Skip header and navigation

5 records – page 1 of 1.

Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
CC210301 RR
Question Submitted
March 30, 2021
Date Completed
April 6, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Critical Care
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
CC210301 RR
Question Submitted
March 30, 2021
Date Completed
April 6, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Critical Care
Key Findings
· Tele-ICU services are provided either by existing staff within the network to smaller centers, or outsourced to larger networks or independent firms · The impact of tele-ICU adoption can result in a decrease in ICU mortality as large as 32% · The impact of tele-ICU adoption of length of stay is mixed, with some studies reporting a significant decrease, while others report a small, but statistically insignificant decrease · The degree of impact of tele-ICU adoption is linked to several factors such as yearly admission rates, location (urban vs. rural) and level of authority given to the tele-ICU team leading to increased positive impacts.
Category
Administration
Clinical Management
Subject
Critical Care
Decision Making
Facilities
Treatment
Population
All
Clinical Setting
ICU
Priority Level
Level 1 2-3 days
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Reeder, B; Young, C; Ellsworth, C; Howell-Spooner, B. How to deliver remote ICU care for COVID-19 patients to avoid/prevent transfer from smaller communities to tertiary care hospitals. 2021 Apr 6; Document no.: CC210301 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 13p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC012001 RR
Question Submitted
January 19, 2021
Date Completed
February 4, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC012001 RR
Question Submitted
January 19, 2021
Date Completed
February 4, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
There is insufficient evidence to recommend a specific clinical prediction tool for COVID-19 patients at this time.
The 4C Mortality tool and associated risk calculator is likely the most validated prediction tool currently available.
Many tools exist and may be applied with caution, as they should be validated in the local context.
There are many patient factors included in different tools when calculating risk of disease severity.
Category
Administration
Clinical Management
Subject
Critical Care
Triage
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Vanstone, J; Groot, G; Dalidowicz, M; Fox, L. Are there validated clinical prediction tools of which Covid-19 inpatients are most probable to require ICU level care? 2021 Feb 4; Document no.: EOC012001 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 15 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC081201 RR
Question Submitted
August 12, 2020
Date Completed
August 26, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC081201 RR
Question Submitted
August 12, 2020
Date Completed
August 26, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
· Potential impact on reproductive rate (R) of the seven “returning to school” scenarios that were modeled by SAGE exhibited an increase in R due to reopening of school. The scale of increase depended on current value of R within each community and mitigation plans within the community, especially the adherence to social distancing measures. · CDC recommended using additional indicators such as healthcare capacity, new cases, and percent of positive cases to decide school operations along with community spread levels: none-to-minimal, minimal-to-moderate, substantial-controlled, and substantial-uncontrolled. · Combination of strategies such as mask usage, physical distancing, hygiene measures, classroom cohorting, symptomatic screening, testing and tracing of students, staff and teachers along with low levels of community transmission can aid in maintaining low level of R. · Increasing testing and contract tracing can impede an epidemic rebound. · Intersectoral partnerships with local authorities, dedicated personnel (such as coordinators) for testing and tracing along with appropriate communication with parents, teachers and staff should be followed to open schools safely.
Category
Administration
Epidemiology
Subject
Reopening
Schools
Transmission
Public Health
Decision Making
Population
All Pediatrics
Priority Level
Level 4 completed within 1 week
Cite As
Pisolkar, V; McRae, D; Muhajarine, N; Dalidowicz, M; Ellsworth, C. What COVID community transmission indicators are used in school reopening plans? 2020 Aug 26; Document no.: EOC081201 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 23 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
LAB040802v3 RR
Question Submitted
April 8, 2020
Date Completed
June 2, 2020
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
Laboratory
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
LAB040802v3 RR
Question Submitted
April 8, 2020
Date Completed
June 2, 2020
Status
5. Updated review
Research Team
Laboratory
Key Findings
Several references provide estimates of the proportion of HCW infected with SARS-CoV2 that range from 0.9% -20%. A recent review from Alberta Health Services that examined the COVID-19 rt-PCR test results among HCW indicates that in that province 2.4% of physicians and 0.9% of non-MD HCW who were tested were positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 3.5% of the general population.
In the studies reviewed, the majority of cases are confirmed by RT-PCR, while only one reference also used serology testing.
Category
Diagnostics
Administration
Subject
Testing
Serology
Polymerase Chain Reaction
Health Personnel
Population
All
Priority Level
Level 2 completed within 8 hours
Cite As
Vanstone, J; Reeder, B; Duncan, V; Howell-Spooner, B. What proportion of healthcare workers are rt-PCR positive and IgM or IgG positive? 2020 Jun 2; Document no.: LAB040802v3 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 10 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Review History
LAB040802v2 RR: May 19, 2020
LAB040802 RR: April 9, 2020
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC042202 RR
Question Submitted
April 22, 2020
Date Completed
April 27, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC042202 RR
Question Submitted
April 22, 2020
Date Completed
April 27, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
There are no published or grey literature that directly address the review questions · A number of principle based guidelines/recommendations/criteria are available and reviewed. It appears that the WHO interim guidance "Considerations in adjusting public health and social measures in the context of COVID-19" is the best piece of evidence available right now. It is included in the reference list below.
Notes
INTERIM Rapid Review
Category
Administration
Subject
Closures
Reopening
Health Planning
Outcome Assessment
Risk
Population
All
Priority Level
Level 4 completed within 1 week
Cite As
Badea, A; Reeder, B; Groot, G; Miller, L; Young, C. What is the best evidence to guide the sequence or priority of re-opening each type of healthcare service and how have the closures impacted patients? 2020 Apr 24; Document no.: EOC042202 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 11 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail