Evaluation of the Homeless Management Information System for COVID-19 Surveillance Among People Experiencing Homelessness
Rattachement africain : us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND: Variable and incomplete reporting of housing status creates challenges in the surveillance of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among the homeless population in Los Angeles County (LA County) and nationwide. METHODS: We developed standard investigation procedures to assess the housing status of LA County COVID-19 patients. Using data sharing procedures, we matched COVID-19 patients to Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) client profiles and supplemented with additional data sources for contributory data points and to further housing status ascertainment. RESULTS: We identified 10 586 COVID-19 patients among people experiencing homelessness (PEH) between 30 March 2020 and 30 December 2021; 2801 (26.5%) patients were first identified from HMIS profile matches, 1877 (17.7%) from quarantine/isolation housing intake rosters, 573 (5.4%) from hospital records, 749 (7.1%) from case and contact interviews, 3659 (34.6%) directly from PEH medical and service providers, and 927 (8.8%) had unknown sources. Among COVID-19 patients matched to HMIS profiles, 5351 (42.5%) were confirmed to be PEH at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Interoperability between public health data, HMIS, and external partners have been critical components in evaluating the impact of COVID-19 among the LA County homeless population. No one data source was complete for COVID-19 surveillance in this population.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Evaluation of the Homeless Management Information System for COVID-19 Surveillance Among People Experiencing Homelessness
- Date Crossref
- 07/10/2022
- Éditeur
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.