Building Bridges Between Community Health Centers and Academic Medical Centers in a COVID-19 Pandemic.
Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM
2021; 34 (Supplement): S229–S232
The prevalence of COVID-19 in healthcare personnel in an adult and pediatric academic medical center.
American journal of infection control
2021; 49 (5): 542–46
The threat to the public health of the United States from the COVID-19 pandemic is causing rapid, unprecedented shifts in the health care landscape. Community health centers serve the patient populations most vulnerable to the disease yet often have inadequate resources to combat it. Academic medical centers do not always have the community connections needed for the most effective population health approaches. We describe how a bridge between a community health center partner (Roots Community Health Center) and a large academic medical center (Stanford Medicine) brought complementary strengths together to address the regional public health crisis. The 2 institutions began the crisis with an overlapping clinical and research faculty member (NKT). Building on that foundation, we worked in 3 areas. First, we partnered to reach underserved populations with the academic center's newly developed COVID test. Second, we developed and distributed evidence-based resources to these same communities via a large community health navigator team. Third, as telemedicine became the norm for medical consultation, the 2 institutions began to research how reducing the digital divide could help improve access to care. We continue to think about how best to create enduring partnerships forged through ongoing deeper relationships beyond the pandemic.
View details for DOI 10.3122/jabfm.2021.S1.200182
View details for PubMedID 33622844
SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence in Healthcare Personnel in Northern California Early in the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Infection control and hospital epidemiology
BACKGROUND: It is vital to know which healthcare personnel (HCP) have a higher chance of testing positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (COVID-19).METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted at Stanford Children's Health (SCH) and Stanford Health Care (SHC) in Stanford, California. Analysis included all HCP, employed by SCH or SHC, who had a COVID-19 reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test resulted by the SHC Laboratory, between March 1, 2020 and June 15, 2020. The primary outcome was the RT-PCR percent positivity and prevalence of COVID-19 for HCP and these were compared across roles.RESULTS: SCH and SHC had 24,081 active employees, of which 142 had at least 1 positive COVID-19 test. The overall HCP prevalence of COVID-19 was 0.59% and percent positivity was 1.84%. Patient facing HCPs had a significantly higher prevalence (0.66% vs 0.43%; P = .0331) and percent positivity (1.95% vs 1.43%; P = .0396) than nonpatient facing employees, respectively. Percent positivity was higher in food service workers (9.15%), and environmental services (5.96%) compared to clinicians (1.93%; P < .0001) and nurses (1.46%; P < .0001), respectively.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: HCP in patient-facing roles and in support roles had a greater chance of being positive of COVID-19.
View details for DOI 10.1016/j.ajic.2021.01.004
View details for PubMedID 33896582
Large-Scale Testing of Asymptomatic Healthcare Personnel for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2.
Emerging infectious diseases
2020; 27 (1)
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the magnitude of unidentified SARS-CoV-2 infections in our healthcare personnel (HCP) early in the COVID-19 pandemic and evaluate risk factors for infection in order to identify areas for infection control practice improvement in a northern California academic medical center.METHODS: We reviewed the anti-SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD) IgG serologic test results and self-reported risk factors for seropositivity among 10,449 asymptomatic HCP who underwent voluntary serology testing between April 20 and May 20, 2020.RESULTS: In total, 136 employees (1.3%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG. This included 41 (30.1%) individuals who had previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by nasopharyngeal reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) between March 13 and April 16, 2020. In multivariable analysis, employees of Hispanic ethnicity (OR = 2.01; 95% CI = 1.22-3.46) and those working in environmental services/food services/patient transport (OR = 4.81; 95% CI = 2.08-10.30) were at increased risk for seropositivity compared to other groups. Employees reporting a household contact with COVID-19 were also at higher risk for seropositivity (OR = 3.25; 95% CI = 1.47-6.44), but those with a work exposure were not (OR = 1.27; 95% CI = 0.58-2.47). Importantly, one-third of seropositive individuals reported no prior symptoms, no suspected exposures, and no prior positive RT-PCR test.CONCLUSION: In this study, SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among HCP early in the northern California epidemic appeared to be quite low and was more likely attributable to community rather than occupational exposure.
View details for DOI 10.1017/ice.2020.1358
View details for PubMedID 33292895
Primary Care 2.0: Design of a Transformational Team-Based Practice Model to Meet the Quadruple Aim
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL QUALITY
2019; 34 (4): 339–47
Primary Care 2.0: Design of a Transformational Team-Based Practice Model to Meet the Quadruple Aim.
American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality
Large-scale, 1-time testing of >12,000 asymptomatic healthcare personnel in California, USA, during April-June 2020 showed that prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 was low (<1%). Testing might identify asymptomatic and presymptomatic persons, including some with high viral burden, enabling prompt implementation of measures to limit nosocomial spread.
View details for DOI 10.3201/eid2701.203892
View details for PubMedID 33256889
Patient and provider perspectives on the development of personalized medicine: a mixed-methods approach
JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY GENETICS
2018; 9 (3): 283–91
Patient and provider perspectives on the development of personalized medicine: a mixed-methods approach.
Journal of community genetics
A new transformational model of primary care is needed to address patient care complexity and provider burnout. An 18-month design effort (2015-2016) included the following: (1) Needs Finding, (2) Integrated Facility Design, (3) Design Process Assessment, and (4) Development of Evaluation. Initial outcome metrics were assessed. The design team successfully applied Integrated Facility Design to primary care transformation design; qualitative survey results suggest that design consensus was facilitated by team-building activities. Initial implementation of Quadruple Aim-related outcome metrics showed positive trends. Redesign processes may benefit from emphasis on team building to facilitate consensus and increased patient involvement to incorporate patient voices successfully.
View details for PubMedID 30409021
While genetic testing gains adoption in specialty services such as oncology, neurology, and cardiology, use of genetic and genomic testing has yet to be adopted as widely in primary care. The purpose of this study is to identify and compare patient and primary care provider (PCP) expectations of genetics services in primary care. Patient and PCP perspectives were assessed through a mixed-method approach combining an online survey and semi-structured interviews in a primary care department of a large academic medical institution. A convenience sample of 100 adult primary care patients and 26 PCPs was gathered. The survey and interview questions focused on perceptions of genetic testing, experience with genetic testing, and expectations of genetic services in primary care. Patients felt that their PCP was knowledgeable about genetic testing and expected their PCP to be the first to recognize a need for genetic testing based on family history. Nonetheless, patients reported that PCPs rarely used family history information to discuss genetic risks or order testing. In contrast, PCPs felt uncertain about the clinical utility and scientific value of genetic testing. PCPs were concerned that genetic testing could cause anxiety, frustration, discrimination, and reduced insurability, and that there was unequal access to testing. PCPs described themselves as being "gatekeepers" to genetic testing but did not feel confident or have the desire to become experts in genetic testing. However, PCPs were open to increasing their working knowledge of genetic testing. Within this academic medical center, there is a gap between what patients expect and what primary care providers feel they are adequately prepared to provide in terms of genetic testing services.
View details for PubMedID 29280052