In 2006, the World Health Organization issued a position statement promoting the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) with dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) for malaria vector control in epidemic and endemic areas. Other international organizations concurred because of the great burden of malaria and the relative ineffectiveness of current treatment and control strategies. Although the Stockholm Convention of 2001 targeted DDT as 1 of 12 persistent organic pollutants for phase-out and eventual elimination, it allowed a provision for its continued indoor use for disease vector control. Although DDT is a low-cost antimalarial tool, the possible adverse human health and environmental effects of exposure through IRS must be carefully weighed against the benefits to malaria control. This article discusses the controversy surrounding the use of DDT for IRS; its effective implementation in Africa; recommendations for deployment today, and training, monitoring, and research needs for effective and sustainable implementation. We consider the costs and cost effectiveness of IRS with DDT, alternative insecticides to DDT, and the importance of integrated vector control if toxicity, resistance, and other issues restrict its use.

Background Patient portals are becoming ubiquitous. Previous research has documented substantial barriers, especially among vulnerable patient subgroups such as those with lower SES or limited health literacy (LHL). We tested the effectiveness of delivering online, video-based portal training to patients in a safety net setting. Methods We created an online video curriculum about accessing the San Francisco Health Network portal, and then randomized 93 English-speaking patients with 1+ chronic diseases to receive: 1) an in-person tutorial with a research assistant or 2) link to view the videos on their own. We also examined a third, non-randomized usual care comparison group. The primary outcome was portal log-in (yes/no) 3–6 months post-training, assessed via the EHR. Secondary outcomes were self-reported attitudes and skills collected via baseline and follow-up surveys. Results Mean age was 54, 51% had LHL, 60% were non-white, 52% were female, 45% reported fair/poor health, and 76% reported daily Internet use. At follow-up, 21% logged into the portal, with no differences by arm (p=0.41), but this was higher than the overall clinic rate of 9% (p<0.01) during the same time period. We found significant pre-post improvements in self-rated portal skills (p=0.03) and eHealth literacy (p<0.01). Those with LHL were less likely to log in post-training (p<0.01). Conclusions Both modalities of online training were comparable, and neither mode enabled a majority of vulnerable patients to use portals, especially those with LHL. This suggests that portal training will need to be more intensive or portals need improved usability to meaningfully increase use among diverse patients.

Background Patients within safety-net settings are less likely to access health information on patient portals, despite expressed interest. Family and friends are important resources to assist these patients (ie, Medicaid recipients, older patients, patients with limited English proficiency) in navigating health systems, and provider support of the use of patient portals among these groups may also facilitate caregivers’ use of their patients’ portal. Objective Because safety net providers work closely with caregivers to care for their patients, we used qualitative methods to explore safety net providers’ perspectives on portal use among caregivers for their patients, especially as there is limited literature about caregivers’ use of portals in the safety net. Methods We conducted 45- to 60-min semistructured telephone interviews with providers from three large California safety-net health systems. The interviews focused on providers’ experiences with caregivers, caregiver roles, and how the portal could be leveraged as a tool to support caregivers in their responsibilities. A total of three coders analyzed the interview transcripts using both deductive and inductive approaches and established a consensus regarding major themes. Results Of the 16 participants interviewed, 4 specialized in geriatrics, and all held a leadership or administrative role. We described themes highlighting providers’ recognition of potential benefits associated with caregiver portal use and specific challenges to caregiver engagement. Conclusions Providers recognized the potential for portals to improve information delivery and communication by helping caregivers assist socially and medically complex patients in the safety net. Providers in safety net sites also discussed a clear need for better ways to keep in touch with patients and connect with caregivers, yet security and privacy are perhaps of higher importance in these settings and may pose challenges to portal adoption. They noted that caregivers of patients in the safety net likely face similar communication barriers as patients, especially with respect to digital literacy, health literacy, and English proficiency. Further research is needed to assess and support caregivers’ interest and ability to access portals across barriers in health and digital literacy, and English proficiency. Portal platforms and health systems must also address specific strategies to uphold patient preferences while maintaining privacy and security.

BackgroundBest possible medication history (BPMH) enhances the care of safety net patients, especially those with limited English proficiency and limited health literacy who are most vulnerable to medication error during the hospital admission process. Our large urban academic safety net centre faced numerous barriers to achieve BPMH among hospitalised patients including communication barriers that increase the time and complexity of eliciting BPMH, frequent provider turnover at our training institution and lack of an electronic health record (EHR) medication reconciliation tool to facilitate BPMH collection and monitoring.DesignLeveraging opportunities afforded by the US federal incentive EHR programme, our multidisciplinary team designed an EHR-facilitated medication reconciliation programme by which pharmacy technicians engaged newly admitted patients and their caregivers at the bedside to develop and electronically document the BPMH.StrategyPrior to this intervention, pharmacy technicians had no role in BPMH. Providers collected home medications documented on paper notes without a consistent methodology. With each plan–do–study–act (PDSA) cycle since the programme began, the goal was to increase the per cent of BPMH completed by a pharmacy technician. Individual PDSA cycles targeted either the pharmacy technicians by expanding their pool of eligible patients or provider engagement with the pharmacy technician workflow.ResultsBy optimising not only the health information technology platform but also the operational processes, the programme achieved a nearly 80% generation of BPMH completed by a highly trained pharmacy technician, surpassing its intended goal of 50% BPMH completion by a pharmacy technician on admission.ConclusionAn EHR-facilitated tool improved BPMH at an urban academic safety net hospital using pharmacy technicians.

Background Offering hospitalized patients’ enrollment into a health system’s patient portal may improve patient experience and engagement throughout the care continuum, especially across care transitions, but this process is less studied than portal engagement in the ambulatory setting. Patient portal disparities exist and may lead to differences in access or outcomes. As such, it is important to study upstream factors in a typical hospital workflow that could lead to those disparities in safety-net settings. Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate sociodemographic characteristics associated with interest in a health care system’s portal among hospitalized patients and reasons for no interest. Methods Nurses assessed interest in a Web-based patient portal, expressed by the patient as “yes” or “no,” as part of the admission nursing assessment among patients at an academic urban safety-net hospital and recorded responses in the electronic health record (EHR), including reasons for no interest. We extracted patient responses from the EHR. Results Among 23,994 hospitalizations over a 2-year period, 35.90% (8614/ 23,994) reported an interest in a Web-based portal. Reasons for no interest included the following: not interested/other reason 41.68% (6410/15,380), no ability to use/access computers/internet 29.59% (4551/15,380), doesn’t speak English 11.15% (1715/15,380), physically or mentally unable 8.70% (1338/15,380), does not want to say 8.70% (1338/15,380), security concerns 0.03% (4/15,380), and not useful 0.16% (24/15,380). Among the 16,507 unique patients included in this sample, portal interest was lower in older, African American, non-English speaking, and homeless patient populations. Conclusions In a safety-net system, patient interest at the time of hospitalization in a Web-based enterprise portal—a required step before enrollment—is low with significant disparities by sociodemographic characteristics. To avoid worsening the digital divide, new strategies are needed and should be embedded within routine workflows to engage vulnerable safety-net patients in the use of Web-based health technologies.

In service of particularly vulnerable populations, safety net healthcare systems must nimbly leverage health information technology (IT), including electronic health records (EHRs), to coordinate the medical and public health response to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Six months after the San Francisco Department of Public Health implemented a new EHR across its hospitals and citywide clinics, California declared a state of emergency in response to COVID-19. This paper describes how the IT and informatics teams supported San Francisco Department of Public Health’s goals of expanding the safety net healthcare system capacity, meeting the needs of specific vulnerable populations, increasing equity in COVID-19 testing access, and expanding public health analytics and research capacity. Key enabling factors included critical partnerships with operational leaders, early identification of priorities, a clear governance structure, agility in the face of rapidly changing circumstances, and a commitment to vulnerable populations.

A major aim of the 21st Century Cures Act is to support patients’ access to their electronic health data and to prevent information blocking practices by health care organizations and health information technology developers. Prior to the Cures Act, significant variation existed in patient access to laboratory test results, key pieces of health data which enable timely self-management and engagement in care. Although many health care systems began releasing test results immediately through patient portals because of the Cures Act, implementation remains challenging due to variations in state regulations around electronic results release, local interpretations of allowable exceptions to Cures information blocking, concerns about privacy of sensitive laboratory results, and technological limitations. This paper outlines the 8 stakeholder groups involved in implementation of electronic laboratory result release to patients and describes recommendations for these groups to consider in achieving the Cures Act goals to support a patient’s access to their health information and control of their health care.

n/a