Campus node-based wastewater surveillance enables COVID-19 case localization and confirms lower SARS-CoV-2 burden relative to the surrounding community.

Wastewater-based surveillance (WBS) has been established as a powerful tool that can guide health policy at multiple levels of government. However, this approach has not been well assessed at more granular scales, including large work sites such as University campuses. Between August 2021 and April 2022, we explored the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater using qPCR assays from multiple complimentary sewer catchments and residential buildings spanning the University of Calgary's campus and how this compared to levels from the municipal wastewater treatment plant servicing the campus. Real-time contact tracing data was used to evaluate an association between wastewater SARS-CoV-2 burden and clinically confirmed cases and to assess the potential of WBS as a tool for disease monitoring across worksites. Concentrations of wastewater SARS-CoV-2 N1 and N2 RNA varied significantly across six sampling sites - regardless of several normalization strategies - with certain catchments consistently demonstrating values 1-2 orders higher than the others. Relative to clinical cases identified in specific sewersheds, WBS provided one-week leading indicator. Additionally, our comprehensive monitoring strategy enabled an estimation of the total burden of SARS-CoV-2 for the campus per capita, which was significantly lower than the surrounding community (p≤0.001). Allele-specific qPCR assays confirmed that variants across campus were representative of the community at large, and at no time did emerging variants first debut on campus. This study demonstrates how WBS can be efficiently applied to locate hotspots of disease activity at a very granular scale, and predict disease burden across large, complex worksites.

Review of computerized physician handoff tools for improving the quality of patient care.

BACKGROUND: Computerized physician handoff tools (CHTs) are designed to allow distributed access and synchronous archiving of patient information via Internet protocols. However, their impact on the quality of physician handoff, patient care, and physician work efficiency have not been extensively analyzed. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane database for systematic reviews, and the Cochrane central register for clinical trials, from January 1960 to December 2011. We selected all articles that reported randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-after studies, and quasi-experimental studies of the use of CHTs for physician handoff for hospitalized patients. Relevant studies were evaluated independently for their eligibility for inclusion by 2 individuals in a 2-stage process. RESULTS: The literature search identified 1026 citations of which 6 satisfied the inclusion criteria. One study was a randomized controlled trial, whereas 5 were controlled before-after studies. Two studies showed that using CHTs reduced adverse events and missing patients. Three studies demonstrated improved overall quality of handoff after CHT implementation. One study suggested that CHTs could potentially enhance work efficiency and continuity of care during physician handoff. Conflicting impacts on consistency of handoff were found in 2 studies. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence that CHTs improve physician handoff and quality of hospitalized patient care is limited. CHT may improve the efficiency of physician work, reduce adverse events, and increase the completeness of physician handoffs. However, further evaluation using rigorous study designs is needed.

A prospective observational study of physician handoff for intensive-care-unit-to-ward patient transfers.

BACKGROUND: Poor physician handoff can be a major contributor to suboptimal care and medical errors occurring in the hospital. Physician handoffs for intensive care unit (ICU)-to-ward patient transfer may face more communication hurdles. However, few studies have focused on physician handoffs in patient transfers from the ICU to the inpatient ward. METHODS: We performed a hospitalized patient-based observational study in an urban, university-affiliated tertiary care center to assess physician handoff practices for ICU-to-ward patient transfer. One hundred twelve adult patients were enrolled. The stakeholders (sending physicians, receiving physicians, and patients/families) were interviewed to evaluate the quality of communication during these transfers. Data collected included the presence and effectiveness of communication, continuity of care, and overall satisfaction. RESULTS: During the initial stage of patient transfers, 15.6% of the consulted receiving physicians verbally communicated with sending physicians; 26% of receiving physicians received verbal communication from sending physicians when patient transfers occurred. Poor communication during patient transfer resulted in 13 medical errors and 2 patients being transiently "lost" to medical care. Overall, the levels of satisfaction with communication (scored on a 10-point scale) for sending physicians, receiving physicians, and patients were 7.9±1.1, 8.1±1.0, and 7.9±1.7, respectively. CONCLUSION: The overall levels of satisfaction with communication during ICU-to-ward patient transfer were reasonably high among the stakeholders. However, clear opportunities to improve the quality of physician communication exist in several areas, with potential benefits to quality of care and patient safety.

A comprehensive view of sex-specific issues related to cardiovascular disease.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality in women. In fact, CVD is responsible for a third of all deaths of women worldwide and half of all deaths of women over 50 years of age in developing countries. The prevalence of CVD risk factor precursors is increasing in children. Retrospective analyses suggest that there are some clinically relevant differences between women and men in terms of prevalence, presentation, management and outcomes of the disease, but little is known about why CVD affects women and men differently. For instance, women with diabetes have a significantly higher CVD mortality rate than men with diabetes. Similarly, women with atrial fibrillation are at greater risk of stroke than men with atrial fibrillation. Historically, women have been underrepresented in clinical trials. The lack of good trial evidence concerning sex-specific outcomes has led to assumptions about CVD treatment in women, which in turn may have resulted in inadequate diagnoses and suboptimal management, greatly affecting outcomes. This knowledge gap may also explain why cardiovascular health in women is not improving as fast as that of men. Over the last decades, mortality rates in men have steadily declined, while those in women remained stable. It is also becoming increasingly evident that gender differences in cultural, behavioural, psychosocial and socioeconomic status are responsible, to various degrees, for the observed differences between women and men. However, the interaction between sex-and gender-related factors and CVD outcomes in women remains largely unknown.