Policy and planning for large epidemics and pandemics - challenges and lessons learned from COVID-19

Improving interprofessional collaboration: building confidence using a novel HIV curriculum for healthcare workers across sub-Saharan africa

The 21st century presents significant global health challenges that necessitate an integrated health workforce capable of delivering person-centered and integrated healthcare services. Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) plays a vital role in achieving integration and training an IPC-capable workforce in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has become imperative. This study aims to assess changes in IPC confidence among learners participating in a team-based, case-based HIV training programme across diverse settings in SSA. Additionally, it sought to examine the impact of different course formats (in-person, synchronous virtual, or blended learning) on IPC confidence. Data from 20 institutions across 18 SSA countries were collected between May 1 and December 31, 2021. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to estimate associations between variables of interest and the increases in IPC confidence. The analysis included 3,842 learners; nurses comprised 37.9% (n = 1,172) and physicians 26.7% (n = 825). The majority of learners (67.2%, n = 2,072) were pre-service learners, while 13.0% (n = 401) had graduated within the past year. Factors significantly associated with increased IPC confidence included female gender, physician cadre, completion of graduate training over 12 months ago, and participation in virtual or in-person synchronous workshops (p < .05). The insights from this analysis can inform future curriculum development to strengthen interprofessional healthcare delivery across SSA.

Comparing in-person, blended and virtual training interventions; a real-world evaluation of HIV capacity building programs in 16 countries in sub-Saharan Africa

We sought to evaluate the impact of transitioning a multi-country HIV training program from in-person to online by comparing digital training approaches implemented during the pandemic with in-person approaches employed before COVID-19. We evaluated mean changes in pre-and post-course knowledge scores and self-reported confidence scores for learners who participated in (1) in-person workshops (between October 2019 and March 2020), (2) entirely asynchronous, Virtual Workshops [VW] (between May 2021 and January 2022), and (3) a blended Online Course [OC] (between May 2021 and January 2022) across 16 SSA countries. Learning objectives and evaluation tools were the same for all three groups. Across 16 SSA countries, 3023 participants enrolled in the in-person course, 2193 learners participated in the virtual workshop, and 527 in the online course. The proportions of women who participated in the VW and OC were greater than the proportion who participated in the in-person course (60.1% and 63.6%, p<0.001). Nursing and midwives constituted the largest learner group overall (1145 [37.9%] vs. 949 [43.3%] vs. 107 [20.5%]). Across all domains of HIV knowledge and self-perceived confidence, there was a mean increase between pre- and post-course assessments, regardless of how training was delivered. The greatest percent increase in knowledge scores was among those participating in the in-person course compared to VW or OC formats (13.6% increase vs. 6.0% and 7.6%, p<0.001). Gains in self-reported confidence were greater among learners who participated in the in-person course compared to VW or OC formats, regardless of training level (p<0.001) or professional cadre (p<0.001). In this multi-country capacity HIV training program, in-person, online synchronous, and blended synchronous/asynchronous strategies were effective means of training learners from diverse clinical settings. Online learning approaches facilitated participation from more women and more diverse cadres. However, gains in knowledge and clinical confidence were greater among those participating in in-person learning programs.

Outcome of hospitalized influenza and COVID-19 inpatients in different phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. A single-centre retrospective case-control study

BACKGROUND

The virulence of SARS-CoV-2 changed during the pandemic. To provide a rationale for treatment priorities of respiratory infections and the adaption of in-house infection control strategies, we evaluated the outcome parameters treatment on an intensive care unit (ICU), requirement of mechanical ventilation (MV), requirement of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and death for inpatients either infected with the influenza virus or SARS-CoV-2 during the wild type, alpha, delta, omicron BA.1/2 and omicron BA.5 waves of the pandemic.

DESIGN

Single-centre retrospective case-control study.

SETTING

Tertiary hospital in Germany.

PARTICIPANTS

1316 SARS-CoV-2-infected adult inpatients and 218 adult inpatients with seasonal influenza infection.

METHODS

Demographic data, outcome parameters and underlying comorbidities of patients were obtained from the hospital information system. Multivariate regression analysis was performed for the assessment of significant associations between risk factors and outcome variables.

RESULTS

Compared to influenza-infected inpatients, SARS-CoV-2-infected inpatients showed significantly evaluated rates for in-hospital mortality, admission to ICU and MV in the wild type, alpha and delta wave and for ECMO in the wild type wave. In the Omicron BA.1/BA.2 and Omicron BA.5 waves, SARS-CoV-2-infected inpatients did not show significantly increased risk of in-hospital mortality, admission to ICU, MV or ECMO compared to influenza- infected inpatients. Length of hospital stay of SARS-CoV-2-infected inpatients decreased from 10.8 to 6.2 days which is below that of influenza-infected inpatients (8.3 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment capacities should be shared equally between SARS-CoV-2 and influenza virus infections and at least regarding the severity of infections similar levels of infection control could be applied.

Semi-automated contact tracing and management of contact precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic within a tertiary hospital

Background

Evaluation of a spreadsheet-based COVID-19 contact-tracing tool (CTT) and determination of risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 transmission among hospital staff members.

Design

Observational descriptive study on the application and acceptance of the CTT. Retrospective case-control study for SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk factor determination and for evaluation of the CTT's risk stratification algorithm. Setting: Tertiary hospital in Germany.

Participants

3514 contacts of hospital staff members to 322 SARS-CoV-2-positive cases.

Methods

A case-control study was performed to identify risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 transmission and for unprotected contacts among staff members. To evaluate strengths and weaknesses of the CTT performance statistics were analyzed and users completed a questionnaire measuring satisfaction and acceptance of the tool.

Results

In 2021, the CTT was used for the algorithm-based semi-automated management of 3514 in-hospital contacts. The tool determined the risk category of individual contacts and generated messages for the information of the local public health department, the in-hospital SARS-CoV-2 test center and all staff members who had contact to the index case. Staff members without regular contacts to patients had significantly (P<0.005) more unprotected contacts to other staff members (25.5% vs. 9.6%) and more SARS-CoV-2 transmissions per contact (4.9% vs. 0.6%) than staff members with frequent contacts to patients. The profession "nurse or medical technical service" was associated with significantly (P<0.005) more unprotected contacts between staff members (11.0% vs. 2.6%) compared to the profession "physician".

Conclusions

Digital tools can increase the efficiency of in-hospital contact tracing. The CTT enable a timely systematic analysis of risk factors among staff members.

Learning From the Past: The Role of Social and Behavior Change Programming in Public Health Emergencies

The contributions of social and behavior change research/programming in 6 recent epidemics highlight the importance of further integrating such expertise into outbreak response.

Which countries need COVID-19 vaccines the most? Development of a prioritisation tool

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic and associated non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have affected all countries. With a scarcity of COVID-19 vaccines there has been a need to prioritize populations, but assessing relative needs has been challenging. The COVAX Facility allocates vaccines to cover 20% of each national population, followed by a needs assessment that considers five quantitative metrics alongside a qualitative assessment. The objective of this study was to identify the most important factors for assessing countries' needs for vaccines, and to weight each, generating a scoring tool for prioritising countries.

METHODS

The study was conducted between March and November 2021. The first stage involved an online Delphi survey with a purposive and snowball sample of public health experts, to reach consensus on country-level factors for assessing relative needs for COVID-19 vaccines. The second stage involved a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to determine weights for the most important factors.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 28 experts working across 13 different countries and globally. The most common job titles reported were director and professor, with most based in national public health institutes (n = 9) and universities (n = 8). The Delphi survey found 37 distinct factors related to needs. Nine of the most important factors were included in the DCE. Among these, the most important factor was the 'proportion of overall population not fully vaccinated' (with a mean weight of 19.5), followed by 'proportion of high-risk population not fully vaccinated' (16.1), 'health system capacity' (14.2), 'capacity to purchase vaccines' (11.9) and the 'proportion of the population clinically vulnerable' (11.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Several factors exist, extending beyond those currently used, which may lead to some countries having a greater need for vaccines compared to others. By assessing relative needs, this scoring tool can build on existing methods to further the role of equity in global COVID-19 vaccine allocation.

The implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for long term care facilities

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite advances in infection prevention and control and breakthroughs in vaccination development, challenges remain for long-term care facilities (LTCFs) as they face a likely future of emerging infectious diseases. To ensure the safety of LTCF residents from the current and future pandemics, we identify lessons learned from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) experience for improving future prevention and response efforts.

RECENT FINDINGS

In addition to high disease susceptibility among LTCF residents, LTCF vulnerabilities include a lack of pandemic preparedness, a lack of surge capacity in human, material and testing resources, and poorly designed buildings. External sources of vulnerability include staff working in multiple LTCFs and high COVID-19 rates in surrounding communities. Other challenges include poor cooperation between LTCFs and the other components of health systems, inadequately enforced regulations, and the sometimes contradictory interests for-profit LTCFs face between protecting their residents and turning a profit.

SUMMARY

These challenges can be addressed in the post-COVID-19 period through systemic reforms. Governments should establish comprehensive health networks that normalize mechanisms for prediction/preparedness and response/recovery from disruptive events including pandemics. In addition, governments should facilitate cooperation among public and private sector health systems and institutions while utilizing advanced digital communication technologies. These steps will greatly reduce the threat to LTCFs posed by emerging infectious diseases in future.

Operationalizing integrated needs-based workforce planning at Nova Scotia Health in response to the COVID-19 pandemic

This paper documents Nova Scotia Health’s progress in operationalizing integrated needs-based workforce planning as part of its ongoing response to the pandemic. A multidisciplinary workforce planning team with representation spanning key portfolios was created to facilitate the organization’s response to the pandemic. Analyses applied early in Wave 3 of the pandemic showed large projected shortages in several professions and identified which services would likely be scarcest among the available workforce relative to patient need. Based on these results, the workforce planning team recommended and supported operational teams in implementing a multi-faceted set of interventions aimed at increasing the availability of individuals with these competencies. These interventions collectively yielded an adequate supply of additional competent personnel to meet the needs of COVID-19 inpatients across the province through the third wave of the pandemic. Lessons learned are proving critical to maintaining core operations during Wave 4 of the pandemic.