Emergency Response to COVID-19 in Canada: Platform Development and Implementation for eHealth in Crisis Management.

BACKGROUND: Public health emergencies like epidemics put enormous pressure on health care systems while revealing deep structural and functional problems in the organization of care. The current coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic illustrates this at a global level. The sudden increased demand on delivery systems puts unique pressures on pre-established care pathways. These extraordinary times require efficient tools for smart governance and resource allocation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to develop an innovative web-based solution addressing the seemingly insurmountable challenges of triaging, monitoring, and delivering nonhospital services unleashed by the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An adaptable crisis management digital platform was envisioned and designed with the goal of improving the system's response on the basis of the literature; an existing shared health record platform; and discussions between health care providers, decision makers, academia, and the private sector in response to the COVID 19 epidemic. RESULTS: The Crisis Management Platform was developed and offered to health authorities in Ontario on a nonprofit basis. It has the capability to dramatically streamline patient intake, triage, monitoring, referral, and delivery of nonhospital services. It decentralizes the provision of services (by moving them online) and centralizes data gathering and analysis, maximizing the use of existing human resources, facilitating evidence-based decision making, and minimizing the risk to both users and providers. It has unlimited scale-up possibilities (only constrained by human health risk resource availability) with minimal marginal cost. Similar web-based solutions have the potential to fill an urgent gap in resource allocation, becoming a unique asset for health systems governance and management during critical times. They highlight the potential effectiveness of web-based solutions if built on an outcome-driven architecture. CONCLUSIONS: Data and web-based approaches in response to a public health crisis are key to evidence-driven oversight and management of public health emergencies.

Association Between Real-time Electronic Injury Surveillance Applications and Clinical Documentation and Data Acquisition in a South African Trauma Center.

Importance: Collection and analysis of up-to-date and accurate injury surveillance data are a key step in the maturation of trauma systems. Trauma registries have proven to be difficult to establish in low- and middle-income countries owing to the burden of trauma volume, cost, and complexity. Objective: To determine whether an electronic trauma health record (eTHR) used by physicians can serve as simultaneous clinical documentation and data acquisition tools. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 2-part quality improvement study included (1) preimplementation and postimplementation eTHR study with assessments of satisfaction by 41 trauma physicians, time to completion, and quality of data collected comparing paper and electronic charting; and (2) prospective ecologic study describing the burden of trauma seen at a Level I trauma center, using real-time data collected by the eTHR on consecutive patients during a 12-month study period. The study was conducted from October 1, 2010, to September 30, 2011, at Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa. Data analysis was performed from October 15, 2011, to January 15, 2013. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of part 1 was data field competition rates of pertinent trauma registry items obtained through electronic or paper documentation. The main measures of part 2 were to identify risk factors to trauma in Cape Town and quality indicators recommended for trauma system evaluation at Groote Schuur Hospital. Results: The 41 physicians included in the study found the electronic patient documentation to be more efficient and preferable. A total of 11 612 trauma presentations were accurately documented and promptly analyzed. Fields relevant to injury surveillance in the eTHR (n = 11 612) had statistically significant higher completion rates compared with paper records (n = 9236) (for all comparisons, P < .001). The eTHR successfully captured quality indicators recommended for trauma system evaluation which were previously challenging to collect in a timely and accurate manner. Of the 11 612 patient admissions over the study period, injury location was captured 11 075 times (95.4%), injury mechanism 11 135 times (95.9%), systolic blood pressure 11 106 times (95.6%), and Glasgow Coma Scale 11 140 times (95.9%). These fields were successfully captured with statistically higher rates than previous paper documentation. Epidemiologic analysis confirmed a heavy burden of violence-related injury (51.8% of all injuries) and motor vehicle crash injuries (14.3% of all injuries). Mapping analysis demonstrated clusters of injuries originating mainly from vulnerable and low-income neighborhoods and their respective referring trauma facilities, Mitchell's Plain Hospital (734 [10.1%]), Guguletu Community Health Center (654 [9.0%]), and New Somerset Hospital (400 [5.5%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Accurate capture and simultaneous analysis of trauma data in low-resource trauma settings are feasible through the integration of surveillance into clinical workflow and the timely analysis of electronic data.

Clinical Decision Support Decreases Volume of Imaging for Low Back Pain in an Urban Emergency Department.

PURPOSE: To determine whether point-of-care clinical decision support can effectively reduce inappropriate medical imaging of patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with low-back pain (LBP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, single-center study of lumbar imaging referrals made by 43 emergency physicians at a major acute care center. Each physician saw at least 10 LBP cases in both pre- and post-intervention periods. A point-of-care checklist of accepted red flags for LBP was designed by a working group of physicians and embedded in the computerized order entry form for lumbar imaging. We compared imaging rates of LBP and physician variation in imaging ordering before and after the implementation of the checklist. We then measured the potential harms of reduced imaging. RESULTS: After intervention, the proportion of LBP patients with an imaging order fell significantly (median: 22% to 17%; mean: 23% to 18%; P = .0002) compared with pre-intervention baseline. The percentage of patients without imaging who were later imaged at a hospital outpatient clinic within 30 days was 2.3% before intervention and 2.2% after (P = .974). In addition, the proportion of patients discharged from the ED without imaging who returned to the ED within 30 days was 8.2% before intervention and 6.9% after (P = .170). One minor thoracic spine compression fracture was missed, but management was not impacted. No serious diagnoses were missed. CONCLUSION: Clinical decision support integrated in electronic order entry forms can safely and effectively reduce imaging orders for LBP patients in the ED.