Responding to COVID-19 with real-time general practice data in Australia

Pearce, Christopher; McLeod, Adam; Supple, Jamie; Gardner, Karina; Proposch, Amanda; Ferrigi, Jason

doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2021.104624

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Enablers and barriers such as workforce training, digital resources, patient experience and ethical issues, and business model and management issues were identified as important in the evolution of virtual primary care. These findings complement the description of Australia’s COVID-19 response that emphasised a primary care approach, changes to telehealth and virtual care models and the widespread mobilisation and use of data to inform the changes [2] , [3] . A primary care data warehouse project de-identified, encrypted, extracted, cleaned and analysed data from c. 1300 general practices daily.…”

supporting

confidence: 68%

“…One analytic solution linked and used multiple data elements - pathology orders, SARS-COVID-2 related diagnoses, COVID-19 related concerns (via NLP of progress notes) from general practices and confirmed case figures from state governments – to rank geographic areas by the likelihood of a COVID-19 outbreak. This PCI data linkage project demonstrated the importance of well-designed information systems, accurate and reliable data and a good understanding of GP data to enable effective real-time community monitoring in rapidly evolving public health emergencies [3] .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Editorial: Special issue on “The Primary Care Informatics response to COVID-19”

Liaw¹,

Farin²

2022

International Journal of Medical Informatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 68%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Editorial: Special issue on “The Primary Care Informatics response to COVID-19”

Liaw¹,

Farin²

2022

International Journal of Medical Informatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This phenomenon may be related to the following reasons: First, Australia and New Zealand have implemented strict entry-exit screening, timely detection, vaccination and mask-wearing requirements, close contact tracking, and vulnerable group attention during the pandemic [ 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 ]. Second, the medical information surveillance system plays an important role in the timely response to public health emergencies in Australia [ 59 ]. Third, unique meteorological factors and the Australian government’s influenza vaccination campaign during the pandemic reduced the number of influenza deaths [ 15 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Excess Mortality during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Currently, reported COVID-19 deaths are inadequate to assess the impact of the pandemic on global excess mortality. All-cause excess mortality is a WHO-recommended index for assessing the death burden of COVID-19. However, the global excess mortality assessed by this index remains unclear. We aimed to assess the global excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science for studies published in English between 1 January 2020, and 21 May 2022. Cross-sectional and cohort studies that reported data about excess mortality during the pandemic were included. Two researchers independently searched the published studies, extracted data, and assessed quality. The Mantel–Haenszel random-effects method was adopted to estimate pooled risk difference (RD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: A total of 79 countries from twenty studies were included. During the COVID-19 pandemic, of 2,228,109,318 individuals, 17,974,051 all-cause deaths were reported, and 15,498,145 deaths were expected. The pooled global excess mortality was 104.84 (95% CI 85.56–124.13) per 100,000. South America had the highest pooled excess mortality [134.02 (95% CI: 68.24–199.80) per 100,000], while Oceania had the lowest [−32.15 (95% CI: −60.53–−3.77) per 100,000]. Developing countries had higher excess mortality [135.80 (95% CI: 107.83–163.76) per 100,000] than developed countries [68.08 (95% CI: 42.61–93.55) per 100,000]. Lower middle-income countries [133.45 (95% CI: 75.10–191.81) per 100,000] and upper-middle-income countries [149.88 (110.35–189.38) per 100,000] had higher excess mortality than high-income countries [75.54 (95% CI: 53.44–97.64) per 100,000]. Males had higher excess mortality [130.10 (95% CI: 94.15–166.05) per 100,000] than females [102.16 (95% CI: 85.76–118.56) per 100,000]. The population aged ≥ 60 years had the highest excess mortality [781.74 (95% CI: 626.24–937.24) per 100,000]. Conclusions: The pooled global excess mortality was 104.84 deaths per 100,000, and the number of reported all-cause deaths was higher than expected deaths during the global COVID-19 pandemic. In South America, developing and middle-income countries, male populations, and individuals aged ≥ 60 years had a heavier excess mortality burden.

show abstract

“…A key element is a national online, personally-controlled, shared health summary, called My Health Record (mHR) [26]. Australian GP data repositories include POLAR [27] and MedicineInsight [28]. The Australian Sentinel Practices Research Network (ASPREN) is a network of sentinel general practitioners and nurse practitioners who report de-identified information on Influenza like illness and other conditions seen in general practice (https://aspren.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/).…”

Section: Australia Synopsismentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Equitable and Resilient Digital Primary Care Systems: An International Comparison and Insight for Moving Forward

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: While the COVID-19 pandemic provided a global stimulus for digital health capacity, its development has often been inequitable, short-term in planning, and lacking in health system coherence. Inclusive digital health and the development of resilient health systems are broad outcomes that require a systematic approach to achieving them. This paper from the IMIA Primary Care Informatics Working Group (WG) provides necessary first steps for the design of a digital primary care system that can support system equity and resilience. Methods: We report on digital capability and growth in maturity in four key areas: (1) Vaccination/Prevention, (2) Disease management, (3) Surveillance, and (4) Pandemic preparedness for Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom (data from England). Our comparison looks at seasonal influenza management prior to COVID-19 (2019-20) compared to COVID-19 (winter 2020 onwards). Results: All three countries showed growth in digital maturity from the 2019-20 management of influenza to the 2020-21 year and the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the degree of progress was sporadic and uneven and has led to issues of system inequity across populations. Conclusion: The opportunity to use the lessons learned from COVID-19 should not be wasted. A digital health infrastructure is not enough on its own to drive health system transformation and to achieve desired outcomes such as system equity and resilience. We must define specific measures to track the growth of digital maturity, including standardized and fit-for-context data that is shared accurately across the health and socioeconomic sectors.

show abstract

Responding to COVID-19 with real-time general practice data in Australia

Cited by 3 publications

References 21 publications

Editorial: Special issue on “The Primary Care Informatics response to COVID-19”

Editorial: Special issue on “The Primary Care Informatics response to COVID-19”

Global Excess Mortality during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Towards Equitable and Resilient Digital Primary Care Systems: An International Comparison and Insight for Moving Forward

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About