Search

Context: The precarious work arrangements experienced by many long-term care workers have led to the creation of a "shared" workforce across residential, home, and community aging care sectors. This shared workforce was identified as a contributor to the spread of COVID-19 early in the pandemic. Objective: This analysis sought to review policy measures targeting the long-term care workforce across seven high income jurisdictions during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The focus was on financial supports introduced to recognize long-term care workers for the increased risks they faced, including both (1) health risks posed by direct care provision during the pandemic and (2) economic risks associated with restrictions to multi-site work. Method: Environmental scan of publicly available policy documents and government news releases published between March 1, 2020 and March 31, 2021, across seven high income jurisdictions. Findings: While there was limited use of financial measures in the United States to compensate long-term care workers for the increased health risks they faced, these measures were widely used across Canada, as well as in Wales, Scotland, and Australia. Moreover, there was a corresponding use of financial measures to protect workers from income loss in parts of Canada, Australia and the UK. Limitations: Our analysis did not include additional policy measures such as sick pay or recruitment incentives. We also relied primarily on publicly available policy documentation. In some cases, documents had been archived or revised, making it difficult to ascertain and clarify original information and amendments. Implications: While these financial measures are temporary, they brought to light long-standing issues related to the supply of and support for workers providing care to older adults in long-term care homes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explored how the U.S. Departments of Housing and Urban Development-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) program applies Housing First principles in the context of ten single-site programs. Focus group discussions with 64 HUD-VASH staff and community partners explored how the programs were influenced by Housing First principles and specific strategies to implement these principles in a single-site setting. Focus group respondents described resourceful ways that the principles of Housing First were implemented in their programs specifically related to (1) housing choice and structure, (2) separation of housing and services, (3) service philosophy, and (4) service array. Several of the Housing First domains cite the importance of integrated housing and the provision of services off-site; it was of particular interest to learn how single-site programs address these issues logistically. Lessons learned from this study include the importance of leveraging the independent yet overlapping tasks of case management and property management to ensure functional - if not geographic - separation of housing and services; maintaining staff on-site to address Veterans' needs; working with community service organizations to complement the array of service available to residents; and housing single-site programs in mixed-use buildings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To describe the step‐by‐step techniques for robot‐assisted ureteric reimplantation performed using the Vinci SP® surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), including different case scenarios with an educational purpose. Materials and Methods: Three consecutive patients diagnosed with distal benign ureteric strictures were counselled for ureteric reimplantation and consented to undergo surgery performed using the da Vinci SP surgical system. Demographics and peri‐operative outcomes were collected after institutional review board approval (IRB 13‐780). Patients provided informed consent having received an explanation for the adoption of the novel platform. The first patient was a woman referred to our institution for a left distal ureteric stricture after total hysterectomy for uterine fibroids with ureteric injury. The second patient was a man with BPH and recurrent UTIs, who was diagnosed with a 1.5‐cm bladder stone and a large bladder diverticulum compressing the left distal ureter. The third patient was a man diagnosed with bilateral uretero‐enteric anastomoses stricture status after radical cystectomy with orthotopic ileal neobladder urinary diversion for bladder cancer. Results: The procedures were successfully completed. An extra port through a separate skin incision for the bedside assistant was placed for the first two procedures. In such cases, this additional port was used electively from the start of the procedure and did not represent a change in the treatment plan. Moreover, the port wound was used to accommodate the drainage. The bilateral ureteric reimplantation, however, was completed according to a pure single‐site approach (no extra ports were placed out of the GelSeal cap). The mean operating times were 165, 150 and 180 min, respectively. Blood loss was 50 mL in all cases. No intra‐operative complications occurred. Patients were discharged on postoperative days 1, 1 and 2, respectively, with normal serum creatinine levels. Neither transfusions nor major complications occurred. Conclusion: Robot‐assisted reconstructive surgery for benign distal ureteric strictures is feasible and safe using the da Vinci SP surgical system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]