Inclusion health patient perspectives on remote access to general practice: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to rapid and widespread adoption of remote consultations and triage-first pathways in general practice. However, there is a lack of evidence on how these changes have been perceived by patients from inclusion health groups. AIM: To explore the perspectives of individuals from inclusion health groups on the provision and accessibility of remote general practice services. DESIGN & SETTING: A qualitative study with individuals from Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, sex workers, vulnerable migrants, and those experiencing homelessness, recruited by Healthwatch in east London. METHOD: The study materials were co-produced with people with lived experience of social exclusion. Semi-structured interviews with 21 participants were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analysed using the framework method. RESULTS: Analysis identified barriers to access owing to lack of translation availability, digital exclusion, and a complex healthcare system, which is difficult to navigate. The role of triage and general practice in emergencies often seemed unclear to participants. Other themes identified included the importance of trust, face-to-face consultation options for ensuring safety, and the benefits of remote access, particularly in terms of convenience and saving time. Themes on reducing barriers included improving staff capacity and communication, offering tailored options and continuity of care, and simplifying care processes. CONCLUSION: The study highlighted the importance of a tailored approach for addressing the multiple barriers to care for inclusion health groups and the need for clearer and inclusive communication on the available triage and care pathways.

Factors associated with COVID-19 related hospitalisation, critical care admission and mortality using linked primary and secondary care data.

BACKGROUND: It is important that population cohorts at increased risk of hospitalisation and death following a COVID-19 infection are identified and protected. OBJECTIVES: We identified risk factors associated with increased risk of hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality in inner North East London (NEL) during the first UK COVID-19 wave. METHODS: Multivariate logistic regression analysis on linked primary and secondary care data from people aged 16 or older with confirmed COVID-19 infection between 01/02/2020 and 30/06/2020 determined odds ratios (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and P-values for the association between demographic, deprivation and clinical factors with COVID-19 hospitalisation, ICU admission and mortality. RESULTS: Over the study period, 1781 people were diagnosed with COVID-19, of whom 1195 (67%) were hospitalised, 152 (9%) admitted to ICU and 400 (23%) died. Results confirm previously identified risk factors: being male, or of Black or Asian ethnicity, or aged over 50. Obesity, type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD) increased the risk of hospitalisation. Obesity increased the risk of being admitted to ICU. Underlying CKD, stroke and dementia increased the risk of death. Having learning disabilities was strongly associated with increased risk of death (OR = 4.75, 95% CI = [1.91, 11.84], P = .001). Having three or four co-morbidities increased the risk of hospitalisation (OR = 2.34, 95% CI = [1.55, 3.54], P < .001; OR = 2.40, 95% CI = [1.55, 3.73], P < .001 respectively) and death (OR = 2.61, 95% CI = [1.59, 4.28], P < .001; OR = 4.07, 95% CI = [2.48, 6.69], P < .001 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We confirm that age, sex, ethnicity, obesity, CKD and diabetes are important determinants of risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation or death. For the first time, we also identify people with learning disabilities and multi-morbidity as additional patient cohorts that need to be actively protected during COVID-19 waves.

Influenza and Respiratory Virus Surveillance, Vaccine Uptake, and Effectiveness at a Time of Cocirculating COVID-19: Protocol for the English Primary Care Sentinel System for 2020-2021.

BACKGROUND: The Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) and Public Health England (PHE) are commencing their 54th season of collaboration at a time when SARS-CoV-2 infections are likely to be cocirculating with the usual winter infections. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to conduct surveillance of influenza and other monitored respiratory conditions and to report on vaccine uptake and effectiveness using nationally representative surveillance data extracted from primary care computerized medical records systems. We also aim to have general practices collect virology and serology specimens and to participate in trials and other interventional research. METHODS: The RCGP RSC network comprises over 1700 general practices in England and Wales. We will extract pseudonymized data twice weekly and are migrating to a system of daily extracts. First, we will collect pseudonymized, routine, coded clinical data for the surveillance of monitored and unexpected conditions; data on vaccine exposure and adverse events of interest; and data on approved research study outcomes. Second, we will provide dashboards to give general practices feedback about levels of care and data quality, as compared to other network practices. We will focus on collecting data on influenza-like illness, upper and lower respiratory tract infections, and suspected COVID-19. Third, approximately 300 practices will participate in the 2020-2021 virology and serology surveillance; this will include responsive surveillance and long-term follow-up of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections. Fourth, member practices will be able to recruit volunteer patients to trials, including early interventions to improve COVID-19 outcomes and point-of-care testing. Lastly, the legal basis for our surveillance with PHE is Regulation 3 of the Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002; other studies require appropriate ethical approval. RESULTS: The RCGP RSC network has tripled in size; there were previously 100 virology practices and 500 practices overall in the network and we now have 322 and 1724, respectively. The Oxford-RCGP Clinical Informatics Digital Hub (ORCHID) secure networks enable the daily analysis of the extended network; currently, 1076 practices are uploaded. We are implementing a central swab distribution system for patients self-swabbing at home in addition to in-practice sampling. We have converted all our primary care coding to Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT) coding. Throughout spring and summer 2020, the network has continued to collect specimens in preparation for the winter or for any second wave of COVID-19 cases. We have collected 5404 swabs and detected 623 cases of COVID-19 through extended virological sampling, and 19,341 samples have been collected for serology. This shows our preparedness for the winter season. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with a groundswell of general practices joining our network. It has also created a permissive environment in which we have developed the capacity and capability of the national primary care surveillance systems and our unique public health institute, the RCGP and University of Oxford collaboration.

Appraisal and revalidation for UK doctors—time to assess the evidence

The pause in appraisal and revalidation during the covid pandemic offers an opportunity to reflect on their value and consider their future argue Victoria Tzortziou Brown and colleagues The General Medical Council adopted a more flexible approach to regulation at the start of the covid-19 pandemic, with revalidation and appraisals largely suspended to allow doctors to focus on clinical safety and workload.1 With reinstatement planned, we argue for urgent clarification of their purpose, an evidence based approach for their implementation, and ongoing evaluation. No consensus exists on the definition, mechanisms, and appropriate design of revalidation, and practices vary widely.2 Some countries have no formal process in place 3 while others rely heavily on evidence of continuing medical education.2 The GMC is the first regulator to implement a compulsory and comprehensive revalidation process4 and has over 335 000 doctors on its register.5 According to the GMC, revalidation “gives your patients confidence that you’re up to date.”6 A cost-benefit analysis in 2012 showed that, in England alone, revalidation would cost the NHS nearly £1bn over 10 years.7 The expected benefits included increased public trust and confidence in doctors, improved patient safety and quality of care, reduced costs of support for underperforming doctors, reduced malpractice and litigation costs, better information about care quality, and positive cultural change in the medical profession,8 but there is no evidence these have materialised. Appraisal is the only route to revalidation and must contain supporting information under six defined categories: continuing professional development, quality improvement activity, significant events, feedback from patients and colleagues, and complaints and compliments.9 Most doctors (97%) revalidate through annual appraisals and a five yearly recommendation to the GMC from their responsible officer, based on the outputs from their appraisals.9 Disagreement remains about whether the mode …

Disparities in the excess risk of mortality in the first wave of COVID-19: Cross sectional study of the English sentinel network.

OBJECTIVES: Few studies report contributors to the excess mortality in England during the first wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. We report the absolute excess risk (AER) of mortality and excess mortality rate (EMR) from a nationally representative COVID-19 sentinel surveillance network including known COVID-19 risk factors in people aged 45 years and above. METHODS: Pseudonymised, coded clinical data were uploaded from contributing primary care providers (N = 1,970,314, ≥45years). We calculated the AER in mortality by comparing mortality for weeks 2 to 20 this year with mortality data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) from 2018 for the same weeks. We conducted univariate and multivariate analysis including preselected variables. We report AER and EMR, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: The AER of mortality was 197.8/10,000 person years (95%CI:194.30-201.40). The EMR for male gender, compared with female, was 1.4 (95%CI:1.35-1.44, p<0.00); for our oldest age band (≥75 years) 10.09 (95%CI:9.46-10.75, p<0.00) compared to 45-64 year olds; Black ethnicity's EMR was 1.17 (95%CI: 1.03-1.33, p<0.02), reference white; and for dwellings with ≥9 occupants 8.01 (95%CI: 9.46-10.75, p<0.00). Presence of all included comorbidities significantly increased EMR. Ranked from lowest to highest these were: hypertension, chronic kidney disease, chronic respiratory and heart disease, and cancer or immunocompromised. CONCLUSIONS: The absolute excess mortality was approximately 2 deaths per 100 person years in the first wave of COVID-19. More personalised shielding advice for any second wave should include ethnicity, comorbidity and household size as predictors of risk.