Did the UK's public health shielding policy protect the clinically extremely vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic in Wales? Results of EVITE Immunity, a linked data retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: The UK shielding policy intended to protect people at the highest risk of harm from COVID-19 infection. We aimed to describe intervention effects in Wales at 1 year. METHODS: Retrospective comparison of linked demographic and clinical data for cohorts comprising people identified for shielding from 23 March to 21 May 2020; and the rest of the population. Health records were extracted with event dates between 23 March 2020 and 22 March 2021 for the comparator cohort and from the date of inclusion until 1 year later for the shielded cohort. RESULTS: The shielded cohort included 117,415 people, with 3,086,385 in the comparator cohort. The largest clinical categories in the shielded cohort were severe respiratory condition (35.5%), immunosuppressive therapy (25.9%) and cancer (18.6%). People in the shielded cohort were more likely to be female, aged ≥50 years, living in relatively deprived areas, care home residents and frail. The proportion of people tested for COVID-19 was higher in the shielded cohort (odds ratio [OR] 1.616; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.597-1.637), with lower positivity rate incident rate ratios 0.716 (95% CI 0.697-0.736). The known infection rate was higher in the shielded cohort (5.9% vs 5.7%). People in the shielded cohort were more likely to die (OR 3.683; 95% CI: 3.583-3.786), have a critical care admission (OR 3.339; 95% CI: 3.111-3.583), hospital emergency admission (OR 2.883; 95% CI: 2.837-2.930), emergency department attendance (OR 1.893; 95% CI: 1.867-1.919) and common mental disorder (OR 1.762; 95% CI: 1.735-1.789). CONCLUSION: Deaths and healthcare utilisation were higher amongst shielded people than the general population, as would be expected in the sicker population. Differences in testing rates, deprivation and pre-existing health are potential confounders; however, lack of clear impact on infection rates raises questions about the success of shielding and indicates that further research is required to fully evaluate this national policy intervention.

‘Every day was a learning curve’: implementing COVID-19 triage protocols in UK ambulance services – a qualitative study

BackgroundTRIM is an evaluation of the triage models used by emergency ambulance services caring for patients with suspected COVID-19 during the pandemic’s first wave in 2020. We aimed to understand experiences and concerns of staff about implementation of triage protocols.MethodResearch paramedics interviewed stakeholders from four ambulance services (call handlers, clinical advisors, paramedics, managers) and ED clinical staff from receiving hospitals. Interviews (n=23) were conducted remotely using MS Teams, recorded, and transcribed in full. Analysis generated themes from implicit and explicit ideas within participants’ accounts (Braun and Clarke 2021), conducted by researchers and PPI partners working together.ResultsWe identified the following themes:Constantly changing guidelines – at some points, updated several times a day.The ambulance service as part of the wider healthcare system - changes elsewhere in the system left ambulance services as the default.Peaks and troughs of demand - fluctuating greatly over time, and varying across the staff groups.A stretched system - resources were overextended by staff sickness and isolation, longer job times, and increased handover delays at ED.Emotional load of responding to the pandemic - including call centre staff. Doing the best they can in the face of uncertainty - a rapidly evolving situation unlike any which ambulance services had faced before.ConclusionImplementing triage protocols in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was complex and had to be actively managed by a range of frontline staff, dealing with external pressures and a heavy emotional load.Conflict of interestNone.FundingUKRI-DHSC Covid-19 Rapid Response Funding.

Mixed-methods study protocol: do national reporting and learning system medication incidents in palliative care reflect patient and carer concerns about medication management and safety?

IntroductionApproximately 20% of serious safety incidents involving palliative patients relate to medication. These are disproportionately reported when patients are in their usual residence when compared with hospital or hospice. While patient safety incident reporting systems can support professional learning, it is unclear whether these reports encompass patient and carer concerns with palliative medications or interpersonal safety.AimTo explore and compare perceptions of (un)safe palliative medication management from patient, carer and professional perspectives in community, hospital and hospice settings.Methods and analysisWe will use an innovative mixed-methods study design combining systematic review searching techniques with cross-sectional quantitative descriptive analysis and interpretative qualitative metasynthesis to integrate three elements: (1) Scoping review: multiple database searches for empirical studies and first-hand experiences in English (no other restrictions) to establish how patients and informal carers conceptualise safety in palliative medication management. (2)Medication incidents from the England and Wales National Reporting and Learning System: identifying and characterising reports to understand professional perspectives on suboptimal palliative medication management. (3) Comparison of 1 and 2: contextualising with stakeholder perspectives.Patient and public involvementOur team includes a funded patient and public involvement (PPI) collaborator, with experience of promoting patient-centred approaches in patient safety research. Funded discussion and dissemination events with PPI and healthcare (clinical and policy) professionals are planned.Ethics and disseminationProspective ethical approval granted: Cardiff University School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee (Ref 19/28). Our study will synthesise multivoiced constructions of patient safety in palliative care to identify implications for professional learning and actions that are relevant across health and social care. It will also identify changing or escalating patterns in palliative medication incidents due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Peer-reviewed publications, academic presentations, plain English summaries, press releases and social media will be used to disseminate to the public, researchers, clinicians and policy-makers.

Patient-safety incidents during COVID-19 health crisis in France: an exploratory sequential multi-method study in primary care

Background. The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in rapid reorganization of health and social care services. Patients are already at significant risk of healthcare-associated harm and the wholesale disruption to service delivery during the pandemic stood to heighten those risks. Objective. We explored the type and nature of patient safety incidents in French primary care settings during the COVID-19 first wave to make tentative recommendations for improvement. Methods. A national patient safety incident reporting survey was distributed to General Practitioners (GPs) in France on April 28, 2020. Reports were coded using a classification system aligned to the WHO International Classification for Patient Safety (incident types, contributing factors, incident outcomes and severity of harm). Analysis involved data coding, processing, iterative generation of data summaries using descriptive statistical and thematic analysis. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04346121. Results. Of 132 incidents, 58 (44%) related to delayed diagnosis, assessments and referrals. Cancellations of appointments, hospitalizations or procedures was reported in 22 (17%) of these incidents. Home confinement-related incidents accounted for 15 (10%) reports, and inappropriate stopping of medications for five (4%). Patients delayed attending or did not consult their general practitioner or other healthcare providers due to their fear of contracting COVID-19 infection at an in-person visit in 26 (10%) incidents, or fear of burdening their GPs in eight (3%) incidents. Conclusion. Constraints arising from the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic have contributed to patient safety incidents during non-COVID-19 care. Lessons from these incidents pinpoint where primary care services in France can focus resources to design safer systems for patients.