Explore the vast range of titles available.

IntroductionAs of 26 March 2021, the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention had reported 4 159 055 cases of COVID-19 and 111 357 deaths among the 55 African Union member states; however, no country has published a nationally representative serosurvey as of October 2021. Such data are vital for understanding the pandemic’s progression on the continent, evaluating containment measures, and policy planning.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional, nationally representative, age-stratified serosurvey in Sierra Leone in March 2021 by randomly selecting 120 Enumeration Areas throughout the country and 10 randomly selected households in each of these. One to two persons per selected household were interviewed to collect information on sociodemographics, symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, exposure history to laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases, and history of COVID-19 illness. Capillary blood was collected by fingerstick, and blood samples were tested using the Hangzhou Biotest Biotech RightSign COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette. Total seroprevalence was estimated after applying sampling weights.ResultsThe overall weighted seroprevalence was 2.6% (95% CI 1.9% to 3.4%). This was 43 times higher than the reported number of cases. Rural seropositivity was 1.8% (95% CI 1.0% to 2.5%), and urban seropositivity was 4.2% (95% CI 2.6% to 5.7%).DiscussionOverall seroprevalence was low compared with countries in Europe and the Americas (suggesting relatively successful containment in Sierra Leone). This has ramifications for the country’s third wave (which started in June 2021), during which the average number of daily reported cases was 87 by the end of the month:this could potentially be on the order of 3700 actual infections per day, calling for stronger containment measures in a country with only 0.2% of people fully vaccinated. It may also reflect significant under-reporting of incidence and mortality across the continent.

Background Prior evaluation at our hospital demonstrated that, compared to White patients, Black and Latinx patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) were less likely to be admitted to the cardiology service rather than the general medicine service (GMS). Patients admitted to GMS (compared to cardiology) had inferior rates of cardiology follow-up and 30-day readmission. Objective To develop and test the feasibility and impacts of using quality improvement (QI) methods, in combination with the Public Health Critical Race Praxis (PHCRP) framework, to engage stakeholders in developing an intervention for ensuring guideline-concordant inpatient CHF care across all patient groups. Methods We compared measures for all patients admitted with CHF to GMS between September 2019 and March 2020 (intervention group) to CHF patients admitted to GMS in the previous year (pre-intervention group) and those admitted to cardiology during the pre-intervention and intervention periods (cardiology group). Our primary measures were 30-day readmissions and 14- and 30-day post-discharge cardiology follow-up. Results There were 79 patients admitted with CHF to GMS during the intervention period, all of whom received the intervention. There were similar rates of Black and Latinx patients across the three groups. Compared to pre-intervention, intervention patients had a significantly lower 30-day readmission rate (18.9% vs. 24.8%; p =0.024), though the cardiology group also had a decrease in 30-day readmissions from the pre-intervention to intervention period. Compared to pre-intervention, intervention patients had significantly higher 14-day and 30-day post-discharge follow-up visits scheduled with cardiology (36.7% vs. 24.8%, p =0.005; 55.7% vs. 42.3%, p =0.0029), but no improvement in appointment attendance. Conclusion This study provides a first test of applying the PHCRP framework within a stakeholder-engaged QI initiative for improving CHF care across races and ethnicities. Our study design cannot evaluate causation. However, the improvements in 30-day readmission, as well as in processes of care that may affect it, provide optimism that inclusion of a racism-conscious framework in QI initiatives is feasible and may enhance QI measures.

Prior evaluation at our hospital demonstrated that, compared to White patients, Black and Latinx patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) were less likely to be admitted to the cardiology service rather than the general medicine service (GMS). Patients admitted to GMS (compared to cardiology) had inferior rates of cardiology follow-up and 30-day readmission. To develop and test the feasibility and impacts of using quality improvement (QI) methods, in combination with the Public Health Critical Race Praxis (PHCRP) framework, to engage stakeholders in developing an intervention for ensuring guideline-concordant inpatient CHF care across all patient groups. We compared measures for all patients admitted with CHF to GMS between September 2019 and March 2020 (intervention group) to CHF patients admitted to GMS in the previous year (pre-intervention group) and those admitted to cardiology during the pre-intervention and intervention periods (cardiology group). Our primary measures were 30-day readmissions and 14- and 30-day post-discharge cardiology follow-up. There were 79 patients admitted with CHF to GMS during the intervention period, all of whom received the intervention. There were similar rates of Black and Latinx patients across the three groups. Compared to pre-intervention, intervention patients had a significantly lower 30-day readmission rate (18.9% vs. 24.8%; p=0.024), though the cardiology group also had a decrease in 30-day readmissions from the pre-intervention to intervention period. Compared to pre-intervention, intervention patients had significantly higher 14-day and 30-day post-discharge follow-up visits scheduled with cardiology (36.7% vs. 24.8%, p=0.005; 55.7% vs. 42.3%, p=0.0029), but no improvement in appointment attendance. This study provides a first test of applying the PHCRP framework within a stakeholder-engaged QI initiative for improving CHF care across races and ethnicities. Our study design cannot evaluate causation. However, the improvements in 30-day readmission, as well as in processes of care that may affect it, provide optimism that inclusion of a racism-conscious framework in QI initiatives is feasible and may enhance QI measures.

Background Racial inequities in mortality and readmission for heart failure (HF) are well documented. Inequitable access to specialized cardiology care during admissions may contribute to inequity, and the drivers of this inequity are poorly understood. Methodology This prospective observational study explored proposed drivers of racial inequities in cardiology admissions among Black, Latinx, and white adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) with symptoms of HF. Surveys of ED providers examined perceptions of patient self-advocacy, outreach to other clinicians (e.g., outpatient cardiologist), diagnostic uncertainty, and other active co-morbid conditions. Service census, bed availability, prior admission service, and other structural factors were explored through the electronic medical record. Results Complete data were available for 61/135 patients admitted with HF during the study period, which halted early due to coronavirus disease 2019. No significant differences emerged in admission to cardiology versus medicine based on age, sex, insurance status, education level, or perceived race/ethnicity. White patients were perceived as advocating for admission to cardiology more frequently (18.9 vs. 5.6%) and more strenuously than Black patients (p = 0.097). ED clinicians more often reported having spoken with the patient's outpatient cardiologist for whites than for Black or Latinx patients (24.3 vs. 16.7%, p = 0.069). Conclusions Theorized drivers of racial inequities in admission service did not reach statistical significance, possibly due to underpowering, the Hawthorne effect, or clinician behavior change based on knowledge of previously identified inequities. The observed trend towards racial differences in coordination of care between ED and outpatient providers, as well as in either actual or perceived self-advocacy by patients, may be as-yet undemonstrated components of structural racism driving HF care inequities.