Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 15 de 15
Filter
1.
JMIR Res Protoc ; 11(4): e35971, 2022 Apr 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1862509

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Social distancing and other nonpharmaceutical interventions to reduce the spread of COVID-19 infection in the United Kingdom have led to substantial changes in delivering ongoing care for patients with chronic conditions, including type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Clinical guidelines for the management and prevention of complications for people with T2DM delivered in primary care services advise routine annual reviews and were developed when face-to-face consultations were the norm. The shift in consultations from face-to-face to remote consultations caused a reduction in direct clinical contact and may impact the process of care for people with T2DM. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic's first year on the monitoring of people with T2DM using routine annual reviews from a national primary care perspective in England. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of adults with T2DM will be performed using routinely collected primary care data from the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC). We will describe the change in the rate of monitoring of hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) between the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020) and the preceding year (2019). We will also report any change in the eight checks that make up the components of these reviews. The change in HbA1c monitoring rates will be determined using a multilevel logistic regression model, adjusting for patient and practice characteristics, and similarly, the change in a composite measure of the completeness of all eight checks will be modeled using ordinal regression. The models will be adjusted for the following patient-level variables: age, gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, COVID-19 shielding status, duration of diabetes, and comorbidities. The model will also be adjusted for the following practice-level variables: urban versus rural, practice size, Quality and Outcomes Framework achievement, the National Health Service region, and the proportion of face-to-face consultations. Ethical approval was provided by the University of Oxford Medical Sciences Interdivisional Research Ethics Committee (September 2, 2021, reference R77306/RE001). RESULTS: The analysis of the data extract will include 3.96 million patients with T2DM across 700 practices, which is 6% of the available Oxford-RCGP RSC adult population. The preliminary results will be submitted to a conference under the domain of primary care. The resulting publication will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal on diabetes and endocrinology. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the delivery of care, but little is known about the process of caring for people with T2DM. This study will report the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on these processes of care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/35971.

2.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-324925

ABSTRACT

Background: There was excess mortality from the first wave of coronavirus 2019 infection (COVID-19), which mainly affected older people. To mitigate risk, the UK government recommended ‘shielding’ of vulnerable people through self-isolation for 12 weeks. We investigated the impact of primary care-reinforced shielding advice on all-cause mortality.Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a nationally representative English primary care database. We compare people aged >=40years who were recorded as being advised to shield using a fixed ratio of 1:1, matching (a mixture of exact and propensity score matching) to people with the same diagnoses not advised to shield (n=77,360 per group). Time-to-death was compared using Cox regression, reporting the hazard ratio (HR) of mortality between groups. A sensitivity analysis compared exact matched cohorts (n=24,752 shielded, n=61,566 exact matches). Findings: Over the follow-up period, we found a time-varying HR of mortality between groups. In the first 21 days, the mortality risk in people shielding was half those not (HR=0.50, 95%CI:0.41-0.59. p<0.0001). Over the remaining nine weeks, mortality risk was 54% higher in the shielded group (HR=1.54, 95%CI:1.41-1.70, p<0.0001). Beyond the shielding period, mortality risk was over two-and-a-half times higher in the shielded group (HR=2.61, 95%CI:2.38-2.87, p<0.0001).Interpretation: General practitioner-reinforced advice to shield halved the risk of mortality for 21 days compared to those who were not. Mortality risk became higher across the remainder of the shielding period, rising to two-and-a-half times greater post-shielding. Shielding may be beneficial in the next wave of COVID-19.Funding Statement: NIHR School of Primary Care, Public Health EnglandDeclaration of Interests: SdeL is the director of RCGP RSC. He has unrelated projects funded by GSK, Seqirus and has been a member of Global Advisory Boards for Seqirus and Sanofi. FDRH reports personal fees from Novartis and Boehringer Ingelheim and grants from Pfizer. All other authors declare no competing interests.Ethics Approval Statement: The RCGP RSC’s work concerning SARS-CoV-2 has been approved by Public Health England’s Caldicott Guardian Committee as fitting under Regulation 3 of the Health Service Control Patient Information Regulations 2002. The study was approved by RCGP.

3.
Br J Cancer ; 126(6): 948-956, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1585875

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear to what extent reductions in urgent referrals for suspected cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic were the result of fewer patients attending primary care compared to GPs referring fewer patients. METHODS: Cohort study including electronic health records data from 8,192,069 patients from 663 English practices. Weekly consultation rates, cumulative consultations and referrals were calculated for 28 clinical features from the NICE suspected cancer guidelines. Clinical feature consultation rate ratios (CRR) and urgent referral rate ratios (RRR) compared time periods in 2020 with 2019. FINDINGS: Consultations for cancer clinical features decreased by 24.19% (95% CI: 24.04-24.34%) between 2019 and 2020, particularly in the 6-12 weeks following the first national lockdown. Urgent referrals for clinical features decreased by 10.47% (95% CI: 9.82-11.12%) between 2019 and 2020. Overall, once patients consulted with primary care, GPs urgently referred a similar or greater proportion of patients compared to previous years. CONCLUSION: Due to the significant fall in patients consulting with clinical features of cancer there was a lower than expected number of urgent referrals in 2020. Sustained efforts should be made throughout the pandemic to encourage the public to consult their GP with cancer clinical features.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Communicable Disease Control , Humans , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/therapy , Pandemics , Primary Health Care , Referral and Consultation
4.
Stud Health Technol Inform ; 281: 759-763, 2021 May 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1247806

ABSTRACT

The effect of the 2020 pandemic, and of the national measures introduced to control it, is not yet fully understood. The aim of this study was to investigate how different types of primary care data can help quantify the effect of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) crisis on mental health. A retrospective cohort study investigated changes in weekly counts of mental health consultations and prescriptions. The data were extracted from one the UK's largest primary care databases between January 1st 2015 and October 31st 2020 (end of follow-up). The 2020 trends were compared to the 2015-19 average with 95% confidence intervals using longitudinal plots and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). A total number of 504 practices (7,057,447 patients) contributed data. During the period of national restrictions, on average, there were 31% (3957 ± 269, p < 0.001) fewer events and 6% (4878 ± 1108, p < 0.001) more prescriptions per week as compared to the 2015-19 average. The number of events was recovering, increasing by 75 (± 29, p = 0.012) per week. Prescriptions returned to the 2015-19 levels by the end of the study (p = 0.854). The significant reduction in the number of consultations represents part of the crisis. Future service planning and quality improvements are needed to reduce the negative effect on health and healthcare.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mental Health , Humans , Prescriptions , Primary Health Care , Referral and Consultation , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
5.
J Infect ; 83(2): 228-236, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1230619

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To mitigate risk of mortality from coronavirus 2019 infection (COVID-19), the UK government recommended 'shielding' of vulnerable people through self-isolation for 12 weeks. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using a nationally representative English primary care database comparing people aged >= 40 years who were recorded as being advised to shield using a fixed ratio of 1:1, matching to people with the same diagnoses not advised to shield (n = 77,360 per group). Time-to-death was compared using Cox regression, reporting the hazard ratio (HR) of mortality between groups. A sensitivity analysis compared exact matched cohorts (n = 24,752 shielded, n = 61,566 exact matches). RESULTS: We found a time-varying HR of mortality between groups. In the first 21 days, the mortality risk in people shielding was half those not (HR = 0.50, 95%CI:0.41-0.59. p < 0.0001). Over the remaining nine weeks, mortality risk was 54% higher in the shielded group (HR=1.54, 95%CI:1.41-1.70, p < 0.0001). Beyond the shielding period, mortality risk was over two-and-a-half times higher in the shielded group (HR=2.61, 95%CI:2.38-2.87, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Shielding halved the risk of mortality for 21 days. Mortality risk became higher across the remainder of the shielding period, rising to two-and-a-half times greater post-shielding. Shielding may be beneficial in the next wave of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cohort Studies , Humans , Primary Health Care , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
6.
Yearb Med Inform ; 30(1): 44-55, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1196879

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Internationally, primary care practice had to transform in response to the COVID pandemic. Informatics issues included access, privacy, and security, as well as patient concerns of equity, safety, quality, and trust. This paper describes progress and lessons learned. METHODS: IMIA Primary Care Informatics Working Group members from Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and United States developed a standardised template for collection of information. The template guided a rapid literature review. We also included experiential learning from primary care and public health perspectives. RESULTS: All countries responded rapidly. Common themes included rapid reductions then transformation to virtual visits, pausing of non-COVID related informatics projects, all against a background of non-standardized digital development and disparate territory or state regulations and guidance. Common barriers in these four and in less-resourced countries included disparities in internet access and availability including bandwidth limitations when internet access was available, initial lack of coding standards, and fears of primary care clinicians that patients were delaying care despite the availability of televisits. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care clinicians were able to respond to the COVID crisis through telehealth and electronic record enabled change. However, the lack of coordinated national strategies and regulation, assurance of financial viability, and working in silos remained limitations. The potential for primary care informatics to transform current practice was highlighted. More research is needed to confirm preliminary observations and trends noted.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Delivery of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Primary Health Care , Australia/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/mortality , Canada/epidemiology , Global Health , Health Policy , Humans , Medical Informatics , Telemedicine/trends , United Kingdom/epidemiology , United States/epidemiology
7.
PLoS One ; 16(3): e0248123, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1133687

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Rapid Point of Care Testing (POCT) for influenza could be used to provide information on influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) as well as influencing clinical decision-making in primary care. METHODS: We undertook a test negative case control study to estimate the overall and age-specific (6 months-17 years, 18-64 years, ≥65 years old) IVE against medically attended POCT-confirmed influenza. The study took place over the winter of 2019-2020 and was nested within twelve general practices that are part of the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC), the English sentinel surveillance network. RESULTS: 648 POCT were conducted. 193 (29.7%) of those who were swabbed had received the seasonal influenza vaccine. The crude unadjusted overall IVE was 46.1% (95% CI: 13.9-66.3). After adjusting for confounders the overall IVE was 26.0% (95% CI: 0-65.5). In total 211 patients were prescribed an antimicrobial after swab testing. Given a positive influenza POCT result, the odds ratio (OR) of receiving an antiviral was 21.1 (95%CI: 2.4-182.2, p = <0.01) and the OR of being prescribed an antibiotic was 0.6 (95%CI: 0.4-0.9, p = <0.01). DISCUSSION: Using influenza POCT in a primary care sentinel surveillance network to estimate IVE is feasible and provides comparable results to published IVE estimates. A further advantage is that near patient testing of influenza is associated with improvements in appropriate antiviral and antibiotic use. Larger, randomised studies are needed in primary care to see if these trends are still present and to explore their impact on outcomes.


Subject(s)
Influenza Vaccines/therapeutic use , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Point-of-Care Testing , Sentinel Surveillance , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Child , Child, Preschool , England , Female , Humans , Infant , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Male , Middle Aged , Primary Health Care/methods , Primary Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Seasons , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
8.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 7(2): e24341, 2021 02 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1090464

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Clinical Protocols , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , Vaccines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Influenza, Human/drug therapy , Male , Middle Aged , Population Surveillance/methods , Public Health , Respiratory Tract Infections/drug therapy , Respiratory Tract Infections/virology , United Kingdom
9.
Hypertension ; 77(3): 846-855, 2021 03 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1083929

ABSTRACT

Hypertension has been identified as a risk factor for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and associated adverse outcomes. This study examined the association between preinfection blood pressure (BP) control and COVID-19 outcomes using data from 460 general practices in England. Eligible patients were adults with hypertension who were tested or diagnosed with COVID-19. BP control was defined by the most recent BP reading within 24 months of the index date (January 1, 2020). BP was defined as controlled (<130/80 mm Hg), raised (130/80-139/89 mm Hg), stage 1 uncontrolled (140/90-159/99 mm Hg), or stage 2 uncontrolled (≥160/100 mm Hg). The primary outcome was death within 28 days of COVID-19 diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were COVID-19 diagnosis and COVID-19-related hospital admission. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between BP control and outcomes. Of the 45 418 patients (mean age, 67 years; 44.7% male) included, 11 950 (26.3%) had controlled BP. These patients were older, had more comorbidities, and had been diagnosed with hypertension for longer. A total of 4277 patients (9.4%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 and 877 died within 28 days. Individuals with stage 1 uncontrolled BP had lower odds of COVID-19 death (odds ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.62-0.92]) compared with patients with well-controlled BP. There was no association between BP control and COVID-19 diagnosis or hospitalization. These findings suggest BP control may be associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes, possibly due to these patients having more advanced atherosclerosis and target organ damage. Such patients may need to consider adhering to stricter social distancing, to limit the impact of COVID-19 as future waves of the pandemic occur.


Subject(s)
Blood Pressure/drug effects , COVID-19/epidemiology , Hypertension/epidemiology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antihypertensive Agents/therapeutic use , Atherosclerosis/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Comorbidity , England/epidemiology , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Hypertension/drug therapy , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Primary Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Severity of Illness Index , Survival Analysis , Treatment Outcome
10.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 6(4): e21434, 2020 11 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-976102

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Creating an ontology for COVID-19 surveillance should help ensure transparency and consistency. Ontologies formalize conceptualizations at either the domain or application level. Application ontologies cross domains and are specified through testable use cases. Our use case was an extension of the role of the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) to monitor the current pandemic and become an in-pandemic research platform. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop an application ontology for COVID-19 that can be deployed across the various use-case domains of the RCGP RSC research and surveillance activities. METHODS: We described our domain-specific use case. The actor was the RCGP RSC sentinel network, the system was the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the outcomes were the spread and effect of mitigation measures. We used our established 3-step method to develop the ontology, separating ontological concept development from code mapping and data extract validation. We developed a coding system-independent COVID-19 case identification algorithm. As there were no gold-standard pandemic surveillance ontologies, we conducted a rapid Delphi consensus exercise through the International Medical Informatics Association Primary Health Care Informatics working group and extended networks. RESULTS: Our use-case domains included primary care, public health, virology, clinical research, and clinical informatics. Our ontology supported (1) case identification, microbiological sampling, and health outcomes at an individual practice and at the national level; (2) feedback through a dashboard; (3) a national observatory; (4) regular updates for Public Health England; and (5) transformation of a sentinel network into a trial platform. We have identified a total of 19,115 people with a definite COVID-19 status, 5226 probable cases, and 74,293 people with possible COVID-19, within the RCGP RSC network (N=5,370,225). CONCLUSIONS: The underpinning structure of our ontological approach has coped with multiple clinical coding challenges. At a time when there is uncertainty about international comparisons, clarity about the basis on which case definitions and outcomes are made from routine data is essential.


Subject(s)
Biological Ontologies , COVID-19/epidemiology , Primary Health Care/methods , Sentinel Surveillance , Humans , Pandemics
11.
BJGP Open ; 4(4)2020 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-826586

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need for epidemiological research in primary care to develop risk assessment processes for patients presenting with COVID-19, but lack of a standardised approach to data collection is a significant barrier to implementation. AIM: To collate a list of relevant symptoms, assessment items, demographics, and lifestyle and health conditions associated with COVID-19, and match these data items with corresponding SNOMED CT clinical terms to support the development and implementation of consultation templates. DESIGN & SETTING: Published and preprint literature for systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical guidelines describing the symptoms, assessment items, demographics, and/or lifestyle and health conditions associated with COVID-19 and its complications were reviewed. Corresponding clinical concepts from SNOMED CT, a widely used structured clinical vocabulary for electronic primary care health records, were identified. METHOD: Guidelines and published and unpublished reviews (N = 61) were utilised to collate a list of relevant data items for COVID-19 consultations. The NHS Digital SNOMED CT Browser was used to identify concept and descriptive identifiers. Key implementation challenges were conceptualised through a Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) lens. RESULTS: In total, 32 symptoms, eight demographic and lifestyle features, 25 health conditions, and 20 assessment items relevant to COVID-19 were identified, with proposed corresponding SNOMED CT concepts. These data items can be adapted into a consultation template for COVID-19. Key implementation challenges include: 1) engaging with key stakeholders to achieve 'buy in'; and 2) ensuring any template is usable within practice settings. CONCLUSION: Consultation templates for COVID-19 are needed to standardise data collection, facilitate research and learning, and potentially improve quality of care for COVID-19.

12.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 6(3): e19773, 2020 07 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-791866

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Routinely recorded primary care data have been used for many years by sentinel networks for surveillance. More recently, real world data have been used for a wider range of research projects to support rapid, inexpensive clinical trials. Because the partial national lockdown in the United Kingdom due to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in decreasing community disease incidence, much larger numbers of general practices are needed to deliver effective COVID-19 surveillance and contribute to in-pandemic clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this protocol is to describe the rapid design and development of the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub (ORCHID) and its first two platforms. The Surveillance Platform will provide extended primary care surveillance, while the Trials Platform is a streamlined clinical trials platform that will be integrated into routine primary care practice. METHODS: We will apply the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) metadata principles to a new, integrated digital health hub that will extract routinely collected general practice electronic health data for use in clinical trials and provide enhanced communicable disease surveillance. The hub will be findable through membership in Health Data Research UK and European metadata repositories. Accessibility through an online application system will provide access to study-ready data sets or developed custom data sets. Interoperability will be facilitated by fixed linkage to other key sources such as Hospital Episodes Statistics and the Office of National Statistics using pseudonymized data. All semantic descriptors (ie, ontologies) and code used for analysis will be made available to accelerate analyses. We will also make data available using common data models, starting with the US Food and Drug Administration Sentinel and Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership approaches, to facilitate international studies. The Surveillance Platform will provide access to data for health protection and promotion work as authorized through agreements between Oxford, the Royal College of General Practitioners, and Public Health England. All studies using the Trials Platform will go through appropriate ethical and other regulatory approval processes. RESULTS: The hub will be a bottom-up, professionally led network that will provide benefits for member practices, our health service, and the population served. Data will only be used for SQUIRE (surveillance, quality improvement, research, and education) purposes. We have already received positive responses from practices, and the number of practices in the network has doubled to over 1150 since February 2020. COVID-19 surveillance has resulted in tripling of the number of virology sites to 293 (target 300), which has aided the collection of the largest ever weekly total of surveillance swabs in the United Kingdom as well as over 3000 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serology samples. Practices are recruiting to the PRINCIPLE (Platform Randomised trial of INterventions against COVID-19 In older PeopLE) trial, and these participants will be followed up through ORCHID. These initial outputs demonstrate the feasibility of ORCHID to provide an extended national digital health hub. CONCLUSIONS: ORCHID will provide equitable and innovative use of big data through a professionally led national primary care network and the application of FAIR principles. The secure data hub will host routinely collected general practice data linked to other key health care repositories for clinical trials and support enhanced in situ surveillance without always requiring large volume data extracts. ORCHID will support rapid data extraction, analysis, and dissemination with the aim of improving future research and development in general practice to positively impact patient care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/19773.


Subject(s)
Clinical Trials as Topic , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , General Practice/organization & administration , Medical Records Systems, Computerized , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Public Health Surveillance , COVID-19 , Humans , Pandemics , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Societies, Medical , United Kingdom/epidemiology
13.
Br J Gen Pract ; 70(697): e540-e547, 2020 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-653992

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in a rapid change in workload across healthcare systems. Factors related to this adaptation in UK primary care have not yet been examined. AIM: To assess the responsiveness and prioritisation of primary care consultation type for older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional database study examining consultations between 17 February and 10 May 2020 for patients aged ≥65 years, drawn from primary care practices within the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) sentinel network, UK. METHOD: The authors reported the proportion of consultation type across five categories: clinical administration, electronic/video, face-to-face, telephone, and home visits. Temporal trends in telephone and face-to-face consultations were analysed by polypharmacy, frailty status, and socioeconomic group using incidence rate ratios (IRR). RESULTS: Across 3 851 304 consultations, the population median age was 75 years (interquartile range [IQR] 70-82); and 46% (n = 82 926) of the cohort (N = 180 420) were male. The rate of telephone and electronic/video consultations more than doubled across the study period (106.0% and 102.8%, respectively). Face-to-face consultations fell by 64.6% and home visits by 62.6%. This predominantly occurred across week 11 (week commencing 9 March 2020), coinciding with national policy change. Polypharmacy and frailty were associated with a relative increase in consultations. The greatest relative increase was among people taking ≥10 medications compared with those taking none (face-to-face IRR 9.90, 95% CI = 9.55 to 10.26; telephone IRR 17.64, 95% CI = 16.89 to 18.41). CONCLUSION: Primary care has undergone an unprecedented in-pandemic reorganisation while retaining focus on patients with increased complexity.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , House Calls/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Aged , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , General Practitioners/organization & administration , Humans , Male , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom/epidemiology
14.
J Infect ; 81(5): 785-792, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-728713

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Age Factors , Aged , COVID-19 , Comorbidity , Coronavirus Infections/ethnology , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Cross-Sectional Studies , England/epidemiology , Family Characteristics , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/ethnology , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Sentinel Surveillance , Sex Factors
15.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 6(2): e18606, 2020 04 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-31012

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) and Public Health England (PHE) have successfully worked together on the surveillance of influenza and other infectious diseases for over 50 years, including three previous pandemics. With the emergence of the international outbreak of the coronavirus infection (COVID-19), a UK national approach to containment has been established to test people suspected of exposure to COVID-19. At the same time and separately, the RCGP RSC's surveillance has been extended to monitor the temporal and geographical distribution of COVID-19 infection in the community as well as assess the effectiveness of the containment strategy. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study are to surveil COVID-19 in both asymptomatic populations and ambulatory cases with respiratory infections, ascertain both the rate and pattern of COVID-19 spread, and assess the effectiveness of the containment policy. METHODS: The RCGP RSC, a network of over 500 general practices in England, extract pseudonymized data weekly. This extended surveillance comprises of five components: (1) Recording in medical records of anyone suspected to have or who has been exposed to COVID-19. Computerized medical records suppliers have within a week of request created new codes to support this. (2) Extension of current virological surveillance and testing people with influenza-like illness or lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI)-with the caveat that people suspected to have or who have been exposed to COVID-19 should be referred to the national containment pathway and not seen in primary care. (3) Serology sample collection across all age groups. This will be an extra blood sample taken from people who are attending their general practice for a scheduled blood test. The 100 general practices currently undertaking annual influenza virology surveillance will be involved in the extended virological and serological surveillance. (4) Collecting convalescent serum samples. (5) Data curation. We have the opportunity to escalate the data extraction to twice weekly if needed. Swabs and sera will be analyzed in PHE reference laboratories. RESULTS: General practice clinical system providers have introduced an emergency new set of clinical codes to support COVID-19 surveillance. Additionally, practices participating in current virology surveillance are now taking samples for COVID-19 surveillance from low-risk patients presenting with LRTIs. Within the first 2 weeks of setup of this surveillance, we have identified 3 cases: 1 through the new coding system, the other 2 through the extended virology sampling. CONCLUSIONS: We have rapidly converted the established national RCGP RSC influenza surveillance system into one that can test the effectiveness of the COVID-19 containment policy. The extended surveillance has already seen the use of new codes with 3 cases reported. Rapid sharing of this protocol should enable scientific critique and shared learning. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/18606.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus , Disease Notification/methods , Medical Records Systems, Computerized , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Public Health Surveillance/methods , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Disease Outbreaks , England/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Public Health , SARS-CoV-2 , Sentinel Surveillance
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL