Suchergebnisse

ObjectivesPeople with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, a population more likely to experience poor health outcomes. An Applied Health Research Question (AHRQ) request through ICES led to an investigation that monitored COVID-19 related infections and outcomes in adults with and without IDD.
ApproachThe ICES-AHRQ team approved a request from the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services (MCCSS), to determine the proportion of adults with IDD tested and confirmed positive for COVID-19. The scientists also explored if positive IDD cases experienced similar health outcomes to the general population. The open cohort was derived by linking those with a COVID-19 test in Ontario Laboratories Information System, from January 2020 to December 2021, to supplemented positive case data and administrative health databases. An algorithm was used to define IDD by a series of inpatient hospitalizations, emergency department and/or physician visits, with IDD diagnostic codes.
ResultsSimilar rates of testing and positivity were observed for those with (46%; 6%) and without IDD (43%; 5%). However, adults with IDD confirmed positive for COVID-19 were mostly male (62% vs 49%), aged 18-29 (40% vs 27%), had medical conditions associated with frailty (15% vs 4%), and from the lowest neighborhood income quintile (27% vs 23%), compared to the non-IDD population, respectively. Cumulatively, deaths and hospitalizations following a COVID-19 diagnosis were two-times more likely in the IDD population, while comparable rates of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions were reported. Particularly, adults with IDD aged 18-54 experienced higher rates of hospitalizations (48% vs 30%), ICU admissions (56% vs 36%), and deaths (26% vs 6%), compared to the same age group in those without IDD.
Conclusion/ImplicationsReal-time administrative health data and analytics were used to support Ontario's COVID-19 response in those with IDD. To inform decision making and policy actions related to immediate testing strategies, MCCSS used such findings to increase the availability of testing for adults with IDD, who may face multiple barriers.

ObjectivesThe Rehabilitative Care Alliance issued an Applied Health Research Question request to collect information regarding healthcare and rehabilitation use among COVID-19 positive individuals. The objective of this project is to determine the association between length of stay (LOS) in acute care and the number of rehabilitation services used post COVID-19 diagnosis.
ApproachHospital and rehabilitation service use was identified among individuals diagnosed with COVID-19, using administrative health data. Admission into acute care within 30 days post COVID-19 diagnosis was recorded. Use of inpatient, physiatry and home-care rehabilitative services were collected until March 31st 2021. Outpatient rehabilitation reporting is not mandatory and was not included. Marginalization was evaluated using the Ontario Marginalization Index factor scores. The association between LOS in acute care and number of rehabilitation categories used was assessed using a negative binomial model, stratified by with or without a stay in the ICU and controlling for age, sex, comorbidities and long-term care residence.
ResultsOf 181,139 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 prior to December 31st 2020, 5% were hospitalized. Of those hospitalized 2.3% then entered rehabilitation compared to 0.06% who were not hospitalized post COVID-19 infection. Rehabilitation users had higher residential instability (mean=0.45 vs -0.01 in the overall cohort), dependency (mean=-0.02 vs -0.27) and material deprivation (mean=0.37 vs 0.19) but similar ethnic diversity (mean=0.87 vs 0.90) compared to the full cohort. LOS in acute care was associated with a 3.3% increased risk of using additional rehabilitation services for individuals without a stay in the ICU (RR 1.033, 95% CI: 1.011 to 1.055; p=0.0036), and a 3.7% increased risk for individuals with a stay in the ICU (RR 1.037, 95% CI: 1.025 to 1.048; p<.0001).
ConclusionsPost COVID-19 diagnosis, a larger proportion of rehabilitation service users were hospitalized compared to all COVID-19+ individuals. Additionally, LOS in acute care was associated with the use of more rehabilitation care categories following a COVID-19 diagnosis, and the association was stronger for more severe cases requiring an ICU stay.

ObjectivesEquitable vaccine distribution was essential in supporting Ontario's COVID-19 response, particularly for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), who have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. An Applied Health Research Question (AHRQ) request through ICES, sought to report on COVID-19 vaccination uptake in adults with and without IDD.
ApproachTo examine the proportion of adults with IDD vaccinated for COVID-19, a request from the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services (MCCSS) was approved by the ICES-AHRQ team. A secondary goal was to explore if vaccinated individuals with IDD experienced similar levels of protection from COVID-19 infection, to the general population. The open cohort was derived by linking vaccination events reported in Ontario COVID-19 Vaccine Data, between December 2020 to December 2021, to several administrative health databases. An algorithm was used to define IDD by a series of inpatient hospitalizations, emergency department and/or physician visits, with IDD diagnostic codes.
ResultsThe proportion who received at least two doses was similar between both groups (82% (IDD); 83% (non-IDD)). However, despite emerging evidence suggesting that high-risk populations should receive a third dose, a lower proportion of people with IDD (25%), compared to the general population without IDD (30%), had done so. The IDD subpopulation is generally younger, and partially explained the third dose findings when examined by age. Withal, adults with IDD vaccinated with at least two doses were mostly male (62% vs 48%), 18-29 years of age (44% vs 17%), and from the lowest neighborhood income quintile (26% vs 18%), compared to the non-IDD population, respectively. Cumulatively, adults with IDD had comparable rates of confirmed breakthrough case infections following vaccination (17%), to those without IDD (19%).
Conclusion/ImplicationsAdministrative health data and analytics through the ICES-AHRQ program were used in responding to COVID-19, and providing public health guidance, for those with IDD. To inform decision making and policy actions related to immediate vaccination strategies, MCCSS used such findings to target vaccination efforts in specific IDD subpopulations, across Ontario.

IntroductionThe Applied Health Research Question (AHRQ) portfolio is an initiative funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, leveraging the linked data and the scientific expertise at ICES to answer questions from Knowledge Users that have a direct impact on healthcare policy, planning or practice.
Objectives and ApproachA request from Casey House, a specialty HIV hospital located in Toronto, ON, was reviewed and approved by the ICES AHRQ Team to evaluate patient healthcare utilization and costs. The purpose was to support the design of programs and services, improve transitions from healthcare settings to community services, and inform continuous quality improvement initiatives. Using inpatient records, hospital admissions to Casey House were identified in fiscal years 2009-2014. Inpatient, emergency, outpatient and home care visits were characterized before and after admission. Using the Ontario Drug Benefit Claims, antiretroviral (ARV) prescription fills were examined 7 days post discharge.
ResultsBetween April 1, 2009 and March 31, 2015, 268 HIV patients had one or more hospital admissions to Casey House. The majority of Casey House patients had an Aggregated Diagnosis Group (ADG) ≥ 10 (79%) or Resource Utilization Band (RUB) = 5 (78%), indicating a high co-morbidity burden. Rate of emergency department usage declined from 4.61 to 2.46 per person-year, before and after Casey House admission (p < 0.0001). Conversely, home care visits increased from 24.29 to 35.63 per person-year and family physician visits increased from 18.33 to 22.59 per person-year before and after Casey House admission (both p < 0.0001). Interestingly, 89% did not fill an ARV prescription within 7 days of Casey House discharge, however 76% followed up with an outpatient HIV visit within 30 days.
Conclusion/ImplicationsHealthcare utilization differed before and after admission to Casey House. Follow-up post-discharge warrants further examination to increase ARV prescription fills. Data from this AHRQ has facilitated future policy and programming changes. Results have been disseminated throughout the Toronto HIV research community to generate discussion on quality improvement in this population.

ObjectiveIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre launched the first virtual emergency department (VED) in Toronto, Ontario. The objective of this pilot project was to leverage linked administrative data to describe the healthcare utilization of VED patients compared to matched patients who attended an ED in person.
ApproachEvaluation of the VED program was supported by the ICES Applied Health Research Question Program, which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health to answer questions directly related to Ontario healthcare policy, planning, or practice. VED visit records from December 2020 to May 2021 were linked with Ontario administrative data. VED patients with low acuity complaints were matched 1:1 with in-person ED comparators according to visit date, presenting complaint, and a propensity score that incorporated age, sex, comorbidities, and other important potential confounders. The primary outcomes were healthcare utilization within 7 days and all-cause mortality within 30 days.
ResultsOf the 609 eligible patients discharged from the VED, 600 (98.5%) were successfully matched to a comparator. Mean (SD) age was 43.0 (21.1) and 64.1% were female. In-person ED revisits and hospitalizations were similar for VED and comparator patients at 72 hours (ED: 12.1% vs. 11.3%; Δ 0.8%, 95%: -2.8, 4.5%; hospitalization: 1.2% vs. 1.5%; Δ 0.3%, 95%: -0.7, 1.4%,) and 7 days (ED: 16.1% vs. 14.4%; Δ 1.7, 95%: -2.4, 5.7%; hospitalization: 1.7% vs. 1.8%; Δ 0.2%, 95%: -0.1, 1.4%) following the index visit. The number of patients visiting a primary care provider within 7 days was also similar between groups (36.7% vs. 32.4%; Δ 4.3, 95%: -1.1, 9.8%). No patients died within 30 days.
Conclusion/ImplicationsVED patients and their matched comparators had similar healthcare utilization in the 7 days following their index ED visit. Methodology from this study will inform a province-wide evaluation of VED programs across Ontario.

ICES upholds a strong reputation for generating high-quality evidence to inform policy and practice through its collaborations with a broad range of health system stakeholders including government policymakers and healthcare providers including clinicians. Supported by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Ministry of Long-Term Care, the ICES Applied Health Research Question (AHRQ) Program leverages the data holdings and, scientific and clinical expertise to generate evidence tailored to the information needs of requestors. This paper outlines the approach, process, strengths, challenges and the resulting influence and impact to the healthcare landscape in Ontario.