The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on referrals to musculoskeletal services from primary care and subsequent incidence of inflammatory rheumatic musculoskeletal disease: an observational study.

Objective: The aim was to describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon referral patterns and incident diagnosis of inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (iRMDs). Methods: UK primary care data were used to describe referral patterns for patients with musculoskeletal conditions. Trends in referrals to musculoskeletal services and incident diagnoses of iRMDs (specifically, RA and JIA) were described using Joinpoint Regression and comparisons made between key pandemic time periods. Results: The incidence of RA and JIA reduced by -13.3 and -17.4% per month, respectively, between January 2020 and April 2020, then increased by 1.9 and 3.7% per month, respectively, between April 2020 and October 2021. The incidence of all diagnosed iRMDs was stable until October 2021. Referrals decreased between February 2020 and May 2020 by -16.8% per month from 4.8 to 2.4% in patients presenting with a musculoskeletal condition. After May 2020, referrals increased significantly (16.8% per month) to 4.5% in July 2020. The time from first musculoskeletal consultation to RA diagnosis and from referral to RA diagnosis increased in the early pandemic period [rate ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 1.07, 1.15 and RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.17, 1.30, respectively] and remained consistently higher in the late pandemic period (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.11, 1.16 and RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.23, 1.32, respectively), compared with the pre-COVID-19 pandemic period. Conclusion: Patients with underlying RA and JIA that developed during the pandemic might be yet to present or might be in the referral and/or diagnostic process. Clinicians should remain alert to this possibility, and commissioners should be aware of these findings, enabling the appropriate planning and commissioning of services.

Is vaccination against Covid-19 associated with autoimmune rheumatic disease flare? A self-controlled case series analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association between vaccination against Covid-19 and autoimmune rheumatic disease (AIRD) flare. METHODS: Patients with AIRDs vaccinated against Covid-19 who consulted for disease flare between 01/12/2020 and 31/12/2021 were ascertained in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (Aurum). AIRD flare was defined as consultation for AIRD with corticosteroid prescription on the same day or the next day. Vaccination was defined using date of vaccination and product code. The observation period was partitioned into vaccine-exposed (21-days after vaccination), pre-vaccination (7-days before vaccination), and remaining vaccine-unexposed periods. Participants contributed data with multiple vaccinations and outcomes. Season adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using self-controlled case-series analysis. RESULTS: Data for 3554 AIRD cases, 72% female, mean age 65 years, and 68.3% with rheumatoid arthritis were included. Covid-19 vaccination was associated with significantly fewer AIRD flares in the 21-day vaccine-exposed period when all vaccinations were considered (aIRR(95%CI) 0.89(0.80-0.98)). Using dose-stratified analyses there was a statistically significant negative association in 21-days after first Covid-19 vaccination but no association after the second or third Covid-19 vaccinations (aIRR(95%CI) 0.76(0.66-0.89), 0.94(0.79-1.11) and 1.01(0.85-1.20) respectively). On AIRD type stratified analyses, vaccination was not associated with disease flares. Vaccination without or after SARS-CoV-2 infection, and with vectored DNA or mRNA vaccines associated with comparable reduced risk of AIRD flares in the vaccine-exposed period after first Covid-19 vaccination. CONCLUSION: Vaccination against Covid-19 was not associated with increased AIRD flares regardless of prior Covid-19, AIRD type, and whether mRNA or DNA vaccination technology were used.

Is Vaccination Against COVID-19 Associated With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Flare? Self-Controlled Case Series Analysis Using the UK CPRD.

INTRODUCTION: To investigate the association between vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) flare. METHODS: Patients with IBD vaccinated against COVID-19 who consulted for disease flare between December 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021, were ascertained from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. IBD flares were identified using consultation and corticosteroid prescription records. Vaccinations were identified using product codes and vaccination dates. The study period was partitioned into vaccine-exposed (vaccination date and 21 days immediately after), prevaccination (7 days immediately before vaccination), and the remaining vaccine-unexposed periods. Participants contributed data with multiple vaccinations and IBD flares. Season-adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using self-controlled case series analysis. RESULTS: Data for 1911 cases with IBD were included; 52% of them were female, and their mean age was 49 years. Approximately 63% of participants had ulcerative colitis (UC). COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with increased IBD flares in the vaccine-exposed period when all vaccinations were considered (aIRR [95% CI] 0.89 [0.77-1.02], 0.79 [0.66-0.95], and 1.00 [0.79-1.27] in IBD overall, UC, and Crohn's disease, respectively). Analyses stratified to include only first, second, or third COVID-19 vaccinations found no significant association between vaccination and IBD flares in the vaccine-exposed period (aIRR [95% CI] 0.87 [0.71-1.06], 0.93 [0.75-1.15], and 0.86 [0.63-1.17], respectively). Similarly, stratification by COVID-19 before vaccination and by vaccination with vectored DNA or messenger RNA vaccine did not reveal an increased risk of flare in any of these subgroups. DISCUSSION: Vaccination against COVID-19 was not associated with IBD flares regardless of prior COVID-19 infection and whether messenger RNA or DNA vaccines were used.

Burnout among primary health-care professionals in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: To estimate the prevalence of burnout among primary health-care professionals in low- and middle-income countries and to identify factors associated with burnout. Methods: We systematically searched nine databases up to February 2022 to identify studies investigating burnout in primary health-care professionals in low- and middle-income countries. There were no language limitations and we included observational studies. Two independent reviewers completed screening, study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate overall burnout prevalence as assessed using the Maslach Burnout Inventory subscales of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and personal accomplishment. We narratively report factors associated with burnout. Findings: The search returned 1568 articles. After selection, 60 studies from 20 countries were included in the narrative review and 31 were included in the meta-analysis. Three studies collected data during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic but provided limited evidence on the impact of the disease on burnout. The overall single-point prevalence of burnout ranged from 2.5% to 87.9% (43 studies). In the meta-analysis (31 studies), the pooled prevalence of a high level of emotional exhaustion was 28.1% (95% confidence interval, CI: 21.5-33.5), a high level of depersonalization was 16.4% (95% CI: 10.1-22.9) and a high level of reduced personal accomplishment was 31.9% (95% CI: 21.7-39.1). Conclusion: The substantial prevalence of burnout among primary health-care professionals in low- and middle-income countries has implications for patient safety, care quality and workforce planning. Further cross-sectional studies are needed to help identify evidence-based solutions, particularly in Africa and South-East Asia.

Rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and axial spondyloarthritis epidemiology in England from 2004 to 2020: An observational study using primary care electronic health record data.

Background: Contemporary data on rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritits (SpA) epidemiology in England are lacking. This knowledge is crucial to planning healthcare services. We updated algorithms defining patients with diagnoses of RA, PsA, and axial SpA in primary care and applied them to describe their incidence and prevalence in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum, an electronic health record (EHR) database covering ∼20% of England. Methods: Algorithms for ascertaining patients with RA, axial SpA, and PsA diagnoses validated in primary care EHR databases using Read codes were updated (to account for the English NHS change to SNOMED CT diagnosis coding) and applied. Updated diagnosis and synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug code lists were devised by rheumatologists and general practitioners. Annual incidence/point-prevalence of RA, PsA, and axial SpA diagnoses were calculated from 2004 to 2020 and stratified by age/sex. Findings: Point-prevalence of RA/PsA diagnoses increased annually, peaking in 2019 (RA 0·779% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0·773, 0·784]; PsA 0·287% [95% CI 0·284, 0·291]) then falling slightly. Point-prevalence of axial SpA diagnoses increased annually (except in 2018/2019), peaking in 2020 (0·113% [95% CI 0·111, 0·115]). RA diagnosis annual incidence was higher between 2013-2019 (after inclusion in the Quality and Outcomes Framework, range 49·1 [95% CI 47·7, 50·5] to 52·1 [95% CI 50·6, 53·6]/100,000 person-years) than 2004-2012 (range 34·5 [95% CI 33·2, 35·7] to 40·0 [95% CI 38·6, 41·4]/100,000 person-years). Increases in the annual incidence of PsA/axial SpA diagnosis occurred following new classification criteria publication. Annual incidence of RA, PsA and axial SpA diagnoses fell by 40·1%, 67·4%, and 38·1%, respectively between 2019 and 2020, likely reflecting the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on their diagnosis. Interpretation: Recorded RA, PsA, and axial SpA diagnoses are increasingly prevalent in England, underlining the importance of organising healthcare services to provide timely, treat-to-target care to optimise the health of >1% of adults in England. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR300826).

Missed Opportunities in the Diagnosis of Heart Failure: Evaluation of Pathways to Determine Sources of Delay to Specialist Evaluation.

Missed opportunities are incidents where different actions by those involved could have resulted in more desirable events. Heart failure is a complex clinical syndrome presenting as symptoms and signs common to other diagnoses, in patients frequently with multiple co-morbidities. Heart failure itself is not a diagnosis, but is the common clinical presentation of a variety of cardiac conditions. Correct diagnosis involves amalgamation of the clinical presentation, the results of general and specific investigations, and the clinician's ability to synthesize the overall picture. It is not surprising therefore that misdiagnosis can occur at any level of the heart failure journey and can occur because of patient, clinician, and health economy related factors. Delayed diagnosis leads to excess morbidity and mortality in these patients. In this review, we define the pathways for diagnosis of heart failure and then highlight missed opportunities related to delay and misdiagnosis. In addition, we consider how the earlier opportunity may impact patients, clinicians and health services.

Burnout among primary health-care professionals in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review and meta-analysis Épuisement chez les professionnels des soins de santé primaires dans les pays à revenu faible ou intermédiaire: revue systématique et méta-analyse El desgaste entre los profesionales de la atención primaria de salud en los países de ingresos bajos y medios: revisión sistemática y metanálisis الإرهاق بين أخصائيي الرعاية الصحية الأولية في الدول ذات الدخل المنخفض والدخل المتوسط: مراجعة منهجية وتحليل تلوي 低收入和中等收入国家初级医疗护理工作者的职业倦怠情况：系统回顾和元分析 Профессиональное выгорание среди специалистов первичной медико-санитарной помощи в странах с низким и средним уровнем дохода: систематический обзор и метаанализ

Objective To estimate the prevalence of burnout among primary health-care professionals in low- and middle-income countries and to identify factors associated with burnout. Methods We systematically searched nine databases up to February 2022 to identify studies investigating burnout in primary health-care professionals in low- and middle-income countries. There were no language limitations and we included observational studies. Two independent reviewers completed screening, study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate overall burnout prevalence as assessed using the Maslach Burnout Inventory subscales of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and personal accomplishment. We narratively report factors associated with burnout. Findings The search returned 1568 articles. After selection, 60 studies from 20 countries were included in the narrative review and 31 were included in the meta-analysis. Three studies collected data during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic but provided limited evidence on the impact of the disease on burnout. The overall single-point prevalence of burnout ranged from 2.5% to 87.9% (43 studies). In the meta-analysis (31 studies), the pooled prevalence of a high level of emotional exhaustion was 28.1% (95% confidence interval, CI: 21.5–33.5), a high level of depersonalization was 16.4% (95% CI: 10.1–22.9) and a high level of reduced personal accomplishment was 31.9% (95% CI: 21.7–39.1). Conclusion The substantial prevalence of burnout among primary health-care professionals in low- and middle-income countries has implications for patient safety, care quality and workforce planning. Further cross-sectional studies are needed to help identify evidence-based solutions, particularly in Africa and South-East Asia.

The impact of COVID-19 on the patient, clinician, healthcare services and society: A patient pathway review.

The spread of COVID-19 infection has changed the world. Population-based studies of COVID-19 are limited because it is unknown why events happen or why certain outcomes occur. An alternative approach called the patient pathway review evaluates what happens to individuals in detail. In the "ideal" pathway patients with COVID-19 will seek medical attention and COVID-19 will be identified and they will either be admitted to hospital, managed in the community or they will self-care. However, in the "real-world" pathway, patients may delay seeking medical attention and it is variable who the patient decides to seek help from and some patients may be initially misdiagnosed. The eventual outcome will be recovery from the acute infection or death but there may be a spectrum of healthcare needs for patients from those who care for themselves in the community to those who are hospitalized and require intensive care. The patients may or may not have short- and long-term adverse effects. People infected with COVID-19 can take on different paths which depend on the patient's decision making, clinical decision making, and the patient's response to the infection. Desirable pathways are those where patients have good outcomes and also limit the transmission of the virus.

The impact of COVID-19 on primary care: Insights from the National Health Service (NHS) and future recommendations.

COVID-19 has changed health systems and services. In this commentary, we outline the impact COVID-19 has had on the delivery of primary health care, and on primary care teams, and describe the NHS response. We highlight the challenges of managing long-COVID and identify areas of importance for primary care in a post-COVID context. We describe ongoing public health measures and list recommendations for primary care for COVID-19 and future unknown pandemics. We conclude with salient points on the future of primary care.

Readmission after index hospital discharge among patients with COVID-19: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Hospital readmissions among COVID-19 patients have increased the load on the healthcare systems and added more pressure to hospital capacity. This affects the ability to accommodate newly diagnosed COVID-19 patients and other non-COVID-19 patients who require hospitalization. Therefore, this systematic review aims to understand the rates of and risk factors for hospital readmissions and all-cause mortality among COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized after being discharged following index hospitalization. METHODS: Our systematic review protocol is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42021232324) and prepared in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), MedRxiv, Web of Science (Science Citation Index), ProQuest Coronavirus research database, Cochrane Covid-19 study register, and WHO COVID-19: Global literature on coronavirus disease will be identified from December 31, 2019, to May 31, 2021. Two investigators will independently screen titles and abstracts and select studies reporting hospital readmissions among COVID-19 patients. Further, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be carried out separately by these independent reviewers. We will extract data on demographics, readmissions, all-cause mortality, emergency department visits, comorbidities, and factors associated with hospitalization among COVID-19 patients. Random-effect meta-analysis will be performed if homogeneous groups of studies are found. The combined evidence will be further stratified according to important background characteristics if the data allow. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will summarize the available epidemiological evidence regarding rates of hospital readmissions, comorbidities, and related factors among COVID-19 patients who were readmitted after index hospitalization. A better understanding of the relationship between patient profiles and the rate of hospitalization will be helpful in the development of guidelines for patient management.

Methods to disinfect and decontaminate SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review of in vitro studies.

BACKGROUND: Cleaning is a major control component for outbreaks of infection. However, for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, there is limited specific guidance regarding the proper disinfection methods that should be used. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature on cleaning, disinfection or decontamination methods in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: A total of 27 studies were included, reporting a variety of methods with which the effectiveness of interventions were assessed. Virus was inoculated onto different types of material including masks, nasopharyngeal swabs, serum, laboratory plates and simulated saliva, tears or nasal fluid and then interventions were applied in an attempt to eliminate the virus including chemical, ultraviolet (UV) light irradiation, and heat and humidity. At body temperature (37°C) there is evidence that the virus will not be detectable after 2 days but this can be reduced to non-detection at 30 min at 56°C, 15 min at 65°C and 2 min at 98°C. Different experimental methods testing UV light have shown that it can inactivate the virus. Light of 254-365 nm has been used, including simulated sunlight. Many chemical agents including bleach, hand sanitiser, hand wash, soap, ethanol, isopropanol, guandinium thiocynate/t-octylphenoxypolyethoxyethanol, formaldehyde, povidone-iodine, 0.05% chlorhexidine, 0.1% benzalkonium chloride, acidic electrolysed water, Clyraguard copper iodine complex and hydrogen peroxide vapour have been shown to disinfect SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: Heating, UV light irradiation and chemicals can be used to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 but there is insufficient evidence to support one measure over others in clinical practice.

Survey of young people in one region of the UK on accessing COVID-19 information (SOCIAL).

COVID-19 has significantly impacted young people's lives yet little is known about the COVID-19 related sources of information they access. We performed a cross-sectional survey of pupils (11-16 years) in North Staffordshire, UK. 408 (23%) pupils responded to an online survey emailed to them by their school. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the data. Social media, accessed by 68%, played a significant role in the provision of information, despite it not being considered trustworthy. 89% felt that COVID-19 had negatively affected their education. Gaps in the provision of information on COVID-19 have been identified.