Abstract
As SARS-CoV-2 threatens to overwhelm health systems in Canada, it is imperative that provinces are able to plan and manage an effective and reduced risk response. For this response to be most effective, it must reflect an evidence-based, pan-Canadian response. We designed four different prototypical patients with a combination of common COVID-19 symptoms and opportunities for exposure who were made to self-assess using the 10 provincial COVID-19 self-assessment tools on 1 April. These tools were developed to allow individuals to self-triage, allowing health systems direct capacity to testing and care. We assessed the consistency of the self-assessment tools and of the guidance provided to the patients. While the tools generally screen in three areas, the scope of included COVID-19 associated symptoms as well as the opportunities for exposure, and therefore transmission, vary between provinces such that no two provinces screened in the same way. This was, in turn, reflected in the inconsistency in guidance found. A patient with cough who had travelled abroad or had close contact with a confirmed case within 14 days received the most consistent guidance, with remaining patients receiving guidance ranging from mandatory quarantine or self-isolation to being told they did not have COVID-19 symptoms, guidance at odds with medical evidence. Thus, there is not a single, evidence-based Canadian standard of care simply for self-assessment. Without consistency in public health guidance, Canadians cannot appropriately self-isolate to mitigate community transmission, nor can the necessary valid and reliable data be collected to inform critical epidemiological models that help guide pandemic response. If federal and provincial governments are unable to coordinate a response, Parliament must use its available jurisdiction to legislate a duty on both to follow national standards, so as to improve coordination on COVID-19 in coming months.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No funding.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Disclosures: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Funding: N/A
Data Availability
All tools referred to in the manuscript are publicly available. As they are subject to change, they have been archived on Wayback Machine.
