coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The unprecedented speed of COVID-19 vaccine development and lack of long-term data have raised fears regarding its safety and efficacy. Vaccine hesitancy can undermine the uptake, and hence success of the vaccination programme. Given the high complication rates of COVID-19 infections in kidney transplant recipients, it is particularly important to identify and address vaccine hesitancy in this population. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among kidney transplant recipients attending transplant clinic between 5 April and 5 May 2021. The survey assessed attitudes towards COVID-19, willingness/hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccination, vaccination concerns and prompts to vaccination. This was scored on a Likert scale with scores ranging from 'strongly disagree' - 1 point to 'strongly agree' - 5 points. Results: One hundred and one completed responses were captured. Of these, 86% respondents reported to agree or strongly agree to vaccination. This was despite significant concerns of allograft rejection (mean score 4.12, standard deviation [SD] 0.97) and decreased immunosuppressant efficacy (mean score 4.14, SD 0.96) with vaccination. Multivariable model showed a positive association with transplant vintage of ≥ 5 years (median 2.41), lower educational levels of secondary school or less (median 5.82) and healthcare provider advocacy (median 1.88) in predicting vaccine acceptance. Conclusions: Vaccine acceptance rate was high among kidney transplant recipients. Vaccine hesitancy remains a concern in those with a transplant vintage of less than 5 years and those with tertiary educational level. Healthcare provider advocacy is important in improving vaccine acceptance rates.

Knowledge of COVID-19 and associated factors among kidney transplant recipients and donors in Singapore.

Background: Effective interventions during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic require an understanding of patients' knowledge and perceptions that influence their behaviour. Our study assessed knowledge of COVID-19 among kidney transplant recipients and donors, hitherto unevaluated. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among 325 kidney transplant recipients and 172 donors between 1 May 2020 and 30 June 2020. The survey questionnaire assessed knowledge levels of COVID-19, sociodemographic data, health status, psychosocial impact of COVID-19 and precautionary behaviours during the pandemic. Results: The mean COVID-19 knowledge score of the study population was 7.5 (standard deviation: 2.2) out of 10. The mean score was significantly higher among kidney recipients compared to kidney donors (7.9 [1.9] vs. 6.7 [2.6]; P <0.001). Younger age (21-49 vs. ≥50 years) and higher education (diploma and higher vs. secondary and lower) were associated with significantly higher knowledge scores in donors, but not among recipients (P-interactions ≤0.01). In both kidney recipients and donors, financial concerns and/or social isolation were associated with lower knowledge levels. Conclusions: Concerted efforts are needed to improve COVID-19 knowledge in kidney transplant recipients and donors, particularly older donors, donors with lower education and patients with financial concerns or feelings of social isolation. Intensive patient education may mitigate the impact of education levels on COVID-19 knowledge levels.

Managing a Renal Transplant Programme During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Practical Experience from a Singapore Transplant Centre.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has significantly affected the way healthcare is delivered in Singapore. Healthcare services such as renal transplantation had to rapidly adjust and meet the needs to (1) protect patients and staff, (2) ramp up, conserve or redeploy resources while (3) ensuring that critical services remained operational. This paper aims to describe the experience of the renal transplant programme at the Singapore General Hospital (SGH) in responding to the risks and constraints posed by the pandemic. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This is a review and summary of the SGH renal transplant programme's policy and protocols that were either modified or developed in response to the COVID-19 Pandemic. RESULTS: A multi-pronged approach was adopted to respond to the challenges of COVID-19. These included ensuring business continuity by splitting the transplant team into different locations, adopting video and tele-consults to minimise potential patient exposure to COVID-19, streamlining work processes using electronic forms, ensuring safe paths for patients who needed to come to hospital, ring-fencing and testing new inpatients at risk for COVID-19, enhancing precautionary measures for transplant surgery, ensuring a stable supply chain of immunosuppression, and sustaining patient and staff education programmes via video conferencing. CONCLUSIONS: Though the COVID-19 pandemic has reduced access to kidney transplantation, opportunities arose to adopt telemedicine into mainstream transplant practice as well as use electronic platforms to streamline work processes. Screening protocols were established to ensure that transplantation could be performed safely, while webinars reached out to empower patients to take precautions against COVID-19.

Behaviour change strategies for reducing blood pressure-related disease burden: findings from a global implementation research programme.

BACKGROUND: The Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases comprises the majority of the world's public research funding agencies. It is focussed on implementation research to tackle the burden of chronic diseases in low- and middle-income countries and amongst vulnerable populations in high-income countries. In its inaugural research call, 15 projects were funded, focussing on lowering blood pressure-related disease burden. In this study, we describe a reflexive mapping exercise to identify the behaviour change strategies undertaken in each of these projects. METHODS: Using the Behaviour Change Wheel framework, each team rated the capability, opportunity and motivation of the various actors who were integral to each project (e.g. community members, non-physician health workers and doctors in projects focussed on service delivery). Teams then mapped the interventions they were implementing and determined the principal policy categories in which those interventions were operating. Guidance was provided on the use of Behaviour Change Wheel to support consistency in responses across teams. Ratings were iteratively discussed and refined at several group meetings. RESULTS: There was marked variation in the perceived capabilities, opportunities and motivation of the various actors who were being targeted for behaviour change strategies. Despite this variation, there was a high degree of synergy in interventions functions with most teams utilising complex interventions involving education, training, enablement, environmental restructuring and persuasion oriented strategies. Similar policy categories were also targeted across teams particularly in the areas of guidelines, communication/marketing and service provision with few teams focussing on fiscal measures, regulation and legislation. CONCLUSIONS: The large variation in preparedness to change behaviour amongst the principal actors across these projects suggests that the interventions themselves will be variably taken up, despite the similarity in approaches taken. The findings highlight the importance of contextual factors in driving success and failure of research programmes. Forthcoming outcome and process evaluations from each project will build on this exploratory work and provide a greater understanding of factors that might influence scale-up of intervention strategies.