Search

Aim: To conduct a qualitative systematic review on the experiences of patients, families, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) of CPR decision-making conversations in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods: The databases PubMed, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, and PsycInfo were searched. Studies published from 1 January 2012 describing experiences of CPR decision-making conversations in the UK were included. Included studies were critically appraised using the CASP tool. Thematic synthesis was conducted. Results: From 684 papers identified, ten studies were included. Four key themes were identified:(i) Initiation of conversations – Key prompts for the discussion included clinical deterioration and poor prognosis. There are different perspectives about who should initiate conversations.(ii) Involvement of patients and families – HCPs were reluctant to involve patients who they thought would become distressed by the conversation, while patients varied in their desire to be involved. Patients wanted family support while HCPs viewed families as potential sources of conflict.(iii) Influences on the content of conversations – Location, context, HCPs’ attitudes and emotions, and uncertainty of prognosis influenced the content of conversations.(iv) Conversation outcomes – Range of outcomes included emotional distress, sense of relief and value, disagreements, and incomplete conversations. Conclusions: There is inconsistency in how these conversations occur, patients’ desire to be involved, and between patients’ and HCPs’ views on the role of families in these conversations. CPR discussions raise ethical challenges for HCPs. HCPs need training and pastoral support in conducting CPR discussions. Patients and families need education on CPR recommendations and support after discussions.

Introduction: The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) process encourages collaboration between clinicians, patients, and relatives on emergency care wishes and resuscitation decisions. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinicians’ views of the ReSPECT process was unknown. We examined whether there were changes in clinicians’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes regarding ReSPECT during the pandemic. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of clinicians at one acute hospital in the UK. We developed a questionnaire with a defined 5-point Likert scale and asked clinicians to recall their pre-pandemic views on ReSPECT and report their current views at the time of survey distribution (May 2020, end of the first COVID-19 wave in the UK). We compared their self-reported views before and during the pandemic. Results: We analysed 171 questionnaire responses. Clinicians reported ReSPECT telephone discussions with relatives were more challenging (pre-pandemic median 4, IQR 3–4; during pandemic median 4, IQR 4–5; p

Background COVID-19 placed significant challenges on healthcare systems. People with diabetes are at high risk of severe COVID-19 with poor outcomes. We describe the first reported use of inpatient digital flash glucose monitoring devices in a UK NHS hospital to support management of people with diabetes hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods Inpatients at University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire (UHCW) NHS Trust with COVID-19 and diabetes were considered for digitally enabled flash glucose monitoring during their hospitalization. Glucose monitoring data were analysed, and potential associations were explored between relevant parameters, including time in hypoglycaemia, hyperglycaemia, and in range, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), average glucose, body mass index (BMI), and length of stay. Results During this pilot, digital flash glucose monitoring devices were offered to 25 inpatients, of whom 20 (type 2/type 1: 19/1; mean age: 70.6 years; mean HbA1c: 68.2 mmol/mol; mean BMI: 28.2 kg/m 2 ) accepted and used these (80% uptake). In total, over 2788 h of flash glucose monitoring were recorded for these inpatients with COVID-19 and diabetes. Length of stay was not associated with any of the studied variables (all p-values >0.05). Percentage of time in hyperglycaemia exhibited significant associations with both percentage of time in hypoglycaemia and percentage of time in range, as well as with HbA1c (all p-values

Summary: Objectives: To capture perceptions regarding personal protective equipment (PPE) among healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic, including staff subgroups at high risk for severe COVID-19, such as black and minority ethnic (BAME) groups. Design: Electronically distributed survey with semi-quantitative analysis. Survey distributed at a major academic NHS tertiary referral centre in the West Midlands with a diverse medical workforce to medically qualified staff who completed COVID-19 redeployment training. (N=121; 47% female; 49% of BAME background; 26% international medical graduates). Results: All demographic groups reported overall good awareness of when and how to use PPE during COVID-19 pandemic. Statistically significant differences in the perceptions regarding PPE use during COVID-19 were noted between BAME vs non-BAME staff, international vs UK medical graduates, and male vs female participants, as well as between professionals at different stages of their career. The differences related to perceptions around availability, degree of protection provided, perceived inconvenience, ability to raise concerns about availability, confidence in sharing underlying health conditions with managers and the impact of full PPE in emergency situations causing delay patient care. Conclusions: Amongst medically qualified staff, significant differences exist in the perceptions relating to the, availability and effectiveness of PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic depending on country of training, ethnic background and sex. GAFREC Study Approval: Study ID GF0392.