Adherence to guidance for prioritizing higher risk groups for breast cancer screening during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Ontario Breast Screening Program: a descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer screening in Ontario, Canada, was deferred during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, and a prioritization framework to resume services according to breast cancer risk was developed. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of the pandemic within the Ontario Breast Screening Program (OBSP) by comparing total volumes of screening mammographic examinations and volumes of screening mammographic examinations with abnormal results before and during the pandemic, and to assess backlogs on the basis of adherence to the prioritization framework. METHODS: A descriptive study was conducted among women aged 50 to 74 years at average risk and women aged 30 to 69 years at high risk, who participated in the OBSP. Percentage change was calculated by comparing observed monthly volumes of mammographic examinations from March 2020 to March 2021 with 2019 volumes and proportions by risk group. We plotted estimates of backlog volumes of mammographic examinations by risk group, comparing pandemic with prepandemic screening practices. Volumes of mammographic examinations with abnormal results were plotted by risk group. RESULTS: Volumes of mammographic examinations in the OBSP showed the largest declines in April and May 2020 (> 99% decrease) and returned to prepandemic levels as of March 2021, with an accumulated backlog of 340 876 examinations. As of March 2021, prioritization had reduced the backlog volumes of screens for participants at high risk for breast cancer by 96.5% (186 v. 5469 expected) and annual rescreens for participants at average risk for breast cancer by 13.5% (62 432 v. 72 202 expected); there was a minimal decline for initial screens. Conversely, the backlog increased by 7.6% for biennial rescreens (221 674 v. 206 079 expected). More than half (59.4%) of mammographic examinations with abnormal results were for participants in the higher risk groups. INTERPRETATION: Prioritizing screening for those at higher risk for breast cancer may increase diagnostic yield and redirect resources to minimize potential long-term harms caused by the pandemic. This further supports the clinical utility of risk-stratified cancer screening.

The UpPriority tool supported prioritization processes for updating clinical guideline questions.

OBJECTIVE: We aim to 1) use the UpPriority tool to identify which clinical questions (CQs) within the clinical guidelines (CGs) need to be prioritized for updating and 2) assess the implementation of the tool in a real-world set of CGs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We systematically assessed CQs from a sample of CGs developed in the Spanish National Health System CG program. We applied the UpPriority tool to each CG using a step-by-step process that included: 1) establishment of the UpPriority Implementation Working Group, 2) mapping of the original CG questions and recommendations, 3) development of a survey to prioritize CQs, 4) assessment of CQ's priority according to six items, 5) calculation and ranking of priority scores, 6) decision of prioritized CQs for updating, and 7) development of the priority report. We assessed the tool implementation process (appraisers' experience when using the tool) and the inter-observer reliability of the tool, and we provided suggestions for improvement. RESULTS: We included four CGs with a total of 107 CQs on the following topics: chronic heart failure (10 CQs), inherited retinal dystrophies (39 CQs), menopause (20 CQs), and open-angle glaucoma (38 CQs). We included a total of 30 participants, most of them clinicians that were members of the original CG development groups. CQs were classified in three groups: 1) high priority (CQs prioritized for updating [16/107; 15.0%]), 2) medium priority (CQs that could be prioritized for updating [47/107; 43.9%]), and low priority (CQs that were not prioritized for updating [44/107; 41.1%]). The mean time each appraiser needed to assess the CQs with the tool was 3.8 hours (range 0.5 to 10). Agreement among the appraisers varied among the CGs. Appraisers considered that the tool was useful. We suggest some areas for consideration when using the tool including: 1) identification of key appraisers, 2) customization of training materials, 3) establishment of priority thresholds, and 4) provision of methodological support. CONCLUSION: The UpPriority is a useful tool to identify which CQs within a CG need to be prioritized for update in a real-world scenario. Recruitment and training of topic experts are the main challenges when using the tool.

COVID-19: lessons learnt and priorities in trauma and orthopaedic surgery.

The COVID-19 pandemic is the most serious health crisis of our time. Global public measures have been enacted to try to prevent healthcare systems from being overwhelmed. The trauma and orthopaedic (T&O) community has overcome challenges in order to continue to deliver acute trauma care to patients and plan for challenges ahead. This review explores the lessons learnt, the priorities and the controversies that the T&O community has faced during the crisis. Historically, the experience of major incidents in T&O has focused on mass casualty events. The current pandemic requires a different approach to resource management in order to create a long-term, system-sustaining model of care alongside a move towards resource balancing and facilitation. Significant limitations in theatre access, anaesthetists and bed capacity have necessitated adaptation. Strategic changes to trauma networks and risk mitigation allowed for ongoing surgical treatment of trauma. Outpatient care was reformed with the uptake of technology. The return to elective surgery requires careful planning, restructuring of elective pathways and risk management. Despite the hope that mass vaccination will lift the pressure on bed capacity and on bleak economic forecasts, the orthopaedic community must readjust its focus to meet the challenge of huge backlogs in elective caseloads before looking to the future with a robust strategy of integrated resilient pathways. The pandemic will provide the impetus for research that defines essential interventions and facilitates the implementation of strategies to overcome current barriers and to prepare for future crises.

The top 10 research priorities in diabetes and pregnancy according to women, support networks and healthcare professionals.

AIMS: To undertake a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) to establish priorities for future research in diabetes and pregnancy, according to women with experience of pregnancy, and planning pregnancy, with any type of diabetes, their support networks and healthcare professionals. METHODS: The PSP used established James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology working with women and their support networks and healthcare professionals UK-wide. Unanswered questions about the time before, during or after pregnancy with any type of diabetes were identified using an online survey and broad-level literature search. A second survey identified a shortlist of questions for final prioritisation at an online consensus development workshop. RESULTS: There were 466 responses (32% healthcare professionals) to the initial survey, with 1161 questions, which were aggregated into 60 unanswered questions. There were 614 responses (20% healthcare professionals) to the second survey and 18 questions shortlisted for ranking at the workshop. The top 10 questions were: diabetes technology, the best test for diabetes during pregnancy, diet and lifestyle interventions for diabetes management during pregnancy, emotional and well-being needs of women with diabetes pre- to post-pregnancy, safe full-term birth, post-natal care and support needs of women, diagnosis and management late in pregnancy, prevention of other types of diabetes in women with gestational diabetes, women's labour and birth experiences and choices and improving planning pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: These research priorities provide guidance for research funders and researchers to target research in diabetes and pregnancy that will achieve greatest value and impact.

Obesidad y SARS-CoV-2: consideraciones sobre la cirugía bariátrica y recomendaciones para el inicio de la actividad quirúrgica / Obesity and SARS-CoV-2: Considerations on bariatric surgery and recommendations for the start of surgical activity

La pandemia SARS-CoV-2 ha tenido un gran impacto en todo el mundo, siendo España uno de los países más afectados. La demora en la cirugía bariátrica puede tener consecuencias fatales, ya que hasta el 50% de los pacientes que se encuentran en lista de espera desarrollan una nueva comorbilidad durante el tiempo que permanecen en ella y el 1,5% de pacientes fallecen mientras esperan la intervención. Es por ello por lo que la cirugía bariátrica no debe demorarse en cuanto la ocupación del hospital por pacientes COVID-19+ disminuya de forma significativa y se disponga de recursos y seguridad suficiente para realizar la cirugía en pacientes con patología benigna. Este documento recoge las principales recomendaciones para los programas de cirugía bariátrica en nuestro país desde el punto de vista tanto de seguridad como de preparación y seguimiento del paciente bariátrico en el contexto de la pandemia SARS-CoV-2

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has a great impact worldwide, being Spain one of the most affected countries. The delay in bariatric surgery can have fatal consequences since up to 50% of the patients who are on the waiting list develop a new comorbidity during the time they remain on it and 1.5% of patients die while waiting for the intervention. That is why bariatric surgery should not be delayed, if the occupation of the hospital by COVID-19+ patients decreases significantly, and sufficient resources and safety are available to restart surgery in patients with benign pathology. This document contains the main recommendations for the bariatric surgery programs in our country from the point of view of safety, bariatric patient preparation and follow up during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemia

Thyroid fine-needle aspiration trends before, during, and after the lockdown: what we have learned so far from the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: Nowadays, the clinical management of thyroid nodules needs to be multi-disciplinary. In particular, the crosstalk between endocrinologists and cytopathologists is key. When FNAs are properly requested by endocrinologists for nodules characterised by relevant clinical and ultrasound features, cytopathologists play a pivotal role in the diagnostic work-up. Conversely, improper FNA requests can lead to questionable diagnostic efficiency. Recently, recommendations to delay all non-urgent diagnostic procedures, such as thyroid FNAs, to contain the spread of COVID-19 infection, have made the interplay between endocrinologists and cytopathologists even more essential. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on our practice by evaluating the total number of FNAs performed and the distribution of the Bethesda Categories before, during, and after the lockdown. METHODS: We analysed the FNA trends before (1st January 2019 to March 13th 2020), during (March 14th to May 15th), and after (May 16th to July 7th) the lockdown. RESULTS: Although the total number of weekly FNAs dropped from 62.1 to 23.1, our referring endocrinologists managed to prioritise patients with high-risk nodules. In fact, in the post-lockdown, the weekly proportion of benign diagnoses dropped on average by 12% and that of high-risk diagnoses increased by 6%. CONCLUSIONS: The lesson we have learned so far from this pandemic is that by applying safety protocols to avoid contagion and by increasing the threshold for FNA requests for thyroid nodules, we can continue to guarantee our services to high-risk patients even in times of a health crisis.

Methods to identify and prioritize research projects and perform embedded research in learning healthcare systems.

BACKGROUND: The Embedded Healthcare Research Conference aimed to promote and enhance research-operations partnerships in diverse health care settings. Within this conference, the Priorities and Methods Workgroup set out to define a vision of embedded research that leverages diverse methods to address clearly articulated research questions of importance to health systems. METHODS: The Workgroup session involved a combination of small and large group discussions around three broadly focused topics: the integration of embedded research within the existing quality improvement (QI) ecosystem; the identification, prioritization and formulation of embedded research questions; the creation of an embedded research "tool kit." RESULTS: Workgroup participants envisioned a future for embedded research that is characterized by authentic engagement between researchers and health system leaders; seamless integration between research, QI and clinical operations; clear and explicit articulation of research questions; an appropriate balance between rigor and relevance in applied methodology; alignment between study design, available resources and the importance of the knowledge to be gained; efficient processes; and bi-directional communication. Important barriers to achieving this vision include limited access to executive leaders, silos that discourage integration of research and QI, generally low tolerance for disruption in high-risk clinical settings, limited access to data, and limited availability of researchers with requisite skills and training. CONCLUSIONS: Embedded research holds potential to enhance the relevance, value and use of research, while also creating generalizable knowledge. Key recommendations include building authentic relationships, discouraging silos, encouraging innovation and experimentation, and expanding opportunities for funding research in delivery systems.

Prioritising recommendations following analyses of adverse events in healthcare: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to identify an appropriate method-a user-friendly and validated method-that prioritises recommendations following analyses of adverse events (AEs) based on objective features. DATA SOURCES: The electronic databases PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Library, PsycINFO (Ovid) and ERIC (Ovid) were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were considered eligible when reporting on methods to prioritise recommendations. DATA EXTRACTION: Two teams of reviewers performed the data extraction which was defined prior to this phase. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Eleven methods were identified that are designed to prioritise recommendations. After completing the data extraction, none of the methods met all the predefined criteria. Nine methods were considered user-friendly. One study validated the developed method. Five methods prioritised recommendations based on objective features, not affected by personal opinion or knowledge and expected to be reproducible by different users. CONCLUSION: There are several methods available to prioritise recommendations following analyses of AEs. All these methods can be used to discuss and select recommendations for implementation. None of the methods is a user-friendly and validated method that prioritises recommendations based on objective features. Although there are possibilities to further improve their features, the 'Typology of safety functions' by de Dianous and Fiévez, and the 'Hierarchy of hazard controls' by McCaughan have the most potential to select high-quality recommendations as they have only a few clearly defined categories in a well-arranged ordinal sequence.

Prioritization of patient safety health policies: Delphi survey using patient safety experts in Japan.

Various patient safety interventions have been implemented since the late 1990s, but their evaluation has been lacking. To obtain basic information for prioritizing patient safety interventions, this study aimed to extract high-priority interventions in Japan and to identify the factors that influence the setting of priority. Six perspectives (contribution, dissemination, impact, cost, urgency, and priority) on 42 patient safety interventions classified into 3 levels (system, organizational, and clinical) were evaluated by Japanese experts using the Delphi technique. We examined the relationships of the levels and the perspectives on interventions with the transition of the consensus state in rounds 1 and 3. After extracting the high-priority interventions, a chi-squared test was used to examine the relationship of the levels and the impact/cost ratio with high priority. Regression models were used to examine the influence of each perspective on priority. There was a significant relationship between the level of interventions and the transition of the consensus state (p = 0.033). System-level interventions had a low probability of achieving consensus. "Human resources interventions," "professional education and training," "medication management/reconciliation protocols," "pay-for performance (P4P) schemes and financing for safety," "digital technology solutions to improve safety," and "hand hygiene initiatives" were extracted as high-priority interventions. The level and the impact/cost ratio of interventions had no significant relationships with high priority. In the regression model, dissemination and impact had an influence on priority (ß = -0.628 and 0.941, respectively; adjusted R-squared = 0.646). The influence of impact and dissemination on the priority of interventions suggests that it is important to examine the dissemination degree and impact of interventions in each country for prioritizing interventions.

Health is a political choice: why conduct healthcare research? Value, importance and outcomes to policy makers.

This paper offers the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) viewpoint with Qatar as a case for lasting transformation of health systems. The Qatar case study illustrates the importance of research in the development of health policy. It provides description of a series of projects that have been undertaken in relevant national areas such as autism, dementia, genomics, palliative care and patient safety. The paper discourse draws attention to investment requirement in health research systems to respond to country national health priorities and to strengthen public health policies for improving health and social outcomes by narrowing the gap between research and politics. In short, the discussion highlights the following: i) health is a human right marching towards universal health care, with research underpinning every advance in health care and quality medical services; ii) evidence-based research is emerging as a critical tool to aid policy- and decision-makers; iii) investment necessity in healthcare research/systems to enable responding to a country's national health priorities and to strengthen public health policies; and iv) need for multi-sectoral involvement of stakeholders to bridge the gap between research and politics. Finally, atypical stakeholders' engagement and bond to politics is a prerequisite to achieve healthcare objectives and policy success so as to reap the benefits of public health results.

Assessment of Physician Priorities in Delivery of Preventive Care.

Importance: Primary care physicians have limited time to discuss preventive care, but it is unknown how they prioritize recommended services. Objective: To understand primary care physicians' prioritization of preventive services. Design, Setting, and Participants: This online survey was administered to primary care physicians in a large health care system from March 17 to May 12, 2017. Physicians were asked whether they prioritize preventive services and which factors contribute to their choice (5-point Likert scale). Results were analyzed from July 8, 2017, to September 19, 2019. Exposures: A 2 × 2 factorial design of 2 hypothetical patients: (1) a 50-year-old white woman with hypertension, type 2 diabetes, hyperlipidemia, obesity, a 30-pack-year history of smoking, and a family history of breast cancer; and (2) a 45-year-old black man with hypertension, hyperlipidemia, obesity, a 30-pack-year history of smoking, and a family history of colorectal cancer. Two visit lengths (40 minutes vs 20 minutes) were given. Each patient was eligible for at least 11 preventive services. Main Outcomes and Measures: Physicians rated their likelihood of discussing each service during the visit and reported their top 3 priorities for patients 1 and 2. Physician choices were compared with the preventive services most likely to improve life expectancy, using a previously published mathematical model. Results: Of 241 physicians, 137 responded (57%), of whom 74 (54%) were female and 85 (62%) were younger than 50 years. Physicians agreed they prioritized preventive services (mean score, 4.27 [95% CI, 4.12-4.42] of 5.00), mostly by ability to improve quality (4.56 [95% CI, 4.44-4.68] of 5.00) or length (4.53 [95% CI, 4.40-4.66] of 5.00) of life. Physicians reported more prioritization in the 20- vs 40-minute visit, indicating that they were likely to discuss fewer services during the shorter visit (median, 5 [interquartile range {IQR}, 3-8] vs 11 [IQR, 9-13] preventive services for patient 1, and 4 [IQR, 3-6] vs 9 [IQR, 8-11] for patient 2). Physicians reported similar top 3 priorities for both patients: smoking cessation, hypertension control, and glycemic control for patient 1 and smoking cessation, hypertension control, and colorectal cancer screening for patient 2. Physicians' top 3 priorities did not usually include diet and exercise or weight loss (ranked in their top 3 recommendations for either patient by only 48 physicians [35%]), although these were among the 3 preventive services most likely to improve life expectancy based on the mathematical model. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, physicians prioritized preventive services under time constraints, but priorities did not vary across patients. Physicians did not prioritize lifestyle interventions despite large potential benefits. Future research should consider whether physicians and patients would benefit from guidance on preventive care priorities.

Prioritization of Medicine Importation by the Private Sector in Sudan: Evidence from a Data Analysis, 2012-2015.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to analyze the annual medicines imported by private sector for the period between 2012 and 2015 with the help of priority system based on ABC-VEN matrix analysis and therapeutic category analysis. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted. The Always, Better, and Control (ABC) analysis based on drug expenditure and Vital, Essential, and Nonessential (VEN) analysis based on the criticality of the drugs was performed for annual importation in 2015. RESULTS: Using ABC analysis, we found that 47 items (9.2%) accounted for 70% of the budget (class A), whereas a larger numbers of items (344; 67.2%) accounted for only 10% of the importation costs (class C). A moderate number of items (120; 23.5%) comprised 20% of the annual medicine importation value (class B). VEN analysis revealed that 89 items (17.4%) in the vital category constituted 41.6% of the importation value, whereas 349 (68.3%) grouped as essential constituted 45.1% of the value, and 73 (14.2%) of the items considered as nonessential medicines consumed only 13.3% of the total medicines imported in 2015. From the resultant ABC-VEN coupled matrix, three categories were created I, II and III. CONCLUSION: In view of limited resources, it is important that the existing resources should be utilized appropriately. This study identified a range of suggestions for better medication importation. The ABC and VEN analyses along with the therapeutic category analysis technique are convenient, systematic, and replicable methods and should be adopted for optimization and prioritization of resources.

The UpPriority tool was developed to guide the prioritization of clinical guideline questions for updating.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to develop a pragmatic tool to prioritize clinical guideline (CG) questions for updating, the UpPriority tool. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The development of this tool consisted of the following: (1) establishment of the working group, (2) generation of the initial version, (3) optimization of the tool (including an initial feasibility test, semistructured interviews, Delphi consensus survey, second feasibility test, external review, and pilot test), and (4) approval of the final version. RESULTS: A total of 87 participants including methodologists, clinicians, and other relevant stakeholders contributed to the development of the UpPriority tool. The tool consists of six items: (1) impact of outdated recommendations on safety, (2) availability of new relevant evidence, (3) context relevance of the clinical question, (4) methodological applicability of the clinical question, (5) user's interest, and (6) impact on access to health care. The UpPriority tool includes detailed guidance for using the tool and rating each item (using a 7-point Likert scale), for calculating and ranking the questions, and for summarizing results. CONCLUSION: The UpPriority tool could be useful for standardizing prioritization processes when updating CGs and for fostering more efficient use of resources in the CG field.

Prioritisation of ICU treatments for critically ill patients in a COVID-19 pandemic with scarce resources.

BACKGROUND: Relying on capacity increases and patient transfers to deal with the huge and continuous inflow of COVID-19 critically ill patients is a strategy limited by finite human and logistical resources. RATIONALE: Prioritising both critical care initiation and continuation is paramount to save the greatest number of lives. It enables to allocate scarce resources in priority to those with the highest probability of benefiting from them. It is fully ethical provided it relies on objective and widely shared criteria, thus preventing arbitrary decisions and guaranteeing equity. Prioritisation seeks to fairly allocate treatments, maximise saved lives, gain indirect life benefits from prioritising exposed healthcare and similar workers, give priority to those most penalised as a last resort, and apply similar prioritisation schemes to all patients. PRIORITISATION STRATEGY: Prioritisation schemes and their criteria are adjusted to the level of resource scarcity: strain (level A) or saturation (level B). Prioritisation yields a four level priority for initiation or continuation of critical care: P1-high priority, P2-intermediate priority, P3-not needed, P4-not appropriate. Prioritisation schemes take into account the patient's wishes, clinical frailty, pre-existing chronic condition, along with severity and evolution of acute condition. Initial priority level must be reassessed, at least after 48h once missing decision elements are available, at the typical turning point in the disease's natural history (ICU days 7 to 10 for COVID-19), and each time resource scarcity levels change. For treatments to be withheld or withdrawn, a collegial decision-making process and information of patient and/or next of kin are paramount. PERSPECTIVE: Prioritisation strategy is bound to evolve with new knowledge and with changes within the epidemiological situation.

Personalized Cancer Follow-Up Care Pathways: A Delphi Consensus of Research Priorities.

Development of personalized, stratified follow-up care pathways where care intensity and setting vary with needs could improve cancer survivor outcomes and efficiency of health-care delivery. Advancing such an approach in the United States requires identification and prioritization of the most pressing research and data needed to create and implement personalized care pathway models. Cancer survivorship research and care experts (n = 39) participated in an in-person workshop on this topic in 2018. Using a modified Delphi technique-a structured, validated system for identifying consensus-an expert panel identified critical research questions related to operationalizing personalized, stratified follow-up care pathways for individuals diagnosed with cancer. Consensus for the top priority research questions was achieved iteratively through 3 rounds: item generation, item consolidation, and selection of the final list of priority research questions. From the 28 research questions that were generated, 11 research priority questions were identified. The questions were categorized into 4 priority themes: determining outcome measures for new care pathways, developing and evaluating new care pathways, incentivizing new care pathway delivery, and providing technology and infrastructure to support self-management. Existing data sources to begin answering questions were also identified. Although existing data sources, including cancer registry, electronic medical record, and health insurance claims data, can be enhanced to begin addressing some questions, additional research resources are needed to address these priority questions.