Older adults' experiences and perceived impacts of the Aging, Community and Health Research Unit-Community Partnership Program (ACHRU-CPP) for diabetes self-management in Canada: a qualitative descriptive study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the experiences and perceived impacts of the Aging, Community and Health Research Unit-Community Partnership Program (ACHRU-CPP) from the perspectives of older adults with diabetes and other chronic conditions. The ACHRU-CPP is a complex 6-month self-management evidence-based intervention for community-living older adults aged 65 years or older with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and at least one other chronic condition. It includes home and phone visits, care coordination, system navigation support, caregiver support and group wellness sessions delivered by a nurse, dietitian or nutritionist, and community programme coordinator. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive design embedded within a randomised controlled trial was used. SETTING: Six trial sites offering primary care services from three Canadian provinces (ie, Ontario, Quebec and Prince Edward Island) were included. PARTICIPANTS: The sample was 45 community-living older adults aged 65 years or older with diabetes and at least one other chronic condition. METHODS: Participants completed semistructured postintervention interviews by phone in English or French. The analytical process followed Braun and Clarke's experiential thematic analysis framework. Patient partners informed study design and interpretation. RESULTS: The mean age of older adults was 71.7 years, and the mean length of time living with diabetes was 18.8 years. Older adults reported positive experiences with the ACHRU-CPP that supported diabetes self-management, such as improved knowledge in managing diabetes and other chronic conditions, enhanced physical activity and function, improved eating habits, and opportunities for socialisation. They reported being connected to community resources by the intervention team to address social determinants of health and support self-management. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults perceived that a 6-month person-centred intervention collaboratively delivered by a team of health and social care providers helped support chronic disease self-management. There is a need for providers to help older adults connect with available health and social services in the community. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03664583; Results.

Screening for inhalational anthrax due to bioterrorism: evaluating proposed screening protocols.

Eleven known cases of bioterrorism-related inhalational anthrax (IA) were treated in the United States during 2001. We retrospectively compared 2 methods that have been proposed to screen for IA. The 2 screening protocols for IA were applied to the emergency department charts of patients who presented with possible signs or symptoms of IA at Inova Fairfax Hospital (Falls Church, Virginia) from 20 October 2001 through 3 November 2001. The Mayer criteria would have screened 4 patients (0.4%; 95% CI, 0.1%-0.9%) and generated charges of 1900 dollars. If 29 patients (2.6%; 95% CI, 1.7%-3.7%) with >or=5 symptoms (but without fever and tachycardia) were screened, charges were 13,325 dollars. The Hupert criteria would have screened 273 patients (24%; 95% CI, 22%-27%) and generated charges of 126,025 dollars. In this outbreak of bioterrorism-related IA, applying the Mayer criteria would have identified both patients with IA and would have generated fewer charges than applying the Hupert criteria.

Inhalational anthrax due to bioterrorism: would current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines have identified the 11 patients with inhalational anthrax from October through November 2001?

A panel of 10 physicians used the nominal group technique to assess the ability of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) interim guidelines for clinical evaluation of persons with possible inhalational anthrax (IA) to retrospectively identify the 11 patients with IA seen during the October 2001 bioterrorism outbreak. The guidelines would not have identified 10 of 11 of these patients, primarily because the guidelines were designed to address only those patients with a known history of exposure or clearly identified environmental or occupational risk. The panel suggested revisions to the guidelines, primarily consisting of broadening the criteria for evaluation to include either known exposure or environmental occupational risk, or to include clinical symptoms consistent with IA. These extensions of the guidelines retrospectively identified 8 of 11 of the patients with IA from October 2001.