Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Eur Geriatr Med ; 2024 Aug 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39103740

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic magnified pre-existing socioeconomic, operational, and structural challenges in long-term care across the world. In Canada, the long-term care sector's dependence on caregivers as a supplement to care workers became apparent once restrictive visitation policies were employed. We conducted a scoping review to better understand the associations between caregiving and resident, formal and informal caregiver health in long-term care before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, AgeLine, Google Advanced, ArXiv, PROSPERO, and OSF. Pairs of independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts followed by a review of full texts. Studies were included if they reported biological, psychological, or social health outcomes associated with caregiving (or lack thereof). RESULTS: After screening and reviewing 252 records identified by the search strategy, a total of 20 full-text records were eligible and included in this review. According to our results, research on caregiving increased during the pandemic, and researchers noted restrictive visitation policies had an adverse impact on health outcomes for residents and formal and informal caregivers. In comparison, caregiving in long-term care prior to the pandemic, and once visitation policies became less restrictive, led to mostly beneficial health outcomes. CONCLUSION: Caregiver interventions, for the most part, appear to promote better health outcomes for long-term care residents and formal and informal caregivers. Suggestions to better support caregiving in long-term care settings are offered.

2.
Health Policy ; 143: 105015, 2024 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38547663

ABSTRACT

Emergency medical systems in the world are mainly based on two main models: the Franco-German System (FGS) and the Anglo-American System (AAS). The characteristic feature of the FGS is the "Stay and Play" principle, while the AAS system is based on the "Scoop and Run" principle. The Polish model is a mix of those two systems mainly based on the work of paramedics. Their scope of operations and powers have changed over time. As a result of the advocacy undertaken by paramedics in Poland, legislation was drafted and became law in June 2023. The central changes include: the introduction of a paramedic register, the establishment of a professional self-government of paramedics, the expansion of professional competencies such as the ability to declare death, and new opportunities for professional development including speciality training or paid training leave. This article discusses the new law in the context of previous legislative solutions in the field of emergency medicine in Poland and in other European countries.


Subject(s)
Emergency Medical Services , Emergency Medical Technicians , Humans , Paramedics , Poland , Scope of Practice
3.
Emerg Med J ; 41(4): 210-217, 2024 Mar 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38365437

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Unplanned return emergency department (ED) visits can reflect clinical deterioration or unmet need from the original visit. We determined the characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who return to the ED for COVID-19-related revisits. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used data for all adult patients visiting 47 Canadian EDs with COVID-19 between 1 March 2020 and 31 March 2022. Multivariable logistic regression assessed the characteristics associated with having a no return visit (SV=single visit group) versus at least one return visit (MV=return visit group) after being discharged alive at the first ED visit. RESULTS: 39 809 patients with COVID-19 had 44 862 COVID-19-related ED visits: 35 468 patients (89%) had one visit (SV group) and 4341 (11%) returned to the ED (MV group) within 30 days (mean 2.2, SD=0.5 ED visit). 40% of SV patients and 16% of MV patients were admitted at their first visit, and 41% of MV patients not admitted at their first ED visit were admitted on their second visit. In the MV group, the median time to return was 4 days, 49% returned within 72 hours. In multivariable modelling, a repeat visit was associated with a variety of factors including older age (OR=1.25 per 10 years, 95% CI (1.22 to 1.28)), pregnancy (1.86 (1.46 to 2.36)) and presence of comorbidities (eg, 1.72 (1.40 to 2.10) for cancer, 2.01 (1.52 to 2.66) for obesity, 2.18 (1.42 to 3.36) for organ transplant), current/prior substance use, higher temperature or WHO severe disease (1.41 (1.29 to 1.54)). Return was less likely for females (0.82 (0.77 to 0.88)) and those boosted or fully vaccinated (0.48 (0.34 to 0.70)). CONCLUSIONS: Return ED visits by patients with COVID-19 within 30 days were common during the first two pandemic years and were associated with multiple factors, many of which reflect known risk for worse outcomes. Future studies should assess reasons for revisit and opportunities to improve ED care and reduce resource use. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04702945.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Patient Readmission , Adult , Female , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Canada/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Emergency Service, Hospital , World Health Organization
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL