Lessons learned from the Alberta Border Testing Pilot Program.

Background: During the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, countries implemented border control and quarantine measures to reduce transmission. The Alberta Border Testing Pilot Program (ABTPP) allowed international travellers entering Alberta to reduce their quarantine period following two negative COVID-19 tests. We evaluated participant experiences with the ABTPP and implementation. Method: We used a parallel convergent mixed-methods design to explore participant experiences through electronic web-based questionnaires (n = 21,089; n = 13,839) and semi-structured telephone interviews (n = 30). We evaluated implementation through three staff focus groups (n = 11). We analysed questionnaires using descriptive statistics and analysed interviews using inductive and deductive thematic analysis. We deductively coded focus group data using the 2009 Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results: Questionnaires indicated minimal issues with registration forms (91.7%), symptom reports (95.5%), and COVID-19 testing (95.7%). Most respondents (95.1%) expressed willingness to participate in the ABTPP again. Interviews revealed three themes related to participant experience: program efficiency, clarity of information, and requisite effort. Focus groups identified key implementation facilitators including the single health information system, strong stakeholder partnerships, and good communication across partnerships. Barriers included program complexity, implementation timeline, and evolving external context. Discussion: Participants reported high satisfaction with the ABTPP. Border testing programs should have high efficiency, require low effort, and use messaging that is clear and consistent. The effective implementation of border testing programs may be facilitated by strong leadership, adaptability, automated components, good communication, and simple technology. Learnings from participants and staff may help improve the implementation of border control programs for future pandemics or other emergencies. Conclusions: The ABTTP was a novel border control measure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our evaluation of both participant and staff experiences demonstrated high levels of traveller satisfaction and identified areas for improvement that can inform the development of future border control measures.

Nurse Practitioner Care Compared with Primary Care or Nephrologist Care in Early CKD.

BACKGROUND: Early interventions in CKD have been shown to improve health outcomes; however, gaps in access to nephrology care remain common. Nurse practitioners can improve access to care; however, the quality and outcomes of nurse practitioner care for CKD are uncertain. METHODS: In this propensity score-matched cohort study, patients with CKD meeting criteria for nurse practitioner care were matched 1:1 on their propensity scores for ( 1 ) nurse practitioner care versus primary care alone and ( 2 ) nurse practitioner versus nephrologist care. Processes of care were measured within 1 year after cohort entry, and clinical outcomes were measured over 5 years of follow-up and compared between propensity score-matched groups. RESULTS: A total of 961 (99%) patients from the nurse practitioner clinic were matched on their propensity score to 961 (1%) patients receiving primary care only while 969 (100%) patients from the nurse practitioner clinic were matched to 969 (7%) patients receiving nephrologist care. After matching to patients receiving primary care alone, those receiving nurse practitioner care had greater use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blocker (82% versus 79%; absolute differences [ADs] 3.4% [95% confidence interval, 0.0% to 6.9%]) and statins (75% versus 66%; AD 9.7% [5.8% to 13.6%]), fewer prescriptions of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (10% versus 17%; AD -7.2% [-10.4% to -4.2%]), greater eGFR and albuminuria monitoring, and lower rates of all-cause hospitalization (34.1 versus 43.3; rate difference -9.2 [-14.7 to -3.8] per 100 person-years) and all-cause mortality (3.3 versus 6.0; rate difference -2.7 [-3.6 to -1.7] per 100 person-years). When matched to patients receiving nephrologist care, those receiving nurse practitioner care were also more likely to be prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers and statins, with no difference in the risks of experiencing adverse clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse practitioner care for patients with CKD was associated with better guideline-concordant care than primary care alone or nephrologist care, with clinical outcomes that were better than or equivalent to primary care alone and similar to those with care by nephrologists. PODCAST: This article contains a podcast at https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2023_12_08_CJN0000000000000305.mp3.

Laboratory testing and antihypertensive medication adherence following initial treatment of incident, uncomplicated hypertension: A real-world data analysis.

In this study on medication adherence among newly diagnosed patients with uncomplicated, incident hypertension, we conducted a retrospective cohort study using available administrative and laboratory data from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2017 in Alberta, Canada to understand the extent to which baseline laboratory assessment and/or subsequent follow-up was associated with persistence with antihypertensive therapy. We determined the frequency of baseline and follow-up testing and compared the rates of medication persistence by patient-, neighbourhood-, and treatment-related factors. Of 103 232 patients with newly diagnosed, uncomplicated hypertension who filled their first prescription within our study timeframe, 52.5% were non-persistent within 6 months. Persistent patients were more often female and residing in neighbourhoods with higher social status (with exception to rurality). Aside from older age, the strongest predictor of persistence was performance of laboratory testing related to hypertension with an apparent effect in which higher levels of medication persistence were seen with more frequent laboratory testing. We concluded that medication persistence was far from optimal, dropping off considerably after 6 months for more than half of patients. Medication persistence is a substantial barrier to realizing the full societal benefits of antihypertensive treatment. Ongoing follow up with patients, including laboratory testing, may be a critical component of better long term treatment persistence.

COVID-19 infection among international travellers: a prospective analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This report estimates the risk of COVID-19 importation and secondary transmission associated with a modified quarantine programme in Canada. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective analysis of international asymptomatic travellers entering Alberta, Canada. INTERVENTIONS: All participants were required to receive a PCR COVID-19 test on arrival. If negative, participants could leave quarantine but were required to have a second test 6 or 7 days after arrival. If the arrival test was positive, participants were required to remain in quarantine for 14 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion and rate of participants testing positive for COVID-19; number of cases of secondary transmission. RESULTS: The analysis included 9535 international travellers entering Alberta by air (N=8398) or land (N=1137) that voluntarily enrolled in the Alberta Border Testing Pilot Programme (a subset of all travellers); most (83.1%) were Canadian citizens. Among the 9310 participants who received at least one test, 200 (21.5 per 1000, 95% CI 18.6 to 24.6) tested positive. Sixty-nine per cent (138/200) of positive tests were detected on arrival (14.8 per 1000 travellers, 95% CI 12.5 to 17.5). 62 cases (6.7 per 1000 travellers, 95% CI 5.1 to 8.5; 31.0% of positive cases) were identified among participants that had been released from quarantine following a negative test result on arrival. Of 192 participants who developed symptoms, 51 (26.6%) tested positive after arrival. Among participants with positive tests, four (2.0%) were hospitalised for COVID-19; none required critical care or died. Contact tracing among participants who tested positive identified 200 contacts; of 88 contacts tested, 22 were cases of secondary transmission (14 from those testing positive on arrival and 8 from those testing positive thereafter). SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 lineage was not detected in any of the 200 positive cases. CONCLUSIONS: 21.5 per 1000 international travellers tested positive for COVID-19. Most (69%) tested positive on arrival and 31% tested positive during follow-up. These findings suggest the need for ongoing vigilance in travellers testing negative on arrival and highlight the value of follow-up testing and contact tracing to monitor and limit secondary transmission where possible.