Lived experiences of frontline workers and leaders during COVID-19 outbreaks in long-term care: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Long-term care facilities across Canada have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aims to describe the experiences of frontline workers and leaders involved in COVID-19 outbreak management in these facilities, identify best practices, and provide recommendations for improvement. METHODS: This is a qualitative study using key informant, semi-structured interviews. Key informants were defined as individuals with direct experience managing COVID-19 outbreaks in long-term care. Thematic content analysis of interview transcripts identified key themes important for outbreak management. RESULTS: Twenty-three interviews were conducted with key informants from the following categories: public health, health authority leadership for long-term care, infection prevention and control, long-term care operators, and frontline staff. Eight themes were identified as critical factors for outbreak management on thematic analysis, which included: (1) early identification of cases, (2) the suite of public health interventions implemented, (3) external support and assistance, (4) staff training and education, (5) personal protective equipment use and supply, (6) workplace culture, organizational leadership and management, (7) coordination and communication, and (8) staffing. CONCLUSIONS: Best practices and areas for improvement in outbreak response identified in this study can help to inform policy and practice to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in these settings.

Evaluation of a multisectoral intervention to mitigate the risk of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission in long-term care facilities.

OBJECTIVE: A Canadian health authority implemented a multisectoral intervention designed to control severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission during long-term care facility (LTCF) outbreaks. The primary objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention 14 days after implementation. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental, segmented regression analysis. INTERVENTION: A series of outbreak measures classified into 4 categories: case and contact management, proactive case detection, rigorous infection control practices and resource prioritization and stewardship. METHODS: A mixed-effects segmented Poisson regression model was fitted to the incidence rate of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), calculated every 2 days, within each facility and case type (staff vs residents). For each facility, the outbreak time period was segmented into an early outbreak period (within 14 days of the intervention) and postintervention period (beyond 14 days following the intervention). Model outputs quantified COVID-19 incidence trend and rate changes between these 2 periods. A secondary model was constructed to identify effect modification by case type. RESULTS: The significant upward trend in COVID-19 incidence rate during the early outbreak period (rate ratio [RR], 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.11; P < .001) reversed during the postintervention period (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.80; P < .001). The average trend did not differ by case type during the early outbreak period (P > .05) or the postintervention period (P > .05). However, staff had a 70% larger decrease in the average rate of COVID-19 during the postintervention period than residents (RR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.10-0.88; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence for the effectiveness of this intervention to reduce the transmission of COVID-19 in LTCFs. This intervention can be adapted and utilized by other jurisdictions to protect the vulnerable individuals in LTCFs.

The cost of entry: An analysis of pharmaceutical registration fees in low-, middle-, and high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Advances in pharmaceuticals offer improved health outcomes for a wide range of illnesses, yet medicines are often inaccessible for many patients worldwide. One potential barrier to making medicines available to all is the cost of product registration, the fees for regulatory review and licensing for the sale of medicines beyond the cost of clinical trials, if needed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of pharmaceutical registration fees in low-, middle-, and high-income countries. We collected data on market authorization fees for new chemical entities and for generic drugs in 95 countries. We calculated measures of registration fee size relative to population, gross domestic product (GDP), and total health spending in each country. Each of the 95 countries had a fee for registering new chemical entities. On average, the ratio of registration fees to GDP was highest in Europe and North America and lowest in South and Central America. Across individual countries, the level of registration fees was positively correlated with GDP and total health spending, with relatively few outliers. DISCUSSION: We find that, generally speaking, the regulatory fees charged by medicines regulatory authorities are roughly proportional to the market size in their jurisdictions. The data therefore do not support the hypothesis that regulatory fees are a barrier to market entry in most countries.

Estimated effects of adding universal public coverage of an essential medicines list to existing public drug plans in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Canada's universal health care system does not include universal coverage of prescription drugs. We sought to estimate the effects of adding universal public coverage of an essential medicines list to existing public drug plans in Canada. METHODS: We used administrative and market research data to estimate the 2015 shares of the volume and cost of prescriptions filled in the community setting that were for 117 drugs on a model list of essential medicines for Canada. We compared prices of these essential medicines in Canada with prices in the United States, Sweden and New Zealand. We estimated the cost of adding universal public drug coverage of these essential medicines based on anticipated effects on medication use and pricing. RESULTS: The 117 essential medicines on the model list accounted for 44% of all prescriptions and 30% of total prescription drug expenditures in 2015. Average prices of generic essential medicines were 47% lower in the US, 60% lower in Sweden and 84% lower in New Zealand; brand-name drugs were priced 43% lower in the US. Estimated savings from universal public coverage of these essential medicines was $4.27 billion per year (range $2.72 billion to $5.83 billion; 28% reduction) for patients and private drug plan sponsors, at an incremental government cost of $1.23 billion per year (range $373 million to $1.98 billion; 11% reduction). INTERPRETATION: Our analysis showed that adding universal public coverage of essential medicines to the existing public drug plans in Canada could address most of Canadians' pharmaceutical needs and save billions of dollars annually. Doing so may be a pragmatic step forward while more comprehensive pharmacare reforms are planned.