Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on patient populations can be divided to direct consequences of the disease and indirect implications of changes imposed on the national healthcare systems. The impact of the later survival of chronic hemodialysis patients is still unknown.

Objectives: To examine the impact of quarantine on health outcomes of dialysis patients.

Methods: In a retrospective case-controlled study, we compared chronic hemodialysis patients from two separate timeframes: during a quarantine period and a parallel time without quarantine.

Results: The study included 344 hemodialysis patients. Baseline characteristics were compared between those enrolled in 2015 and those enrolled in 2020. Despite comparable clinical parameters, a statistically significant increase in the 6-month mortality rate was observed in 2020 (1.2% vs. 6.7%, P = 0.01), primarily attributed to sepsis. Notably, no deaths were attributed to COVID-19 in 2020. Interdialytic weight gain and dialysis quality remained similar between the two groups, with a mild trend toward excessive weight gain in 2020. Secondary outcomes after 6 months did not significantly differ, except for lower sodium values in 2015 compared to 2020.

Conclusions: Dialysis patients experienced disproportionate effects from the COVID-19 pandemic, even with continuous care and no direct virus-related fatalities. The findings showed unintended consequences of quarantine measures, highlighting adverse impact on both physical and mental health. Recognizing and addressing these consequences are imperative for minimizing their impact in future pandemics, emphasizing the importance of proactive measures in healthcare planning.

Background: Adverse drug events (ADEs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Hence, identifying and monitoring ADEs is of utmost importance. The Trigger Tool introduced by the Institute of Healthcare Improvement in the United States has been used in various countries worldwide, but has yet to be validated in Israel.

Objective: To validate the international Trigger Tool in Israel and to compare the results with those generated in various countries.

Methods: A retrospective descriptive correlative analysis surveying four general hospitals in Israel from different geographical regions was conducted. Patient medical charts (n=960) were screened for 17 established triggers and confirmed for the presence of an ADE. Trigger incidence was compared to the actual ADE rate. Further comparison among countries was conducted using published literature describing Trigger Tool validation in various countries.

Results: A total of 421 triggers in 279 hospitalizations were identified, of which 75 ADEs in 72 hospitalizations (7.5%) were confirmed. In addition, two ADEs were identified by chart review only. Mean positive predictive value was 17.81% and overall sensitivity was 97%. We found 1.54 ADEs for every 100 hospitalization days, 7.8 ADEs per 100 admissions, and 1.81 ADEs for every 1000 doses of medication. Of the 77 ADEs identified, 22.7% were defined as preventable.

Conclusions: Our results support the Trigger Tool validity in Israel as a standardized method. Further studies should evaluate between hospital and region differences in ADE rate, in particular for the preventable events.