Coverage, completion and outcomes of COVID-19 risk assessments in a multi-ethnic nationwide cohort of UK healthcare workers: a cross-sectional analysis from the UK-REACH Study.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited data on the outcomes of COVID-19 risk assessment in healthcare workers (HCWs) or the association of ethnicity, other sociodemographic and occupational factors with risk assessment outcomes. METHODS: We used questionnaire data from UK-REACH (UK Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers), an ethnically diverse, nationwide cohort of UK HCWs. We derived four binary outcomes: (1) offered a risk assessment; (2) completed a risk assessment; (3) working practices changed as a result of the risk assessment; (4) wanted changes to working practices after risk assessment but working practices did not change.We examined the association of ethnicity, other sociodemographic/occupational factors and actual/perceived COVID-19 risk variables on our outcomes using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: 8649 HCWs were included in total. HCWs from ethnic minority groups were more likely to report being offered a risk assessment than white HCWs, and those from Asian and black ethnic groups were more likely to report having completed an assessment if offered. Ethnic minority HCWs had lower odds of reporting having their work change as a result of risk assessment. Those from Asian and black ethnic groups were more likely to report no changes to their working practices despite wanting them.Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with lower odds of being offered a risk assessment and having adjustments made to working practices. DISCUSSION: We found differences in risk assessment outcomes by ethnicity, other sociodemographic/occupational factors and actual/perceived COVID-19 risk factors. These findings are concerning and warrant further research using actual (rather than reported) risk assessment outcomes in an unselected cohort.

Healthcare workers' views on mandatory SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the UK: A cross-sectional, mixed-methods analysis from the UK-REACH study.

Background: Several countries now have mandatory SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for healthcare workers (HCWs) or the general population. HCWs' views on this are largely unknown. Using data from the nationwide UK-REACH study we aimed to understand UK HCW's views on improving SARS-CoV-2 vaccination coverage, including mandatory vaccination. Methods: Between 21st April and 26th June 2021, we administered an online questionnaire via email to 17 891 UK HCWs recruited as part of a longitudinal cohort from across the UK who had previously responded to a baseline questionnaire (primarily recruited through email) as part of the United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH) nationwide prospective cohort study. We categorised responses to a free-text question "What should society do if people do not get vaccinated against COVID-19?" using qualitative content analysis. We collapsed categories into a binary variable: favours mandatory vaccination or not, using logistic regression to calculate its demographic predictors, and its occupational, health, and attitudinal predictors adjusted for demographics. Findings: Of 5633 questionnaire respondents, 3235 answered the free text question. Median age of free text responders was 47 years (IQR 36-56) and 2705 (74.3%) were female. 18% (n = 578) favoured mandatory vaccination (201 [6%] participants for HCWs and others working with vulnerable populations; 377 [12%] for the general population), but the most frequent suggestion was education (32%, n = 1047). Older HCWs (OR 1.84; 95% CI 1.44-2.34 [≥55 years vs 16 years to <40 years]), HCWs vaccinated against influenza (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.11-2.01 [2 vaccines vs none]), and with more positive vaccination attitudes generally (OR 1.10; 95% CI 1.06-1.15) were more likely to favour mandatory vaccination, whereas female HCWs (OR= 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.96, vs male HCWs) and Black HCWs (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.25-0.85, vs white HCWs) were less likely to. Interpretation: Only one in six of the HCWs in this large, diverse, UK-wide sample favoured mandatory vaccination. Building trust, educating, and supporting HCWs who are hesitant about vaccination may be more acceptable, effective, and equitable. Funding: MRC-UK Research and Innovation grant (MR/V027549/1) and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) via the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). Core funding was also provided by NIHR Biomedical Research Centres.

Cross-sectional observational study of epidemiology of COVID-19 and clinical outcomes of hospitalised patients in North West London during March and April 2020.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to describe evolution, epidemiology and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in subjects tested at or admitted to hospitals in North West London. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: London North West Healthcare NHS Trust (LNWH). PARTICIPANTS: Patients tested and/or admitted for COVID-19 at LNWH during March and April 2020 MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptive and analytical epidemiology of demographic and clinical outcomes (intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation and mortality) of those who tested positive for COVID-19. RESULTS: The outbreak began in the first week of March 2020 and reached a peak by the end of March and first week of April. In the study period, 6183 tests were performed in on 4981 people. Of the 2086 laboratory confirmed COVID-19 cases, 1901 were admitted to hospital. Older age group, men and those of black or Asian minority ethnic (BAME) group were predominantly affected (p<0.05). These groups also had more severe infection resulting in ICU admission and need for mechanical ventilation (p<0.05). However, in a multivariate analysis, only increasing age was independently associated with increased risk of death (p<0.05). Mortality rate was 26.9% in hospitalised patients. CONCLUSION: The findings confirm that men, BAME and older population were most commonly and severely affected groups. Only older age was independently associated with mortality.

False-negative RT-PCR for COVID-19 and a diagnostic risk score: a retrospective cohort study among patients admitted to hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics and outcomes of patients with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 and false-negative SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR), and develop and internally validate a diagnostic risk score to predict risk of COVID-19 (including RT-PCR-negative COVID-19) among medical admissions. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Two hospitals within an acute NHS Trust in London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: All patients admitted to medical wards between 2 March and 3 May 2020. OUTCOMES: Main outcomes were diagnosis of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results, sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and mortality during hospital admission. For the diagnostic risk score, we report discrimination, calibration and diagnostic accuracy of the model and simplified risk score and internal validation. RESULTS: 4008 patients were admitted between 2 March and 3 May 2020. 1792 patients (44.8%) were diagnosed with COVID-19, of whom 1391 were SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive and 283 had only negative RT-PCRs. Compared with a clinical reference standard, sensitivity of RT-PCR in hospital patients was 83.1% (95% CI 81.2%-84.8%). Broadly, patients with false-negative RT-PCR COVID-19 and those confirmed by positive PCR had similar demographic and clinical characteristics but lower risk of intensive care unit admission and lower in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27-0.61). A simple diagnostic risk score comprising of age, sex, ethnicity, cough, fever or shortness of breath, National Early Warning Score 2, C reactive protein and chest radiograph appearance had moderate discrimination (area under the receiver-operator curve 0.83, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.85), good calibration and was internally validated. CONCLUSION: RT-PCR-negative COVID-19 is common and is associated with lower mortality despite similar presentation. Diagnostic risk scores could potentially help triage patients requiring admission but need external validation.

Experience of a novel community testing programme for COVID-19 in London: Lessons learnt.

We describe the London community testing programme developed for COVID-19, audit its effectiveness and report patient acceptability and patient adherence to isolation guidance, based upon a survey conducted with participants.Any patients meeting the Public Health England (PHE) case definition for COVID-19 who did not require hospital admission were eligible for community testing. 2,053 patients with suspected COVID-19 were tested in the community between January and March 2020. Of those tested, 75 (3.6%) were positive. 88% of patients that completed a patient survey felt safe and 82% agreed that community testing was preferable to hospital admission. 97% were able to remain within their own home during the isolation period but just 41% were able to reliably isolate from other members of their household.The London community testing programme allowed widespread testing for COVID-19 while minimising patient transport, hospital admissions and staff exposures. Community testing was acceptable to patients and preferable to admission to hospital. Patients were able to reliably isolate in their home but not from household contacts. The authors believe in the importance, feasibility and acceptability of community testing for COVID-19 as a part of a package of interventions to mitigate a second wave of infection.