The impact of remote care approaches on continuity in primary care: a mixed-studies systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The value of continuity in primary care has been demonstrated for multiple positive outcomes. However, little is known about how the expansion of remote and digital care models in primary care have impacted continuity. AIM: To explore the impact of the expansion of remote and digital care models on continuity in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of continuity in primary care. METHOD: A keyword search of Embase, MEDLINE, and CINAHL databases was used along with snowball sampling to identify relevant English-language qualitative and quantitative studies from any country between 2000 and 2022, which explored remote or digital approaches in primary care and continuity. Relevant data were extracted, analysed using GRADE-CERQual, and narratively synthesised. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included in the review. The specific impact of remote approaches on continuity was rarely overtly addressed. Some patients expressed a preference for relational continuity depending on circumstance, problem, and context; others prioritised access. Clinicians valued continuity, with some viewing remote consultations more suitable where there was high episodic or relational continuity. With lower continuity, patients and clinicians considered remote consultations harder, higher risk, and poorer quality. Some evidence suggested that remote approaches and/or their implementation risked worsening inequalities and causing harm by reducing continuity where it was valuable. However, if deployed strategically and flexibly, remote approaches could improve continuity. CONCLUSION: While the value of continuity in primary care has previously been well demonstrated, the dearth of evidence around continuity in a remote and digital context is troubling. Further research is, therefore, needed to explore the links between the shift to remote care, continuity and equity, using real-world evaluation frameworks to ascertain when and for whom continuity adds most value, and how this can be enabled or maintained.

Extended use or reuse of single-use surgical masks and filtering face-piece respirators during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: A rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Shortages of personal protective equipment during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have led to the extended use or reuse of single-use respirators and surgical masks by frontline healthcare workers. The evidence base underpinning such practices warrants examination. OBJECTIVES: To synthesize current guidance and systematic review evidence on extended use, reuse, or reprocessing of single-use surgical masks or filtering face-piece respirators. DATA SOURCES: We used the World Health Organization, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Public Health England websites to identify guidance. We used Medline, PubMed, Epistemonikos, Cochrane Database, and preprint servers for systematic reviews. METHODS: Two reviewers conducted screening and data extraction. The quality of included systematic reviews was appraised using AMSTAR-2. Findings were narratively synthesized. RESULTS: In total, 6 guidance documents were identified. Levels of detail and consistency across documents varied. They included 4 high-quality systematic reviews: 3 focused on reprocessing (decontamination) of N95 respirators and 1 focused on reprocessing of surgical masks. Vaporized hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet germicidal irradiation were highlighted as the most promising reprocessing methods, but evidence on the relative efficacy and safety of different methods was limited. We found no well-established methods for reprocessing respirators at scale. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the impact of extended use and reuse of surgical masks and respirators is limited, and gaps and inconsistencies exist in current guidance. Where extended use or reuse is being practiced, healthcare organizations should ensure that policies and systems are in place to ensure these practices are carried out safely and in line with available guidance.

Covid-19 in the UK: policy on children and schools

Deepti Gurdasani and colleagues argue UK covid policy did not give children sufficient priority and question the evidence behind government decisions

What were the historical reasons for the resistance to recognizing airborne transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic?

The question of whether SARS-CoV-2 is mainly transmitted by droplets or aerosols has been highly controversial. We sought to explain this controversy through a historical analysis of transmission research in other diseases. For most of human history, the dominant paradigm was that many diseases were carried by the air, often over long distances and in a phantasmagorical way. This miasmatic paradigm was challenged in the mid to late 19th century with the rise of germ theory, and as diseases such as cholera, puerperal fever, and malaria were found to actually transmit in other ways. Motivated by his views on the importance of contact/droplet infection, and the resistance he encountered from the remaining influence of miasma theory, prominent public health official Charles Chapin in 1910 helped initiate a successful paradigm shift, deeming airborne transmission most unlikely. This new paradigm became dominant. However, the lack of understanding of aerosols led to systematic errors in the interpretation of research evidence on transmission pathways. For the next five decades, airborne transmission was considered of negligible or minor importance for all major respiratory diseases, until a demonstration of airborne transmission of tuberculosis (which had been mistakenly thought to be transmitted by droplets) in 1962. The contact/droplet paradigm remained dominant, and only a few diseases were widely accepted as airborne before COVID-19: those that were clearly transmitted to people not in the same room. The acceleration of interdisciplinary research inspired by the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that airborne transmission is a major mode of transmission for this disease, and is likely to be significant for many respiratory infectious diseases.

The Long Covid Self-Help Guide. Practical Ways To Manage Symptoms

Greenhalgh reviews The Long Covid Self-Help Guide: Practical Ways to Manage Symptoms

In the wake of the pandemic: preparing for long COVID

This brief’s key messages are:COVID-19 can cause persistent ill-health. Around a quarter of people who have had the virus experience symptoms that continue for at least a month but one in 10 are still unwell after 12 weeks. This has been described by patient groups as “Long COVID”. Our understanding of how to diagnose and manage Long COVID is still evolving but the condition can be very debilitating. It is associated with a range of overlapping symptoms including generalized chest and muscle pain, fatigue, shortness of breath, and cognitive dysfunction, and the mechanisms involved affect multiple system and include persisting inflammation, thrombosis, and autoimmunity. It can affect anyone, but women and health care workers seem to be at greater risk. Long COVID has a serious impact on people’s ability to go back to work or have a social life. It affects their mental health and may have significant economic consequences for them, their families and for society. Policy responses need to take account of the complexity of Long COVID and how what is known about it is evolving rapidly. Areas to address include: The need for multidisciplinary, multispecialty approaches to assessment and management;Development, in association with patients and their families, of new care pathways and contextually appropriate guidelines for health professionals, especially in primary care to enable case management to be tailored to the manifestations of disease and involvement of different organ systems; The creation of appropriate services, including rehabilitation and online support tools; Action to tackle the wider consequences of Long COVID, including attention to employment rights, sick pay policies, and access to benefit and disability benefit packages; Involving patients both to foster self-care and self-help and in shaping awareness of Long COVID and the service (and research) needs it generates; and implementing well-functioning patient registers and other surveillance systems; creating cohorts of patients; and following up those affected as a means to support the research which is so critical to understanding and treating Long COVID.