Multi-faceted intervention to improve management of antibiotics for children presenting to primary care with acute cough and respiratory tract infection (CHICO): efficient cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether an easy-to-use multifaceted intervention for children presenting to primary care with respiratory tract infections would reduce antibiotic dispensing, without increasing hospital admissions for respiratory tract infection. DESIGN: Two arm randomised controlled trial clustered by general practice, using routine outcome data, with qualitative and economic evaluations. SETTING: English primary care practices using the EMIS electronic medical record system. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 0-9 years presenting with respiratory tract infection at 294 general practices, before and during the covid-19 pandemic. INTERVENTION: Elicitation of parental concerns during consultation; a clinician focused prognostic algorithm to identify children at very low, normal, or elevated 30 day risk of hospital admission accompanied by antibiotic prescribing guidance; and a leaflet for carers including safety netting advice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of dispensed amoxicillin and macrolide antibiotics (superiority comparison) and hospital admissions for respiratory tract infection (non-inferiority comparison) for children aged 0-9 years over 12 months (same age practice list size as denominator). RESULTS: Of 310 practices needed, 294 (95%) were randomised (144 intervention and 150 controls) representing 5% of all registered 0-9 year olds in England. Of these, 12 (4%) subsequently withdrew (six owing to the pandemic). Median intervention use per practice was 70 (by a median of 9 clinicians). No evidence was found that antibiotic dispensing differed between intervention practices (155 (95% confidence interval 138 to 174) items/year/1000 children) and control practices (157 (140 to 176) items/year/1000 children) (rate ratio 1.011, 95% confidence interval 0.992 to 1.029; P=0.25). Pre-specified subgroup analyses suggested reduced dispensing in intervention practices with fewer prescribing nurses, in single site (compared with multisite) practices, and in practices located in areas of lower socioeconomic deprivation, which may warrant future investigation. Pre-specified sensitivity analysis suggested reduced dispensing among older children in the intervention arm (P=0.03). A post hoc sensitivity analysis suggested less dispensing in intervention practices before the pandemic (rate ratio 0.967, 0.946 to 0.989; P=0.003). The rate of hospital admission for respiratory tract infections in the intervention practices (13 (95% confidence interval 10 to 18) admissions/1000 children) was non-inferior compared with control practices (15 (12 to 20) admissions/1000 children) (rate ratio 0.952, 0.905 to 1.003). CONCLUSIONS: This multifaceted antibiotic stewardship intervention for children with respiratory tract infections did not reduce overall antibiotic dispensing or increase respiratory tract infection related hospital admissions. Evidence suggested that in some subgroups and situations (for example, under non-pandemic conditions) the intervention slightly reduced prescribing rates but not in a clinically relevant way. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN11405239ISRCTN registry ISRCTN11405239.

The experience of conducting collaborative and intensive pragmatic qualitative (CLIP-Q) research to support rapid public health and healthcare innovation

A key challenge for qualitative methods in applied health research is the fast pace that can characterize the public health and health and care service landscape, where there is a need for research informed by immediate pragmatic questions and relevant findings are required quickly to inform decision-making. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the pace at which evidence was needed to inform urgent public health and healthcare decision-making. This required qualitative researchers to step up to the challenge of conducting research at speed whilst maintaining rigor and ensuring the findings are credible. This article illustrates how working with multidisciplinary, collaborative teams and the tailoring of qualitative methods to be more pragmatic and efficient can provide timely and credible results. Using time-limited case studies of applied qualitative health research drawn from the work of the Behavioral and Qualitative Science Team from the National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West), we illustrate our collaborative and intensive pragmatic qualitative (CLIP-Q) approach. CLIP-Q involves (i) collaboration at all stages of the design, conduct and implementation of projects and, where possible, co-production with people with lived experience, (ii) an intensive team-based approach to data collection and analysis at pace, and (iii) pragmatic study design and efficient strategies at each stage of the research process. The case studies include projects conducted pre COVID-19 and during the first wave of the pandemic, where urgent evidence was required in weeks rather than months to inform rapid public health and healthcare decision making.

Preventing within household transmission of Covid-19: is the provision of accommodation to support self-isolation feasible and acceptable?

BACKGROUND: Within-household transmission of Covid-19 is responsible for a significant number of infections. Efforts to protect at risk communities are needed. This study explored the acceptability of offering accommodation to support self-isolation among at risk populations, to prevent transmission of Covid-19 within vulnerable households. METHODS: Mixed methods design structured in two phases. Phase 1: Survey of 545 individuals who had provided consent to be contacted about ongoing research projects into infection control. Phase 2: Semi-structured interviews with 19 participants from ethnic minority and low income communities. RESULTS: Many survey and interview participants viewed the provision of accommodation as important and necessary in certain contexts. Of the 110 survey respondents, 85 (77%) said that they were not able to isolate at home. Among this group, 24 (28%) said they would accept accommodation and 23 (27%) said that they would probably accept. Of those unable to isolate at home, and at high risk if they caught the virus (N = 36) or living with someone at high risk (N 18), 19 (35%) said that they would accept, and 12 (22%) said they would probably accept accommodation. Factors influencing uptake of accommodation included perceived 1) household vulnerability 2) virus exposure and 3) lack of isolation at home options. Barriers to accepting the accommodation offer included 1) able to isolate at home 2) wanting to be with family 3) caring responsibilities 4) mental wellbeing concerns 5) concerns about moving when ill and 6) infection control concerns. Participants raised issues that should be addressed before accommodation is offered, including questions regarding who should use temporary accommodation and when, and how infection control in temporary accommodation would be managed. CONCLUSION: The provision of accommodation to prevent within household transmission of Covid-19 is viewed as acceptable, feasible and necessary by some people who are concerned about infection transmission in the home and are unable to self-isolate or socially distance at home. Different households will have different requirements, e.g., those with caring responsibilities, and to overcome these challenges additional support may be needed for the provision of accommodation to be feasible to those who could benefit most.

Living Under Coronavirus and Injecting Drugs in Bristol (LUCID-B): A qualitative study of experiences of COVID-19 among people who inject drugs.

BACKGROUND: People who inject drugs (PWID) are a high-risk group for COVID-19 transmission and serious health consequences. Restrictions imposed in the UK in response to the pandemic led to rapid health and housing service alterations. We aimed to examine PWID experiences of: 1) challenges relating to the COVID-19 public health measures; 2) changes to opioid substitution therapy (OST) and harm reduction services; and 3) perceived effects of COVID-19 on drug use patterns and risk behaviour. METHODS: Telephone semi-structured interviews were conducted with 28 PWID in Bristol, Southwest of England. Analysis followed a reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Concern about COVID-19 and adherence to public health guidance varied. Efforts made by services to continue providing support during the pandemic were appreciated and some changes were preferred, such as less frequent OST collection, relaxation of supervised consumption and needle and syringe programmes (NSP) home delivery. However, remote forms of contact were highlighted as less beneficial and more difficult to engage with than in-person contact. Public health guidance advising people to 'stay home' led to increased isolation, boredom, and time to ruminate which impacted negatively on mental health. Lockdown restrictions directly impacted on sources of income and routine. Changes in drug use were explained as a consequence of isolation and fewer interactions with peers, problems accessing drugs, reduced drug purity and reduced financial resources. CONCLUSION: This study captures the significant impacts and challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic on the lives of PWID. While rapid adaptations to service delivery to help mitigate the risks of COVID-19 were appreciated and some changes such as relaxation of supervised daily OST consumption were viewed positively, barriers to access need further attention. Going forwards there may be opportunities to harness the positive aspects of some changes to services.

Maintaining face-to-face contact during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal qualitative investigation in UK primary care.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic required a rapid reconfiguration of UK general practice to minimise face-to-face contact with patients to reduce infection risk. However, some face-to-face contact remained necessary and practices needed to ensure such contact could continue safely. AIM: To examine how practices determined when face-to-face contact was necessary and how face-to-face consultations were reconfigured to reduce COVID-19 infection risk. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative interview study in general practices in Bristol, North Somerset, and South Gloucestershire. METHOD: Longitudinal semi-structured interviews with clinical and managerial practice staff were undertaken at four timepoints between May and July 2020. RESULTS: Practices worked flexibly within general national guidance to determine when face-to-face contact with patients was necessary, influenced by knowledge of the patient, experience, and practice resilience. For example, practices prioritised patients according to clinical need using face-to-face contact to resolve clinician uncertainty or provide adequate reassurance to patients. To make face-to-face contact as safe as possible and keep patients separated, practices introduced a heterogeneous range of measures that exploited features of their indoor and outdoor spaces, and altered their appointment processes. As national restrictions eased in June and July, the number and proportion of patients seen face to face generally increased. However, the reconfiguration of buildings and processes reduced the available capacity and put increased pressure on practices. CONCLUSION: Practices responded rapidly and creatively to the initial lockdown restrictions. The variety of ways practices organised face-to-face contact to minimise infection highlights the need for flexibility in guidance.

Changes in presentations with features potentially indicating cancer in primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the number of people aged 50+ years presenting to primary care with features that could potentially indicate cancer, and to explore how reporting differed by patient characteristics and in face-to-face vs remote consultations. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study of general practitioner (GP), nurse and paramedic primary care consultations in 21 practices in South-West England covering 123 947 patients. The models compared potential cancer indicators reported in April-July 2019 with April-July 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Potential indicators of cancer were identified using code lists for symptoms, signs, test results and diagnoses listed in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence suspected cancer referral guidance (NG12). RESULTS: During April-July 2019, 17% of registered patients aged 50+ years reported a potential cancer indicator in a consultation with a GP or nurse. During April-July 2020, this reduced to 11% (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.67, p<0.001). Reductions in potential cancer indicators were stable across age group, sex, ethnicity, index of multiple deprivation quintile and shielding status, but less marked in patients with mental health conditions than without (IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.79, interaction p<0.001). Proportions of GP consultations with potential indicators of cancer reduced between 2019 and 2020 for face-to-face consultations (IRR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.92, p<0.001) and increased for remote consultations (IRR 1.17, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.29, p=0.001), although it remained lower in remote consulting than face-to-face in April-July 2020. This difference was greater for nurse/paramedic consultations (face-to-face: IRR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.83, p=0.002; remote: IRR 1.60, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.333, p=0.014). CONCLUSION: The number of patients consulting with presentations that could potentially indicate cancer reduced during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients should be encouraged to continue contacting primary care for persistent signs and symptoms, and GPs and nurses should be encouraged to probe patients for further information during remote consulting, in the absence of non-verbal cues.

Primary Care implementation of Germ Defence, a digital behaviour change intervention to improve household infection control during the COVID-19 pandemic: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of randomising dissemination of the Germ Defence behaviour change website via GP practices across England UK. TRIAL DESIGN: A two-arm (1:1 ratio) cluster randomised controlled trial implementing Germ Defence via GP practices compared with usual care. PARTICIPANTS: Setting: All Primary care GP practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: All patients aged 16 years and over who were granted access by participating GP practices. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention: We will ask staff at GP practices randomised to the intervention arm to share the weblink to Germ Defence with all adult patients registered at their practice during the 4-month trial implementation period and care will otherwise follow current standard management. Germ Defence is an interactive website ( http://GermDefence.org/ ) employing behaviour change techniques and practical advice on how to reduce the spread of infection in the home. The coronavirus version of Germ Defence helps people understand what measures to take and when to take them to avoid infection. This includes hand washing, avoiding sharing rooms and surfaces, dealing with deliveries and ventilating rooms. Using behaviour change techniques, it helps users think through and adopt better home hygiene habits and find ways to solve any barriers, providing personalised goal setting and tailored advice that fits users' personal circumstances and problem solving to overcome barriers. Comparator: Patients at GP practices randomised to the usual care arm will receive current standard management for the 4-month trial period after which we will ask staff to share the link to Germ Defence with all adult patients registered at their practice. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is the effects of implementing Germ Defence on prevalence of all respiratory tract infection diagnoses during the 4-month trial implementation period. The secondary outcomes are: 1) incidence of COVID-19 diagnoses 2) incidence of COVID-19 symptom presentation 3) incidence of gastrointestinal infections 4) number of primary care consultations 5) antibiotic usage 6) hospital admissions 7) uptake of GP practices disseminating Germ Defence to their patients 8) usage of the Germ Defence website by individuals who were granted access by their GP practice RANDOMISATION: GP practices will be randomised on a 1:1 basis by the independent Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration (BRTC). Clinical Commission Groups (CCGs) in England will be divided into blocks according to region, and equal numbers in each block will be randomly allocated to intervention or usual care. The randomisation schedule will be generated in Stata statistical software by a statistician not otherwise involved in the enrolment of general practices into the study. BLINDING (MASKING): The principal investigators, the statistician and study collaborators will remain blinded from the identity of randomised practices until the end of the study. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): To detect planned effect size (based on PRIMIT trial, Little et al, 2015): 11.1 million respondents from 6822 active GP practices. Assuming 25% of these GP practices will engage, we will contact all GP practices in England spread across 135 Clinical Commissioning Groups. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version 2.0, dated 13 January 2021. Implementation is ongoing. The implementation period started on 10 November 2020 and will end on 10 March 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered in the ISRCTN registry ( isrctn.com/ ISRCTN14602359 ) on 12 August 2020. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Reducing COVID-19 risk in schools: a qualitative examination of secondary school staff and family views and concerns in the South West of England.

Objective: To investigate student, parent/carer and secondary school staff attitudes towards school COVID-19 mitigation measures. Methods: Recruitment used school communication, community organisations and snowball sampling in South West England. Audio recorded online or phone individual/group semi-structured interviews were conducted in July-Septtember 2020 and lasted 30-60 min. Interviews focused on views towards social distancing, hand hygiene and testing. Framework analysis was performed on interview notes/transcripts. Results: Participants were 15 staff, 20 parents and 17 students (11-16 years) from 14 diverse schools. Concerns about COVID-19 risk at school, especially to vulnerable individuals, were outweighed by perceived risks of missed learning. Some staff felt guilt around being a potential 'spreader' by teaching multiple classes. Findings highlighted a wide variety of school COVID-19 mitigation measures being deployed due to ambiguous government guidance. Participants generally saw mitigation measures as an acceptable and pragmatic solution to the perceived impossibility of social distancing in crowded schools, although anticipated challenges changing habitual behaviour. Participants supported school COVID-19 testing but identified the need to consider data security and stigma around COVID-19 diagnosis. Staff were concerned about unintended consequences of risk-reduction strategies on student behaviour, learning and pastoral care, particularly for those with Special Educational Needs or mental health issues who may find the measures especially challenging, and resultant widening inequalities. Conclusion: Families and staff supported COVID-19 mitigation measures in schools and would welcome the roll out school COVID-19 testing. Clear messaging and engendering collective responsibility are important for compliance and success of COVID-19 mitigation measures. However, schools and policy-makers should consider unintended consequences of measures, providing extra support for vulnerable students and those with additional needs, and consider ways to avoid widening educational and health inequalities. Findings demonstrate the acceptability of school COVID-19 infection control measures is likely to be influenced by the balance of risks and benefits to students.

Implementation of remote consulting in UK primary care following the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: To reduce contagion of COVID-19, in March 2020 UK general practices implemented predominantly remote consulting via telephone, video, or online consultation platforms. AIM: To investigate the rapid implementation of remote consulting and explore impact over the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN AND SETTING: Mixed-methods study in 21 general practices in Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire. METHOD: Longitudinal observational quantitative analysis compared volume and type of consultation in April to July 2020 with April to July 2019. Negative binomial models were used to identify if changes differed among different groups of patients. Qualitative data from 87 longitudinal interviews with practice staff in four rounds investigated practices' experience of the move to remote consulting, challenges faced, and solutions. A thematic analysis utilised Normalisation Process Theory. RESULTS: There was universal consensus that remote consulting was necessary. This drove a rapid change to 90% remote GP consulting (46% for nurses) by April 2020. Consultation rates reduced in April to July 2020 compared to 2019; GPs and nurses maintained a focus on older patients, shielding patients, and patients with poor mental health. Telephone consulting was sufficient for many patient problems, video consulting was used more rarely, and was less essential as lockdown eased. SMS-messaging increased more than three-fold. GPs were concerned about increased clinical risk and some had difficulties setting thresholds for seeing patients face-to-face as lockdown eased. CONCLUSION: The shift to remote consulting was successful and a focus maintained on vulnerable patients. It was driven by the imperative to reduce contagion and may have risks; post-pandemic, the model will need adjustment.