Characteristics of primary care practices by proportion of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2: a cross-sectional cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Variations in primary care practices may explain some differences in health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to evaluate the characteristics of primary care practices by the proportion of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional cohort study using linked administrative data sets in Ontario, Canada. We calculated the percentage of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 enrolled with each comprehensive-care family physician, ranked physicians according to the proportion of patients unvaccinated, and identified physicians in the top 10% (v. the other 90%). We compared characteristics of family physicians and their patients in these 2 groups using standardized differences. RESULTS: We analyzed 9060 family physicians with 10 837 909 enrolled patients. Family physicians with the largest proportion (top 10%) of unvaccinated patients (n = 906) were more likely to be male, to have trained outside of Canada, to be older, and to work in an enhanced fee-for-service model than those in the remaining 90%. Vaccine coverage (≥ 2 doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine) was 74% among patients of physicians with the largest proportion of unvaccinated patients, compared with 87% in the remaining patient population. Patients in the top 10% group tended to be younger and live in areas with higher levels of ethnic diversity and immigration and lower incomes. INTERPRETATION: Primary care practices with the largest proportion of patients unvaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 served marginalized communities and were less likely to use team-based care models. These findings can guide resource planning and help tailor interventions to integrate public health priorities within primary care practices.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on longitudinal trends of surgical mortality and inpatient quality of care in Ontario, Canada.

AIMS: Previous studies have shown the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with reductions in volume across a spectrum of non-SARS-CoV-2 hospitalizations. In the present study, we examine the impact of the pandemic on patient safety and quality of care. DESIGN: This is a retrospective population-based study of discharge abstracts. METHODS: We applied a set of nationally validated indicators for measuring the quality of inpatient care to hospitalizations in Ontario, Canada between January 2010 and December 2022. We measured 90-day mortality after selected types of higher risk admissions (such as cancer surgery and cardiovascular emergency) and the rate of patient harm events (such as delirium, pressure injuries and hospital-acquired infections) occurring during the hospital stay. RESULTS: A total 13,876,377 hospitalization episodes were captured. Compared with the pre-pandemic period, and independent of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the pandemic period was associated with higher rates of mortality after bladder cancer resection (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 1.20 (1.07-1.34)) and open repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm (aRR 1.45 (1.06-1.99)). The pandemic was also associated with higher rates of delirium (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.04 (1.02-1.06)), venous thromboembolism (aOR 1.10 (1.06-1.13)), pressure injuries (aOR 1.28 (1.24-1.33)), aspiration pneumonitis (aOR 1.15 (1.12-1.18)), urinary tract infections (aOR 1.02 (1.01-1.04)), Clostridiodes difficile infection (aOR 1.05 (1.02-1.09)), pneumothorax (aOR 1.08 (1.03-1.13)), and use of restraints (aOR 1.12 (1.10-1.14)), but was associated with lower rates of viral gastroenteritis (aOR 0.22 (0.18-0.28)). During the pandemic, SARS-CoV-2-positive admissions were associated with a higher likelihood of various harm events. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with higher rates of patient harm for a wide range of non-SARS-CoV-2 inpatient populations. IMPACT: Understanding which quality measures are improving or deteriorating can help health systems prioritize quality improvement initiatives. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

Practice Facilitation to Support Family Physicians in Encouraging COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake: A Multimethod Process Evaluation.

PURPOSE: We offered a practice facilitation intervention to family physicians in Ontario, Canada, known to have large numbers of patients not yet vaccinated against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We conducted a multimethod process evaluation embedded within a randomized controlled trial (clinical trial #NCT05099497). We collected descriptive statistics regarding engagement and qualitative interview data from family physicians and practice facilitators, as well as data from facilitator field notes. We analyzed and triangulated the data using thematic analysis and mapped barriers to and enablers for implementation to structural, organizational, physician, and patient factors. RESULTS: Of the 300 approached, 90 family physicians (30%) accepted facilitation. Of these, 57% received technical support to identify unvaccinated patients, 29% used trained medical student volunteers to contact patients on their behalf, and 30% used automated calling to reach patients. Key factors affecting engagement with the intervention were staff shortages owing to COVID-19 (structural), clinic characteristics such as technical issues and gatekeeping by staff, which prevented facilitators from talking with physicians (organizational), burnout (physician), and specialized populations that required targeted resources (patient). The facilitator's ability to address technical issues and connect family physicians with medical students helped with engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to help underresourced family physicians serving high-needs populations for issues of public health importance, such as vaccine promotion, must acknowledge the scarcity of physicians' time and provide new resources. To successfully engage family physicians, practice facilitators should seek to build trust and relationships over time, including with front-office staff.

The Physiological Rationale for Incorporating Pulsatility in Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices.

Over the past few decades, left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support has extended the lives of many patients with end-stage heart failure. The most common devices are continuous-flow (CF) LVADs. The use of the CF-LVADs has required that clinicians learn the physiological and clinical consequences of long-term continuous blood flow. While this alteration in the normal physiology still offers advantages from mechanical circulatory support, the lack of pulsatility may also increase the likelihood of adverse events. However, it is currently unknown whether newly evolved devices should incorporate pulsatility. In this article, we discuss the possible benefits of incorporating pulsatility, while maintaining the benefits of the CF-LVAD, to maximize the treatment of patients.

Longitudinal assessment of inflammation in recipients of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices.

BACKGROUND: The long-term effects of continuous-flow left ventricular assist device (CF-LVAD) support on trends of inflammatory markers over time are unknown. We examined the hypothesis that the levels of inflammatory markers in CF-LVAD recipients are higher than in healthy controls and that these levels increase over time with long-term CF-LVAD support. METHODS: We examined the levels of inflammatory markers longitudinally at baseline before CF-LVAD implantation and at 3, 6, and 9 months after implantation. We then compared the levels of inflammatory markers to those in a healthy control group. RESULTS: Compared with baseline values before CF-LVAD implantation, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDd) and left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESd) decreased significantly at 3, 6, and 9 months after CF-LVAD implantation. Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels dropped significantly after CF-LVAD implantation but did not normalize. Improvements in ejection fraction at 3, 6, and 9 months after CF-LVAD implantation did not reach significance. Monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, interferon γ-induced protein, and C-reactive protein levels were higher in the CF-LVAD recipients at each of the time points (baseline before CF-LVAD implantation and 3, 6, and 9 months after implantation) compared with levels in healthy controls. In CF-LVAD recipients, serum interleukin-8, tumour necrosis factor-α, and macrophage inflammatory protein-ß increased significantly at 9 months, and macrophage-derived chemokine increased at 6 months after CF-LVAD implantation compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Despite improvements in LV dimensions and BNP levels, markers of inflammation remained higher in CF-LVAD recipients. High levels of inflammation in CF-LVAD recipients may result from heart failure preconditioning or the long-term device support, or both. Because inflammation may be detrimental to CF-LVAD recipients, future studies should determine whether inflammatory pathways are reversible.

Markers of inflammation in recipients of continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices.

Although the newer continuous-flow left ventricular assist devices (CF-LVADs) provide clinical advantages over the pulsatile pumps, the effects of low pulsatility on inflammation are incompletely understood. The objective of our study was to examine the levels of inflammatory mediators in CF-LVAD recipients compared with both healthy control subjects and heart failure patients who were candidates for CF-LVAD support. Plasma levels of chemokines, cytokines, and inflammatory markers were measured in 18 CF-LVAD recipients and compared with those of 14 healthy control subjects and 14 heart failure patients who were candidates for CF-LVADs. The levels of granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor, macrophage inflammatory proteins-1ß, and macrophage-derived chemokine were significantly higher in the CF-LVAD group compared with both the heart failure and the healthy control groups, whereas no significant differences were observed between the healthy control subjects and the heart failure groups. Compared with the healthy controls, C-reactive protein, interferon gamma-induced protein-10, monocyte chemotactic protein-1, and interleukin-8 levels were significantly higher in both the CF-LVAD and heart failure groups, but no significant differences were observed between the CF-LVAD recipients and the heart failure patients. Inflammatory markers were elevated in CF-LVAD recipients compared with healthy control subjects and the heart failure patients. Further studies should investigate the clinical implications of elevated levels of inflammation in CF-LVAD recipients.