United Kingdom: health system review 2022

The separate governments in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have been in charge of planning and executing health care services since devolution in the late 1990s. Residents of the UK have access to a National Health Service (NHS) based on clinical need, not financial capacity. Contrarily, free access to social care services is means-tested and subject to a variety of eligibility requirements depending on the United Kingdom country. In comparison to the majority of other high-income nations, the UK has significantly lower levels of physicians and nurses, hospital beds, and diagnostic tools. Due to these deficiencies, the nation has minimal capacity to absorb sudden shocks like the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, they have caused an increase in the number of people on waiting lists for elective care, with over 6 million people in England alone in 2022. In the past, the UK's health spending has seen periods of both continuous expansion and austerity. Nevertheless, over the past ten years, total health spending has grown, reaching just over 10% of GDP in 2019. Around 80% of all health spending is public money, which is a significant share and has been stable over the past 20 years. As a result, UK people have little out-of-pocket spending and high levels of protection from the financial effects of illness. To enable real integration amongst health care providers, a number of obstacles still exist in all four countries, including disconnected health information technology systems, duplicate governance structures, and a dearth of strategic planning. Although efforts to encourage such integration through cross-sectoral partnerships have advanced in England, Scotland, and Wales in recent years, Northern Ireland remains the only United Kingdom component county where the NHS and social care are completely organisationally linked.

Health system recovery from Covid-19: What policies are health systems using to tackle backlogs and bring down waiting times in the wake of the pandemic? : Sarah Reed

The pandemic has left even the most well-equipped health systems vulnerable and required difficult trade-offs to balance both Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 health services. Across the globe, planned and routine health services have been scaled down during peaks of the crisis to meet the needs of acute and Covid-19-related care, resulting in growing care backlogs and increase in the number of patients waiting for treatment. To identify potential policy solutions, we have consulted the Covid-19 Health System Response Monitor, interviewed experts and analysed recovery strategies in 16 OECD and EU countries. Many country responses display striking similarities despite very real differences in the organisation of health and care services. These include: 1) increasing the supply of workforce by widening the scope of authority for different roles, investing heavily in recruitment and training for key roles, and improving the terms and conditions of work;2) boosting productivity by introducing financial incentives and targets, reconfiguring facilities to better separate planned and emergency work”, optimising referrals and waiting list management, and outsourcing more care to the private sector;and 3) investing in out-of-hospital alternatives to care, including expanding primary and community care models and developing digital, home care and rehabilitative capacity Policymakers will need to balance the immediate pressures of clearing backlogs with long-term measures that place services on a more sustainable footing. International experience shows how these can be at odds, especially if actions taken in the short term exhaust an already depleted workforce, or resolve Covid-19-specific problems but leave services less prepared for tomorrow's challenges.

Gout management and outcomes during established COVID-19 pandemic in 2020-2021: a cross-sectional Internet survey.

Objective: To assess the management of gout in established COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We assessed medication use, health care utilization, gout-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL), psychological distress using Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4), resilience, illness perception, and health literacy in people with physician-diagnosed self-reported gout in established COVID-19 pandemic in a cross-sectional Internet survey. Results: Among the 130 survey respondents with gout, the mean age was 62.8 years, 65% were male, 83% were White, 59% were prescribed urate-lowering therapy (ULT), and health literacy was adequate in 80%. A third of survey respondents reported more difficulty with their gout management since September 2020. Gout-specific HRQOL deficits were evident. Moderate-severe psychological distress was seen in 22%, and resilience score was 6.5 [standard deviation (SD), 1.9; range, 0-8]. Adjusted for age and sex, compared with no/mild psychological distress, moderate-severe psychological distress was associated with significantly higher odds ratio (OR; 95% confidence interval) of more difficulty with (1) getting health care for gout in clinic, 3.7 (1.0, 13.2); emergency room/urgent care, 8.1 (1.4, 45.0); and in the hospital, 9.8 (1.6, 59.6); (2) getting gout flares treated, 6.6 (1.6, 26.8); (3) avoiding gout complications, 4.5 (1.2, 16.7); and (4) daily activities at home, 4.2 (1.3, 14.1), and performing work, 4.1 (1.2, 13.6). Conclusion: Respondents with gout reported health care gaps, low rates of ULT prescription, high psychological distress, and HRQOL deficits during established COVID-19 pandemic. Moderate-severe psychological distress was associated with difficulties in health care access and gout management. Interventions to address these challenges in gout management are needed.

Restarting more routine hospital activities during COVID-19: approaches from six countries. (Special Issue: COVID-19 health system response.)

During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals face the concurrent challenges of maintaining routine services while attending to COVID-19 patients. This article shares approaches taken in six countries to resume hospital care after the first wave of the pandemic by surveying country experts and using data extracted from the COVID-19 Health Systems Response Monitor (HSRM). Four strategies were observed in all six countries: prioritisation or rationing of treatments, converting clinical spaces to separate patients, using virtual treatments, and implementing COVID-19 free hospitals or floors. Clear guidance about how to prioritise activities would support hospitals in the next phases of the pandemic.

Gout management and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional internet survey.

AIM: We aimed to assess the gout management during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We assessed medication use, healthcare utilization, gout-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) on the Gout Impact Scale (GIS), psychological distress using the patient health questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4), and resilience in people with self-reported physician-diagnosed gout during the COVID-19 pandemic in a cross-sectional Internet survey. RESULTS: Among the 122 survey respondents with physician-diagnosed gout, 82% were prescribed urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and 66% were taking ULT daily; mean age was 54.2 years [standard deviation (SD), 13.8], 65% were male, and 79% were White. More regular use of gout medication was reported during the COVID-19 pandemic: allopurinol, 44%; colchicine, 37%; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 36%. Gout flares were common: 63% had ⩾1 gout flare monthly; 11% went to emergency room/urgent care; and 2% were hospitalized with gout flares. Between 41% and 56% of respondents reported more difficulty with gout management and related functional status related to COVID-19; 17-37% had difficulty with healthcare access for gout. HRQOL deficits were evident for gout concern overall, 79.4 (SD, 25); unmet gout treatment need, 64.5 (SD, 27.1); and gout concern during flare, 67.3 (SD, 27.1); but less so for gout medication side effects, 48.9 (SD, 27.4). Psychological distress was moderate in 19% and severe in 15% (mild, 22%; normal, 45%). Resilience score on Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC2) was 5.6 (SD, 1.8; range 0-8). Compared with no/mild psychological distress, moderate-severe psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic was significantly associated with more difficulty getting gout medication filled (p = 0.02), flares treated (p = 0.005), and receiving gout education (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Healthcare gaps, psychological distress, and HRQoL deficits were commonly reported by people with gout during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interventions to address these challenges for people with gout during the COVID-19 pandemic are needed.

Managing and Monitoring Long-term Oral Corticosteroids – How Good Are We and Do We Follow Best Practice Guidelines?

Background: Long-term (defined as >1 month) oral corticosteroids are widely used for chronic inflammatory and autoimmune conditions. In cardiology, the primary indications are transplantation, cardiac sarcoidosis and large vessel vasculitis. Minimising organ-based complications including infection (Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (PJP)), gastro-intestinal (GI) bleeding and osteoporosis warrant consideration but guidelines vary between specialties and co-existing treatments. The aim of this study was to assess prescribing patterns between specialties at Auckland, Waitemata and Counties Manukau District Health Boards. Method: An anonymised survey of cardiologists, respiratory, oncology, haematology, endocrinology, infectious diseases and rheumatologists with questions regarding prescribing and monitoring practices for: i) PJP prophylaxis, ii) proton pump inhibitor (PPI) for GI protection, iii) baseline bone mineral density (BMD) and iv) bisphosphonate use. Results: In total 44 responders;cardiology n=16 vs. other n=28. PJP prophylaxis was prescribed n= 5 (31%) of cardiologists compared to n=23 (96%) of other specialties. Cardiologists were less likely to prescribe bisphosphonates n=1 (6%) than other specialists n=10 (36%, p value = 0.01) but with similar prescription of PPI and baseline BMD (Figure 1). Conclusion: Prescription of PJP prophylaxis, bisphosphonates and PPIs are lower amongst cardiologists. PPI and bisphosphonates use were high particularly amongst non-cardiologists increasing the patient pill burden but may be unnecessary in the absence of previous GI complications or co-existing NSAID use and moderate-high risk of fracture on BMD. Consensus guidelines for cardiologists aimed at standardising pre-treatment assessment and prevention of prove patient care and prevent unnecessary therapy. [Formula presented]