Rapid qualitative analysis in a mixed-methods evaluation of an infection prevention intervention in a UK hospital setting during the COVID-19 pandemic: A discussion of the CLEAN study methodology.

The COVID-19 pandemic created an urgent need for high-quality rapid research. One clinical challenge was how to minimise the risk of transmission in the hospital setting. The CLEAN study conducted a rapid evaluation of the potential utility of a spray-based disinfectant in a hospital setting. The study was undertaken between December 2020 and March 2021 and involved the implementation of the spray in 10 different clinical areas in one UK teaching hospital. A mixed-methods approach was adopted (including observations, surveys, and qualitative interviews) informed by the theories for understanding the implementation of new healthcare technologies. The evaluation found that while the spray had a number of perceived benefits when added to existing disinfection processes, other factors limited its potential utility. These findings informed a number of recommendations for future adoption within hospital settings. This paper describes and reflects on the rapid methodology that allowed us to undertake the study and deliver results in a short space of time. We experienced a number of pressures during set-up and fieldwork due to the challenging conditions caused by the pandemic, and the methodological approach had to evolve throughout the study because of the changing clinical context. The involvement of clinicians from the research setting as full members of the research team was key to the rapid delivery of the research. They provided an essential link to the implementation environment, and their experiential knowledge of the setting added an important perspective to the analysis. Balancing their involvement with their clinical roles was challenging, however, as was coordinating a large and diverse team of interviewers in such a short space of time. Overall, the study highlighted the value of rapid research to inform urgent healthcare decisions in a pandemic. Although our experience suggests that conducting such research requires some practical and methodological trade-offs, we found that there were also numerous benefits of using rapid methods and identified various opportunities to ensure their robustness.

SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics: Towards a more comprehensive approach to routine patient testing.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided the stimulus for the rapid development of a variety of diagnostic testing methods. Initially these were deployed as screening tools to evidence spread of the virus within populations. The recent availability of vaccines against the virus and the need to better understand the parameters of post-infection protective immunity requires development of methods, suitable for use in the routine diagnostic laboratory, capable of characterising the viral immune response in greater detail. Such methods need to consider both cellular and humoral immunity. Toward this aim we have investigated use of a commercial multiplex assay (COVID Plus Assay, One Lambda), providing assessment of the SARS-CoV-2 response at structural level, and developed an in-house cell stimulation assay using commercially available viral peptides (Miltenyi). This paper reports our experience in use of these methods in extended investigation of a cohort of healthcare workers with prior screening results indicative of viral infection. The antibody response generated is shown to be both qualitatively and quantitatively different in different individuals. Similarly a recall response to SARS-CoV-2 antigen involving the T cell compartment can be readily demonstrated in recovered individuals but is of variable magnitude.

Long-term clinical outcomes in survivors of severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus outbreaks after hospitalisation or ICU admission: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine long-term clinical outcomes in survivors of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus infections after hospitalization or intensive care unit admission. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, and PsycINFO were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Original studies reporting clinical outcomes of adult SARS and MERS survivors 3 months after admission or 2 months after discharge were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Studies were graded using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2009 Level of Evidence Tool. Meta-analysis was used to derive pooled estimates for prevalence/severity of outcomes up to 6 months after hospital discharge, and beyond 6 months after discharge. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 1,169 identified studies, 28 were included in the analysis. Pooled analysis revealed that common complications up to 6 months after discharge were: impaired diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (prevalence 27%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 15­45%); and reduced exercise capacity (mean 6-min walking distance 461 m, CI 450­473 m). The prevalences of post-traumatic stress disorder (39%, 95% CI 31­47%), depression (33%, 95% CI 20­50%) and anxiety (30%, 95% CI 10­61) beyond 6 months after discharge were considerable. Low scores on Short-Form 36 were identified beyond 6 months after discharge. CONCLUSION: Lung function abnormalities, psychological impairment and reduced exercise capacity were common in SARS and MERS survivors. Clinicians should anticipate and investigate similar long-term outcomes in COVID-19 survivors.