Skip header and navigation

27 records – page 1 of 3.

Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
PH061201-01 ESR
Question Submitted
June 12, 2020
Date Completed
June 12, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
PH061201-01 ESR
Question Submitted
June 12, 2020
Date Completed
June 12, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Category
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Communal Living
Transmission
Population
All Pediatrics
All adults
Aged (80+)
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 completed within 2-3 days
Cite As
Howell-Spooner, B; Miller, L. How are Hutterite colonies responding to and coping with COVID-19 prevention and outbreaks? 2020 Jun 12; Document no.: PH061201-01 ESR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 10 p. (CEST evidence search report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PH061201 RR
Question Submitted
June 12, 2020
Date Completed
June 12, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PH061201 RR
Question Submitted
June 12, 2020
Date Completed
June 12, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Key Findings
The Hutterian Safety Council has established a COVID-19 taskforce to provide guidance for communities to best prevent and cope with COVID-19
Only one published study has investigated the prevalence of coronaviruses in relation to influenza vaccination/infection in Hutterite populations. This study found that coronaviruses are much less prevalent than influenza, entero/rhinoviruses and pediatric RSV and that it occurred in all age groups.
This study also found a high degree of co-circulation of other respiratory viruses along with influenza, which invites the questioning of signs/symptoms falsely attributed to influenza and therefore influencing empiric use of antivirals
Most studies available focus on influenza, polio and other common vaccine-preventable childhood communicable disease
One study assessing influenza in Hutterite populations found that the immunization of children and adolescents led to a protective effect among the community over multiple years of seasonal influenza and provided ~60% herd protection
Category
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Communal Living
Transmission
Population
All Pediatrics
All adults
Aged (80+)
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 completed within 2-3 days
Cite As
Okpalauwaekwe, U; Reeder, B; Howell-Spooner, B; Miller, L. How are Hutterite colonies responding to and coping with COVID-19 prevention and outbreaks? 2020 Jun 12; Document no.: PH061201 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 16 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
LTC042201-01 ESR
Question Submitted
April 22, 2020
Date Completed
24-Apr-2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Long Term Care
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
LTC042201-01 ESR
Question Submitted
April 22, 2020
Date Completed
24-Apr-2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Long Term Care
Category
Administration
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Facilities
Health Planning
Long Term Care
Elderly
Population
Aged (80+)
Other
Clinical Setting
Long Term Care
Priority Level
Level 3 completed within 2-3 days
Cite As
Tupper, S; Ward, H; Dalidowicz, M; Boden, C; Ellsworth, C; How can LTC facilities prepare for a pandemic? 2020 Apr 29; Document no.: LTC042201 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 27 p. (CEST evidence search report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
LTC042201 RR
Question Submitted
April 22, 2020
Date Completed
April 29, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Long Term Care
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
LTC042201 RR
Question Submitted
April 22, 2020
Date Completed
April 29, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Long Term Care
Key Findings
· Overall, there is a lack of high quality evidence to support recommended pandemic preparedness strategies (checklist items) to prevent or mitigate respiratory infection outbreaks in LTC. · In the absence of high-quality or mixed evidence to support strategies for pandemic preparedness, it is advisable to follow clinical practice guideline recommendations that have been based on expert opinion (key sources are identified in red). This is particularly the case for infection control interventions that are likely to have no negative impacts on LTC residents (e.g. hand hygiene, cough etiquette). Strategies that have a potential negative impact on LTC residents (e.g. visitor restrictions) must be handled with more flexibility and individual assessment to determine how infection control can be preserved while minimizing negative consequences for residents and families. · Internationally recognized pandemic/outbreak preparedness checklists for LTC (e.g. CDC 2020, Buynder et al. 2017) share many similarities to the current SHA Annex R checklists. · Consideration should be given to converting the checklist into a planner with accountabilities to demonstrate how each item is being addressed (similar to CDC 2020). Links can be embedded in the planner/checklist to more detailed information, such as the PPE burn calculator (CDC 2020), education/training materials (WHO 2020), and communication materials for families (CDC 2020, WHO 2020, Buynder et al. 2017). · Consider the addition of specific detail to the SHA pandemic preparedness checklists on the date of the next pandemic plan/checklist review, contact names for local resource acquisition or assistance with staffing, tracking forms for dates of education/training with staff and residents, tracking of audits/observation of infection control practices, surge capacity planning items, and expanded items for communication (see attached recommendations from family caregivers of the Saskatchewan LTC Network). · Discrepancies exist between reported (77-100%) and observed (25-63%) adherence to infection control practices, indicating a need for independent audits. Adherence rates improve with direct observation, frequent education reminders and prompts. · Even when there is not an outbreak in a home, the pandemic response results in increased workload demands on staff due to infection control practices (e.g. PPE and hand hygiene), loss of family caregiver assistance with resident care, enhanced care needs of residents due to anxiety, increased communication with family caregivers and other members of the care team, monitoring and restricting resident movement in the home, enhanced cleaning, staff absenteeism, and education/training. Consideration is needed for a provincial process for evaluation of needs within individual homes, and allocation of additional human resources, disposable supplies, equipment, or funding to ensure that both infection control and usual care needs of residents are consistently met. · Maintaining public confidence through communication is a defined infection control strategy. Communication strategies include individual communication between family members and staff, public communication strategies by individual facilities and provincially through dedicated pandemic information pertaining to LTC (e.g. dedicated LTC section on provincial websites).
Category
Administration
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Facilities
Health Planning
Long Term Care
Elderly
Population
Aged (80+)
Other
Clinical Setting
Long Term Care
Priority Level
Level 3 completed within 2-3 days
Cite As
Tupper, S; Ward, H; Dalidowicz, M; Boden, C; Ellsworth, C; How can LTC facilities prepare for a pandemic? 2020 Apr 29; Document no.: LTC042201 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 27 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
EOC100801-01 ESR
Question Submitted
October 8, 2020
Date Completed
October 13, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
EOC100801-01 ESR
Question Submitted
October 8, 2020
Date Completed
October 13, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Category
Administration
Subject
Risk
Elderly
Facilities
Health Personnel
Population
Aged (80+)
Clinical Setting
Community
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Miller, L; Mueller, M. What are the age restrictions for healthcare workers/volunteers? 2020 Oct 13; Document no.: EOC100801-01 ESR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 5 p. (CEST evidence search report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC100801 RR
Question Submitted
October 8, 2020
Date Completed
October 19, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC100801 RR
Question Submitted
October 8, 2020
Date Completed
October 19, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
· Well established that older individuals, particularly those with pre-existing conditions are at increased risk of severe disease and/or complications with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and volunteers should take this into consideration · No other evidence specific to healthcare workers or volunteers to guide age restriction policies
Category
Administration
Subject
Risk
Elderly
Facilities
Health Personnel
Population
Aged (80+)
Clinical Setting
Community
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Miller, L; Mueller, M. What are the age restrictions for healthcare workers/volunteer? 2020 Oct 19; Document no.: EOC100801 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 8 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
LTC041501 RR
Question Submitted
April 15, 2020
Date Completed
April 16, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Long Term Care
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
LTC041501 RR
Question Submitted
April 15, 2020
Date Completed
April 16, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Long Term Care
Key Findings
There is limited information on transferring infected LTC residents to an off-site cohort location such as a purpose-built field hospital. Lessons learned from SARS suggest that transfers to dedicated facilities for cohorting may increase spread.
A greater number of recommendations support on-site cohorting of residents infected with droplet/contact transmitted illnesses. Health Canada’s COVID-19 Interim Guidance for LTC Homes report states that transfers within and between facilities should be avoided except for medically indicated procedures that cannot be provided by the long-term care home e.g. respiratory failure requiring ventilation or hemodynamic compromise.
Family members encourage cohorting a resident in the LTC home if possible. They also recommend following residents’ advanced care directives to determine whether life-sustaining measures are preferred, robust healthcare and psychosocial support for residents who are cohorted, and clear communication with residents and family members.
Cohorting on site includes isolation of residents to their rooms (preferably single occupancy) or dedicated units in the home. Staff and equipment cohorting should also be implemented if possible (i.e.dedicated staff that do not provide care to residents in non-infected units, and resident specific equipment).
Consider cohorting in day program spaces, recreation rooms, palliative care rooms, chapels, or dining rooms in the home that are no longer being used as common spacesas long as call bells or other appropriate communication measures are in place.
Category
Healthcare Services
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Facilities
Decision Making
Health Planning
Transmission
Population
Aged (80+)
Clinical Setting
Long Term Care
Priority Level
Level 3 completed within 2-3 days
Cite As
Tupper, S; Ward, H; Ellsworth, C; Dalidowicz, M; Boden, C. What are the best practices for cohorting long-term care residents to reduce transmision of COVID-19? 2020 Apr 16; Document no.: LTC041501 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 10 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
LTC041501-01 ESR
Question Submitted
April 15, 2020
Date Completed
April 16, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Long Term Care
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
LTC041501-01 ESR
Question Submitted
April 15, 2020
Date Completed
April 16, 2020
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Long Term Care
Category
Healthcare Services
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Facilities
Decision Making
Health Planning
Transmission
Population
Aged (80+)
Clinical Setting
Long Term Care
Priority Level
Level 3 completed within 2-3 days
Cite As
Tupper, S; Ward, H. What are the best practices for cohorting long-term care residents to reduce transmision of COVID-19? 2020 Apr 16; Document no.: LTC041501-01 ESR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 41 p. (CEST evidence search report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
LTC020201-01 ESR
Question Submitted
February 2, 2021
Date Completed
February 5, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Long Term Care
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
LTC020201-01 ESR
Question Submitted
February 2, 2021
Date Completed
February 5, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Long Term Care
Category
Infection Prevention and Control
Diagnostics
Subject
Facilities
Antigens
Long Term Care
Testing
Population
Aged (80+)
Clinical Setting
Long Term Care
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Dalidowicz, M; Mueller, M. What are the efficacies and outcomes of Point-of-Care/Antigen testing in Long Term care? 2021 Feb 5; Document no.: LTC020201-01 ESR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 22 p. (CEST evidence search report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
LTC020201 RR
Question Submitted
February 2, 2021
Date Completed
February 26, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Long Term Care
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
LTC020201 RR
Question Submitted
February 2, 2021
Date Completed
February 26, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Long Term Care
Key Findings
Although rapid antigen point-of-care tests (POCT) to detect SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection have the advantage of rapid result turn-around time compared to laboratory-based reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, their sensitivity to correctly detect positive cases is lower (Larremore et al., 2020).
Increased frequency of testing compensates for lower test sensitivity of POCTs (See et al., 2021; Larremore et al., 2020). The majority of policy guidelines and public health directives recommend basing frequency of POCT on rates of community transmission or outbreak status of the setting (Public Health Canada, 2021; Ontario Ministry of Long-term Care [LTC], 2021; CDC, 2021; Arizona Department of Health Services, 2020).
Recommended POCT frequency for screening asymptomatic individuals is 3 times per week of staff, including designated support persons, and residents if the home is in an outbreak situation and once per week of staff and designated support persons in a non-outbreak situation (Ontario Ministry of LTC, 2021; CDC, 2021; Larremore et al., 2020).
Designated support persons (i.e. family caregivers) should be tested at the same frequency as LTC staff (Ontario Ministry of LTC, 2021; Micocci et al., 2020; Vilches et al., 2020; Tennessee Department of Health, 2020).
Recommendations are consistent regarding test interpretation and follow-up actions, with the majority of policies and directives recommending a high degree of caution and follow-up RT-PCR testing after a negative POCT if there is a high pre-test probability for COVID-19 infection (i.e. symptomatic, known contact exposure)(Public Health Canada, 2021; CDC, 2021). All reviewed guidelines recommend confirmatory RT-PCR test following a positive POCT if the individual is asymptomatic in order to avoid unnecessary isolation of residents and work restrictions of staff. Contrary to other guidelines, the Oregon Health Authority (2020) considers all positive antigen tests in a symptomatic individual as a positive test regardless of follow up testing.
Modelling studies consistently show that regular POCT screening of asymptomatic staff and residents in LTC during both outbreak and non-outbreak situations results in significant decreases in projected cases when combined with a multipronged approach to prevent transmission (Larremore et al., 2021; Holmdahl et al., 2020; See et al., 2021; Vilches et al., 2020).
Barriers to frequency of testing are availability of test kits, training of testers, human resources for testing, and a reporting strategy (Micocci et al., 2020).
Prioritization of testing should be given to symptomatic healthcare providers and residents first, then screening for residents and staff during outbreaks (See et al., 2020).
The Saskatchewan Health Authority (SHA) Point of Care COVID Testing: Long Term Care Algorithm contains most of the elements present in other algorithms. Additional information should be added on actions taken for presumptive positive or negative tests in different scenarios. Additional information should be provided on frequency of testing and the context for “high-risk contact”.
Category
Infection Prevention and Control
Diagnostics
Subject
Facilities
Antigens
Long Term Care
Testing
Population
Aged (80+)
Clinical Setting
Long Term Care
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Ward, H; Tupper, S; Dalidowicz, M; Mueller, M. What are the efficacies and outcomes of Point-of-Care/Antigen testing in Long Term care? 2021 Feb 26; Document no.: LTC020201 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 37 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail

27 records – page 1 of 3.