Search

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted all surgical specialties significantly and exerted additional pressures on the overburdened United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service. Healthcare professionals in the UK have had to adapt their practice. In particular, surgeons have faced organisational and technical challenges treating patients who carried higher risks, were more urgent and could not wait for prehabilitation or optimisation before their intervention. Furthermore, there were implications for blood transfusion with uncertain patterns of demand, reductions in donations and loss of crucial staff because of sickness and public health restrictions. Previous guidelines have attempted to address the control of bleeding and its consequences after cardiothoracic surgery, but there have been no targeted recommendations in light of the recent COVID-19 challenges. In this context, and with a focus on the perioperative period, an expert multidisciplinary Task Force reviewed the impact of bleeding in cardiothoracic surgery, explored different aspects of patient blood management with a focus on the use of haemostats as adjuncts to conventional surgical techniques and proposed best practice recommendations in the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In early 2021, the Department of Health and Social Care in the UK called for research on the safety and immunogenicity of concomitant administration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines. Co-administration of these vaccines would facilitate uptake and reduce the number of healthcare visits required. The ComFluCOV trial was designed to deliver the necessary evidence in time to inform the autumn (September–November) 2021 vaccination policy. This paper presents the statistical methodology applied to help successfully deliver the trial results in 6 months. Methods: ComFluCOV was a parallel-group multicentre randomised controlled trial managed by the Bristol Trials Centre. Two study statisticians, supported by a senior statistician, worked together on all statistical tasks. Tools were developed to aid the pre-screening process. Automated data monitoring reports of clinic data and electronic diaries were produced daily and reviewed by the trial team and feedback provided to sites. Analyses were performed independently in parallel, and derivations and results of all outcomes were compared. Results: Set-up was achieved in less than a month, and 679 participants were recruited over 8 weeks. A total of 537 [at least] daily reports outlining recruitment, protocol adherence, and data quality, and 695 daily reports of participant electronic diaries identifying any missed diary entries and adverse events were produced over a period of 16 weeks. A preliminary primary outcome analysis of validated data was reported to the Department of Health and Social Care in May 2021. The database was locked 6 weeks after the final participant follow-up and final analyses completed 3 weeks later. A pre-print publication was submitted within 14 days of the results being made available. The results were reported 6 months after first discussions about the trial. Conclusion: The statistical methodologies implemented in ComFluCOV helped to deliver the study in the timescale set. Working in a new clinical area to tight timescales was challenging. Having two statisticians working together on the study provided a quality assurance process that enabled analyses to be completed efficiently and ensured data were interpreted correctly. Processes developed could be applied to other studies to maximise quality, reduce the risk of errors, and overall provide enhanced validation methods. Trial registration: ISRCTN14391248, registered on 30 March 2021 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Community-based volunteering supports outbreak management by extending reach into at-risk communities. This paper examines the application of a 'community champions' model in England, UK, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Evidence pre-pandemic shows that community champion interventions tap into social networks to strengthen connections with disadvantaged communities. During the pandemic, the UK government set up a COVID community champions funding award scheme for local authorities to develop local programmes that addressed emerging inequalities. The study aim was to identify transferable learning on community engagement in the pandemic by undertaking a secondary qualitative synthesis of practice-based case studies of local COVID community champion programmes. Methods: A systematic staged approach for synthesis of practice-based case studies was used. In total, 16 COVID community champion case studies, which were written by practitioners involved in local programme implementation and published by the Local Government Association, were included. Case studies covered aims, programme development and delivery, examples of activities and a discussion of learning. Framework qualitative analysis methods were used to code and organise data prior to cross case analysis. The final stage produced an overarching thematic framework that best represented descriptive and interpretive themes. Results: The results provide an overview of common features of COVID community champion programmes and emergent learning. All local programmes aimed to reduce health inequalities by involving at-risk communities in local prevention efforts, adapting the approach to local priorities. Two levels of community engagement were volunteer mobilisation and subsequent community-based outreach activities. Elements of capacity building, such as training and creation of networks, were common. The synthesis of practice-based learning found that stronger relationships with communities were regarded as a key mechanism to support more equitable prevention strategies. Other learning themes related to champion roles, community engagement strategies and programme implementation. Conclusions: By focusing on how community champion approaches were applied by local authorities in England during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study contributes to knowledge on volunteer mobilisation as a mechanism to improve public health communication and outreach. Notwithstanding the limitations of experiential evidence, the synthesis of practice-based learning highlights potentially transferable community engagement strategies for health protection and health improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the operations and functionality of the public transport sector in the UK. This paper reflects on the experience of this sector through the pandemic period, and considers recommendations for any future mitigations required for either new COVID-19 waves or a different public health emergency. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with public transport experts, organisational leaders, workers and passengers in two phases: Phase 1 from January to May 2021, and Phase 2 from December 2021 to February 2022. Interviews were analysed thematically. Results: Using the 'What? So What? Now What?' reflective model, ideas are drawn out to describe (a) what changes occurred, (b) what effects these changes had on service provision as well as perceptions of risk and mitigation and (c) what lessons have been learned and how these findings can feed into pandemic preparedness for the future. Respondent reflections focussed on the importance of communication, leadership, and maintaining compliance. Conclusions: The wealth of experience gained through the COVID-19 pandemic in the public transport sector is extremely valuable. Through reflection on this experience, specific recommendations are made relating to these factors, covering: maintaining links across industry, access to information and data, understanding of mitigation effectiveness, improving messaging, challenges of behavioural mitigations, and clear lines of accountability. The recommendations made on the basis of this reflective process will help to improve public health strategy within the public transport sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has presented unique challenges for rapidly designing, initiating, and delivering therapeutic clinical trials. PRINCIPLE (Platform Randomised Trial of Treatments in the Community for Epidemic and Pandemic Illnesses) is the UK national platform investigating repurposed therapies for COVID-19 treatment of older people in the community at high risk of complications. Standard methods of patient recruitment were failing to meet the required pace and scale of enrolment. This paper describes the development and appraisal of a near real-time, data-driven, ethical approach for enhancing recruitment in community care by contacting people with a recent COVID-19 positive test result from the central NHS Test and Trace service within approximately 24-48 h of their test result.Methods: A multi-disciplinary team was formed to solve the technical, ethical, public perception, logistical and information governance issues required to provide a near-real time (approximately within 24-48 h of receiving a positive test) feed of potential trial participants from test result data to the research team. PRINCIPLE was also given unique access to the Summary Care Record (SCR) to ensure safe prescribing, and to enable the trial team to quickly and safely bring consented patients into the trial. A survey of the public was used to understand public perceptions of the use of test data for this proposed methodology.Results: Prior to establishing the data service, PRINCIPLE registered on average 87 participants per week. This increased by up to 87 additional people registered per week from the test data, contributing to an increase from 1013 recruits to PRINCIPLE at the start of October 2020 to 2802 recruits by 20 December 2020. Whilst procedural caveats were identified by the public consultation, out of 2639 people contacted by PRINCIPLE following a positive test result, no one raised a concern about being approached.Conclusions: This paper describes a novel approach to using near-real time NHS operational data to recruit community-based patients within a few days of presentation with acute illness. This approach increased recruitment and reduced time between positive test and randomisation, allowing more rapid evaluation of treatments and increased safety for participants. End-to-end public and patient involvement in the design of the approach provided evidence to inform information governance decisions.Trial Registration: PRINCIPLE is funded by UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research. EudraCT number: 2020-001209-22 . 26/03/2020 ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN86534580 . 20/03/2020 REC number: 20/SC/058 IRAS number: 281958. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Researchers conducting cohort studies may wish to investigate the effect of episodes of COVID-19 illness on participants. A definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 is not always available, so studies have to rely on proxy indicators. This paper seeks to contribute evidence that may assist the use and interpretation of these COVID-indicators.Methods: We described five potential COVID-indicators: self-reported core symptoms, a symptom algorithm; self-reported suspicion of COVID-19; self-reported external results; and home antibody testing based on a 'lateral flow' antibody (IgG/IgM) test cassette. Included were staff and postgraduate research students at a large London university who volunteered for the study and were living in the UK in June 2020. Excluded were those who did not return a valid antibody test result. We provide descriptive statistics of prevalence and overlap of the five indicators.Results: Core symptoms were the most common COVID-indicator (770/1882 participants positive, 41%), followed by suspicion of COVID-19 (n = 509/1882, 27%), a positive symptom algorithm (n = 298/1882, 16%), study antibody lateral flow positive (n = 124/1882, 7%) and a positive external test result (n = 39/1882, 2%), thus a 20-fold difference between least and most common. Meeting any one indicator increased the likelihood of all others, with concordance between 65 and 94%. Report of a low suspicion of having had COVID-19 predicted a negative antibody test in 98%, but positive suspicion predicted a positive antibody test in only 20%. Those who reported previous external antibody tests were more likely to have received a positive result from the external test (24%) than the study test (15%).Conclusions: Our results support the use of proxy indicators of past COVID-19, with the caveat that none is perfect. Differences from previous antibody studies, most significantly in lower proportions of participants positive for antibodies, may be partly due to a decline in antibody detection over time. Subsequent to our study, vaccination may have further complicated the interpretation of COVID-indicators, only strengthening the need to critically evaluate what criteria should be used to define COVID-19 cases when designing studies and interpreting study results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Occupational musculoskeletal injuries are prevalent in healthcare workers and are reported to be profession-specific. There is, however, a paucity of information around the injuries sustained from working as a podiatrist. This paper looks at the incidence of injury from working as a podiatrist, the aggravating factors to sustain these injuries and whether the changes in workload due to the COVID-19 pandemic altered the incidence. Methods: A modified work based musculoskeletal injury questionnaire was distributed in the UK via podiatry led social media platforms. Open and Closed questions explored the demographics of the sample, perceived injury 12 months prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and then 6 months into the lockdown. Pre and post COVID-19 data were analysed for differences and thematic analysis was included to categorise reported experiences. Results: 148 podiatrists representing 3 % of HCPC registered practitioners responded to the questionnaire. Employment status altered as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic with a 13 % reduction in those working full time. Environments also changed with domiciliary and telehealth significantly increasing (p > 0.00) and non-clinical roles being extended (p > 0.002). Pain frequency and intensity significantly (p > 0.04) increased as a result of the pandemic with shoulder pain being most frequent before lockdown altering to the neck during the lockdown. Two main themes were identified that were attributed to the causes of pain including physical demands and working in awkward spaces. Conclusions: Work-related musculoskeletal pain in podiatrists is common with the shoulder and neck being the most frequently affected. Changes in work practices due to the restrictions enforced from the COVID-19 pandemic increased the frequency and intensity of pain mostly associated with increased domiciliary and telehealth working environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]