Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 22
Filter
1.
Crisis ; 2022 Apr 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20239400

ABSTRACT

Background: Associations between sensational news coverage of suicide and increases in suicidal behavior have been well documented. Amid growing concern over the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on suicide rates, it is especially important that news coverage adheres to recommended standards. Method: We analyzed the quality and content of print and online UK news reports of possible COVID-19-related suicides and suicide attempts in the first 4 months of the pandemic (N = 285). Results: The majority of reports made explicit links between suicidal behavior and the COVID-19 pandemic in the headline (65.5%), largely based on statements by family, friends, or acquaintances of the deceased (60%). The impact of the pandemic on suicidal behavior was most often attributed to feelings of isolation (27.4%), poor mental health (14.7%), and entrapment due to government-imposed restrictions (14.4%). Although rarely of poor overall quality, reporting was biased toward young people, frontline staff, and relatively unusual suicides and, to varying degrees, failed to meet recommended standards (e.g., 41.1% did not signpost readers to sources of support). Limitations: This analysis cannot account for the impact of reporting on suicide. Conclusion: Careful attention must be paid to the quality and content of reports, especially as longer-term consequences of the pandemic develop.

2.
Palliat Med ; 37(7): 1034-1039, 2023 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2298659

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The number and proportion of home deaths in the UK increased during the Covid-19 pandemic. It is not known whether these changes were experienced disproportionately by people from different socioeconomic groups. AIM: To examine the association between home death and socioeconomic position during the Covid-19 pandemic, and how this changed between 2019 and 2020. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using population-based individual-level mortality data. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: All registered deaths in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The proportion of home deaths between 28th March and 31st December 2020 was compared with the same period in 2019. We used Poisson regression models to evaluate the association between decedent's area-based level of deprivation and risk of home death, as well as the interaction between deprivation and year of death, for each nation separately. RESULTS: Between the 28th March and 31st December 2020, 409,718 deaths were recorded in England, 46,372 in Scotland, 26,410 in Wales and 13,404 in Northern Ireland. All four nations showed an increase in the adjusted proportion of home deaths between 2019 and 2020, ranging from 21 to 28%. This increase was lowest for people living in the most deprived areas in all nations, with evidence of a deprivation gradient in England. CONCLUSIONS: The Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated a previously described socioeconomic inequality in place of death in the UK. Further research to understand the reasons for this change and if this inequality has been sustained is needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Pandemics , England/epidemiology , Wales/epidemiology
3.
Health Qual Life Outcomes ; 21(1): 29, 2023 Mar 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2262990

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patient-centred measures to capture symptoms and concerns have rarely been reported in severe COVID. We adapted and tested the measurement properties of the proxy version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale-IPOS-COV for severe COVID using psychometric approach. METHODS: We consulted experts and followed consensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments and United States Food and Drug Administration guidance for adaptation and analysis. Exploratory Factor Analysis and clinical perspective informed subscales. We tested the internal consistency reliability, calculated item total correlations, examined re-test reliability in stable patients, and also evaluated inter-rater reproducibility. We examined convergent and divergent validity of IPOS-COV with the Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Scale and evaluated known-groups validity. Ability to detect change was examined. RESULTS: In the adaptation phase, 6 new items were added, 7 items were removed from the original measure. The recall period was revised to be the last 12-24 h to capture fast deterioration in COVID. General format and response options of the original Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale were preserved. Data from 572 patients with COVID from across England and Wales seen by palliative care services were included. Four subscales were supported by the 4-factor solution explaining 53.5% of total variance. Breathlessness-Agitation and Gastro-intestinal subscales demonstrated good reliability with high to moderate (a = 0.70 and a = 0.67) internal consistency, and item-total correlations (0.62-0.21). All except the Flu subscale discriminated well between patients with differing disease severity. Inter-rater reliability was fair with ICC of 0.40 (0.3-0.5, 95% CI, n = 324). Correlations between the subscales and AKPS as predicted were weak (r = 0.13-0.26) but significant (p < 0.01). Breathlessness-Agitation and Drowsiness-Delirium subscales demonstrated good divergent validity. Patients with low oxygen saturation had higher mean Breathlessness-Agitation scores (M = 5.3) than those with normal levels (M = 3.4), t = 6.4 (186), p < 0.001. Change in Drowsiness-Delirium subscale correctly classified patients who died. CONCLUSIONS: IPOS-COV is the first patient-centred measure adapted for severe COVID to support timely management. Future studies could further evaluate its responsiveness and clinical utility with clinimetric approaches.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Delirium , Humans , Reproducibility of Results , Quality of Life , Palliative Care , Psychometrics , Surveys and Questionnaires
4.
BMJ Open ; 13(2): e065456, 2023 02 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2271148

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been much concern and speculation about rises in suicide rates, despite evidence that suicides did not in fact increase in the first year of the pandemic in most countries with real-time suicide data. This public narrative is potentially harmful, as well as misleading, and is likely to be perpetuated by sensational news coverage. METHOD: Using a bespoke database, we analysed the quality and content of print and online UK news (including opinion pieces) on the impact of COVID-19 on suicidality, based on adherence to international recommendations. χ2 tests were conducted to examine variability in relation to key characteristics (eg, type of publication) and to four 'restriction phases' (based on UK government official lockdown measures) over the first 14 months of the pandemic. RESULTS: We identified 372 stories about COVID-19 and suicidality in online and print news between the first UK lockdown (March 2020) and May 2021 (when restrictions were significantly eased in the UK). Throughout this period, over a third of articles (39.2%) and headlines (41.4%) claimed or predicted a rise in suicide, often attributed to feelings of entrapment and poor mental health (especially among young people) and fueled by expert commentary and speculation. Almost a third of reports were rated as being of negative quality (116, 31.2%), and at least half included no signposting to help and support. However, reporting improved in phases of less stringent COVID-19 restrictions and over time, with later articles and headlines including fewer negative statements and predictions about rises in suicides, and greater reliance on academic evidence. CONCLUSIONS: As the longer-term consequences of the pandemic develop, and other national and global events unfold, it is increasingly important that the media, and the wider community of experts shaping its narratives, strive for a positive and evidence-informed approach to news coverage of suicide.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Suicide , Humans , Adolescent , Pandemics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control , United Kingdom/epidemiology
6.
BMC Palliat Care ; 21(1): 176, 2022 Oct 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2064782

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Independent charitably funded hospices have been an important element of the UK healthcare response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospices usually have different funding streams, procurement processes, and governance arrangements compared to NHS provision, which may affect their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study is to understand the challenges faced by charitably funded hospices during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Eligible Organisations providing specialist palliative or hospice care completed the online CovPall survey (2020) which explored their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible organisations were then purposively selected to participate in interviews as part of qualitative case studies (2020-21) to understand challenges in more depth. Free-text responses from the survey were analysed using content analysis and were categorised accordingly. These categorisations were used a priori for a reflexive thematic analysis of interview data. RESULTS: 143 UK independent charitably funded hospices completed the online CovPall survey. Five hospices subsequently participated in qualitative case studies (n = 24 staff interviews). Key themes include: vulnerabilities of funding; infection control during patient care; and bereavement support provision. Interviewees discussed the fragility of income due to fundraising events stopping; the difficulties of providing care to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients within relatively small organisations; and challenges with maintaining the quality of bereavement services. CONCLUSION: Some unique care and provision challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic were highlighted by charitably funded hospices. Funding core services charitably and independently may affect their ability to respond to pandemics, or scenarios where resources are unexpectedly insufficient.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hospice Care , Hospices , Humans , Palliative Care/methods , Pandemics
7.
BMJ Support Palliat Care ; 12(4): 439-447, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2032545

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To describe multinational prescribing practices by palliative care services for symptom management in patients dying with COVID-19 and the perceived effectiveness of medicines. METHODS: We surveyed specialist palliative care services, contacted via relevant organisations between April and July 2020. Descriptive statistics for categorical variables were expressed as counts and percentages. Content analysis explored free text responses about symptom management in COVID-19. Medicines were classified using British National Formulary categories. Perceptions on effectiveness of medicines were grouped into five categories; effective, some, limited or unclear effectiveness, no effect. RESULTS: 458 services responded; 277 UK, 85 rest of Europe, 95 rest of the world, 1 missing country. 358 services had managed patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. 289 services had protocols for symptom management in COVID-19. Services tended to prescribe medicines for symptom control comparable to medicines used in people without COVID-19; mainly opioids and benzodiazepines for breathlessness, benzodiazepines and antipsychotics for agitation, opioids and cough linctus for cough, paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for fever, and opioids and paracetamol for pain. Medicines were considered to be mostly effective but varied by patient's condition, route of administration and dose. CONCLUSIONS: Services were largely consistent in prescribing for symptom management in people dying with COVID-19. Medicines used prior to COVID-19 were mostly considered effective in controlling common symptoms.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Palliative Care , Humans , Acetaminophen , Cough , Benzodiazepines
8.
J Pain Symptom Manage ; 64(4): 377-390, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1907348

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT: Evidence of symptom control outcomes in severe COVID is scant. OBJECTIVES: To determine changes in symptoms among people severely ill or dying with COVID supported by palliative care, and associations with treatments and survival. METHODS: Multicentre cohort study of people with COVID across England and Wales supported by palliative care services, during the pandemic in 2020 and 2021. We analysed clinical, demographic and survival data, symptom severity at baseline (referral to palliative care, first COVID assessment) and at three follow-up assessments using the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale - COVID version. RESULTS: We included 572 patients from 25 services, mostly hospital support teams; 496 (87%) were newly referred to palliative care with COVID, 75 (13%) were already supported by palliative care when they contracted COVID. At baseline, patients had a mean of 2.4 co-morbidities, mean age 77 years, a mean of five symptoms, and were often bedfast or semiconscious. The most prevalent symptoms were: breathlessness, weakness/lack of energy, drowsiness, anxiety, agitation, confusion/delirium, and pain. Median time in palliative care was 46 hours; 77% of patients died. During palliative care, breathlessness, agitation, anxiety, delirium, cough, fever, pain, sore/dry mouth and nausea improved; drowsiness became worse. Common treatments were low dose morphine and midazolam. Having moderate to severe breathlessness, agitation and multimorbidity were associated with shorter survival. CONCLUSION: Symptoms of COVID quickly improved during palliative care. Breathlessness, agitation and multimorbidity could be used as triggers for timelier referral, and symptom guidance for wider specialities should build on treatments identified in this study.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Delirium , Aged , COVID-19/therapy , Cohort Studies , Dyspnea , Humans , Midazolam , Morphine , Pain , Palliative Care
9.
EClinicalMedicine ; 44: 101287, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1757288

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We aimed to describe pre-existing factors associated with severe disease, primarily admission to critical care, and death secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitalised children and young people (CYP), within a systematic review and individual patient meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched Pubmed, European PMC, Medline and Embase for case series and cohort studies published between 1st January 2020 and 21st May 2021 which included all CYP admitted to hospital with ≥ 30 CYP with SARS-CoV-2 or ≥ 5 CYP with PIMS-TS or MIS-C. Eligible studies contained (1) details of age, sex, ethnicity or co-morbidities, and (2) an outcome which included admission to critical care, mechanical invasive ventilation, cardiovascular support, or death. Studies reporting outcomes in more restricted groupings of co-morbidities were eligible for narrative review. We used random effects meta-analyses for aggregate study-level data and multilevel mixed effect models for IPD data to examine risk factors (age, sex, comorbidities) associated with admission to critical care and death. Data shown are odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI).PROSPERO: CRD42021235338. FINDINGS: 83 studies were included, 57 (21,549 patients) in the meta-analysis (of which 22 provided IPD) and 26 in the narrative synthesis. Most studies had an element of bias in their design or reporting. Sex was not associated with critical care or death. Compared with CYP aged 1-4 years (reference group), infants (aged <1 year) had increased odds of admission to critical care (OR 1.63 (95% CI 1.40-1.90)) and death (OR 2.08 (1.57-2.86)). Odds of death were increased amongst CYP over 10 years (10-14 years OR 2.15 (1.54-2.98); >14 years OR 2.15 (1.61-2.88)).The number of comorbid conditions was associated with increased odds of admission to critical care and death for COVID-19 in a step-wise fashion. Compared with CYP without comorbidity, odds ratios for critical care admission were: 1.49 (1.45-1.53) for 1 comorbidity; 2.58 (2.41-2.75) for 2 comorbidities; 2.97 (2.04-4.32) for ≥3 comorbidities. Corresponding odds ratios for death were: 2.15 (1.98-2.34) for 1 comorbidity; 4.63 (4.54-4.74) for 2 comorbidities and 4.98 (3.78-6.65) for ≥3 comorbidities. Odds of admission to critical care were increased for all co-morbidities apart from asthma (0.92 (0.91-0.94)) and malignancy (0.85 (0.17-4.21)) with an increased odds of death in all co-morbidities considered apart from asthma. Neurological and cardiac comorbidities were associated with the greatest increase in odds of severe disease or death. Obesity increased the odds of severe disease and death independently of other comorbidities. IPD analysis demonstrated that, compared to children without co-morbidity, the risk difference of admission to critical care was increased in those with 1 comorbidity by 3.61% (1.87-5.36); 2 comorbidities by 9.26% (4.87-13.65); ≥3 comorbidities 10.83% (4.39-17.28), and for death: 1 comorbidity 1.50% (0.00-3.10); 2 comorbidities 4.40% (-0.10-8.80) and ≥3 co-morbidities 4.70 (0.50-8.90). INTERPRETATION: Hospitalised CYP at greatest vulnerability of severe disease or death with SARS-CoV-2 infection are infants, teenagers, those with cardiac or neurological conditions, or 2 or more comorbid conditions, and those who are obese. These groups should be considered higher priority for vaccination and for protective shielding when appropriate. Whilst odds ratios were high, the absolute increase in risk for most comorbidities was small compared to children without underlying conditions. FUNDING: RH is in receipt of a fellowship from Kidney Research UK (grant no. TF_010_20171124). JW is in receipt of a Medical Research Council Fellowship (Grant No. MR/R00160X/1). LF is in receipt of funding from Martin House Children's Hospice (there is no specific grant number for this). RV is in receipt of a grant from the National Institute of Health Research to support this work (grant no NIHR202322). Funders had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

10.
J R Soc Med ; 115(6): 220-230, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1673700

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of, and impact on, staff working in palliative care during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Qualitative multiple case study using semi-structured interviews between November 2020 and April 2021 as part of the CovPall study. Data were analysed using thematic framework analysis. SETTING: Organisations providing specialist palliative services in any setting. PARTICIPANTS: Staff working in specialist palliative care, purposefully sampled by the criteria of role, care setting and COVID-19 experience. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Experiences of working in palliative care during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Five cases and 24 participants were recruited (n = 12 nurses, 4 clinical managers, 4 doctors, 2 senior managers, 1 healthcare assistant, 1 allied healthcare professional). Central themes demonstrate how infection control constraints prohibited and diluted participants' ability to provide care that reflected their core values, resulting in experiences of moral distress. Despite organisational, team and individual support strategies, continually managing these constraints led to a 'crescendo effect' in which the impacts of moral distress accumulated over time, sometimes leading to burnout. Solidarity with colleagues and making a valued contribution provided 'moral comfort' for some. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a unique insight into why and how healthcare staff have experienced moral distress during the pandemic, and how organisations have responded. Despite their experience of dealing with death and dying, the mental health and well-being of palliative care staff was affected by the pandemic. Organisational, structural and policy changes are urgently required to mitigate and manage these impacts.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Palliative Care , Pandemics , Qualitative Research
11.
Nat Med ; 28(1): 193-200, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1585817

ABSTRACT

Identifying which children and young people (CYP) are most vulnerable to serious infection due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is important to guide protective interventions. To address this question, we used data for all hospitalizations in England among 0-17 year olds from 1 February 2019 to 31 January 2021. We examined how sociodemographic factors and comorbidities might be risk factors for pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admission among hospitalizations due to the following causes: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and pediatric inflammatory multi-system syndrome temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2 (PIMS-TS) in the first pandemic year (2020-2021); hospitalizations due to all other non-traumatic causes in 2020-2021; hospitalizations due to all non-traumatic causes in 2019-2020; and hospitalizations due to influenza in 2019-2020. Risk of PICU admission and death from COVID-19 or PIMS-TS in CYP was very low. We identified 6,338 hospitalizations with COVID-19, of which 259 were admitted to a PICU and eight CYP died. We identified 712 hospitalizations with PIMS-TS, of which 312 were admitted to a PICU and fewer than five CYP died. Hospitalizations with COVID-19 and PIMS-TS were more common among males, older CYP, those from socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods and those who were of non-White ethnicity (Black, Asian, Mixed or Other). The odds of PICU admission were increased in CYP younger than 1 month old and decreased among 15-17 year olds compared to 1-4 year olds with COVID-19; increased in older CYP and females with PIMS-TS; and increased for Black compared to White ethnicity in patients with COVID-19 and PIMS-TS. Odds of PICU admission in COVID-19 were increased for CYP with comorbidities and highest for CYP with multiple medical problems. Increases in odds of PICU admission associated with different comorbidities in COVID-19 showed a similar pattern to other causes of hospitalization examined and, thus, likely reflect background vulnerabilities. These findings identify distinct risk factors associated with PICU admission among CYP with COVID-19 or PIMS-TS that might aid treatment and prevention strategies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Ethnicity/statistics & numerical data , Intensive Care Units, Pediatric/statistics & numerical data , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/epidemiology , Adolescent , Age Factors , Asian People/statistics & numerical data , Black People/statistics & numerical data , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Child , Child, Preschool , Comorbidity , England/epidemiology , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Nervous System Diseases/epidemiology , Odds Ratio , Respiratory Tract Diseases/epidemiology , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Severity of Illness Index , Social Deprivation , White People/statistics & numerical data
12.
J Palliat Med ; 25(3): 465-471, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1585195

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To identify factors associated with palliative care services being busier during Covid-19. Methods: Cross-sectional online survey of UK palliative care services (April to July 2020) (CovPall). Ethical approval was received from King's College London Research Ethics committee (LRS-19/20-18541). The primary outcome was change in busyness (five-point ordinal scale). Ordinal logistic regression investigated factors associated with the primary outcome. Results: Of 277 responses, 71 (26%) reported being a lot more busy, 62 (22%) slightly more, 53 (19%) about the same, 50 (18%) slightly less, and 28 (10%) much less busy. Increased business was associated with homecare services (odds ratio [OR] 1.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-3.25), nursing care at home (OR 3.24, 95% CI 1.70-6.19), publicly managed services (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.11-4.34), Covid-19 cases (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.01), and staff shortages (OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.64-4.48). Conclusion: Services providing community care, and publicly managed services, may have been better able to respond to escalating needs during Covid-19. This has potential implications for both service delivery and funding models.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Palliative Care , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
13.
Palliat Med ; 36(2): 319-331, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1582706

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Palliative rehabilitation involves multi-professional processes and interventions aimed at optimising patients' symptom self-management, independence and social participation throughout advanced illness. Rehabilitation services were highly disrupted during the Covid-19 pandemic. AIM: To understand rehabilitation provision in palliative care services during the Covid-19 pandemic, identifying and reflecting on adaptative and innovative practice to inform ongoing provision. DESIGN: Cross-sectional national online survey. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Rehabilitation leads for specialist palliative care services across hospice, hospital, or community settings, conducted from 30/07/20 to 21/09/2020. FINDINGS: 61 completed responses (England, n = 55; Scotland, n = 4; Wales, n = 1; and Northern Ireland, n = 1) most frequently from services based in hospices (56/61, 92%) providing adult rehabilitation. Most services (55/61, 90%) reported rehabilitation provision becoming remote during Covid-19 and half reported reduced caseloads. Rehabilitation teams frequently had staff members on sick-leave with suspected/confirmed Covid-19 (27/61, 44%), redeployed to other services/organisations (25/61, 41%) or furloughed (15/61, 26%). Free text responses were constructed into four themes: (i) fluctuating shared spaces; (ii) remote and digitised rehabilitation offer; (iii) capacity to provide and participate in rehabilitation; (iv) Covid-19 as a springboard for positive change. These represent how rehabilitation services contracted, reconfigured, and were redirected to more remote modes of delivery, and how this affected the capacity of clinicians and patients to participate in rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates how changes in provision of rehabilitation during the pandemic could act as a springboard for positive changes. Hybrid models of rehabilitation have the potential to expand the equity of access and reach of rehabilitation within specialist palliative care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hospices , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Palliative Care , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
14.
Nat Med ; 28(1): 185-192, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1514420

ABSTRACT

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is rarely fatal in children and young people (CYP, <18 years old), but quantifying the risk of death is challenging because CYP are often infected with SARS-CoV-2 exhibiting no or minimal symptoms. To distinguish between CYP who died as a result of SARS-CoV-2 infection and those who died of another cause but were coincidentally infected with the virus, we undertook a clinical review of all CYP deaths with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test from March 2020 to February 2021. The predominant SARS-CoV-2 variants were wild-type and Alpha. Here we show that, of 12,023,568 CYP living in England, 3,105 died, including 61 who were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Of these deaths, 25 were due to SARS-CoV-2 infection (mortality rate, two per million), including 22 due to coronavirus disease 2019-the clinical disease associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection-and 3 were due to pediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2. In total, 99.995% of CYP with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test survived. CYP older than 10 years, Asian and Black ethnic backgrounds and comorbidities were over-represented in SARS-CoV-2-related deaths compared with other CYP deaths. These results are important for guiding decisions on shielding and vaccinating children. New variants might have different mortality risks and should be evaluated in a similar way.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , Ethnicity/statistics & numerical data , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/mortality , Adolescent , Age Distribution , Asian People/statistics & numerical data , Black People/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/ethnology , Cause of Death , Child , Child, Preschool , England/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , SARS-CoV-2 , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/epidemiology , Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome/ethnology , White People/statistics & numerical data
15.
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care ; 11(Suppl 2):A77, 2021.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1495631

ABSTRACT

In the UK, the children’s hospice sector has become increasingly concerned about levels of work-related stress among its staff. This stems from increasing evidence that staff wellbeing is associated with the quality, cost and safety of patient care, and an acknowledgment of the important role of those working in children’s hospices.The SWiCH study, conducted by the Martin House Research Centre at the University of York, aims to increase understanding about the work-related stressors and rewards experienced by children’s hospice care staff, and to identify the staff support systems and organisational practices that offer the most potential to enhance wellbeing at work. This paper will present preliminary findings from the study.A national survey of UK children’s hospice organisations and their care staff was administered between May and November 2020. A total of 583 staff from 32 children’s hospices responded.Initial analysis of the survey shows that 12 percent of respondents were suffering from moderate to severe burnout. Overall, respondents had an average burnout score (on the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory) of 32.5 (n=583), which compares to an average score of 45.7 amongst a small sample (c.2.5%) of NHS staff surveyed during the COVID-19 pandemic. UK children’s hospice staff who responded to the survey had an average Job Satisfaction score of 6.9 (n=414), and an average Core Engagement score of 7.5 (n=415), the latter of which compares to the average of 7.0 for NHS staff (2020).Further data analysis for the study will explore how these outcomes relate to the work-related stressors and rewards of working in a children’s hospice, and what staff support systems and organisational practices have an impact on psychological wellbeing.

16.
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care ; 11(Suppl 2):A1, 2021.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1495560

ABSTRACT

BackgroundCOVID-19 has placed huge stress on healthcare systems and services, often impacting the well-being of staff across all settings (Mehta, Machado, Kwizera, et al., 2021). Little is known about the pandemic’s impact on hospice staff.AimsIdentify how responding to COVID-19 has impacted hospice staff, whether and why this resulted in experiences of moral distress, and how hospices have responded in supporting staff well-being.MethodsQualitative multiple case study (Yin, 2017) (n= five cases), as part of the CovPall study which explored the multinational response of specialist palliative services to the pandemic. Cases were hospices in England providing specialist palliative care services in any setting. Data collection involved individual interviews with hospice professionals and analysed using framework analysis (Ritchie, Lewis, Nicholls, et al., 2013).Results24 participants sampled by role, experience, and setting. Themes demonstrated how infection control constraints (i.e., visiting restrictions) prohibited and diluted staff’s capacity to provide care that reflected their professional values. This caused moral distress. Despite organisational, team, and individual support strategies to address moral distress, continually managing these constraints led to a ‘crescendo effect’ with cumulative effects of moral distress (e.g., sadness, guilt, frustration, and fatigue) sometimes leading to burnout. Solidarity with colleagues and the feeling of making a valued contribution provided ‘moral comfort’ for some.ConclusionsDespite their experience of dealing with death and dying, the well-being of hospice staff has been, and continues to be, affected by experiences of moral distress during the pandemic.How innovative or of interest is the abstractWe provide an in-depth insight into why and how hospice staff experienced moral distress during the pandemic, alongside how voluntary organisations responded. Given that prolonged experiences of moral distress has detrimental effects on staff and the quality of patient care, (Burston & Tuckett, 2013) national and organisational changes need to be implemented to alleviate and manage the short and long-term impact of moral distress (Jameton, 2017).Funding statementThe CovPall study is jointly funded by UKRI and NIHR [COV0011;MR/V012908/1]. Additional support was from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration, South London, hosted at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, and Cicely Saunders International (Registered Charity No. 1087195).

17.
Int J Health Policy Manag ; 2021 Sep 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1478974

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Volunteers are common within palliative care services, and provide support that enhances care quality. The support they provided, and any role changes, during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are unknown. The aim of this study is to understand volunteer deployment and activities within palliative care services, and to identify what may affect any changes in volunteer service provision, during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Multi-national online survey disseminated via key stakeholders to specialist palliative care services, completed by lead clinicians. Data collected on volunteer roles, deployment, and changes in volunteer engagement. Analysis included descriptive statistics, a multivariable logistic regression, and analysis of free-text comments using a content analysis approach. RESULTS: 458 respondents: 277 UK, 85 rest of Europe, and 95 rest of the world. 68.5% indicated volunteer use pre-COVID-19 across a number of roles (from 458): direct patient facing support (58.7%), indirect support (52.0%), back office (48.5%) and fundraising (45.6%). 11% had volunteers with COVID-19. Of those responding to a question on change in volunteer deployment (328 of 458) most (256/328, 78%) indicated less or much less use of volunteers. Less use of volunteers was associated with being an in-patient hospice, (odds ratio [OR]=0.15, 95% CI=0.07-0.3, P<.001). This reduction in volunteers was felt to protect potentially vulnerable volunteers, with policy changes preventing volunteer support. However, adapting was also seen where new roles were created, or existing roles pivoted to provide virtual support. CONCLUSION: Volunteers were mostly prevented from supporting many forms of palliative care which may have quality and safety implications given their previously central roles. Volunteer re-deployment plans are needed that take a more considered approach, using volunteers more flexibly to enhance care while ensuring safe working practices. Consideration needs to be given to widening the volunteer base away from those who may be considered to be most vulnerable to COVID-19.

18.
BMJ Support Palliat Care ; 2021 Sep 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1405222

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To develop insights into response of palliative care services caring for people from ethnic minority groups during COVID-19. METHODS: Cross-sectional online survey of UK palliative care services response to COVID-19. Quantitative data were summarised descriptively and χ2 tests used to explore relationships between categorical variables. Free text comments were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: 277 UK services responded. 168 included hospice teams (76% of all UK hospice teams). Services supporting those from ethnic minority groups were more likely to include hospital (p<0.001) and less likely to include hospice (p<0.001) or home care teams (p=0.008). 34% (93/277) of services had cared for patients with COVID-19 or families from ethnic minority groups. 66% (61/93) of these services stated no difference in how they supported or reached these groups during the pandemic.Three themes demonstrated impact of policy introduced during the pandemic, including: disproportionate adverse impact of restricted visiting, compounded communication challenges and unmet religious and faith needs. One theme demonstrated mistrust of services by ethnic minority groups, and the final theme demonstrated a focus on equal and individualised care. CONCLUSIONS: Policies introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic may have adversely impacted those from ethnic minority groups making these at-risk populations even more vulnerable. The palliative care response may have been equal but inequitable. During the para-COVID-19 period, systemic steps, including equality impact assessments, are urgently needed.

19.
Palliat Med ; 35(7): 1225-1237, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1243765

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Specialist palliative care services play an important role in conducting advance care planning during COVID-19. Little is known about the challenges to advance care planning in this context, or the changes services made to adapt. AIM: Describe the challenges that UK specialist palliative care services experienced regarding advance care planning during COVID-19 and changes made to support timely conversations. DESIGN: Online survey of UK palliative/hospice services' response to COVID-19. Closed-ended responses are reported descriptively. Open-ended responses were analysed using a thematic Framework approach using the Social Ecological Model to understand challenges. RESPONDENTS: Two hundred and seventy-seven services. RESULTS: More direct advance care planning was provided by 38% of services, and 59% provided more support to others. Some challenges to advance care planning pre-dated the pandemic, whilst others were specific to/exacerbated by COVID-19. Challenges are demonstrated through six themes: complex decision making in the face of a new infectious disease; maintaining a personalised approach; COVID-19-specific communication difficulties; workload and pressure; sharing information; and national context of fear and uncertainty. Two themes demonstrate changes made to support: adapting local processes and adapting local structures. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals and healthcare providers need to ensure advance care planning is individualised by tailoring it to the values, priorities, and ethnic/cultural/religious context of each person. Policymakers need to consider how high-quality advance care planning can be resourced as a part of standard healthcare ahead of future pandemic waves. In facilitating this, we provide questions to consider at each level of the Social Ecological Model.


Subject(s)
Advance Care Planning , COVID-19 , Humans , Palliative Care , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom
20.
Palliat Med ; 35(5): 814-829, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1146899

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Specialist palliative care services have a key role in a whole system response to COVID-19, a disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. There is a need to understand service response to share good practice and prepare for future care. AIM: To map and understand specialist palliative care services innovations and practice changes in response to COVID-19. DESIGN: Online survey of specialist palliative care providers (CovPall), disseminated via key stakeholders. Data collected on service characteristics, innovations and changes in response to COVID-19. Statistical analysis included frequencies, proportions and means, and free-text comments were analysed using a qualitative framework approach. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Inpatient palliative care units, home nursing services, hospital and home palliative care teams from any country. RESULTS: Four hundred and fifty-eight respondents: 277 UK, 85 Europe (except UK), 95 World (except UK and Europe), 1 missing country. 54.8% provided care across 2+ settings; 47.4% hospital palliative care teams, 57% in-patient palliative care units and 57% home palliative care teams. The crisis context meant services implemented rapid changes. Changes involved streamlining, extending and increasing outreach of services, using technology to facilitate communication, and implementing staff wellbeing innovations. Barriers included; fear and anxiety, duplication of effort, information overload and funding. Enablers included; collaborative teamwork, staff flexibility, a pre-existing IT infrastructure and strong leadership. CONCLUSIONS: Specialist palliative care services have been flexible, highly adaptive and have adopted low-cost solutions, also called 'frugal innovations', in response to COVID-19. In addition to financial support, greater collaboration is essential to minimise duplication of effort and optimise resource use.ISRCTN16561225 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN16561225.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Palliative Care , Europe , Humans , Inventions , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL