Search

Abstract Background Long covid (post covid-19 condition) is a complex condition with diverse manifestations, uncertain prognosis and wide variation in current approaches to management. There have been calls for formal quality standards to reduce a so-called “postcode lottery” of care. The original aim of this study—to examine the nature of quality in long covid care and reduce unwarranted variation in services—evolved to focus on examining the reasons why standardizing care was so challenging in this condition. Methods In 2021–2023, we ran a quality improvement collaborative across 10 UK sites. The dataset reported here was mostly but not entirely qualitative. It included data on the origins and current context of each clinic, interviews with staff and patients, and ethnographic observations at 13 clinics (50 consultations) and 45 multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings (244 patient cases). Data collection and analysis were informed by relevant lenses from clinical care (e.g. evidence-based guidelines), improvement science (e.g. quality improvement cycles) and philosophy of knowledge. Results Participating clinics made progress towards standardizing assessment and management in some topics; some variation remained but this could usually be explained. Clinics had different histories and path dependencies, occupied a different place in their healthcare ecosystem and served a varied caseload including a high proportion of patients with comorbidities. A key mechanism for achieving high-quality long covid care was when local MDTs deliberated on unusual, complex or challenging cases for which evidence-based guidelines provided no easy answers. In such cases, collective learning occurred through idiographic (case-based) reasoning, in which practitioners build lessons from the particular to the general. This contrasts with the nomothetic reasoning implicit in evidence-based guidelines, in which reasoning is assumed to go from the general (e.g. findings of clinical trials) to the particular (management of individual patients). Conclusion Not all variation in long covid services is unwarranted. Largely because long covid’s manifestations are so varied and comorbidities common, generic “evidence-based” standards require much individual adaptation. In this complex condition, quality improvement resources may be productively spent supporting MDTs to optimise their case-based learning through interdisciplinary discussion. Quality assessment of a long covid service should include review of a sample of individual cases to assess how guidelines have been interpreted and personalized to meet patients’ unique needs. Study registration NCT05057260, ISRCTN15022307.

Background: Accessing and receiving care remotely (by telephone, video or online) became the default option during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but in-person care has unique benefits in some circumstances. We are studying UK general practices as they try to balance remote and in-person care, with recurrent waves of COVID-19 and various post-pandemic backlogs. Methods: Mixed-methods (mostly qualitative) case study across 11 general practices. Researchers-in-residence have built relationships with practices and become familiar with their contexts and activities; they are following their progress for two years via staff and patient interviews, documents and ethnography, and supporting improvement efforts through co-design. In this paper, we report baseline data. Results: Reflecting our maximum-variety sampling strategy, the 11 practices vary in size, setting, ethos, staffing, population demographics and digital maturity, but share common contextual features—notably system-level stressors such as high workload and staff shortages, and UK’s technical and regulatory infrastructure. We have identified both commonalities and differences between practices in terms of how they: 1] manage the ‘digital front door’ (access and triage) and balance demand and capacity; 2] strive for high standards of quality and safety; 3] ensure digital inclusion and mitigate wider inequalities; 4] support and train their staff (clinical and non-clinical), students and trainees; 5] select, install, pilot and use technologies and the digital infrastructure which support them; and 6] involve patients in their improvement efforts. Conclusions: General practices’ responses to pandemic-induced disruptive innovation appear unique and situated. We anticipate that by focusing on depth and detail, this longitudinal study will throw light on why a solution that works well in one practice does not work at all in another. As the study unfolds, we will explore how practices achieve timely diagnosis of urgent or serious illness and manage continuity of care, long-term conditions and complex needs.

Background: Following a pandemic-driven shift to remote service provision, UK general practices offer telephone, video or online consultation options alongside face-to-face. This study explores practices’ varied experiences over time as they seek to establish remote forms of accessing and delivering care. Methods: This protocol is for a mixed-methods multi-site case study with co-design and national stakeholder engagement. 11 general practices were selected for diversity in geographical location, size, demographics, ethos, and digital maturity. Each practice has a researcher-in-residence whose role is to become familiar with its context and activity, follow it longitudinally for two years using interviews, public-domain documents and ethnography, and support improvement efforts. Research team members meet regularly to compare and contrast across cases. Practice staff are invited to join online learning events. Patient representatives work locally within their practice patient involvement groups as well as joining an online patient learning set or linking via a non-digital buddy system. NHS Research Ethics Approval has been granted. Governance includes a diverse independent advisory group with lay chair. We also have policy in-reach (national stakeholders sit on our advisory group) and outreach (research team members sit on national policy working groups). Results (anticipated): We expect to produce rich narratives of contingent change over time, addressing cross-cutting themes including access, triage and capacity; digital and wider inequities; quality and safety of care (e.g. continuity, long-term condition management, timely diagnosis, complex needs); workforce and staff wellbeing (including non-clinical staff, students and trainees); technologies and digital infrastructure; patient perspectives; and sustainability (e.g. carbon footprint). Conclusion: By using case study methods focusing on depth and detail, we hope to explain why digital solutions that work well in one practice do not work at all in another. We plan to inform policy and service development through inter-sectoral network-building, stakeholder workshops and topic-focused policy briefings.

Abstract Objectives The primary objective is to evaluate the efficacy of camostat to prevent respiratory deterioration in patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Secondary objectives include assessment of the ability of camostat to reduce the requirement for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related hospital admission and to reduce the requirement for supplementary oxygen and ventilation as treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection, to evaluate overall mortality related to COVID-19 and to evaluate the efficacy of camostat by effect on clinical improvement. Research objectives include to assess change in COVID-19 symptom severity, to evaluate the ability of camostat to reduce viral load throughout duration of illness as well as translational research on host and viral genomics, serum antibody production, COVID-19 diagnostics, and validation of laboratory testing methods and biomarkers. Trial design SPIKE-1 is a randomised, multicentre, prospective, open label, community-based clinical trial. Eligible patients will be randomised 1:1 to the camostat treatment arm and control arm (best supportive care). The trial is designed to include a pilot phase recruiting up to 50 patients in each arm. An initial review at the end of the pilot phase will allow assessment of available data and inform the requirement for any protocol adaptations to include refinement of eligibility criteria to enrich the patient population and sample size calculations. Up to 289 additional patients will be randomised in the continuation phase of the trial. A formal interim analysis will be performed once 50% of the maximum sample size has been recruited Participants The trial will recruit adults (≥ 18 years) who score moderate to very high risk according to COVID-age risk calculation, with typical symptoms of COVID-19 infection as per Public Health England guidance or equivalent organisations in the UK, Health Protection Scotland, Public Health Wales, Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland) and with evidence of current COVID-19 infection from a validated assay. The trial is being conducted in the UK and patients are recruited through primary care and hospital settings. Intervention and comparator Eligible patients with be randomised to receive either camostat tablets, 200 mg four times daily (qds) for 14 days (treatment arm) or best supportive care (control arm). Main outcomes Primary outcome measure: the rate of hospital admissions requiring supplemental oxygen. Secondary outcome measures include: the rate of COVID-19 related hospital admission in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection; the number of supplementary oxygen-free days and ventilator-free days measured at 28 days from randomisation; the rate of mortality related to COVID-19 one year from randomisation; the time to worst point on the nine-point category ordinal scale (recommended by the World Health Organization: Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019)) or deterioration of two points or more, within 28 days from randomisation. Research outcomes include the assessment of change in COVID-19 symptom severity on days 1-14 as measured by (1) time to apyrexia (maintained for 48 hrs) by daily self-assessment of temperature, time to improvement (by two points) in peripheral oxygenation saturation defined by daily self-assessment of fingertip peripheral oxygenation saturation levels, (3) assessment of COVID-19 symptoms using the Flu-iiQ questionnaire (determined by app recording and/or daily video call (or phone) consultation and (4) assessment of functional score (where possible) at screening, day 7 and 14. The ability of camostat to reduce viral load throughout duration of illness will be assessed by (1) change in respiratory (oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR) log10 viral load from baseline to Days 7 and 14, (2) change in respiratory (saliva RT-PCR) log10 viral load from baseline to Days 1-14 and (3) change in upper respiratory viral shedding at Day 1 -14 measured as time to clearance of nasal SARS-CoV-2, defined as 2 consecutive negative swabs by qPCR. Additional translational research outcomes include assessment of host and viral genomics, serum antibody production and COVID-19 diagnostics at baseline and on Days 7 and 14. Randomisation Eligible patients will be randomised using an interactive web response system (IWRS) in a 1:1 ratio to one of two arms: (1) treatment arm or (2) control arm. Blinding (masking) The trial is open-label. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) The trial is designed to include a pilot and a continuation phase. Up to 100 patients (randomised 1:1 treatment and control arm) will be recruited in the pilot phase and a maximum of 289 patients (randomised 1:1 treatment and control) will be recruited as part of the continuation phase. The total number of patients recruited will not exceed 389. Trial Status Protocol version number v3 25 September 2020. Trial opened to recruitment on 04 August 2020. The authors anticipate recruitment to be completed by October 2021. Trial registration EudraCT 2020-002110-41; 18 June 2020 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04455815 ; 02 July 2020 Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). Unpublished PK data provided under confidentiality agreement to the trial Sponsor has been removed from the background section of the protocol to allow for publication of the trial protocol. In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Abstract Background Approximately 10% of patients with Covid-19 experience symptoms beyond 3–4 weeks. Patients call this “long Covid”. We sought to document such patients’ lived experience, including accessing and receiving healthcare and ideas for improving services. Methods We held 55 individual interviews and 8 focus groups (n = 59) with people recruited from UK-based long Covid patient support groups, social media and snowballing. We restricted some focus groups to health professionals since they had already self-organised into online communities. Participants were invited to tell their stories and comment on others’ stories. Data were audiotaped, transcribed, anonymised and coded using NVIVO. Analysis incorporated sociological theories of illness, healing, peer support, clinical relationships, access, and service redesign. Results Of 114 participants aged 27–73 years, 80 were female. Eighty-four were White British, 13 Asian, 8 White Other, 5 Black, and 4 mixed ethnicity. Thirty-two were doctors and 19 other health professionals. Thirty-one had attended hospital, of whom 8 had been admitted. Analysis revealed a confusing illness with many, varied and often relapsing-remitting symptoms and uncertain prognosis; a heavy sense of loss and stigma; difficulty accessing and navigating services; difficulty being taken seriously and achieving a diagnosis; disjointed and siloed care (including inability to access specialist services); variation in standards (e.g. inconsistent criteria for seeing, investigating and referring patients); variable quality of the therapeutic relationship (some participants felt well supported while others felt “fobbed off”); and possible critical events (e.g. deterioration after being unable to access services). Emotionally significant aspects of participants’ experiences informed ideas for improving services. Conclusion Suggested quality principles for a long Covid service include ensuring access to care, reducing burden of illness, taking clinical responsibility and providing continuity of care, multi-disciplinary rehabilitation, evidence-based investigation and management, and further development of the knowledge base and clinical services. Trial registration NCT04435041.

Abstract Background The coronavirus pandemic has exerted significant impacts on primary care, causing rapid digital transformation, exacerbating social isolation, and disrupting medical student and General Practice [GP] trainee education. Here we report on a medical student telephone initiative set-up by a final year GP trainee (the equivalent of a family medicine resident), which aimed to support patients at high risk and vulnerable to the Coronavirus Disease of 2019 [Covid-19]. In addition, it was hoped the project would mitigate a digital divide, enable proactive anticipatory planning, and provide an active learning environment to compensate for the pandemic’s impact on medical education. Methods Thirty-three medical students conducted daily telephone conversations with high risk and vulnerable patients as specified by the initial NHSE published lists. They confirmed public health messages, offered details for voluntary support groups, established need for medication delivery, explored levels of digital connectivity, and prompted discussions around end-of-life choices. Students had access to online reflective resources and daily remote debriefing sessions with the GP trainee. A convergent mixed-methods evaluation was subsequently undertaken, using quantitative process and descriptive data and individual qualitative interviews were conducted according to a maximal variation sampling strategy with students, General Practitioners [GPs], and the GP trainee. Inductive thematic analysis was then applied with cross-validation, respondent validation, and rich evidential illustration aiding integrity. Results Ninety-seven ‘high risk’ and 781 ‘vulnerable’ calls were made. Individuals were generally aware of public heath information, but some struggled to interpret and apply it within their own lives. Therefore respondents felt students provided additional practical and psychological benefits, particularly with regard to strengthening the links with the community voluntary groups. The project was widely liked by students who reported high levels of skill development and widened awareness, particularly valuing the active learning environment and reflective feedback sessions. Conclusion This study demonstrates utilization of medical students as wider assets within the primary health care team, with an initiative that enables support for vulnerable patients whilst promoting active medical education. Ongoing integration of students within ‘normal’ primary health care roles, such as chronic disease or mental health reviews, could provide similar opportunities for supported active and reflective learning.

Abstract Background Increased relapse rates in multiple sclerosis (MS) as a consequence of peripheral immune system activation, owing to infection for example, have been widely reported, but the mechanism remains unclear. Acute brain injury models can be exacerbated by augmenting the hepatic acute phase response (APR). Here, we explored the contribution of the hepatic APR to relapse in two rodent models of MS. Methods Mice with MOG-CFA-induced chronic relapsing experimental autoimmune encephalitis (CR-EAE) were killed before, during and after the first phase of disease, and the brain and liver chemokine, cytokine and acute phase protein (APP) mRNA expression profile was determined. During remission, the APR was reactivated with an intraperitoneal lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and clinical score was monitored throughout. To explore the downstream mediators, CXCL-1, which is induced as part of the APR, was injected into animals with a focal, cytokine/MOG-induced EAE lesion (fEAE) and the cellularity of the lesions was assessed. Results Compared to CFA control, in a rodent CR-EAE model, an hepatic APR preceded clinical signs and central cytokine production in the initial phase of disease. Compared to administration in naïve animals, an LPS challenge during the asymptomatic remission phase of CR-EAE rodents provoked relapse and resulted in the increased and extended expression of specific peripheral hepatic chemokines. CXCL-1 and several other APPs were markedly elevated. A single intravenous administration of the highly induced chemokine, CXCL-1, was found to be sufficient to reactivate the lesions by increasing microglial activation and the recruitment of T cells in fEAE lesions. Conclusions The APR plays a contributing role to the pathology seen in models of chronic brain injury and in translating the effects of peripheral immune system stimulation secondary to trauma or infection into central pathology and behavioural signs. Further elucidation of the exact mechanisms in this process will inform development of more effective, selective therapies in MS that, by suppressing the hepatic chemokine response, may prevent relapse.