Respiratory sequelae of COVID-19: pulmonary and extrapulmonary origins, and approaches to clinical care and rehabilitation.

Although the exact prevalence of post-COVID-19 condition (also known as long COVID) is unknown, more than a third of patients with COVID-19 develop symptoms that persist for more than 3 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection. These sequelae are highly heterogeneous in nature and adversely affect multiple biological systems, although breathlessness is a frequently cited symptom. Specific pulmonary sequelae, including pulmonary fibrosis and thromboembolic disease, need careful assessment and might require particular investigations and treatments. COVID-19 outcomes in people with pre-existing respiratory conditions vary according to the nature and severity of the respiratory disease and how well it is controlled. Extrapulmonary complications such as reduced exercise tolerance and frailty might contribute to breathlessness in post-COVID-19 condition. Non-pharmacological therapeutic options, including adapted pulmonary rehabilitation programmes and physiotherapy techniques for breathing management, might help to attenuate breathlessness in people with post-COVID-19 condition. Further research is needed to understand the origins and course of respiratory symptoms and to develop effective therapeutic and rehabilitative strategies.

Symptoms burden and rehabilitation preference after an episode of COVID-19: A patients survey.

BACKGROUND: After COVID-19 infection, individuals can experience a variety of symptoms that might require further treatment. Early data showed the value of adapted pulmonary rehabilitation programmes and technology-based interventions. To develop appropriate services, it is important to understand the symptom burden and the preferred mode of rehabilitation delivery. METHODS: Post-hospital discharge (H) and post-community-managed (C) individuals received a follow-up call. A survey was completed to assess the most burdensome symptoms for which the patients would require support and their preference for the mode of rehabilitation delivery. RESULTS: Overall, 160 individuals who received a follow-up call completed the survey (51.2% male, mean [SD] age 54 [15] years) and 126 (78.8%) were post-hospital, while 34 (21.3%) had community-managed infections. A total of 101 (63.1%) reported that COVID-19-related symptoms were affecting their daily activities, and 106 (66.3%) reported their desire to be more active. The most common symptoms identified as needing support were fatigue and shortness of breath. Both groups expressed a preference for a face-to-face group programme (C: 54.8%; H: 46.8%), while (38.7%) of post-community-managed individuals and (40.3%) post-hospital patients preferred a supported digital rehabilitation programme. Few opted a non-digital home-based programme (C: 3.2%; H:12.9%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The survey responses indicated a significant symptom burden that may benefit from an intervention such as rehabilitation. Preferences for rehabilitation indicated that a face-to-face intervention was preferred by the majority, with a large proportion preferring digital intervention.

Effects of sleep disturbance on dyspnoea and impaired lung function following hospital admission due to COVID-19 in the UK: a prospective multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbance is common following hospital admission both for COVID-19 and other causes. The clinical associations of this for recovery after hospital admission are poorly understood despite sleep disturbance contributing to morbidity in other scenarios. We aimed to investigate the prevalence and nature of sleep disturbance after discharge following hospital admission for COVID-19 and to assess whether this was associated with dyspnoea. METHODS: CircCOVID was a prospective multicentre cohort substudy designed to investigate the effects of circadian disruption and sleep disturbance on recovery after COVID-19 in a cohort of participants aged 18 years or older, admitted to hospital for COVID-19 in the UK, and discharged between March, 2020, and October, 2021. Participants were recruited from the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID). Follow-up data were collected at two timepoints: an early time point 2-7 months after hospital discharge and a later time point 10-14 months after hospital discharge. Sleep quality was assessed subjectively using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire and a numerical rating scale. Sleep quality was also assessed with an accelerometer worn on the wrist (actigraphy) for 14 days. Participants were also clinically phenotyped, including assessment of symptoms (ie, anxiety [Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale questionnaire], muscle function [SARC-F questionnaire], dyspnoea [Dyspnoea-12 questionnaire] and measurement of lung function), at the early timepoint after discharge. Actigraphy results were also compared to a matched UK Biobank cohort (non-hospitalised individuals and recently hospitalised individuals). Multivariable linear regression was used to define associations of sleep disturbance with the primary outcome of breathlessness and the other clinical symptoms. PHOSP-COVID is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN10980107). FINDINGS: 2320 of 2468 participants in the PHOSP-COVID study attended an early timepoint research visit a median of 5 months (IQR 4-6) following discharge from 83 hospitals in the UK. Data for sleep quality were assessed by subjective measures (the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire and the numerical rating scale) for 638 participants at the early time point. Sleep quality was also assessed using device-based measures (actigraphy) a median of 7 months (IQR 5-8 months) after discharge from hospital for 729 participants. After discharge from hospital, the majority (396 [62%] of 638) of participants who had been admitted to hospital for COVID-19 reported poor sleep quality in response to the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire. A comparable proportion (338 [53%] of 638) of participants felt their sleep quality had deteriorated following discharge after COVID-19 admission, as assessed by the numerical rating scale. Device-based measurements were compared to an age-matched, sex-matched, BMI-matched, and time from discharge-matched UK Biobank cohort who had recently been admitted to hospital. Compared to the recently hospitalised matched UK Biobank cohort, participants in our study slept on average 65 min (95% CI 59 to 71) longer, had a lower sleep regularity index (-19%; 95% CI -20 to -16), and a lower sleep efficiency (3·83 percentage points; 95% CI 3·40 to 4·26). Similar results were obtained when comparisons were made with the non-hospitalised UK Biobank cohort. Overall sleep quality (unadjusted effect estimate 3·94; 95% CI 2·78 to 5·10), deterioration in sleep quality following hospital admission (3·00; 1·82 to 4·28), and sleep regularity (4·38; 2·10 to 6·65) were associated with higher dyspnoea scores. Poor sleep quality, deterioration in sleep quality, and sleep regularity were also associated with impaired lung function, as assessed by forced vital capacity. Depending on the sleep metric, anxiety mediated 18-39% of the effect of sleep disturbance on dyspnoea, while muscle weakness mediated 27-41% of this effect. INTERPRETATION: Sleep disturbance following hospital admission for COVID-19 is associated with dyspnoea, anxiety, and muscle weakness. Due to the association with multiple symptoms, targeting sleep disturbance might be beneficial in treating the post-COVID-19 condition. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institute for Health Research, and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

Prevalence of physical frailty, including risk factors, up to 1 year after hospitalisation for COVID-19 in the UK: a multicentre, longitudinal cohort study.

Background: The scale of COVID-19 and its well documented long-term sequelae support a need to understand long-term outcomes including frailty. Methods: This prospective cohort study recruited adults who had survived hospitalisation with clinically diagnosed COVID-19 across 35 sites in the UK (PHOSP-COVID). The burden of frailty was objectively measured using Fried's Frailty Phenotype (FFP). The primary outcome was the prevalence of each FFP group-robust (no FFP criteria), pre-frail (one or two FFP criteria) and frail (three or more FFP criteria)-at 5 months and 1 year after discharge from hospital. For inclusion in the primary analysis, participants required complete outcome data for three of the five FFP criteria. Longitudinal changes across frailty domains are reported at 5 months and 1 year post-hospitalisation, along with risk factors for frailty status. Patient-perceived recovery and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were retrospectively rated for pre-COVID-19 and prospectively rated at the 5 month and 1 year visits. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN10980107. Findings: Between March 5, 2020, and March 31, 2021, 2419 participants were enrolled with FFP data. Mean age was 57.9 (SD 12.6) years, 933 (38.6%) were female, and 429 (17.7%) had received invasive mechanical ventilation. 1785 had measures at both timepoints, of which 240 (13.4%), 1138 (63.8%) and 407 (22.8%) were frail, pre-frail and robust, respectively, at 5 months compared with 123 (6.9%), 1046 (58.6%) and 616 (34.5%) at 1 year. Factors associated with pre-frailty or frailty were invasive mechanical ventilation, older age, female sex, and greater social deprivation. Frail participants had a larger reduction in HRQoL compared with before their COVID-19 illness and were less likely to describe themselves as recovered. Interpretation: Physical frailty and pre-frailty are common following hospitalisation with COVID-19. Improvement in frailty was seen between 5 and 12 months although two-thirds of the population remained pre-frail or frail. This suggests comprehensive assessment and interventions targeting pre-frailty and frailty beyond the initial illness are required. Funding: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research.

Nurses' strategies for overcoming barriers to fundamental nursing care in patients with COVID-19 caused by infection with the SARS-COV-2 virus: Results from the 'COVID-NURSE' survey.

AIMS: To identify strategies used by registered nurses and non-registered nursing care staff in overcoming barriers when providing fundamental nursing care for non-invasively ventilated inpatients with COVID-19. DESIGN: Online survey with open-ended questions to collect qualitative data. METHODS: In August 2020, we asked UK-based nursing staff to describe any strategies they employed to overcome barriers to delivering care in 15 fundamental nursing care categories when providing care to non-invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19. We analysed data using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1062 nurses consented to participate in our survey. We derived four themes. 1) Communication behaviours included adapting verbal and non-verbal communication with patients, using information technology to enable patients' significant others to communicate with staff and patients, and establishing clear information-sharing methods with other staff. 2) Organizing care required clustering interventions, carefully managing supplies, encouraging patient self-care and using 'runners' and interdisciplinary input. 3) Addressing patients' well-being and values required spending time with patients, acting in loco familiae, providing access to psychological and spiritual support, obtaining information about patients' wishes early on and providing privacy and comforting/meaningful items. 4) Management and leadership behaviours included training, timely provision of pandemic information, psychological support, team huddles and facilitating regular breaks. CONCLUSIONS: Our respondents identified multiple strategies in four main areas of clinical practice. Management and leadership are crucial to both fundamental care delivery and the well-being of nurses during pandemics. Grouping strategies into these areas of action may assist nurses and leaders to prepare for pandemic nursing. IMPACT: As these strategies are unlikely to be exclusive to the COVID-19 pandemic, their global dissemination may improve patient experience and help nurses deliver fundamental care when planning pandemic nursing. However, their effectiveness is unknown. Therefore, we are currently evaluating these strategies in a cluster randomized controlled trial.

The effect of COVID rehabilitation for ongoing symptoms Post HOSPitalisation with COVID-19 (PHOSP-R): protocol for a randomised parallel group controlled trial on behalf of the PHOSP consortium.

INTRODUCTION: Many adults hospitalised with COVID-19 have persistent symptoms such as fatigue, breathlessness and brain fog that limit day-to-day activities. These symptoms can last over 2 years. Whilst there is limited controlled studies on interventions that can support those with ongoing symptoms, there has been some promise in rehabilitation interventions in improving function and symptoms either using face-to-face or digital methods, but evidence remains limited and these studies often lack a control group. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a nested single-blind, parallel group, randomised control trial with embedded qualitative evaluation comparing rehabilitation (face-to-face or digital) to usual care and conducted within the PHOSP-COVID study. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions on exercise capacity, quality of life and symptoms such as breathlessness and fatigue. The primary outcome is the Incremental Shuttle Walking Test following the eight week intervention phase. Secondary outcomes include measures of function, strength and subjective assessment of symptoms. Blood inflammatory markers and muscle biopsies are an exploratory outcome. The interventions last eight weeks and combine symptom-titrated exercise therapy, symptom management and education delivered either in a face-to-face setting or through a digital platform ( www.yourcovidrecovery.nhs.uk ). The proposed sample size is 159 participants, and data will be intention-to-treat analyses comparing rehabilitation (face-to-face or digital) to usual care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was gained as part of the PHOSP-COVID study by Yorkshire and the Humber Leeds West Research NHS Ethics Committee, and the study was prospectively registered on the ISRCTN trial registry (ISRCTN13293865). Results will be disseminated to stakeholders, including patients and members of the public, and published in appropriate journals. Strengths and limitations of this study • This protocol utilises two interventions to support those with ongoing symptoms of COVID-19 • This is a two-centre parallel-group randomised controlled trial • The protocol has been supported by patient and public involvement groups who identified treatments of symptoms and activity limitation as a top priority.

Public Use of the "Your COVID Recovery" Website Designed to Help Individuals Manage Their COVID-19 Recovery: Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, unprecedented pressure was placed on health care services globally. An opportunity to alleviate this pressure was to introduce a digital health platform that provided COVID-19-related advice and helped individuals understand and manage their COVID-19 symptoms. Therefore, in July 2020, the Your COVID Recovery website was launched by the National Health Service of England with the aim of creating a practical tool that provides advice and support to individuals recovering from COVID-19. The website includes information on many of the key COVID-19 symptoms. To date, public use of the Your COVID Recovery website and user behavior remain unknown. However, this information is likely to afford insight into the impact of the website and most commonly experienced COVID-19 symptoms. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate public use of the Your COVID Recovery website, a digital health platform that provides support to individuals recovering from COVID-19, and determine user behavior during its first year of operation. METHODS: Google Analytics software that was integrated into the Your COVID Recovery website was used to assess website use and user behavior between July 31, 2020, and July 31, 2021. Variables that were tracked included the number of users, user country of residence, traffic source, number of page views, number of session views, and mean session duration. User data were compared to COVID-19 case data downloaded from the UK government's website. RESULTS: During the study period, 2,062,394 users accessed the Your COVID Recovery website. The majority of users were located in the United Kingdom (1,265,061/2,062,394, 61.30%) and accessed the website via a search engine (1,443,057/2,062,394, 69.97%). The number of daily website users (n=15,298) peaked on January 18, 2021, during the second wave of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom. The most frequently visited pages after the home page were for the following COVID-19 symptoms: Cough (n=550,190, 12.17%), Fatigue (n=432,421, 9.56%), Musculoskeletal pain (n=406,859, 9.00%), Taste and smell (n=270,599, 5.98%), and Breathlessness (n=203,136, 4.49%). The average session duration was 1 minute 13 seconds. CONCLUSIONS: A large cohort of individuals actively sought help with their COVID-19 recovery from the website, championing the potential of this tool to target an unmet health care need. User behavior demonstrated that individuals were primarily seeking advice on how to relieve and manage COVID-19 symptoms, especially symptoms of cough, fatigue, and musculoskeletal pain. COVID-19 rehabilitation programs should use the results of this study to ensure that the program content meets the needs of the post-COVID-19 population.

Early experiences of the Your COVID Recovery® digital programme for individuals with long COVID.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the early data from the Your COVID Recovery® digital programme and to explore the data collected from two embedded outcome measures. DESIGN: Observational. SETTING: Primary and secondary care (England-Online). PARTICIPANTS: 110 individuals completed the programme (68.1% female, 88.1% White British, age: 46.3 (10.8) years, weight: 86.5 (21.1) kg, height: 169.3 (10.0) cm). 47.2% of patients reported comorbidities. INTERVENTION: Following an assessment by a healthcare professional, individuals with long COVID were offered access to the Your COVID Recovery® digital programme. The programme comprises of four stages for the participants to progress through. Participants are encouraged to record severity of their symptoms and amount of activity they are doing on a symptom and an activity tracker. Resources and interactive material on managing symptoms of long COVID are available throughout each stage. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Questionnaire (EuroQ0l 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) and the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment test (CAT)) data were extracted from the site from 11 March 2021 until 9 November 2021. RESULTS: Participants were on the programme for 8.6 (4.3) weeks. There was a statistically significant increase in EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale (VAS) score (pre=48.8 (19.5); post=59.9 (22.1); p<0.01). The EQ-5D-5L Index Value preintervention to postintervention did improve but not significantly (pre=0.5 (0.3); post=0.6 (0.3); p=0.09). CAT total score improved significantly preintervention to postintervention (pre=19.8 (7.2); post=15.6 (7.6); p<0.01). All CAT item scores significantly improved preintervention to postintervention (p<0.005), except the phlegm item score (p=0.168). DISCUSSION: This early data describes the impact of the Your COVID Recovery® digital programme on the first cohort of patients to complete the digital recovery programme. The outcome data are promising and should encourage uptake.

Effects of combining electrical stimulation of the calf and thigh muscles in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: protocol for a double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a leading cause of disability and is characterised by degenerative changes causing pain and loss of function. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) has been shown to influence muscle size and strength in healthy subjects. A novel self-administered NMES device has been developed to help manage the symptoms of KOA. This study aims to investigate the effects of combining NMES of the calf and quadriceps on individuals with KOA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 193 individuals with KOA will be recruited to a single-centre, double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled trial at the Respiratory Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester, UK. Participants will be randomised (1:1) to follow an 8-week home-based intervention using a NMES device or sham device. The NMES device consists of footplate electrodes and two quadriceps electrodes. Footplate stimulation will be completed daily for 30 min and quadriceps stimulation for 20 min, five times a week (compliance is recorded in a self-reported participant diary). The primary outcome is the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index pain domain, taken at 8 weeks follow-up. Secondary outcomes will explore quadriceps muscle strength, swelling, health-related quality of life, exercise capacity, anxiety and depression, sleep, physical activity and self-reported compliance. A powered subgroup analysis for compliance to the active device will be complete for the primary outcome. Participant focus groups will be completed following recruitment of half of the participants and after all participants have been recruited. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the North-West Preston ethics committee (17/NW/0081). Participants are required to provide informed consent following review of the participant information sheet and discussion regarding study procedures with a member of the research team. The study results will be disseminated to the appropriate stakeholders through presentations, conferences and peer-reviewed journals. Results will be presented to participants following study completion at the Biomedical Research Centre-Respiratory, Glenfield Hospital, Leicester. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN12112819 (date registered 1 May 2019). IRAS registry 219 693. University Hospitals of Leicester registry 91 017. Protocol Version 8.

Device-assessed sleep and physical activity in individuals recovering from a hospital admission for COVID-19: a multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: The number of individuals recovering from severe COVID-19 is increasing rapidly. However, little is known about physical behaviours that make up the 24-h cycle within these individuals. This study aimed to describe physical behaviours following hospital admission for COVID-19 at eight months post-discharge including associations with acute illness severity and ongoing symptoms. METHODS: One thousand seventy-seven patients with COVID-19 discharged from hospital between March and November 2020 were recruited. Using a 14-day wear protocol, wrist-worn accelerometers were sent to participants after a five-month follow-up assessment. Acute illness severity was assessed by the WHO clinical progression scale, and the severity of ongoing symptoms was assessed using four previously reported data-driven clinical recovery clusters. Two existing control populations of office workers and individuals with type 2 diabetes were comparators. RESULTS: Valid accelerometer data from 253 women and 462 men were included. Women engaged in a mean ± SD of 14.9 ± 14.7 min/day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), with 12.1 ± 1.7 h/day spent inactive and 7.2 ± 1.1 h/day asleep. The values for men were 21.0 ± 22.3 and 12.6 ± 1.7 h /day and 6.9 ± 1.1 h/day, respectively. Over 60% of women and men did not have any days containing a 30-min bout of MVPA. Variability in sleep timing was approximately 2 h in men and women. More severe acute illness was associated with lower total activity and MVPA in recovery. The very severe recovery cluster was associated with fewer days/week containing continuous bouts of MVPA, longer total sleep time, and higher variability in sleep timing. Patients post-hospitalisation with COVID-19 had lower levels of physical activity, greater sleep variability, and lower sleep efficiency than a similarly aged cohort of office workers or those with type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Those recovering from a hospital admission for COVID-19 have low levels of physical activity and disrupted patterns of sleep several months after discharge. Our comparative cohorts indicate that the long-term impact of COVID-19 on physical behaviours is significant.

The Recovery Journey and the Rehabilitation Boat - A qualitative study to explore experiences of COVID-19 rehabilitation.

INTRODUCTION: There are early data to suggest that a rehabilitation programme can help with on-going symptoms of COVID-19, including breathlessness, exercise limitation and fatigue. As yet, there are no published data to understand patients' perceived acceptability of a rehabilitation programme for COVID-19. METHODS: 2 focus groups (n = 9) and 4 one to one interviews were conducted with participants who attended a rehabilitation program following COVID-19. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis with an inductive approach. RESULTS: Two overarching themes were generated from the data. The first, The Recovery Journey is sub-divided into five sub-themes of Expectations, Individual and Varied Journeys, Mental and Physical Improvements, Self-values and The Journey Continues. The second overarching theme, The Rehabilitation boat contains five subthemes: Programme Delivery, Safe and Supportive, Validation and Assurance, Shared Reflections and Education. CONCLUSION: A rehabilitation programme for post COVID-19 symptoms was considered to be acceptable and viewed positively in terms of improving physical and mental symptoms. The opportunity to share the experience with others in the same boat was highly valued in the context of an unexpected and potentially lonely COVID-19 recovery.

A pulmonary rehabilitation shared decision-making intervention for patients living with COPD: PReSent: protocol for a feasibility study.

Background: Despite the variety of pulmonary rehabilitation programmes for patients living with COPD, uptake remains low. To improve this, it is recommended that health professionals engage patients in informed decisions about pulmonary rehabilitation. Shared decision-making (SDM) facilitates informed and value-based decision-making between patients and health professionals. This protocol describes the development and evaluation of a complex SDM intervention for patients living with COPD, who are referred for pulmonary rehabilitation, and their pulmonary rehabilitation health professional. Methods and analysis: We are developing a complex SDM intervention involving a patient decision aid (PtDA) and a decision coaching workshop. Prior to patient recruitment, pulmonary rehabilitation health professionals will attend the workshop. Upon referral to pulmonary rehabilitation, patients will receive the PtDA to support their decision-making prior to and during their pulmonary rehabilitation assessment with a health professional. The intervention will be evaluated in a one-arm exploratory study to investigate its feasibility and acceptability for patients and health professionals, with an integrated fidelity assessment. The primary outcome is recruitment feasibility, data collection feasibility and intervention fidelity. Secondary outcomes include routine pulmonary rehabilitation data, decisional conflict, patient activation, intervention attendance/attrition and patient and pulmonary rehabilitation health professional experience of the intervention. Quantitative outcomes will be evaluated using the most appropriate statistical test, dependent on the sample distribution. Qualitative outcomes will be evaluated using reflexive thematic analysis. Fidelity will be assessed using the Observer OPTION 5 scale. Conclusion: This intervention will provide structure for an informed and values-based decision-making consultation between a patient with COPD and a pulmonary rehabilitation health professional with the potential for optimising pulmonary rehabilitation decision-making.

Identifying Appropriate Delivery of and Referral to Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Uganda: A Survey Study of People Living with Chronic Respiratory Disease and Health Care Workers.

Introduction: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a low cost, high impact intervention that ameliorates the disability associated with chronic respiratory diseases (CRD). PR is becoming increasingly recognized in low resource settings where the burden of CRD is rapidly increasing. To aid the implementation of PR in Uganda, we conducted a study to assess the attitudes and opinions towards PR among patients with CRD in Uganda and explore barriers faced by health care workers (HCWs) in referring to PR. Methods: A cross-sectional study comprising two survey populations: people living with CRD and HCWs regarded as potential PR referrers and PR deliverers. This exploratory study sought initial opinions and thoughts regarding PR, as well as baseline knowledge and potential barriers faced in the referral process. Results: Overall, 30 HCWs (53% female, 43% doctors) and 51 adults with CRD (63% female) participated in the survey. Among those with CRD, the majority reported breathlessness as a major problem (86%) and breathlessness affected their ability to do paid and unpaid work (70%). Interest in PR was high amongst adults with CRD (92%) with preference for a hospital-based programme (67%) as opposed to community-based (16%) or home-based (17%). All HCWs considered PR important in lung disease management, but 77% do not refer patients due to a lack of information about PR. HCWs' free-text responses identified the need for training in PR, patient education and streamlining the referral process as key elements to develop successful PR referral services. Conclusion: To successfully set up a PR service for people with CRD in Uganda, there is a great need for appropriately tailored training and education of prospective referrers about CRD and PR programs. Educating patients about the benefits of PR as well as streamlining the referral process is critical in expanding PR services across Uganda to fulfill this unmet need.

Physical activity and sedentary behaviour interventions for people living with both frailty and multiple long-term conditions: a scoping review protocol

IntroductionThe number of people living with multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs) is predicted to rise. Within this population, those also living with frailty are particularly vulnerable to poor outcomes, including decreased function. Increased physical activity, including exercise, has the potential to improve function in those living with both MLTCs and frailty but, to date, the focus has remained on older people and may not reflect outcomes for the growing number of younger people living with MLTCs and frailty. For those with higher burdens of frailty and MLTCs, physical activity may be challenging. Tailoring physical activity in response to symptoms and periods of ill-health, involving family and reducing sedentary behaviour may be important in this population. How the tailoring of interventions has been approached within existing studies is currently unclear. This scoping review aims to map the available evidence regarding these interventions in people living with both frailty and MLTCs.Methods and analysisWe will use a six-stage process: (1) identifying the research questions;(2) identifying relevant studies (via database searches);(3) selecting studies;(4) charting the data;(5) collating and summarising and (6) stakeholder consultation. Studies will be critically appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.Ethics and disseminationAll data in this project will be gathered through database searches. Stakeholder consultation will be undertaken with an established patient and public involvement group. We will disseminate our findings via social media, publication and engagement meetings.

Joint patient and clinician priority setting to identify 10 key research questions regarding the long-term sequelae of COVID-19.

Given the large numbers of people infected and high rates of ongoing morbidity, research is clearly required to address the needs of adult survivors of COVID-19 living with ongoing symptoms (long COVID). To help direct resource and research efforts, we completed a research prioritisation process incorporating views from adults with ongoing symptoms of COVID-19, carers, clinicians and clinical researchers. The final top 10 research questions were agreed at an independently mediated workshop and included: identifying underlying mechanisms of long COVID, establishing diagnostic tools, understanding trajectory of recovery and evaluating the role of interventions both during the acute and persistent phases of the illness.

Protocol for a single-centre mixed-method pre-post single-arm feasibility trial of a culturally appropriate 6-week pulmonary rehabilitation programme among adults with functionally limiting chronic respiratory diseases in Malawi.

INTRODUCTION: Malawi has a substantial burden of chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) which cause significant morbidity and loss of economic productivity, affecting patients, families and health systems. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is a highly recommended non-pharmacological intervention in the clinical management of people with CRDs. However, Malawi lacks published evidence on the implementation of PR for people with CRDs. This trial will test the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a culturally appropriate hospital-based PR programme among adults with functionally limiting CRDs at Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital in Blantyre, Malawi. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a single-centre mixed-methods pre-post single-arm feasibility trial. Ten patients aged ≥18 years, with a spirometry confirmed diagnosis of a CRD and breathlessness of ≥2 on the modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale, will be consecutively recruited. Their baseline lung function, exercise tolerance and health status will be assessed; including spirometry, Incremental Shuttle Walk Test and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Assessment Test, respectively. Pretrial semistructured in-depth interviews will explore their experiences of living with CRD and potential enablers and barriers to their PR uptake. Along with international PR guidelines, these data will inform culturally appropriate delivery of PR. We initially propose a 6-week, twice-weekly, supervised centre-based PR programme, with an additional weekly home-based non-supervised session. Using combination of researcher observation, interaction with the participants, field notes and informal interviews with the participants, we will assess the feasibility of running the programme in the following areas: participants' recruitment, retention, engagement and protocol adherence. Following programme completion (after 6 weeks), repeat assessments of lung function, exercise tolerance and health status will be conducted. Quantitative changes in clinical outcomes will be described in relation to published minimal clinically important differences. Post-trial semistructured interviews will capture participants' perceived impact of the PR programme on their quality of life, enablers, and barriers to fully engaging with the programme, and allow iteration of its design. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this trial was obtained from University of Malawi College of Medicine Research and Ethics Committee (COMREC), Blantyre, Malawi (protocol number: P.07/19/2752) and University of Leicester Research Ethics Committee, Leicester, UK (ethics reference: 31574). The results of the trial will be disseminated through oral presentations at local and international scientific conferences or seminars and publication in a peer-reviewed journal. We will also engage the participants who complete the PR trial and the Science Communication Department at Malawi-Liverpool-Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme to organise community outreach activities within Blantyre to educate communities about CRDs and PR. We will also broadcast our trial results through national radio station programmes such as the weekly "Thanzi la Onse" (Health of All) programme by Times Radio Malawi. We will formally present our trial results to Blantyre District Health Office and Malawi Ministry of Health. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13836793.

Physical, cognitive, and mental health impacts of COVID-19 after hospitalisation (PHOSP-COVID): a UK multicentre, prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 on physical and mental health and employment after hospitalisation with acute disease is not well understood. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of COVID-19-related hospitalisation on health and employment, to identify factors associated with recovery, and to describe recovery phenotypes. METHODS: The Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a multicentre, long-term follow-up study of adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital in the UK with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, involving an assessment between 2 and 7 months after discharge, including detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical testing. Multivariable logistic regression was done for the primary outcome of patient-perceived recovery, with age, sex, ethnicity, body-mass index, comorbidities, and severity of acute illness as covariates. A post-hoc cluster analysis of outcomes for breathlessness, fatigue, mental health, cognitive impairment, and physical performance was done using the clustering large applications k-medoids approach. The study is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN10980107). FINDINGS: We report findings for 1077 patients discharged from hospital between March 5 and Nov 30, 2020, who underwent assessment at a median of 5·9 months (IQR 4·9-6·5) after discharge. Participants had a mean age of 58 years (SD 13); 384 (36%) were female, 710 (69%) were of white ethnicity, 288 (27%) had received mechanical ventilation, and 540 (50%) had at least two comorbidities. At follow-up, only 239 (29%) of 830 participants felt fully recovered, 158 (20%) of 806 had a new disability (assessed by the Washington Group Short Set on Functioning), and 124 (19%) of 641 experienced a health-related change in occupation. Factors associated with not recovering were female sex, middle age (40-59 years), two or more comorbidities, and more severe acute illness. The magnitude of the persistent health burden was substantial but only weakly associated with the severity of acute illness. Four clusters were identified with different severities of mental and physical health impairment (n=767): very severe (131 patients, 17%), severe (159, 21%), moderate along with cognitive impairment (127, 17%), and mild (350, 46%). Of the outcomes used in the cluster analysis, all were closely related except for cognitive impairment. Three (3%) of 113 patients in the very severe cluster, nine (7%) of 129 in the severe cluster, 36 (36%) of 99 in the moderate cluster, and 114 (43%) of 267 in the mild cluster reported feeling fully recovered. Persistently elevated serum C-reactive protein was positively associated with cluster severity. INTERPRETATION: We identified factors related to not recovering after hospital admission with COVID-19 at 6 months after discharge (eg, female sex, middle age, two or more comorbidities, and more acute severe illness), and four different recovery phenotypes. The severity of physical and mental health impairments were closely related, whereas cognitive health impairments were independent. In clinical care, a proactive approach is needed across the acute severity spectrum, with interdisciplinary working, wide access to COVID-19 holistic clinical services, and the potential to stratify care. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research.

Fundamental nursing care in patients with the SARS-CoV-2 virus: results from the 'COVID-NURSE' mixed methods survey into nurses' experiences of missed care and barriers to care.

BACKGROUND: Patient experience of nursing care is associated with safety, care quality, treatment outcomes, costs and service use. Effective nursing care includes meeting patients' fundamental physical, relational and psychosocial needs, which may be compromised by the challenges of SARS-CoV-2. No evidence-based nursing guidelines exist for patients with SARS-CoV-2. We report work to develop such a guideline. Our aim was to identify views and experiences of nursing staff on necessary nursing care for inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 (not invasively ventilated) that is omitted or delayed (missed care) and any barriers to this care. METHODS: We conducted an online mixed methods survey structured according to the Fundamentals of Care Framework. We recruited a convenience sample of UK-based nursing staff who had nursed inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 not invasively ventilated. We asked respondents to rate how well they were able to meet the needs of SARS-CoV-2 patients, compared to non-SARS-CoV-2 patients, in 15 care categories; select from a list of barriers to care; and describe examples of missed care and barriers to care. We analysed quantitative data descriptively and qualitative data using Framework Analysis, integrating data in side-by-side comparison tables. RESULTS: Of 1062 respondents, the majority rated mobility, talking and listening, non-verbal communication, communicating with significant others, and emotional wellbeing as worse for patients with SARS-CoV-2. Eight barriers were ranked within the top five in at least one of the three care areas. These were (in rank order): wearing Personal Protective Equipment, the severity of patients' conditions, inability to take items in and out of isolation rooms without donning and doffing Personal Protective Equipment, lack of time to spend with patients, lack of presence from specialised services e.g. physiotherapists, lack of knowledge about SARS-CoV-2, insufficient stock, and reluctance to spend time with patients for fear of catching SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: Our respondents identified nursing care areas likely to be missed for patients with SARS-CoV-2, and barriers to delivering care. We are currently evaluating a guideline of nursing strategies to address these barriers, which are unlikely to be exclusive to this pandemic or the environments represented by our respondents. Our results should, therefore, be incorporated into global pandemic planning.