Stakeholder perspectives of piloting pre-hospital COVID-19 lateral flow testing and direct admissions pathway: exploring why well-received ideas have low uptake.

Introduction: In January 2021, Yorkshire Ambulance Service and Hull University Teaching Hospitals implemented a pilot COVID-19 lateral flow testing (LFT) and direct admissions pathway to assess the feasibility of using pre-hospital LFTs to bypass the emergency department. Due to lower than anticipated uptake of the pilot among paramedics, we undertook a process evaluation to assess reasons for low uptake and perceived potential benefits and risks associated with the pilot. Methods: We undertook semi-structured telephone interviews with 12 paramedics and hospital staff. We aimed to interview paramedics who had taken part in the pilot, those who had received the project information but not taken part and ward staff receiving patients from the pilot. We transcribed interviews verbatim and analysed data using thematic analysis. Results: Participation in the pilot appeared to be positively influenced by high personal capacity for undertaking research (being 'research-keen') and negatively influenced by 'COVID-19 exhaustion', electronic information overload and lack of time for training. Barriers to use of the pathway related to 'poor timing' of the pilot, restrictive patient eligibility and inclusion criteria. The rapid rollout meant that paramedics had limited knowledge or awareness of the pilot, and pilot participants reported poor understanding of the pilot criteria or the rationale for the criteria. Participants who were involved in the pilot were overwhelmingly positive about the intervention, which they perceived as having limited risks and high potential benefits to the health service, patients and themselves, and supported future roll-out. Conclusions: Ambulance clinician involvement in rapid research pilots may be improved by using multiple recruitment methods (electronic and other), providing protected time for training and increased direct support for paramedics with lower personal capacity for research. Improved communication (including face-to-face approaches) may help understanding of eligibility criteria and increase appropriate recruitment.

Misdiagnoses in the Context of Suspected Pandemic Influenza or Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review.

There have been numerous reports of patients initially misdiagnosed in the 2009 H1N1 influenza and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemics within the literature. A systematic review was undertaken to collate misdiagnoses during the H1N1 and COVID-19 pandemics and identify which cognitive biases may contribute to this. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and MedRxiv databases were searched for misdiagnoses or cognitive biases resulting in misdiagnosis, occurring during the H1N1 or COVID-19 virus pandemics. Eligible studies were assessed for quality using JBI criteria; primary outcome was the final diagnosis. Sixty-nine studies involving 2551 participants were included. We identified 686 cases of misdiagnosis, categorized as viral respiratory infection, other respiratory infection, non-respiratory infection, and non-infective. Misdiagnoses are listed and relevant investigations are offered. No article described prospective assessment of decision making in the pandemic setting or debiasing diagnostic thinking. Further research is required to understand why misdiagnoses occur and harm arises and how clinicians can be assisted in their decision making in a pandemic context.

Demographics and Outcomes of Initial Phase of COVID-19 Medicines Delivery Units Across 4 UK Centers During Peak B1.1.529 Omicron Epidemic: A Service Evaluation.

Background: COVID-19 medicines delivery units (CMDU) were established in late December 2021 to deliver early antiviral therapy to patients classified as at risk with the aim of preventing hospitalization. Methods: We performed a service evaluation at 4 CMDUs in England. We assessed demographics and triage outcomes of CMDU referral, uptake of antiviral therapy, and the rate of subsequent hospitalizations within 2 weeks of CMDU referral. Results: Over a 3-week period, 4788 patients were referred and 3989 were ultimately assessed by a CMDU. Overall, 832 of the patients referred (17%) were judged eligible for treatment and 628 (13%) were ultimately prescribed an antiviral agent. The overall rate of admission within 14 days was 1%. Patients who were admitted were significantly older than those who did not require hospitalization. Of patients prescribed molnupiravir and sotrovimab, 1.8% and 3.2%, respectively, were admitted. Conclusions: There was a high volume of referrals to CMDU service during the initial surge of the Omicron wave in the United Kingdom. A minority of patients were judged to be eligible for therapy. In a highly vaccinated population, the overall hospitalization rate was low.

Stakeholder perspectives of piloting pre-hospital COVID-19 lateral flow test and direct admissions pathway: exploring why well received ideas have low uptake

BackgroundIn January 2021 Yorkshire Ambulance Service and Hull University Teaching Hospitals implemented a pilot COVID-19 lateral flow testing (LFT) and direct admissions pathway to assess the feasibility of using pre-hospital LFTs to bypass the Emergency Department. Due to lower than anticipated uptake of the pilot amongst paramedics, we undertook a service evaluation to assess reasons for low uptake and perceived potential benefits and risks associated with the pilot.MethodsWe undertook semi-structured telephone interviews with 12 paramedics and hospital staff. We aimed to interview paramedics who had taken part in the pilot, those who had received the project information but not taken part and ward staff receiving patients from the pilot. We transcribed interviews verbatim and analysed data using thematic analysis according to the principles of Braun & Clarke (Ref).ResultsParticipants who were involved in the pilot were overwhelmingly positive about the intervention, which they perceived as having limited risks and high potential benefits to the health service, patients and themselves and supported future roll-out. Participation in the pilot appeared to be positively influenced by high personal capacity for undertaking research (being ‘research-keen) and negatively influenced by ‘COVID-19 exhaustion’, electronic information overload and lack of time for training. Barriers to use of the pathway related to ‘poor timing’ of the pilot, restrictive patient eligibility and inclusion criteria. The rapid rollout meant that paramedics had limited knowledge or awareness of the pilot, and pilot participants reported poor understanding of the pilot criteria or the rationale for the criteria.ConclusionsAmbulance clinician involvement in rapid research pilots may be improved by using multiple recruitment methods (electronic and other), providing protected time for training and increased direct support for paramedics with lower personal capacity for research. Improved communication (including face-to-face approaches) may help understanding of eligibility criteria and increase appropriate recruitment.

First Dose of BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine in a Healthcare Worker Cohort Is Associated With Reduced Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection.

Over the first 2 months of 2021, vaccination coverage of staff at Hull Teaching Hospitals with BNT162b2 increased from 8.3% to 82.5% and was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic and asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) cases. The proportion of positive lateral flow tests from asymptomatic screening was maintained over this period.

Physical, cognitive, and mental health impacts of COVID-19 after hospitalisation (PHOSP-COVID): a UK multicentre, prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 on physical and mental health and employment after hospitalisation with acute disease is not well understood. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of COVID-19-related hospitalisation on health and employment, to identify factors associated with recovery, and to describe recovery phenotypes. METHODS: The Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a multicentre, long-term follow-up study of adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital in the UK with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, involving an assessment between 2 and 7 months after discharge, including detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical testing. Multivariable logistic regression was done for the primary outcome of patient-perceived recovery, with age, sex, ethnicity, body-mass index, comorbidities, and severity of acute illness as covariates. A post-hoc cluster analysis of outcomes for breathlessness, fatigue, mental health, cognitive impairment, and physical performance was done using the clustering large applications k-medoids approach. The study is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN10980107). FINDINGS: We report findings for 1077 patients discharged from hospital between March 5 and Nov 30, 2020, who underwent assessment at a median of 5·9 months (IQR 4·9-6·5) after discharge. Participants had a mean age of 58 years (SD 13); 384 (36%) were female, 710 (69%) were of white ethnicity, 288 (27%) had received mechanical ventilation, and 540 (50%) had at least two comorbidities. At follow-up, only 239 (29%) of 830 participants felt fully recovered, 158 (20%) of 806 had a new disability (assessed by the Washington Group Short Set on Functioning), and 124 (19%) of 641 experienced a health-related change in occupation. Factors associated with not recovering were female sex, middle age (40-59 years), two or more comorbidities, and more severe acute illness. The magnitude of the persistent health burden was substantial but only weakly associated with the severity of acute illness. Four clusters were identified with different severities of mental and physical health impairment (n=767): very severe (131 patients, 17%), severe (159, 21%), moderate along with cognitive impairment (127, 17%), and mild (350, 46%). Of the outcomes used in the cluster analysis, all were closely related except for cognitive impairment. Three (3%) of 113 patients in the very severe cluster, nine (7%) of 129 in the severe cluster, 36 (36%) of 99 in the moderate cluster, and 114 (43%) of 267 in the mild cluster reported feeling fully recovered. Persistently elevated serum C-reactive protein was positively associated with cluster severity. INTERPRETATION: We identified factors related to not recovering after hospital admission with COVID-19 at 6 months after discharge (eg, female sex, middle age, two or more comorbidities, and more acute severe illness), and four different recovery phenotypes. The severity of physical and mental health impairments were closely related, whereas cognitive health impairments were independent. In clinical care, a proactive approach is needed across the acute severity spectrum, with interdisciplinary working, wide access to COVID-19 holistic clinical services, and the potential to stratify care. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research.

Sixty-eight consecutive patients assessed for COVID-19 infection: Experience from a UK Regional infectious diseases Unit.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of possible infection with SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus responsible for COVID-19 illness, has been a major activity of infection services since the first reports of cases in December 2019. OBJECTIVES: We report a series of 68 patients assessed at a Regional Infection Unit in the UK. METHODS: Between 29 January 2020 and 24 February 2020, demographic, clinical, epidemiological and laboratory data were collected. We compared clinical features between patients not requiring admission for clinical reasons or antimicrobials with those assessed as needing either admission or antimicrobial treatment. RESULTS: Patients assessed were aged from 0 to 76 years; 36/68 were female. Peaks of clinical assessments coincided with updates to the case definition for suspected COVID-19. Microbiological diagnoses included SARS-CoV-2, mycoplasma pneumonia, influenza A, non-SARS/MERS coronaviruses and rhinovirus/enterovirus. Nine of sixty-eight received antimicrobials, 15/68 were admitted, 5 due to inability to self-isolate. Patients requiring admission on clinical grounds or antimicrobials (14/68) were more likely to have fever or raised respiratory rate compared to those not requiring admission or antimicrobials. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients had mild illness, which did not require clinical intervention. This finding supports a community testing approach, supported by clinicians able to review more unwell patients. Extensions of the epidemiological criteria for the case definition of suspected COVID-19 lead to increased screening intensity; strategies must be in place to accommodate this in time for forthcoming changes as the epidemic develops.