Accessible funerals and people with intellectual disability

This chapter briefly outlines Western funeral practices and then describes how funeral participation is important to successful grieving and meaning making of others' death. It examines research on funeral attendance and barriers, involving adults with intellectual disability. COVID-19 has restricted funeral participation for all, highlighting how people with disabilities have often been excluded from these rituals long before the pandemic. Experiences of both exclusion and participation are conveyed in several individual stories. The significance of emotional, social and spiritual supports linked to funerals (and the impact of being denied these) is discussed so that people with disabilities can be better supported to engage with and meaningfully participate in others' funerals, and have a say in their own funeral arrangements if they wish to. A list of resources is provided. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Abortion incidence and service availability in the United States, 2020.

BACKGROUND: This study provides a baseline assessment of abortion incidence and service delivery prior to Roe v. Wade being overturned. METHODS: We collected information from all facilities known to have provided abortion services in the United States in 2019 and 2020. We examined abortion incidence by state, region and nationally and combined data on number of abortions with population data to estimate abortion rates. We also examined the number of abortion clinics, trends in medication abortion and service disruptions and changes in abortion protocols that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. We compare these findings to those of our prior Abortion Provider Census, which collected information for 2017. RESULTS: We documented 930,160 abortions in 2020, an 8% increase from 2017. Between 2017 and 2020, abortion incidence increased in all four regions of the country and in a majority of states. The total number of clinics providing abortion care remained stable nationally but increased in the Midwest and the West and declined in the Northeast and South. There were 492,210 medication abortions in 2020, a 45% increase from 2017. A substantial minority of clinics adjusted protocols in response to COVID, most commonly adopting remote pre- and post-abortion counseling. DISCUSSION: This study did not address factors behind the increase in abortion. However, this report demonstrates that the need for abortion care was growing just prior to the overturning Roe v. Wade, and the impact of this decision will be even more far-reaching than previously expected.

Accessible funerals and people with intellectual disability

This chapter briefly outlines Western funeral practices and then describes how funeral participation is important to successful grieving and meaning making of others' death. It examines research on funeral attendance and barriers, involving adults with intellectual disability. COVID-19 has restricted funeral participation for all, highlighting how people with disabilities have often been excluded from these rituals long before the pandemic. Experiences of both exclusion and participation are conveyed in several individual stories. The significance of emotional, social and spiritual supports linked to funerals (and the impact of being denied these) is discussed so that people with disabilities can be better supported to engage with and meaningfully participate in others' funerals, and have a say in their own funeral arrangements if they wish to. A list of resources is provided. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

SARS-COV-2 vaccine responses in renal patient populations.

BACKGROUND: Dialysis patients and immunosuppressed renal patients are at increased risk of COVID-19 and were excluded from vaccine trials. We conducted a prospective multicentre study to assess SARS-CoV-2 vaccine antibody responses in dialysis patients and renal transplant recipients, and patients receiving immunosuppression for autoimmune disease. METHODS: Patients were recruited from three UK centres (ethics:20/EM/0180) and compared to healthy controls (ethics:17/EE/0025). SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies to spike protein were measured using a multiplex Luminex assay, after first and second doses of Pfizer BioNTech BNT162b2(Pfizer) or Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1nCoV-19(AZ) vaccine. RESULTS: Six hundred ninety-two patients were included (260 dialysis, 209 transplant, 223 autoimmune disease (prior rituximab 128(57%)) and 144 healthy controls. 299(43%) patients received Pfizer vaccine and 379(55%) received AZ. Following two vaccine doses, positive responses occurred in 96% dialysis, 52% transplant, 70% autoimmune patients and 100% of healthy controls. In dialysis patients, higher antibody responses were observed with the Pfizer vaccination. Predictors of poor antibody response were triple immunosuppression (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]0.016;95%CI0.002-0.13;p < 0.001) and mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) (aOR0.2;95%CI 0.1-0.42;p < 0.001) in transplant patients; rituximab within 12 months in autoimmune patients (aOR0.29;95%CI 0.008-0.096;p < 0.001) and patients receiving immunosuppression with eGFR 15-29 ml/min (aOR0.031;95%CI 0.11-0.84;p = 0.021). Lower antibody responses were associated with a higher chance of a breakthrough infection. CONCLUSIONS: Amongst dialysis, kidney transplant and autoimmune populations SARS-CoV-2 vaccine antibody responses are reduced compared to healthy controls. A reduced response to vaccination was associated with rituximab, MMF, triple immunosuppression CKD stage 4. Vaccine responses increased after the second dose, suggesting low-responder groups should be prioritised for repeated vaccination. Greater antibody responses were observed with the mRNA Pfizer vaccine compared to adenovirus AZ vaccine in dialysis patients suggesting that Pfizer SARS-CoV-2 vaccine should be the preferred vaccine choice in this sub-group.

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

Temporal development and neutralising potential of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in hospitalised COVID-19 patients: An observational cohort study.

Antibody responses are important in the control of viral respiratory infection in the human host. What is not clear for SARS-CoV-2 is how rapidly this response occurs, or when antibodies with protective capability evolve. Hence, defining the events of SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion and the time frame for the development of antibodies with protective potential may help to explain the different clinical presentations of COVID-19. Furthermore, accurate descriptions of seroconversion are needed to inform the best use of serological assays for diagnostic testing and serosurveillance studies. Here, we describe the humoral responses in a cohort of hospitalised COVID-19 patients (n = 19) shortly following the onset of symptoms. Commercial and 'in-house' serological assays were used to measure IgG antibodies against different SARS-CoV-2 structural antigens-Spike (S) S1 sub-unit and Nucleocapsid protein (NP)-and to assess the potential for virus neutralisation mediated specifically by inhibition of binding between the viral attachment protein (S protein) and cognate receptor (ACE-2). Antibody response kinetics varied amongst the cohort, with patients seroconverting within 1 week, between 1-2 weeks, or after 2 weeks, following symptom onset. Anti-NP IgG responses were generally detected earlier, but reached maximum levels slower, than anti-S1 IgG responses. The earliest IgG antibodies produced by all patients included those that recognised the S protein receptor-binding domain (RBD) and were capable of inhibiting binding to ACE-2. These data revealed events and patterns of SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion that may be important predictors of the outcome of infection and guide the delivery of clinical services in the COVID-19 response.

77 A virtual reality: using simulation and virtual teaching tools to create an equitable induction experience for new trainees

BackgroundClinical genetics is a small specialty with around 70 trainees nationally. New trainees traditionally have a period of observing clinics led by consultants and experienced genetic counsellors before leading their own clinic. This is an important time in which they learn practical and communication skills with respect to approaching a consultation, however, the experience can be variable dependent on the centre.In light of the coronavirus pandemic, knowing that many new trainees would not be able to access this vital induction period, we devised a virtual induction programme.MethodsA group of clinical geneticists from three UK centres, including GOSH, worked in collaboration with the GOSH Clinical Simulation Team to devise and deliver a programme that would be accessible to all new trainees. Important topics for discussion were agreed;example consultations were filmed, with the help of actors;and trainee simulations were planned.ResultsThe virtual induction runs live over two days, with homework, in the form of the filmed consultations that can be accessed at any time. The first day has been completed, delivering training to around 20 new trainees. The feedback we have received from both trainees and training programme directors has been overwhelmingly positive.DiscussionGiven the ongoing impact of the coronavirus pandemic, creative ways of delivering training are flourishing. We have created a bank of videos and presentations, as well as a template for future induction sessions, ensuring a basic level of equity between trainees at different genetics centres.ConclusionVirtual induction tools are a valuable and vital addition to new trainee induction to ensure equity of training, both during the current pandemic and beyond. This approach would work very well on a national level for other small specialties;or on a regional or local level for larger specialties.

Safety and immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine administered in a prime-boost regimen in young and old adults (COV002): a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Older adults (aged ≥70 years) are at increased risk of severe disease and death if they develop COVID-19 and are therefore a priority for immunisation should an efficacious vaccine be developed. Immunogenicity of vaccines is often worse in older adults as a result of immunosenescence. We have reported the immunogenicity of a novel chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), in young adults, and now describe the safety and immunogenicity of this vaccine in a wider range of participants, including adults aged 70 years and older. METHODS: In this report of the phase 2 component of a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial (COV002), healthy adults aged 18 years and older were enrolled at two UK clinical research facilities, in an age-escalation manner, into 18-55 years, 56-69 years, and 70 years and older immunogenicity subgroups. Participants were eligible if they did not have severe or uncontrolled medical comorbidities or a high frailty score (if aged ≥65 years). First, participants were recruited to a low-dose cohort, and within each age group, participants were randomly assigned to receive either intramuscular ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (2·2 × 1010 virus particles) or a control vaccine, MenACWY, using block randomisation and stratified by age and dose group and study site, using the following ratios: in the 18-55 years group, 1:1 to either two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or two doses of MenACWY; in the 56-69 years group, 3:1:3:1 to one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, one dose of MenACWY, two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or two doses of MenACWY; and in the 70 years and older, 5:1:5:1 to one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, one dose of MenACWY, two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or two doses of MenACWY. Prime-booster regimens were given 28 days apart. Participants were then recruited to the standard-dose cohort (3·5-6·5 × 1010 virus particles of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) and the same randomisation procedures were followed, except the 18-55 years group was assigned in a 5:1 ratio to two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or two doses of MenACWY. Participants and investigators, but not staff administering the vaccine, were masked to vaccine allocation. The specific objectives of this report were to assess the safety and humoral and cellular immunogenicity of a single-dose and two-dose schedule in adults older than 55 years. Humoral responses at baseline and after each vaccination until 1 year after the booster were assessed using an in-house standardised ELISA, a multiplex immunoassay, and a live severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) microneutralisation assay (MNA80). Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo IFN-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The coprimary outcomes of the trial were efficacy, as measured by the number of cases of symptomatic, virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. This study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137. FINDINGS: Between May 30 and Aug 8, 2020, 560 participants were enrolled: 160 aged 18-55 years (100 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 60 assigned to MenACWY), 160 aged 56-69 years (120 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 40 assigned to MenACWY), and 240 aged 70 years and older (200 assigned to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 40 assigned to MenACWY). Seven participants did not receive the boost dose of their assigned two-dose regimen, one participant received the incorrect vaccine, and three were excluded from immunogenicity analyses due to incorrectly labelled samples. 280 (50%) of 552 analysable participants were female. Local and systemic reactions were more common in participants given ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 than in those given the control vaccine, and similar in nature to those previously reported (injection-site pain, feeling feverish, muscle ache, headache), but were less common in older adults (aged ≥56 years) than younger adults. In those receiving two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, after the prime vaccination local reactions were reported in 43 (88%) of 49 participants in the 18-55 years group, 22 (73%) of 30 in the 56-69 years group, and 30 (61%) of 49 in the 70 years and older group, and systemic reactions in 42 (86%) participants in the 18-55 years group, 23 (77%) in the 56-69 years group, and 32 (65%) in the 70 years and older group. As of Oct 26, 2020, 13 serious adverse events occurred during the study period, none of which were considered to be related to either study vaccine. In participants who received two doses of vaccine, median anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 IgG responses 28 days after the boost dose were similar across the three age cohorts (standard-dose groups: 18-55 years, 20 713 arbitrary units [AU]/mL [IQR 13 898-33 550], n=39; 56-69 years, 16 170 AU/mL [10 233-40 353], n=26; and ≥70 years 17 561 AU/mL [9705-37 796], n=47; p=0·68). Neutralising antibody titres after a boost dose were similar across all age groups (median MNA80 at day 42 in the standard-dose groups: 18-55 years, 193 [IQR 113-238], n=39; 56-69 years, 144 [119-347], n=20; and ≥70 years, 161 [73-323], n=47; p=0·40). By 14 days after the boost dose, 208 (>99%) of 209 boosted participants had neutralising antibody responses. T-cell responses peaked at day 14 after a single standard dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (18-55 years: median 1187 spot-forming cells [SFCs] per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells [IQR 841-2428], n=24; 56-69 years: 797 SFCs [383-1817], n=29; and ≥70 years: 977 SFCs [458-1914], n=48). INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 appears to be better tolerated in older adults than in younger adults and has similar immunogenicity across all age groups after a boost dose. Further assessment of the efficacy of this vaccine is warranted in all age groups and individuals with comorbidities. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca.

PG28 Just in time: developing a micro-simulation training programme

IntroductionDue to COVID-19 all acute paediatric services and staff were relocated from UCLH. Despite redirection pathways, children continued to present to the Emergency Department (ED). A learning needs analysis identified a requirement to rapidly upskill the ED nursing and medical team. As a result, paediatric ED fellows and nurse educators designed an adaptable and rapidly deliverable simulation training model to meet a range of training needs. Secondary objectives of this project were to identify any latent safety threats relating to paediatric patients.MethodsWe designed four low-fidelity, in-situ scenarios. Learning objectives were the initial management of an unwell child and familiarising staff with equipment and the environment. Sessions were restricted to a maximum of six participants to enable social distancing. Short 30 minute sessions were scheduled after morning handover to encourage participation and minimise disruption to the working environment.Participants completed a post-session feedback questionnaire.Results78 participants (26 medical, 52 nursing) attended at least one of 16 simulations over a 4 week period. Participants appreciated learning in small multi-disciplinary (MDT) groups in a non-judgemental environment. 99% reported that this was a supportive learning environment. As faculty were familiar with participants, the scenarios were adapted to meet individual learning needs depending on the mix of participants at each session. Faculty noted that the low-fidelity simulations reduced distractions and focused attention on key objectives. Sessions were easy to plan and set-up, enabling delivery of multiple simulations in a short timeframe. Environmental threats were identified and addressed in a timely manner.DiscussionED staff were intrinsically motivated to participate in this programme as they identified a gap in knowledge and skills. By maintaining small groups we created a safe learning space, encouraging participant engagement without the fear of performing in front of an audience. Gaining early ‘buy-in’ from nursing and medical leads and holding short, regular sessions enabled the programme to become embedded in the department’s culture, thus encouraging participation.By designing simple scenarios with focused learning objectives, we were able to ensure a consistent standard of delivery whilst adapting sessions to meet individual learning needs. Faculty noted the importance of role-modelling a good multi-disciplinary working relationship for the participants. This approach has established an MDT training culture of the department and helped foster positive relationships between staff members.This simulation model enabled us to train large numbers of staff over a short period of time under challenging and novel conditions.

PG33 Inspired by COVID-19: Leading the way with virtual undergraduate simulation

IntroductionPaediatric emergencies are stressful to manage. However, safe and effective care is essential to save lives. Opportunities for medical undergraduates to experience paediatric emergencies are limited, so simulation forms an important part of training. When COVID-19 restrictions stopped all face-to-face teaching we developed a virtual simulation programme. This training session sought to enable effective experiential learning by facilitating reflective observation and abstract conceptualisation (Kolb, 2014).MethodsA multidisciplinary team of educators filmed high fidelity simulated paediatric resuscitation which students could watch online. We used a virtual classroom tool, Blackboard Collaborate, to allow students to contribute to a highly reflective debrief analysing the clinical care being delivered and associated human factors.Students completed pre and post-session questionnaires and we used the interactive online whiteboard to gain immediate feedback.ResultsPrior to the session, students stated they had limited experience of paediatric resuscitation and were unsure of what to expect. Students felt that the session would not be a substitute for the face-to-face simulation that their peers had experienced.Following the session 100% of students rated the training as relevant and 96% felt that the simulation scenario was realistic. 100% of students felt the videos were effective at teaching a structured approach to paediatric resuscitation and commented that participating had helped them to understand how to apply their knowledge.91% of learners felt the debrief encouraged reflection and discussion of important learning points. Some students stated this was the most interactive virtual teaching they had attended during their undergraduate training. Students were very keen to do more virtual simulation sessions.Discussion and ConclusionThis workshop provided students with the opportunity to gain a valuable and immersive experience of paediatric resuscitation at a time when face-to-face experiences were impossible. Students observed an experienced team manage an unwell child and the faculty provided a safe space to reflect. Previous research has indicated that no significant difference has been found in knowledge gained between those who observe simulation scenarios compared to those who participate in the scenario (Johnson 2019). This suggests that virtual training is a valuable alternative.ReferencesJohnson BK. Simulation observers learn the same as participants: The evidence. Clinical Simulation in Nursing 2019;33:pp.26–34.Kolb, D.A., 2014. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT press.

Impact of a novel community testing pathway for people with suspected COVID-19 in Wales: a cost-minimisation analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare National Health Service (NHS) organisations' testing pathways for patients with suspected COVID-19 in the community versus standard hospital testing practices. PERSPECTIVE: NHS commissioners and services. METHODS: During the containment phase of the COVID-19 pandemic we developed a community model pathway for COVID-19 testing in Wales with testing teams undertaking swabbing for COVID-19 in individuals' usual place of residence. We undertook a cost-minimisation analysis comparing the costs to the NHS in Wales of community testing for COVID-19 versus standard hospital testing practices and ambulance conveyancing. We analysed data from patients with suspected COVID-19 between January and February 2020 and applied assumptions of costs from national contractual and reference costs for ambulances, staffing and transportation with market costs at the time of publication. RESULTS: 177 patients with suspected COVID-19 underwent community testing via local NHS organisations between January and February 2020 with a mean age of 46.1 (IQR 27.5-56.3). This was 92% of total patients who were tested for COVID-19 during this period. We estimate, compared with standard hospital testing practices, cash savings in improved productivity for the NHS of £24,539 during this time period, in addition to further non-monetised benefits for hospital and ambulance flow. CONCLUSIONS: Community testing for COVID-19 in Wales is now an established pathway and continues to bring benefits for patients, local healthcare organisations and the NHS. Further application of this model in other settings and to other infectious diseases may herald promising returns.