An exploration of COVID-19 vaccination models for newcomer refugees and immigrants in Calgary, Canada.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization stresses the need for tailored COVID-19 models of vaccination to meet the needs of diverse populations and ultimately reach high rates of vaccination. However, little evidence exists on how COVID-19 models of vaccination operated in the novel context of the pandemic, how vulnerable populations, such as refugees, experience COVID-19 vaccination systems in high-income countries, and what lessons may be learned from vaccination efforts with vulnerable populations. To address this gap, this study explored COVID-19 vaccine delivery models available to newcomer refugees and immigrants, and refugee experiences across different COVID-19 vaccine delivery models in Calgary, Canada, and surrounding area in 2021 and 2022, to understand the barriers, strengths, and strategies of models to support access to COVID-19 vaccination for newcomer refugees and immigrants. METHODS: Researchers conducted structured interviews with Government Assisted Refugees (n = 39), and semi-structured interviews with Privately Sponsored Refugees (n = 6), private refugee sponsors (n = 3), and stakeholders involved in vaccination systems (n = 13) in 2022. Thematic analysis was conducted to draw out themes related to barriers, strengths, and strategies of vaccine delivery models and the intersections with patient experiences. RESULTS: Newcomer refugee and immigrant focused vaccination models and strategies were explored. They demonstrated how partnerships between organizations, multi-pronged approaches, and culturally responsive services were crucial to navigate ongoing and emergent factors, such as vaccine hesitancy, mandates, and other determinants of under-vaccination. Many vaccination models presented through interviews were not specific to refugees and included immigrants, temporary residents, ethnocultural community members, and other vulnerable populations in their design. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake for newcomer refugees and immigrants, is complex and requires trust, ongoing information provision, and local partnerships to address ongoing and emerging factors. Three key policy implications were drawn. First, findings demonstrated the need for flexible funding to offer outreach, translation, cultural interpretation, and to meet the basic needs of patients prior to engaging in vaccinations. Second, the research showed that embedding culturally responsive strategies within services ensures community needs are met. Finally, collaborating with partners that reflect the diverse needs of communities is crucial for the success of any health efforts serving newcomers.

COVID-19 Vaccinations, Trust, and Vaccination Decisions within the Refugee Community of Calgary, Canada.

Refugee decisions to vaccinate for COVID-19 are a complex interplay of factors which include individual perceptions, access barriers, trust, and COVID-19 specific factors, which contribute to lower vaccine uptake. To address this, the WHO calls for localized solutions to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake for refugees and evidence to inform future vaccination efforts. However, limited evidence engages directly with refugees about their experiences with COVID-19 vaccinations. To address this gap, researchers conducted qualitative interviews (N = 61) with refugees (n = 45), sponsors of refugees (n = 3), and key informants (n = 13) connected to local COVID-19 vaccination efforts for refugees in Calgary. Thematic analysis was conducted to synthesize themes related to vaccine perspectives, vaccination experiences, and patient intersections with policies and systems. Findings reveal that refugees benefit from ample services that are delivered at various stages, that are not solely related to vaccinations, and which create multiple positive touch points with health and immigration systems. This builds trust and vaccine confidence and promotes COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Despite multiple factors affecting vaccination decisions, a key reason for vaccination was timely and credible information delivered through trusted intermediaries and in an environment that addressed refugee needs and concerns. As refugees placed trust and relationships at the core of decision-making and vaccination, it is recommended that healthcare systems work through trust and relationships to reach refugees. This can be targeted through culturally responsive healthcare delivery that meets patients where they are, including barrier reduction measures such as translation and on-site vaccinations, and educational and outreach partnerships with private groups, community organizations and leaders.

The primary care COVID-19 integrated pathway: a quantitative study of rapid response to health and social impacts of COVID-19.

Context: The first wave of COVID-19 in Calgary, Alberta health zone accelerated Primary Care (PC) integration. Specifically, it connected Family Physicians (FPs) with their counterparts in the broader health system to deliver wraparound patient care through a COVID-19 Integrated Pathway (CIP). A key element of the CIP included a data sharing platform that facilitated the provision of test results directly to the FP identified by patients. Public Health provided test results for all patients to the primary care system so they could be followed up by primary care to improve their outcomes. Objectives: To evaluate the CIP by describing its function and capacity to facilitate FP follow-up with COVID positive patients; and to inform refinement of the CIP for future use. Study Design: This abstract reports on the quantitative arm of a mixed methods study. Setting/Dataset: The Calgary Health Zone. Primary data were drawn from the Calgary COVID-19 Care Clinic (C4), a designated hub clinic for COVID-19 patients. Secondary data were drawn from provincially maintained records of hospitalization, emergency department visits, and FP claims. Participants: FPs and COVID-19 patients. Intervention: The data platform and PC attachment elements of the CIP. Outcome Measures: The characteristics of patients cared for via the CIP (age, sex, ethnicity, and risk-level); the proportion of patients without a FP who were attached to an FP; the number of patients followed by their FP in the community, and the number of specialist consultations made by FPs to support care, time from diagnosis to follow-up with PC/FP; ED and acute care utilization. Results: Between Apr. 16 and Sep. 27, 2020, 7706 patients were referred by the Public Health team to the C4 clinic. Of those, 51.4% were male, the median age was 36 y., and 86 deaths were reported. The majority of patients were referred to local PC networks where follow-up was conducted using the CIP: 3223 (43%) already had their own FP, 2448 (32%) were successfully attached to an FP, and 1899 (25%) of these patients were monitored by C4 physicians - these patients either did not have FP or their FP was not available to follow the patient. 8.6% of these patients visited ED and 3.1% were hospitalized. More than 80% of these patients had at least of 5 visits with their FP. Conclusion: Data suggest that the CIP facilitated primary care based management of patients with COVID-19.

Effectiveness of hospital avoidance interventions among elderly patients: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Older patients with complex care needs and limited personal and social resources are heavy users of emergency department (ED) services and are often admitted when they present to the ED. Updated information is needed regarding the most effective strategies to appropriately avoid ED presentation and hospital admission among older patients. METHODS: This systematic review aimed to identify interventions that have demonstrated effectiveness in decreasing ED use and hospital admissions in older patients. We conducted a comprehensive literature search within Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception to July 2019 with no language restrictions. Interventional study designs conducted in populations of 65 years and older were included. Primary outcomes were ED visits and hospital admissions. Secondary outcomes included hospital readmission, mortality, cost, and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Of 7,943 citations reviewed for eligibility, 53 studies were included in our qualitative synthesis, including 26 randomized controlled trials (RCT), 8 cluster-RCTs, and 19 controlled before-after studies. Data characterization revealed that community-based strategies reduced ED visits, particularly those that included comprehensive geriatric assessments and home visits. These strategies reported decreases in mean ED use (for interventions versus controls) ranging from -0.12 to -1.32 visits/patient. Interventions that included home visits also showed reductions in hospital admissions ranging from -6% to -14%. There was, however, considerable variability across individual studies with respect to outcome reporting, statistical analyses, and risk of bias, which limited our ability to further quantify the effect of these interventions. CONCLUSION: Various interventional strategies to avoid ED presentations and hospital admissions for older patients have been studied. While models of care that include comprehensive geriatric assessments and home visits may reduce acute care utilization, the standardization of outcome measures is needed to further delineate which parts of these complex interventions are contributing to efficacy. The potential effects of multidisciplinary team composition on patient outcomes also warrant further investigation.