Search

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected health and social care services. We aimed to explore whether this impacted the prescribing rates of antipsychotics within at-risk populations.MethodsWith the approval of NHS England, we completed a retrospective cohort study, using the OpenSAFELY platform to explore primary care data of 59 million patients. We identified patients in five at-risk groups: autism, dementia, learning disability, serious mental illness and care home residents. We then calculated the monthly prevalence of antipsychotic prescribing in the population, as well as the incidence of new prescriptions in each month over the study period (Jan 2019-Dec 2021).ResultsThe average monthly rate of antipsychotic prescribing increased in dementia from 82.75 patients prescribed an antipsychotic per 1000 patients (95% CI 82.30-83.19) in Q1 2019 to 90.1 (95% CI 89.68-90.60) in Q4 2021 and from 154.61 (95% CI 153.79-155.43) in Q1 2019 to 166.95 (95% CI 166.23-167.67) in Q4 2021 in care homes. There were notable spikes in the rate of new prescriptions issued to patients with dementia and in care homes. In learning disability and autism groups, the average monthly rate of prescribing per 1000 decreased from 122.97 (95% CI 122.29-123.66) in Q1 2019 to 119.29 (95% CI 118.68-119.91) in Q4 2021, and from 54.91 (95% CI 54.52-55.29) in Q1 2019 to 51.04 (95% CI 50.74-51.35) in Q4 2021 respectively.ConclusionsDuring each of the lockdowns in 2020, we observed a significant spike in antipsychotic prescribing in the dementia and care home groups. We have shown that these peaks are likely due to prescribing of antipsychotics for palliative care purposes and may have been linked to pre-emptive prescribing, when on-site medical visits would have been restricted. Over the study period, we observed gradual increases in antipsychotic use in patients with dementia and in care homes and a decrease in their use in patients with learning disability or autism.

BackgroundApproaches to addressing unwarranted variation in healthcare service delivery have traditionally relied on the prospective identification of activities and outcomes, based on a hypothesis, with subsequent reporting against defined measures. Practice-level prescribing data in England are made publicly available by the NHS Business Services Authority for all general practices. There is an opportunity to adopt a more data-driven approach to capture variability and identify outliers by applying hypothesis free data driven algorithms to national datasets.ObjectivesTo develop and apply a hypothesis free algorithm to identify unusual prescribing behaviour in primary care data at multiple administrative levels in the NHS in England, and to visualise these results using organisation-specific interactive dashboards.MethodsHere we report a new data-driven approach to quantify how ‘unusual’ prescribing rates of a particular chemical within an organisation are as compared to peer organisations, over a period of six months (June-December 2021). This is followed by ranking to identify which chemicals are the most notable outliers in each organisation. These outlying chemicals are calculated for all practices, primary care networks, clinical commissioning groups and sustainability and transformation partnerships in England. Results are presented via organisation-specific interactive dashboards, the iterative development of which has been informed by user feedback.ResultsUser feedback and internal review of case studies demonstrate that our methodology identifies chemicals that are in line with local policies and internal reporting.ConclusionsData-driven approaches overcome existing biases with regards to the planning and execution of audits, interventions and policy-making within NHS organisations, potentially revealing new targets for improved healthcare service delivery. We provide our dashboards as a candidate list for the consideration of expert users to prioritise for further interpretation and qualitative research in terms of potential targets for improved performance.

ObjectiveTo use the OpenSAFELY platform to replicate key metrics from a national clinical audit, and assess the impact of COVID-19 on disease incidence and care delivery for inflammatory arthritis (IA) in England.DesignPopulation-based cohort study, with the approval of NHS England.SettingPrimary care and linked hospital outpatient data for more than 17 million people registered with general practices in England that use TPP electronic health record software.ParticipantsAdults (18-110 years) with new diagnoses of IA (rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, undifferentiated IA) between 1 April 2019 and 31 March 2022.Main outcome measuresThe following outcomes were explored before and after April 2020: 1) incidence of IA diagnoses; 2) time from primary care referral to first rheumatology assessment; 3) time to first prescription of a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) in primary care.ResultsFrom a reference population of 17,683,500 adults, there were 31,280 incident IA diagnoses between April 2019 and March 2022. The incidence of IA decreased by 20.3% in the year commencing April 2020, relative to the preceding year (5.1 vs. 6.4 diagnoses per 10,000 adults, respectively). For those who presented with IA, the time to first rheumatology assessment was shorter during the pandemic (median 18 days; interquartile range 8 to 35 days) than before (21 days; 9 to 41 days). Overall, the proportion of patients prescribed DMARDs in primary care was comparable during the pandemic to before; however, the choice of medication changed, with fewer people prescribed methotrexate or leflunomide during the pandemic, and more people prescribed sulfasalazine or hydroxychloroquine.ConclusionsThe incidence of IA diagnoses in England decreased markedly during the early COVID-19 pandemic. However, for people who sought medical attention, the impact of the pandemic on service delivery was less marked than might have been anticipated. This study demonstrates that it is feasible to use routinely captured, near real-time data in the secure OpenSAFELY platform to benchmark care quality for long-term conditions on a national scale, without the need for manual data collection.

IntroductionThe COVID-19 booster vaccination programme in England used both BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines. Direct comparisons of the effectiveness against severe COVID-19 of these two vaccines for boosting have not been made in trials or observational data.MethodsOn behalf of NHS England, we used the OpenSAFELY-TPP database to match adult recipients of each vaccine type on date of vaccination, primary vaccine course, age, and other characteristics. Recipients were eligible if boosted between 29 October 2021 and 31 January 2022, and followed up for 12 weeks. Outcomes were positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalisation, and COVID-19 death. We estimated the cumulative incidence of each outcome, and quantified comparative effectiveness using risk differences (RD) and hazard ratios (HRs).Results1,528,431 people were matched in each group, contributing a total 23,150,504 person-weeks of follow-up. The 12-week risks per 1,000 people of positive SARS-CoV-2 test were 103.2 (95%CI 102.4 to 104.0) for BNT162b2 and 96.0 (95.2 to 96.8) for mRNA-1273: the HR comparing mRNA-1273 with BNT162b2 was 0.92 (95%CI 0.91 to 0.92). For COVID-19 hospitalisations the 12-week risks per 1,000 were 0.65 (95%CI 0.56 to 0.75) and 0.44 (0.36 to 0.54): HR 0.67 (95%CI 0.58 to 0.78). COVID-19 deaths were rare: the 12-week risks per 1,000 were 0.03 (95%CI 0.02 to 0.06) and 0.01 (0.01 to 0.02): HR 1.23 (95%CI 0.59 to 2.56). Comparative effectiveness was generally similar within subgroups defined by the primary course vaccine brand, age, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and clinical vulnerability.ConclusionBooster vaccination with mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccine was more effective than BNT162b2 in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalisation during the first 12 weeks after vaccination, during a period of Delta followed by Omicron variant dominance.

ObjectiveTo estimate waning of covid-19 vaccine effectiveness over six months after second dose.DesignCohort study, approved by NHS England.SettingLinked primary care, hospital, and covid-19 records within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database.ParticipantsAdults without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were eligible, excluding care home residents and healthcare professionals.ExposuresPeople who had received two doses of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 (administered during the national vaccine rollout) were compared with unvaccinated people during six consecutive comparison periods, each of four weeks.Main outcome measuresAdjusted hazard ratios for covid-19 related hospital admission, covid-19 related death, positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and non-covid-19 related death comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated people. Waning vaccine effectiveness was quantified as ratios of adjusted hazard ratios per four week period, separately for subgroups aged ≥65 years, 18-64 years and clinically vulnerable, 40-64 years, and 18-39 years.Results1 951 866 and 3 219 349 eligible adults received two doses of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1, respectively, and 2 422 980 remained unvaccinated. Waning of vaccine effectiveness was estimated to be similar across outcomes and vaccine brands. In the ≥65 years subgroup, ratios of adjusted hazard ratios for covid-19 related hospital admission, covid-19 related death, and positive SARS-CoV-2 test ranged from 1.19 (95% confidence interval 1.14 to 1.24)to 1.34 (1.09 to 1.64) per four weeks. Despite waning vaccine effectiveness, rates of covid-19 related hospital admission and death were substantially lower among vaccinated than unvaccinated adults up to 26 weeks after the second dose, with estimated vaccine effectiveness ≥80% for BNT162b2, and ≥75% for ChAdOx1. By weeks 23-26, rates of positive SARS-CoV-2 test in vaccinated people were similar to or higher than in unvaccinated people (adjusted hazard ratios up to 1.72 (1.11 to 2.68) for BNT162b2 and 1.86 (1.79 to 1.93) for ChAdOx1).ConclusionsThe rate at which estimated vaccine effectiveness waned was consistent for covid-19 related hospital admission, covid-19 related death, and positive SARS-CoV-2 test and was similar across subgroups defined by age and clinical vulnerability. If sustained to outcomes of infection with the omicron variant and to booster vaccination, these findings will facilitate scheduling of booster vaccination.

This work was funded by the Medical Research Council as part of the Lifelong Health and Wellbeing study as part of National Core Studies (MC_PC_20030). SVK acknowledges funding from the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00022/2), and the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU17). EAVE II is funded by the Medical Research Council (MR/R008345/1) with the support of BREATHE – The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health (MC_PC_19004), which is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. BG has received research funding from the NHS National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the Wellcome Trust, Health Data Research UK, Asthma UK, the British Lung Foundation, and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme. Background Uncontrolled infection and lockdown measures introduced in response have resulted in an unprecedented challenge for health systems internationally. Whether such unprecedented impact was due to lockdown itself and recedes when such measures are lifted is unclear. We assessed the short- and medium-term impacts of the first lockdown measures on hospital care for tracer non-COVID-19 conditions in England, Scotland and Wales across diseases, sexes, and socioeconomic and ethnic groups. Methods We used OpenSAFELY (for England), EAVEII (Scotland), and SAIL Databank (Wales) to extract weekly hospital admission rates for cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory conditions (excluding COVID-19) from the pre-pandemic period until 25/10/2020 and conducted a controlled interrupted time series analysis. We undertook stratified analyses and assessed admission rates over seven months during which lockdown restrictions were gradually lifted. Findings Our combined dataset included 32 million people who contributed over 74 million person-years. Admission rates for all three conditions fell by 34.2% (Confidence Interval (CI): -43.0, -25.3) in England, 20.9% (CI: -27.8, -14.1) in Scotland, and 24.7% (CI: -36.7, -12.7) in Wales, with falls across every stratum considered. In all three nations, cancer-related admissions fell the most while respiratory-related admissions fell the least (e.g., rates fell by 40.5% (CI: -47.4, -33.6), 21.9% (CI: -35.4, -8.4), and 19.0% (CI: -30.6, -7.4) in England for cancer, cardiovascular-related, and respiratory-related admissions respectively). Unscheduled admissions rates fell more in the most than the least deprived quintile across all three nations. Some ethnic minority groups experienced greater falls in admissions (e.g., in England, unscheduled admissions fell by 9.5% (CI: -20.2, 1.2) for Whites, but 44.3% (CI: -71.0, -17.6), 34.6% (CI: -63.8, -5.3), and 25.6% (CI: -45.0, -6.3) for Mixed, Other and Black ethnic groups respectively). Despite easing of restrictions, the overall admission rates remained lower in England, Scotland, and Wales by 20.8%, 21.6%, and 22.0%, respectively when compared to the same period (August-September) during the pre-pandemic years. This corresponds to a reduction of 26.2, 23.8 and 30.2 admissions per 100,000 people in England, Scotland, and Wales respectively. Interpretation Hospital care for non-COVID diseases fell substantially across England, Scotland, and Wales during the first lockdown, with reductions persisting for at least six months. The most deprived and minority ethnic groups were impacted more severely. Funding This work was funded by the Medical Research Council as part of the Lifelong Health and Wellbeing study as part of National Core Studies (MC_PC_20030). SVK acknowledges funding from the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00022/2), and the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU17). EAVE II is funded by the Medical Research Council (MR/R008345/1) with the support of BREATHE – The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health (MC_PC_19004), which is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. BG has received research funding from the NHS National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the Wellcome Trust, Health Data Research UK, Asthma UK, the British Lung Foundation, and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme. Publisher PDF

BackgroundKidney disease is a significant risk factor for COVID-19-related mortality. Achieving high COVID-19 vaccine coverage among people with kidney disease is therefore a public health priority.MethodsWith the approval of NHS England, we performed a retrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform. Individual-level routine clinical data from 24 million people in England were included. A cohort of individuals with stage 3–5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) or receiving renal replacement therapy (RRT) at the start of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out was identified based on evidence of reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate or inclusion in the UK Renal Registry. Individual-level factors associated with vaccine uptake were explored via Cox proportional hazards models.Results948,845 people with stage 3–5 CKD or receiving RRT were included. Cumulative vaccine coverage as of 11th May 2022 was 97.5%, 97.0%, and 93.5% for doses 1, 2, and 3, respectively, and 61.1% among individuals with one or more indications for receipt of a fourth dose. Delayed 3-dose vaccine uptake was associated with non-White ethnicity, social deprivation, and severe mental illness – associations that were consistent across CKD stages and in RRT recipients. Similar associations were observed for 4-dose uptake, which was also delayed among care home residents.ConclusionAlthough high primary and booster dose coverage has been achieved among people with kidney disease in England, key disparities in vaccine uptake remain across demographic groups. Identifying how to address these disparities remains a priority to reduce the risk of severe disease in this vulnerable patient group.

BackgroundThe UK COVID-19 vaccination programme delivered its first “booster” doses in September 2021, initially in groups at high risk of severe disease then across the adult population. The BNT162b2 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was used initially, with Moderna mRNA-1273 subsequently also used.MethodsWe used the OpenSAFELY-TPP database, covering 40% of English primary care practices and linked to national coronavirus surveillance, hospital episodes, and death registry data, to estimate the effectiveness of boosting with BNT162b2 compared with no boosting in eligible adults who had received two primary course vaccine doses between 16 September and 16 December 2021 when the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 was dominant. Follow up was for up to 10 weeks. Each booster recipient was matched with an unboosted control on factors relating to booster priority status and prior immunisation. Additional factors were adjusted for in Cox models estimating hazard ratios (HRs). Outcomes were positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalisation, COVID-19 death and non-COVID-9 death. Booster vaccine effectiveness was defined as 1−HR.ResultsAmong 4,352,417 BNT162b2 booster recipients matched with unboosted controls, estimated effectiveness of a booster dose compared with two doses only was 50.7% (95% CI 50.1-51.3) for positive SARS-CoV-2 test, 80.1% (78.3-81.8) for COVID-19 hospitalisation, 88.5% (85.0-91.1) for COVID-19 death, and 80.3% (79.0-81.5) for non-COVID-19 death.Estimated effectiveness was similar among those who had received a BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S two-dose primary vaccination course, but effectiveness against severe COVID-19 was slightly lower in those classified as clinically extremely vulnerable (76.3% (73.1-79.1) for COVID-19 hospitalisation, and 85.1% (79.6-89.1) for COVID-19 death). Estimated effectiveness against each outcome was lower in those aged 18-65 years than in those aged 65 and over.ConclusionOur findings are consistent with strong protection of BNT162b2 boosting against positive SARS-CoV-2 test, COVID-19 hospitalisation, and COVID-19 death.

ObjectiveTo describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on safe prescribing, using the PINCER prescribing indicators; to implement complex prescribing indicators at national scale using GP data.DesignPopulation based cohort study, with the approval of NHS England using the OpenSAFELY platform.SettingElectronic health record data from 56.8 million NHS patients’ general practice records.ParticipantsAll NHS patients registered at a GP practice using TPP or EMIS computer systems and recorded as at risk of at least one potentially hazardous PINCER indicator between September 2019 and September 2021.Main outcome measureMonthly trends and between-practice variation for compliance with 13 PINCER measures between September 2019 and September 2021.ResultsThe indicators were successfully implemented across GP data in OpenSAFELY. Hazardous prescribing remained largely unchanged during the COVID-19 pandemic, with only small reductions in achievement of the PINCER indicators. There were transient delays in blood test monitoring for some medications, particularly ACE inhibitors. All indicators exhibited substantial recovery by September 2021. We identified 1,813,058 patients at risk of at least one hazardous prescribing event.ConclusionGood performance was maintained during the COVID-19 pandemic across a diverse range of widely evaluated measures of safe prescribing.Summary boxWHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPICPrimary care services were substantially disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic.Disruption to safe prescribing during the pandemic has not previously been evaluated.PINCER is a nationally adopted programme of activities that aims to identify and correct hazardous prescribing in GP practices, by conducting manual audit on subgroups of practices.WHAT THIS STUDY ADDSFor the first time, we were able to successfully generate data on PINCER indicators for almost the whole population of England, in a single analysis.Our study is the most comprehensive assessment of medication safety during the COVID-19 pandemic in England, covering 95% of the population using well-validated measures.Good performance was maintained across many PINCER indicators throughout the pandemic.Delays in delivering some medication-related blood test monitoring were evident though considerable recovery was made by the end of the study period.

SummaryBackgroundThe rate at which COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness wanes over time is crucial for vaccination policies, but is incompletely understood with conflicting results from different studies.MethodsThis cohort study, using the OpenSAFELY-TPP database and approved by NHS England, included individuals without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection assigned to vaccines priority groups 2-12 defined by the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. We compared individuals who had received two doses of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 with unvaccinated individuals during six 4-week comparison periods, separately for subgroups aged 65+ years; 16-64 years and clinically vulnerable; 40-64 years and 18-39 years. We used Cox regression, stratified by first dose eligibility and geographical region and controlled for calendar time, to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated individuals, and quantified waning vaccine effectiveness as ratios of aHRs per-4-week period. The outcomes were COVID-19 hospitalisation, COVID-19 death, positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and non-COVID-19 death.FindingsThe BNT162b2, ChAdOx1 and unvaccinated groups comprised 1,773,970, 2,961,011 and 2,433,988 individuals, respectively. Waning of vaccine effectiveness was similar across outcomes and vaccine brands: e.g. in the 65+ years subgroup ratios of aHRs versus unvaccinated for COVID-19 hospitalisation, COVID-19 death and positive SARS-CoV-2 test ranged from 1.23 (95% CI 1.15-1.32) to 1.27 (1.20-1.34) for BNT162b2 and 1.16 (0.98-1.37) to 1.20 (1.14-1.27) for ChAdOx1. Despite waning, rates of COVID-19 hospitalisation and COVID-19 death were substantially lower among vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals up to 26 weeks after second dose, with estimated aHRs 80% vaccine effectiveness) for BNT162b2, and 74%) for ChAdOx1. By weeks 23-26, rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection in fully vaccinated individuals were similar to or higher than those in unvaccinated individuals: aHRs ranged from 0.85 (0.78-0.92) to 1.53 (1.07-2.18) for BNT162b2, and 1.21 (1.13-1.30) to 1.99 (1.94-2.05) for ChAdOx1.InterpretationThe rate at which estimated vaccine effectiveness waned was strikingly consistent for COVID-19 hospitalisation, COVID-19 death and positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and similar across subgroups defined by age and clinical vulnerability. If sustained to outcomes of infection with the Omicron variant and to booster vaccination, these findings will facilitate scheduling of booster vaccination doses.

ObjectivesAscertain patient eligibility status and describe coverage of antivirals and neutralising monoclonal antibodies (nMAB) as treatment for COVID-19 in community settings in England.DesignCohort study, approved by NHS England.SettingRoutine clinical data from 23.4m people linked to data on COVID-19 infection and treatment, within the OpenSAFELY-TPP database.ParticipantsNon-hospitalised COVID-19 patients at high-risk of severe outcomes.InterventionsNirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid), sotrovimab, molnupiravir, casirivimab or remdesivir, administered in the community by COVID-19 Medicine Delivery Units.ResultsWe identified 102,170 non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 between 11th December 2021 and 28th April 2022 at high-risk of severe outcomes and therefore potentially eligible for antiviral and/or nMAB treatment. Of these patients, 18,210 (18%) received treatment; sotrovimab, 9,340 (51%); molnupiravir, 4,500 (25%); Paxlovid, 4,290 (24%); casirivimab, 50 (ConclusionsUsing the OpenSAFELY platform we were able to identify patients who were potentially eligible to receive treatment and assess the coverage of these new treatments amongst these patients. Targeted activity may be needed to address apparent lower treatment coverage observed among certain groups, in particular (at present): different NHS regions, socioeconomically deprived areas, and care homes.What is already known about this topicSince the emergence of COVID-19, a number of approaches to treatment have been tried and evaluated. These have mainly consisted of treatments such as dexamethasone, which were used in UK hospitals,from early on in the pandemic to prevent progression to severe disease. Until recently (December 2021), no treatments have been widely used in community settings across England.What this study addsFollowing the rollout of antiviral medicines and neutralising monoclonal antibodies (nMABs) as treatment for patients with COVID-19, we were able to identify patients who were potentially eligible to receive antivirals or nMABs and assess the coverage of these new treatments amongst these patients, in as close to real-time as the available data flows would support. While the proportion of the potentially eligible patients receiving treatment increased over time, rising from 8% (180/2,380) in the first week of the roll out to 22% (420/1870) in the last week of April 2022, there were variations in coverage between key clinical, geographic, and demographic subgroup.How this study might affect research, practice, or policyTargeted activity may therefore be needed to address lower treatment rates observed among certain geographic areas and key groups including ethnic minorities, people living in areas of higher deprivation, and in care homes.

ObjectiveTo characterise factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake among people with kidney disease in England.DesignRetrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, performed with the approval of NHS England.SettingIndividual-level routine clinical data from 24 million people across GPs in England using TPP software. Primary care data were linked directly with COVID-19 vaccine records up to 31 August 2022 and with renal replacement therapy (RRT) status via the UK Renal Registry (UKRR).ParticipantsA cohort of adults with stage 3–5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) or receiving RRT at the start of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out was identified based on evidence of reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or inclusion in the UKRR.Main outcome measuresDose-specific vaccine coverage over time was determined from 1 December 2020 to 31 August 2022. Individual-level factors associated with receipt of a 3-dose or 4-dose vaccine series were explored via Cox proportional hazards models.Results992 205 people with stage 3–5 CKD or receiving RRT were included. Cumulative vaccine coverage as of 31 August 2022 was 97.5%, 97.0% and 93.9% for doses 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and 81.9% for dose 4 among individuals with one or more indications for eligibility. Delayed 3-dose vaccine uptake was associated with younger age, minority ethnicity, social deprivation and severe mental illness—associations that were consistent across CKD severity subgroups, dialysis patients and kidney transplant recipients. Similar associations were observed for 4-dose uptake.ConclusionAlthough high primary vaccine and booster dose coverage has been achieved among people with kidney disease in England, key disparities in vaccine uptake remain across clinical and demographic groups and 4-dose coverage is suboptimal. Targeted interventions are needed to identify barriers to vaccine uptake among under-vaccinated subgroups identified in the present study.

Weekly* report on COVID-19 vaccination coverage in England focussing on THIRD/booster doses which are due, based on the booster dose schedule (6 months since second dose). * please note, updates will occur most weeks but not all.

Weekly* report on COVID-19 vaccination coverage in England focussing on second doses which are due (i.e. where first dose was recorded at least 14 weeks ago). * please note, updates will occur most weeks but not all.

This OpenSAFELY report is a routine update of our peer-review paper published in the British Journal of General Practice on the Clinical coding of long COVID in English primary care: a federated analysis of 58 million patient records in situ using OpenSAFELY. It is a routine update of the analysis described in the paper. The data requires careful interpretation and there are a number of caveats. Please read the full detail about our methods and discussionis and the full analytical methods on this routine report are available on GitHub. OpenSAFELY is a new secure analytics platform for electronic patient records built on behalf of NHS England to deliver urgent academic and operational research during the pandemic. You can read more about OpenSAFELY on our website.

Several international agreements and conventions require nations to establish Marine Protected Area (MPA) networks as an approach to alleviating biodiversity declines; however, a common problem in planning MPA networks is how to balance conservation objectives against economic objectives. Here, using the distributions of 102 biodiversity features and 7 extractive uses we trial the systematic conservation planning software Zonation as a decision-support tool to facilitate progress towards New Zealand's commitment to establishing a representative network of MPAs while providing for economic development. Our results indicate that: (i) New Zealand's existing MPAs provide on average 70% less representation of the input biodiversity features than would be achieved by an MPA network of equivalent area designed from the outset using Zonation; (ii) small increases in the geographic extent of existing protection results in rapid increases in representation of the selected biodiversity features when systematic conservation planning software is used to inform expansion of existing protection; and (iii) the impacts on existing resource users of an expanded MPA system can be minimized by using Zonation to identify areas that increase biodiversity representation, while avoiding areas where existing uses may be incompatible with marine protection. These results demonstrate the utility of systematic conservation planning software as a decision-support tool within a broader social process for MPA network design and implementation. The iterative application of tools such as Zonation during participatory processes that balance alternative uses could potentially lead to more informed, efficient and socially enduring outcomes that enhance the ability to establish representative MPA networks.

BACKGROUND In England, national safety guidance recommends that ciclosporin, tacrolimus, and diltiazem are prescribed by brand name due to their narrow therapeutic windows and, in the case of tacrolimus, to reduce the chance of organ transplantation rejection. Various small studies have shown that changes to electronic health record (EHR) system interfaces can affect prescribing choices. OBJECTIVE Our objectives were to assess variation by EHR systems in breach of safety guidance around prescribing of ciclosporin, tacrolimus, and diltiazem, and to conduct user-interface research into the causes of such breaches. METHODS We carried out a retrospective cohort study using prescribing data in English primary care. Participants were English general practices and their respective EHR systems. The main outcome measures were (1) the variation in ratio of safety breaches to adherent prescribing in all practices and (2) the description of observations of EHR system usage. RESULTS A total of 2,575,411 prescriptions were issued in 2018 for ciclosporin, tacrolimus, and diltiazem (over 60 mg); of these, 316,119 prescriptions breached NHS guidance (12.27%). Breaches were most common among users of the EMIS EHR system (breaches in 18.81% of ciclosporin and tacrolimus prescriptions and in 17.99% of diltiazem prescriptions), but breaches were observed in all EHR systems. CONCLUSIONS Design choices in EHR systems strongly influence safe prescribing of ciclosporin, tacrolimus, and diltiazem, and breaches are prevalent in general practices in England. We recommend that all EHR vendors review their systems to increase safe prescribing of these medicines in line with national guidance. Almost all clinical practice is now mediated through an EHR system; further quantitative research into the effect of EHR system design on clinical practice is long overdue.

IntroductionAcute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) complicated by acute (acidaemic) hypercapnic respiratory failure (AHRF) requiring ventilation are common. When applied appropriately, ventilation substantially reduces mortality. Despite this, there is evidence of poor practice and prognostic pessimism. A clinical prediction tool could improve decision making regarding ventilation, but none is routinely used.MethodsConsecutive patients admitted with AECOPD and AHRF treated with assisted ventilation (principally noninvasive ventilation) were identified in two hospitals serving differing populations. Known and potential prognostic indices were identified a priori. A prediction tool for in-hospital death was derived using multivariable regression analysis. Prospective, external validation was performed in a temporally separate, geographically diverse 10-centre study. The trial methodology adhered to TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis) recommendations.ResultsDerivation cohort: n=489, in-hospital mortality 25.4%; validation cohort: n=733, in-hospital mortality 20.1%. Using six simple categorised variables (extended Medical Research Council Dyspnoea score 1–4/5a/5b, time from admission to acidaemia >12 h, pH DiscussionThe NIVO score outperformed pre-specified comparator scores. It is validated in a generalisable cohort and works despite the heterogeneity inherent to both this patient group and this intervention. Potential applications include informing discussions with patients and their families, aiding treatment escalation decisions, challenging pessimism and comparing risk-adjusted outcomes across centres.

Objective High levels of environmental noise in hospitals disturbs sleep. We aimed to identify, critically appraise and summarise primary research that reports studies that tested interventions to reduce night-time noise levels in ward-settings. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Data sources Key health-related and specialist acoustic databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, NHS Evidence, Knovel, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, Acta Acustica and Acoustics in Practice) were searched from their inception to April 2017, with no language restrictions. Review methods Experimental, quasi-experimental and observational study designs assessing the effect of noise reduction interventions on patient outcomes and/or environmental noise levels were included. Two reviewers independently conducted a quality appraisal using a published framework. Results In total, 834 records were identified with nine studies meeting inclusion criteria. Quality appraisal showed that the level of evidence was generally weak. A range of noise reduction interventions were identified: one study implemented a single intervention, whilst the remainder were complex, multi-faceted interventions. Findings from individual studies showed mixed results but preliminary evidence suggests that noise reduction interventions can reduce environmental noise levels in ward settings and improve patients' sleep ratings. Quantitative data from 6 studies were pooled. A random effects meta-analysis determined that a synthesised estimate for the standardised mean difference in total hours sleep (no intervention – intervention) was −0.11 h (95% CI −0.46 to 0.25 h; p = 0.556), with moderate statistical heterogeneity. A random effects meta-analysis determined that a synthesised estimate for the standardised mean difference in awakenings per night (no intervention – intervention) was 0.05 (95% CI −0.20 to 0.29; p = 0.715), with negligible statistical heterogeneity. A random effects meta-analysis determined that a synthesised estimate for the odds ratio for disturbed nights (no intervention: intervention) was 0.75 (95% CI 0.55 to 1.01; p = 0.059), with low statistical heterogeneity. Conclusions Individual studies show that noise reduction interventions are feasible in ward settings and suggest they have potential to improve patients' in-hospital sleep experiences. However meta-analyses show insufficient evidence to support the use of such interventions at present. There is a lack of appropriately designed studies to test intervention effectiveness. Robust studies are required to identify the most effective interventions to address this significant and ubiquitous problem. What is known about the topic • Noise levels in hospital impact on quantity and quality of sleep and patient experience. • Disturbed sleep can have a detrimental impact on health and extend patient recovery. • Noise reduction interventions do not receive the priority they deserve. What this paper adds • A comprehensive review of noise reduction interventions used in general ward settings. • Noise reduction interventions show the potential to reduce environmental noise and improve patient sleep ratings. • Appropriately designed studies are required to provide definitive evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of noise reduction intervention in ward settings.

This paper asked if an effective energy measurement and monitoring system could be designed which was capable of controlling production machines to reduce operational costs. The solution had to be itself a low cost which could also be relatively easily deployed in developing regions. Developing regions are typically characterized by production facilities with outmoded equipment, but often have one or two more advanced machines available. This study identified a solution which evaluated energy consumption of machines at rest and oil consumption. It found that these two variables, when profiled against machine age, could be controlled in such a way as to significantly reduce production costs. Tests showed that, in addition to these variables, surge featured as an important variable which needed to be added to the control model. The solution itself could be deployed with very low cost. The experiment was carried out on CNC machines in a manufacturing site in Ireland.

High perioperative mortality that results from hemorrhage from pleural adhesions was reported in the early experience of heart-lung transplantation. This led to previous pleural procedures becoming a relative/absolute contraindication to transplantation in some centers, despite the advent of bilateral lung transplantation. Has this lead to a more conservative approach to pneumothorax management in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF)? And what is the effect of previous pleural procedures on surgical outcome of lung transplantation?We reviewed 3 groups of patients transplanted at this center from 1989 to 2002, matched for year of lung transplantation. Group A comprised 16 patients with CF with a history of previous pneumothorax with or without pleural procedure. Group B comprised 16 patients with CF with no history of pneumothorax. Group C comprised 16 noninflammatory/nonbronchiectatic patients with no history of pneumothorax. Measured outcomes included blood products provided intraoperatively; operation and cardiopulmonary bypass times; postoperative hemorrhage; times to extubation, discharge from the intensive care unit and hospital discharge; forced expiratory volume at 1 second at 6 months; 30-day mortality; pleural adhesions graded descriptively; and previous pneumothorax management (Group A only). There were 35 pneumothorax episodes in the 16 patients in Group A. Nine episodes were managed with observation alone. Nine patients required invasive management, 25 chest drains were placed, 3 patients received medical pleurodesis, and 2 underwent thoracic surgical intervention.No significant difference was observed between the 3 groups regarding blood products intraoperatively or duration of procedure. Pleural adhesions found at operation were significantly more in Group A, with dense adhesions found only in Group A (p0.05). Group C was significantly more likely to be free from adhesions, with 13 patients clear (p0.01 Group C vs Group A, Group C vs Group B). No statistically significant difference was found in the other measured parameters.Pneumothorax is treated conservatively in a potential lung transplant population. Patients with CF and previous pneumothorax with or without pleural procedures undergoing lung transplantation have dense pleural adhesions; however, this does not affect surgical outcome significantly. Patients with emphysema, fibrosing alveolitis, or obliterative bronchiolitis were significantly more likely to be free of pleural adhesions, suggesting that the inflammatory/chronic infective component of CF independently contributes to the increased pleural adhesions. Previous pleural procedures for pneumothorax should not be considered a contraindication in the assessment of suitability for lung transplantation.

We surveyed 929 shoppers in Exeter (England), Louisiana (USA) and Sydney (Australia) to determine what they knew of aphasia. Between 10% and 18% said they had heard of aphasia but only between 1.5% and 7.6% had even some basic knowledge of aphasia. We found that more females knew something about aphasia than males and that older people were more likely to have heard of it, although those with some knowledge were significantly younger. Informants had heard of aphasia mainly through their work or the media and were mainly professionals like teachers, nurses, therapists, managers and administrators, followed by a retired/student group. We found some differences in awareness levels in the different locations we sampled. Results have implications for targeting awareness raising and campaigning.

This work describes the experimental validation of treatment planning system monitor unit (MU) calculations against measurement for a range of scenarios. This, together with a comparison of treatment planning system MUs and an independent MU check method, allows the derivation of confidence intervals for the check process. Data were collected for open and 60° motorized wedge fields using an Elekta Synergy linac at 6 and 8MV using homogeneous and heterogeneous phantoms. Masterplan (Version 4.0) pencil-beam and collapsed cone algorithms were used for the primary MU calculations with full inhomogeneity correction. Results show that both algorithms agree with measurement to acceptable tolerance levels in the majority of the cases studied. The confidence interval for the pencil-beam algorithm MU against an independent check was determined as + 1.6% to -3.4%. This is modified to + 2.3% to -2.5% when data collected with low-density heterogeneities are removed as this algorithm is not used clinically for these cases. The corresponding interval for the collapsed cone algorithm was + 1.2% to -4.3%, indicating that an offset tolerance for the independent check is appropriate. Analysis of clinical conformal treatment plan data generated using the pencil-beam algorithm (1393 beams) returned 93% of beams within the independent check tolerance. Similarly, using the collapsed cone algorithm as the primary MU calculation, 77% (of 1434 beams) were within the confidence interval.