SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence in Healthcare Personnel in Northern California Early in the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Infection control and hospital epidemiology
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
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
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