Background The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the need for urgent improvements in access to health care for rural, remote, and underserviced communities. The Renfrew County Virtual Triage and Assessment Centre (VTAC) was designed to provide access to COVID-19 testing and assessment with a family physician. The goal was to protect emergency departments and 911 paramedics while ensuring that nobody was left at home, suffering in silence. Residents were encouraged to call their own family physician for any urgent health needs. If they did not have a family physician or could not access their usual primary care provider, then they could call VTAC. This study reports on the output of a service model offering access to assessment and COVID-19 testing through a blend of virtual and in-person care options by a multidisciplinary team. Objective The purpose of this study was to assess the ability of VTAC to provide access to COVID-19 assessment and testing across rural, remote, and underserviced communities. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the data derived from the cases handled by VTAC between March 27, 2020 (launch day), and September 30, 2020. Results Residents from all 19 census subdivisions and municipalities of Renfrew County accessed VTAC. A total of 10,086 family physician assessments were completed (average 64 per day). Of these, 8535 (84.6%) assessments were to unique patient users. Thirty physicians provided care. Using digital equipment setup in the patients’ home, 31 patients were monitored remotely. VTAC community paramedics completed 14,378 COVID-19 tests and 3875 home visits. Conclusions Renfrew County’s experience suggests that there is tremendous synergy between family physicians and community paramedics in providing access to COVID-19 assessment and COVID-19 testing. The blended model of virtual and in-person care is well suited to provide improved access to other aspects of health care post pandemic, particularly for patients without a family physician.

No abstract

Purpose There is lack of consensus regarding the minimum arterial pulse pressure required for confirming permanent cessation of circulation for death determination by circulatory criteria in organ donors. We assessed direct and indirect evidence supporting whether one should use an arterial pulse pressure of 0 mm Hg vs more than 0 (5, 10, 20, 40) mm Hg to confirm permanent cessation of circulation. Source We conducted this systematic review as part of a larger project to develop a clinical practice guideline for death determination by circulatory or neurologic criteria. We systematically searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for articles published from inception until August 2021. We included all types of peer-reviewed original research publications related to arterial pulse pressure as monitored by an indwelling arterial pressure transducer around circulatory arrest or determination of death with either direct context-specific (organ donation) or indirect (outside of organ donation context) data. Principal findings A total of 3,289 abstracts were identified and screened for eligibility. Fourteen studies were included; three from personal libraries. Five studies were of sufficient quality for inclusion in the evidence profile for the clinical practice guideline. One study measured cessation of cortical scalp electroencephalogram (EEG) activity after withdrawal of life-sustaining measures and showed that EEG activity fell below 2 μV when the pulse pressure reached 8 mm Hg. This indirect evidence suggests there is a possibility of persistent cerebral activity at arterial pulse pressures > 5 mm Hg. Conclusion Indirect evidence suggests that clinicians may incorrectly diagnose death by circulatory criteria if they apply any arterial pulse pressure threshold of greater than 5 mm Hg. Moreover, there is insufficient evidence to determine that any pulse pressure threshold greater than 0 and less than 5 can safely determine circulatory death. Study registration PROSPERO (CRD42021275763); first submitted 28 August 2021. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12630-023-02425-2.

Background Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a major cause of mortality worldwide. Recent studies demonstrated low survival rates in Middle Eastern countries. Anecdotally there are unique demographic, cultural and logistical challenges in this region. However, there remains a paucity of data published on OHCA in the Middle East. In order to address OHCA in a meaningful manner in the region, we first need to quantify the issue. Methods We conducted a scoping review of published and grey literature on OHCA in the Gulf Cooperative Council region that utilised Arksey and O'Malley's framework. Electronic databases and grey literature sources were identified and searched. Subject matter experts in the region were consulted. All types of studies in English and Arabic were included. Results A total of 24 studies were included from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Oman, Kuwait, and Qatar. No literature was identified from the state of Bahrain. OHCA victims in the region are younger, predominantly male, and more co-morbid than those in Western studies. We observed low Emergency Medical Service utilisation, low bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, return of spontaneous circulation, and survival to discharge rates across the region. There are differences in characteristics of OHCA among ethnic groups. Discussion and conclusions We identified unique characteristics associated with OHCA in the region, variances in processes and outcomes when compared to Western studies, and a lack of coordinated effort to research and address OHCA. We recommend creating lead agencies responsible for coordinating and developing strategies such as community response, public education, and reporting databases.

doi: medRxiv preprint NOTE: This preprint reports new research that has not been certified by peer review and should not be used to guide clinical practice. ‫ا‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ت‬.is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. was not certified by peer review)