Skip header and navigation

21 records – page 1 of 3.

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
@saskhealthauthority.ca. SUMMARIES, GUIDELINES & OTHER RESOURCES ARCH RESULT 1. Lynch RM, Goring R. Practical
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
, enhanced care needs of residents due to anxiety, increased communication with family caregivers and other
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
EOC211126 ESR
Question Submitted
November 26, 2021
Date Completed
November 26, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
: Guidelines, Summaries & Other Grey Literature Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety  Fact
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
EOC211126 ESR
Question Submitted
November 26, 2021
Date Completed
November 26, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Category
Administration
Infection Prevention and Control
Population
All adults
Other
Healthcare workers
Priority Level
Level 1 2-3 days
Cite As
Mueller, M; Fox, L. What are the risks associated with repeated exposure to Ethylene Oxide from ongoing use of the Abbott Panbio AG COVID-19 Nasal swabs? 2021 Nov 26. Document no.: EOC211126 ESR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 45 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EOC211126 RR Table
Question Submitted
November 26, 2021
Date Completed
November 30, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
to the Saskatchewan Health Authority, do not adapt the work, and abide by the other license terms. To view a copy
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EOC211126 RR Table
Question Submitted
November 26, 2021
Date Completed
November 30, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Category
Administration
Infection Prevention and Control
Population
All adults
Other
Healthcare workers
Priority Level
Level 1 2-3 days
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Hernandez-Ronquillo, L; Fox, L; Mueller, M. What are the risks associated with repeated exposure to Ethylene Oxide from ongoing use of the Abbott Panbio AG COVID-19 Nasal swabs? 2021 Nov 30, Document no.: EOC211126 RR Table. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. (CEST Table).
Related Documents
Documents

EOC211126 RR Table

Download File
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC211126 RR
Question Submitted
November 26, 2021
Date Completed
November 30, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
to new health and safety regulations established in the mid-1980s.  Few studies examining other
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC211126 RR
Question Submitted
November 26, 2021
Date Completed
November 30, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
Most of the reference exposure studies observed the morbidity/mortality of individuals working in sterilization plants with direct, chronic exposure to high concentrations of ethylene oxide gas prior to changes in allowable environmental levels in 1985, and also formed the basis for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) findings of cancer causation
Meta-analyses of more recent observational cohort studies performed in the 2000s and 2010s of sterilization workers directly exposed to ethylene oxide gas in the workplace do not support the association between ethylene oxide exposure and increased risk of lymphohematopoietic or breast cancers
The elimination half-life of ethylene oxide in humans is approximately 42 minutes – thus almost 90% of any ethylene oxide in a single exposure would be eliminated from the body in two hours
In order to gain FDA approval, testing swabs need to have demonstrated to meet tolerable contact limits of ethylene oxide residuals – experts claim that once packaged for a period of time and aerated prior to use, it is unlikely to contain any ethylene oxide residuals; corroborated by a study assessing the residuals on DNA swabs, finding no detectable levels of ethylene oxide on swabs 3 weeks after sterilization treatment
Category
Administration
Infection Prevention and Control
Population
All adults
Other
Healthcare workers
Priority Level
Level 1 2-3 days
Cite As
Badea, A; Groot, G; Hernandez-Ronquillo, L; Fox, L; Mueller, M. What are the risks associated with repeated exposure to Ethylene Oxide from ongoing use of the Abbott Panbio AG COVID-19 Nasal swabs? 2021 Nov 30. Document no.: EOC211126 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 14 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
EOC210302 ESR
Question Submitted
March 30, 2021
Date Completed
April 1, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
, there is no shortage of other information (reports, recommendations, expert opinion) discussing vaccine distribution
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
EOC210302 ESR
Question Submitted
March 30, 2021
Date Completed
April 1, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Category
Clinical Management
Healthcare Services
Subject
Vaccines
Vaccination
Risk
Comorbidities
Population
All
Other
vulnerable populations (clinically)
Clinical Setting
Cardiac unit
Community
Dialysis unit
ICU
Long Term Care
Medicine Unit
NICU
Oncology
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Miller, L; Howell-Spooner, B. What are the risks or benefits of extended intervals between doses of COVID-19 vaccines compared to recommended dosing in extremely vulnerable populations? 2021 Apr 01; Document no.: EOC210302 ESR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 22 p. (CEST evidence search report).
Similar Reviews
INF031801 RR
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210302 RR
Question Submitted
March 30, 2021
Date Completed
April 21, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
receiving other types of therapies (37% vs 63%). In a study of 242 kidney transplant recipients
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
EOC210302 RR
Question Submitted
March 30, 2021
Date Completed
April 21, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Key Findings
The group designated in Saskatchewan as Clinically Extremely Vulnerable (CEV) is a heterogenous clinical population with factors that impair their immune response to differing degrees.
Very Limited evidence is currently available to assess the immune response following vaccination is selected clinical populations; no evidence is available to assess vaccine efficacy or effectiveness in these populations. The clinical relevance of measured immune response with respect to protection from disease is still uncertain.
In considering the immune response of the CEV population, it is recommended that the absolute difference in immune response between 1 and 2 doses be considered, as it is possible some patient groups will have lowered protection regardless of vaccine strategy.
In terms of clinical subgroups: oOrgan transplantation recipients on immunosuppressive medication: solid organ transplant recipients receiving anti-metabolite maintenance immunosuppression therapy were less likely to develop an antibody response to an mRNA vaccine, compared to those receiving other types of therapies (37% vs 63%). In a study of 242 kidney transplant recipients on immunosuppressive therapy only 10.8% became seropositive at 28 days after a single dose of mRNA vaccine. oCancer: A study of 151 elderly patients with solid and hematological malignancies and 54 healthy controls who received one or two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine shows approximately 39% of solid cancer patients, 13% of hematological cancer patients, and 97% of healthy controls (p<0.0001) developed anti-S IgG 21 days following a single dose vaccine. However, response in solid cancer patients increased to 95% within 2 weeks of the second dose at 21 days. oOther immunocompromising conditions (e.g., auto-immune disorders and therapy): some level of immunity is generated with vaccination; however, what this means clinically is unknown. It seems that ensuring the dosing is properly timed around biologic therapy is important.
Category
Clinical Management
Healthcare Services
Subject
Vaccines
Vaccination
Risk
Comorbidities
Population
All
Other
vulnerable populations (clinically)
Clinical Setting
Cardiac unit
Community
Dialysis unit
ICU
Long Term Care
Medicine Unit
NICU
Oncology
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Azizian, A; Lee, S; Shumilak, G; Groot, G; Reeder, B; Miller, L; Howell-Spooner, B. What are the risks or benefits of extended intervals between doses of COVID-19 vaccines compared to recommended dosing in extremely vulnerable populations? 2021 Apr 20, Document no.: EOC210302 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. 15 p. (CEST rapid review report).
Similar Reviews
INF031801 RR
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EOC210302 RR Table
Question Submitted
March 30, 2021
Date Completed
April 21, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Authority, do not adapt the work, and abide by the other license terms. To view a copy of this license, see
Document Type
Table
Review Code
EOC210302 RR Table
Question Submitted
March 30, 2021
Date Completed
April 21, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
EOC
Category
Clinical Management
Healthcare Services
Subject
Vaccines
Vaccination
Risk
Comorbidities
Population
All
Other
vulnerable populations (clinically)
Clinical Setting
Cardiac unit
Community
Dialysis unit
ICU
Long Term Care
Medicine Unit
NICU
Oncology
Primary care
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 3 Two weeks (14 days)
Cite As
Azizian, A; Lee, S; Shumilak, G; Groot, G; Reeder, B; Miller, L; Howell-Spooner, B. What are the risks or benefits of extended intervals between doses of COVID-19 vaccines compared to recommended dosing in extremely vulnerable populations? 2021 Apr 20, Document no.: EOC210302 RR Table. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2021. (CEST table).
Similar Reviews
INF031801 RR
Related Documents
Documents

EOC210302 RR Table

Download File
Less detail
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
PH030401-01 ESR
Question Submitted
March 4, 2021
Date Completed
March 4, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Results: Guidance, Summaries & Other Grey Literature Reports Alliance for Healthier Communities
Document Type
Evidence Search Report
Review Code
PH030401-01 ESR
Question Submitted
March 4, 2021
Date Completed
March 4, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Category
Healthcare Services
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Vulnerable Populations
Vaccination
Health Planning
Population
All
Neonates
Infants
All Pediatrics
All adults
Aged (80+)
Homeless
Mental Health patients
Indigenous Peoples
Other
vulnerable populations
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Miller, L; Howell-Spooner, B. What are the vaccination strategies for vulnerable populations? 2021 Mar 04; Document no.: PH030401-01 ESR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 33 p. (CEST evidence search report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PH030401 RR
Question Submitted
March 4, 2021
Date Completed
March 12, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
to provide vaccinations in shelters, community centers and other frequently accessed places along
Document Type
Rapid Review
Review Code
PH030401 RR
Question Submitted
March 4, 2021
Date Completed
March 12, 2021
Status
3. Completed
Research Team
Public Health
Key Findings
Vulnerable populations such as those experiencing homelessness are 20 times more likely to be hospitalised due to COVID-19, 10 times more likely to require intensive care for COVID-19 and 5 times more likely to die within 21 days of a positive test for COVID-19
Many organizations advocate for socially vulnerable populations to be considered priority populations due to their oftencomplex health needs and inability to fully execute best practices for infection prevention and control
Past experiences from Hepatitis vaccination (requiring 3 injections) and H1N1 pandemic influenza vaccination indicate that partnering with community organizations to provide vaccinations in shelters, community centers and other frequently accessed places along with education and access to known, trusted healthcare providers greatly increase the uptake of vaccination among socially vulnerable populations
Beyond sheltered populations experiencing homelessness, considerations for equitable vaccination programs for the general population should include plans for accessibility for all, including underserved geographic regions
Category
Healthcare Services
Infection Prevention and Control
Subject
Health Planning
Vulnerable Populations
Vaccination
Population
All
Neonates
Infants
All Pediatrics
All adults
Aged (80+)
Homeless
Mental Health patients
Indigenous Peoples
Other
vulnerable populations
Clinical Setting
Community
Public Health
Priority Level
Level 2 One week (7 days)
Cite As
Badea, A; Reeder, B; Hanson, L; Miller, L; Howell-Spooner, B. What are the vaccination strategies for vulnerable populations? 2021 Mar 12; Document no.: PH030401 RR. In: COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Reviews [Internet]. SK: SK COVID Evidence Support Team, c2020. 33 p. (CEST rapid review report)
Related Documents
Documents
Less detail

21 records – page 1 of 3.