Impacts of COVID-19 on clinical research in the UK: A multi-method qualitative case study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical research has been central to the global response to COVID-19, and the United Kingdom (UK), with its research system embedded within the National Health Service (NHS), has been singled out globally for the scale and speed of its COVID-19 research response. This paper explores the impacts of COVID-19 on clinical research in an NHS Trust and how the embedded research system was adapted and repurposed to support the COVID-19 response. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using a multi-method qualitative case study of a research-intensive NHS Trust in London UK, we collected data through a questionnaire (n = 170) and semi-structured interviews (n = 24) with research staff working in four areas: research governance; research leadership; research delivery; and patient and public involvement. We also observed key NHS Trust research prioritisation meetings (40 hours) and PPI activity (4.5 hours) and analysed documents produced by the Trust and national organisation relating to COVID-19 research. Data were analysed for a descriptive account of the Trust's COVID-19 research response and research staff's experiences. Data were then analysed thematically. Our analysis identifies three core themes: centralisation; pace of work; and new (temporary) work practices. By centralising research prioritisation at both national and Trust levels, halting non-COVID-19 research and redeploying research staff, an increased pace in the setup and delivery of COVID-19-related research was possible. National and Trust-level responses also led to widescale changes in working practices by adapting protocols and developing local processes to maintain and deliver research. These were effective practical solutions borne out of necessity and point to how the research system was able to adapt to the requirements of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The Trust and national COVID-19 response entailed a rapid large-scale reorganisation of research staff, research infrastructures and research priorities. The Trust's local processes that enabled them to enact national policy prioritising COVID-19 research worked well, especially in managing finite resources, and also demonstrate the importance and adaptability of the research workforce. Such findings are useful as we consider how to adapt our healthcare delivery and research practices both at the national and global level for the future. However, as the pandemic continues, research leaders and policymakers must also take into account the short and long term impact of COVID-19 prioritisation on non-COVID-19 health research and the toll of the emergency response on research staff.

Stroke Care in the United Kingdom During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has potentially caused indirect harm to patients with other conditions via reduced access to health care services. We aimed to describe the impact of the initial wave of the pandemic on admissions, care quality, and outcomes in patients with acute stroke in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Registry-based cohort study of patients with acute stroke admitted to hospital in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland between October 1, 2019, and April 30, 2020, and equivalent periods in the 3 prior years. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen hospitals provided data for a study cohort of 184 017 patients. During the lockdown period (March 23 to April 30), there was a 12% reduction (6923 versus 7902) in the number of admissions compared with the same period in the 3 previous years. Admissions fell more for ischemic than hemorrhagic stroke, for older patients, and for patients with less severe strokes. Quality of care was preserved for all measures and in some domains improved during lockdown (direct access to stroke unit care, 1-hour brain imaging, and swallow screening). Although there was no change in the proportion of patients discharged with good outcome (modified Rankin Scale score, ≤2; 48% versus 48%), 7-day inpatient case fatality increased from 6.9% to 9.4% (P<0.001) and was 22.0% in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 (adjusted rate ratio, 1.41 [1.11-1.80]). CONCLUSIONS: Assuming that the true incidence of acute stroke did not change markedly during the pandemic, hospital avoidance may have created a cohort of untreated stroke patients at risk of poorer outcomes or recurrent events. Unanticipated improvements in stroke care quality should be used as an opportunity for quality improvement and to learn about how to develop resilient health care systems.