Project description:To understand and analyse the global impact of COVID-19 on outpatient services, inpatient care, elective surgery, and perioperative colorectal cancer care, a DElayed COloRectal cancer surgery (DECOR-19) survey was conducted in collaboration with numerous international colorectal societies with the objective of obtaining several learning points from the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on our colorectal cancer patients which will assist us in the ongoing management of our colorectal cancer patients and to provide us safe oncological pathways for future outbreaks.
Project description:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has been identified as the cause of the Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), which was initially reported in December 2019 in China and has since rapidly spread worldwide.
Since then, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a detrimental effect of the national health care system, causing a drastic reduction of the screening programs for colorectal cancer and requiring the redistribution of the hospital resources from elective surgery to the care of patients with SARS-Cov_2 infection requiring admission.
Project description:ObjectivesThis study aims to compare the disease status of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) after treatment with tofacitinib or non- tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologics.Patients and methodsThe study included a total of 50 RA patients (18 males, 32 females; mean age 68.3±1.3 years; range 42 to 92 years). We prospectively and randomly enrolled 25 patients for treatment with tofacitinib (Tofa group: 10 males, 15 females; mean age 68.3±2.0 years; range, 42 to 92 years) and 25 for treatment with non-TNF biologics (non-TNF group: 8 males, 17 females; mean age 68.3±1.7 years; range 51 to 92 years). Mean disease activity score 28 (DAS28), C-reactive protein (CRP), clinical disease activity index (CDAI), health assessment questionnaire (HAQ)-disability index (DI), and matrix metalloproteinase-3 values were recorded at baseline and at 4, 8, and 12 months.ResultsThere was a significant difference in the percent changes of DAS28, CRP and CDAI at every time point versus baseline in both treatment groups. HAQ-DI was also significantly different at every time point in both groups except for at four months in the non-TNF group.ConclusionTofacitinib was well tolerated in active RA patients and exerted effects comparable to those of non-TNF biologics.
Project description:COVID-19, the disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020. In addition to older individuals and those with underlying chronic health conditions, maternal and newborn populations were also identified as being at greater risk. It became critical for hospitals and clinicians to maintain the safety of individuals in the facility and minimize the transmission of COVID-19 while continuing to strive for optimized outcomes by providing family-centered care. Rapid change during the pandemic made it appropriate to use the plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycle to continually evaluate proposed and standard practices. Our team established an obstetric COVID-19 unit for women and newborns, developed guidelines for visitation and for the use of personal protective equipment, initiated universal COVID-19 testing, and provided health education to emphasize shared decision making.
Project description:The main objective of this study is to offer and evaluate an interim triage approach for patients waiting for surveillance colonoscopies. This will reduce the waiting period and the psychological stressors for our patients and from a scientific point of view allow us to compare the yield of findings for each approach.
Project description:ImportanceFederally qualified health centers (FQHCs) provide care to 30 million patients in the US and have shown better outcomes and processes than other practice types. Little is known about how the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to FQHC capabilities compared with other practices.ObjectiveTo compare postpandemic operational characteristics and capabilities of FQHCs with non-FQHC safety net practices and non-FQHC, non-safety net practices.Design, setting, and participantsThis nationally representative survey conducted from June 2022 to February 2023 with an oversampling of safety net practices in the US included practice leaders working in stratified random selection of practices based on FQHC status, Area Deprivation Index category, and ownership type per a health care network dataset.ExposuresPractice type: FQHC vs non-FQHC safety net and non-FQHC practices.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary care capabilities, including 2 measures of access and 11 composite measures.ResultsA total of 1245 practices (221 FQHC and 1024 non-FQHC) responded of 3498 practices sampled. FQHCs were more likely to be independently owned and have received COVID-19 funding. FQHCs and non-FQHC safety net practices were more likely to be in rural areas. FQHCs significantly outperformed non-FQHCs on several capabilities even after controlling for practice size and ownership, including behavioral health provision (mean score, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.51-0.56), culturally informed services (mean score, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.53-0.58), screening for social needs (mean score, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.39-0.47), social needs referrals (mean score, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.48-0.57), social needs referral follow-up (mean score, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.27-0.36), and shared decision-making and motivational interviewing training (mean score, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.51-0.56). No differences were found in behavioral and substance use screening, care processes for patients with complex and high levels of need, use of patient-reported outcome measures, decision aid use, or after-hours access. Across all practices, most of the examined capabilities showed room for improvement.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this survey study suggest that FQHCs outperformed non-FQHC practices on important care processes while serving a patient population with lower incomes who are medically underserved compared with patients in other practice types. Legislation to expand funding for the FQHC program should improve services for underserved populations and target current non-FQHC safety net practices to serve these populations. Increased support for these practices could improve primary care for rural populations.