RESUMEN
BackgroundHow international migrants access and use primary care in England is poorly understood. We aimed to compare primary care consultation rates between international migrants and non-migrants in England before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (2015- 2020). MethodsUsing linked data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD and the Office for National Statistics, we identified migrants using country-of-birth, visa-status or other codes indicating international migration. We ran a controlled interrupted time series (ITS) using negative binomial regression to compare rates before and during the pandemic. FindingsIn 262,644 individuals, pre-pandemic consultation rates per person-year were 4.35 (4.34-4.36) for migrants and 4.6 (4.59-4.6) for non-migrants (RR:0.94 [0.92-0.96]). Between 29 March and 26 December 2020, rates reduced to 3.54 (3.52-3.57) for migrants and 4.2 (4.17-4.23) for non-migrants (RR:0.84 [0.8-0.88]). Overall, this represents an 11% widening of the pre-pandemic difference in consultation rates between migrants and non-migrants during the first year of the pandemic (RR:0.89, 95%CI:0.84-0.94). This widening was greater for children, individuals whose first language was not English, and individuals of White British, White non-British and Black/African/Caribbean/Black British ethnicities. InterpretationMigrants were less likely to use primary care before the pandemic and the first year of the pandemic exacerbated this difference. As GP practices retain remote and hybrid models of service delivery, they must improve services and ensure they are accessible and responsive to migrants healthcare needs. FundingThis study was funded by the Medical Research Council (MR/V028375/1) and Wellcome Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship (206602).
RESUMEN
BackgroundDuring a COVID-19 outbreak in the congregate shelter system in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, a multidisciplinary health care team provided an emergency "safe supply" of pharmaceutical-grade medications and beverage-grade alcohol to facilitate isolation in COVID-19 hotel shelters for residents who are dependent on these substances. We aimed to evaluate (a) substances and dosages provided, and (b) effectiveness and safety of the program. MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed medical records of all COVID-19 isolation hotel shelter residents during May 2021. We extracted data on medication and alcohol dosages provided each day. The primary outcome was residents prematurely leaving isolation against public health orders. Adverse events included (a) overdose; (b) intoxication; and (c) diversion, selling, or sharing of medications or alcohol. ResultsOver 25 days, 77 isolation hotel residents were assessed (mean age 42 {+/-} 14 years; 24% women). Sixty-two (81%) residents were provided medications, alcohol, or cigarettes. Seventeen residents (22%) received opioid agonist treatment medications (methadone, buprenorphine, or slow-release oral morphine) and 27 (35%) received hydromorphone tablets. Thirty-one (40%) residents received stimulant tablets with methylphenidate (27; 35%), dextroamphetamine (8; 10%), or lisdexamfetamine (2; 3%). Six residents (8%) received benzodiazepines. Forty-two (55%) residents received alcohol, including 41 (53%) with strong beer, three (3%) with wine, and one (1%) with hard liquor. Over 14 days in isolation, mean daily dosages increased of hydromorphone (45 {+/-} 32 to 57 {+/-} 42mg), methylphenidate (51 {+/-} 28 to 77 {+/-} 37mg), dextroamphetamine (33 {+/-} 16 to 46 {+/-} 13mg), and alcohol (12.3 {+/-} 7.6 to 13.0 {+/-} 6.9 standard drinks). Six residents (8%) left isolation prematurely, but four of those residents returned. Over 1,059 person-days in isolation, there were zero overdoses. Documented concerns regarding intoxication occurred six times (0.005 events/person-day) and medication diversion or sharing three times (0.003 events/person-day). ConclusionsAn emergency safe supply and managed alcohol program, paired with housing, was associated with low rates of adverse events and high rates of successful completion of the 14-day isolation period in COVID-19 isolation hotel shelters. This supports the effectiveness and safety of emergency safe supply prescribing and managed alcohol in this setting.
RESUMEN
BackgroundAlthough SARS-CoV-2 infection in Healthcare Workers (HCWs) is a public health concern, there is little description of their longitudinal antibody response in the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 and symptoms. We followed HCWs in an acute London hospital to measure seroconversion and RNA detection at the peak of the pandemic. MethodsWe enrolled 200 patient-facing HCWs between 26 March and 8 April 2020 and collected twice-weekly self-administered nose and throat swabs, symptom data and monthly blood samples. Swabs were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR, and serum for antibodies to spike protein by ELISA and flow cytometry. FindingsDuring the first month, 42/200 (21%) HCWs were PCR positive in at least one nose and throat swab. Only 8/42 HCW (19%) who were PCR positive during the study period had symptoms that met current case definition. Of 181 HCWs who provided enrollment and follow-up blood samples, 82/181 (45.3%) were seropositive. In 33 HCWs who had positive serology at baseline but were PCR negative, 32 remained PCR negative. One HCW had a PCR positive swab six days after enrollment, likely representing waning infection. ConclusionThe high seropositivity and RNA detection in these front-line HCWs brings policies to protect staff and patients into acute focus. Our findings have implications for planning for the second wave and for vaccination campaigns in similar settings. The evidence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection indicates that asymptomatic HCW surveillance is essential, while our study sets the foundations to answer pertinent questions around the duration of protective immune response and the risk of re-infection.
RESUMEN
BackgroundThere is an ongoing pandemic of the viral respiratory disease COVID-19. People experiencing homelessness are vulnerable to infection and severe disease. Health and housing authorities in England have developed a residential intervention that aims to isolate those vulnerable to severe disease (COVID-PROTECT) and care for people with symptoms (COVID-CARE). MethodsWe used a discrete-time Markov chain model to forecast COVID-19 infections among people experiencing homelessness, given strong containment measures in the general population and some transmission among 35,817 people living in 1,065 hostels, and 11,748 people sleeping rough (the do nothing scenario). We then estimated demand for beds if those eligible are offered COVID-PROTECT and COVID-CARE. We estimated the reduction in the number of COVID-19 cases, deaths, and hospital admissions that could be achieved by these interventions. We also conducted sensitivity and scenario analyses to identify programme success factors. ResultsIn a do nothing scenario, we estimate that 34% of the homeless population could get COVID-19 between March and August 2020, with 364 deaths, 4,074 hospital admissions and 572 critical care admissions. In our base intervention scenario, demand for COVID-PROTECT peaks at 9,934 beds, and demand for COVID-CARE peaks at 1,366 beds. The intervention could reduce transmission by removing symptomatic individuals from the community, and preventing vulnerable individuals from being infected. This could lead to a reduction of 164 deaths, 2,624 hospital admissions, and 248 critical care admissions over this period. Sensitivity analyses showed that the number of deaths is sensitive to transmission of COVID-19 in COVID-PROTECT. If COVID-PROTECT capacity is limited, scenario analyses show the benefit of prioritising people who are vulnerable to severe disease. ConclusionSupportive accommodation can mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the homeless population of England, and reduce the burden on acute hospitals.
