Delivering asthma reviews during the Covid-19 pandemic

The Covid-19 pandemic meant that the delivery of asthma management in primary care changed virtually overnight, requiring the introduction of alternatives to face-to-face care. This study examines the experiences of nurses who were performing asthma reviews during the pandemic, identifying the key themes that emerged, as well as providing recommendations for future practice.

Covid 19: A community based nursing disaster response.

Nursing has been criticized for inconsistent and episodic attention to disaster response training in academic settings. The work described herein demonstrates that nursing was not only prepared for the COVID-19 pandemic but was able to mobilize and lead a large-scale response that benefited a university community and the larger surrounding communities and neighborhoods paying particular attention to marginalized populations. For healthcare providers outside of hospitals, it was clear that disaster response methods would need to be implemented. The authors demonstrate that nursing established an on-the-ground response in collaboration with other University officials and departments. Initially established for the University community, the response was moved into surrounding neighborhoods vaccinating the city's most vulnerable. The nurse led effort answered more than 25,000 Hotline telephone calls, collected more than 30,000 COVID-19 molecular tests, and administered more than 150,000 COVID-19 vaccines in an operation that served up to 2500 people a day for 5 months. Nurses saved thousands of lives at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in hospitals and in community-based settings. The University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio School of Nursing demonstrated the nimble nature of academic nursing and outlines a large-scale community response to an international pandemic in the seventh-largest United States city. The authors establish guidelines for nurses and others to follow for future events.

The COVID-19-forced transformation of general practitioner training from face-to-face to online delivery: A qualitative study of participants' experiences.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Outside the clinical space, face-to-face education essentially stopped when the COVID-19 pandemic started, largely substituted by online education. This provided an opportunity to explore general practice registrar and educator views about the benefits, challenges and enablers of both types of educational delivery. METHOD: This qualitative study included 45 registrars and medical educators from across Queensland, Australia. Transcripts of five focus groups and 22 semi-structured interviews were analysed thematically using the Framework Method. RESULTS: Major themes focused on social connection, learning engagement, content delivery, and time and space in relation to education. Other themes included technology, unplanned learning, learning safety and pastoral care. Face-to-face education was viewed more positively than online education, but many suggested ways to enhance online education. DISCUSSION: The importance of social connection dominated and underpinned many other themes identified as central to achieving safe and effective vocational general practitioner education.

Patient consultations during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a mixed-method cross-sectional study in 16 European countries.

INTRODUCTION: Remote consultations help reduce contact between people and prevent cross-contamination. Little is known about the changes in consultation in European rural primary care during the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic. The purpose of this mixed-methods cross-sectional study was to find out more about the effects of the pandemic on changes in patient consultations in European rural primary care. METHODS: A key informant survey from 16 member countries of the European Rural and Isolated Practitioners Association (EURIPA) was undertaken using a self-developed questionnaire. The steering committee of this project, called EURIPA Covid-19 study, developed a semi-structured questionnaire with 68 questions, 21 of which included free-text comments. Proportions were calculated for dichotomized or categorized data, and means were calculated for continuous data. Multivariate analysis by logistic regression model was used to assess the association of multiple variables. RESULTS: A total of 406 questionnaires from primary care providers (PCPs) in 16 European countries were collected; 245 respondents (60.5%) were females, 152 PCPs were rural (37.5%), 124 semi-rural (30.5%). Mean age of the respondents was 45.9 years (standard deviation (SD) 11.30) while mean seniority (length of experience) was 18.2 years (SD 11.6). A total of 381 (93.8%) respondents were medical doctors. Significant differences were found between countries in adopting alternative arrangements to face-to-face consultation: remote teleconsultation is well appreciated by both healthcare professionals and patients, but the most common way of remote consultation remains telephone consultation. A factor significantly inversely associated with the adoption of video consultation was the seniority of the PCP (odds ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.40, p=0.03). CONCLUSION: Telephone consultation is the most common form of remote consultation. The adoption of video-consultation is inversely related to the seniority of the informants.

A crisis is also an opportunity

Results Challenges included lack of masks and space, and concerns about infection control, medico-legal liability and student learning. Data analysis Thematic analysis was conducted using an inductive and iterative approach employing a provisional template reflecting the main interview prompt questions and emergent themes.4 An open coding system was applied manually to group and sort data. To offset the lack of participant checking and minimise bias, the coding and triangulation was conducted by researchers with years of experience as clinical and academic GPs, supervisors and teachers.5 Researcher attributes, questions, relationship with participants and method of data collection influenced the process of enquiry. Within the research team, KJ is an experienced qualitative researcher with a background in public health, health service planning and nursing;KAW, JS, NY and NS are academic and practising GPs with experience in qualitative research;MH is an academic GP;and DAA is an experienced primary care qualitative researcher.

Systematic review of the effects of pandemic confinements on body weight and their determinants.

Pandemics and subsequent lifestyle restrictions such as 'lockdowns' may have unintended consequences, including alterations in body weight. This systematic review assesses the impact of pandemic confinement on body weight and identifies contributory factors. A comprehensive literature search was performed in seven electronic databases and in grey sources from their inception until 1 July 2020 with an update in PubMed and Scopus on 1 February 2021. In total, 2361 unique records were retrieved, of which forty-one studies were identified eligible: one case­control study, fourteen cohort and twenty-six cross-sectional studies (469, 362 total participants). The participants ranged in age from 6 to 86 years. The proportion of female participants ranged from 37 % to 100 %. Pandemic confinements were associated with weight gain in 7·2­72·4 % of participants and weight loss in 11·1­32·0 % of participants. Weight gain ranged from 0·6 (sd 1·3) to 3·0 (sd 2·4) kg, and weight loss ranged from 2·0 (sd 1·4) to 2·9 (sd 1·5) kg. Weight gain occurred predominantly in participants who were already overweight or obese. Associated factors included increased consumption of unhealthy food with changes in physical activity and altered sleep patterns. Weight loss during the pandemic was observed in individuals with previous low weight, and those who ate less and were more physically active before lockdown. Maintaining a stable weight was more difficult in populations with reduced income, particularly in individuals with lower educational attainment. The findings of this systematic review highlight the short-term effects of pandemic confinements.

A community perspective of COVID-19 and obesity in children: Causes and consequences.

The pandemic of childhood obesity that has been increasing over the last decade has collided with the current pandemic of COVID-19. Enforced behavioural changes have resulted in a myriad of problems for children particularly in weight management. Restricted activity is the most obvious but many other aspects of life have exacerbated biological, psychosocial, and behavioral factors identified as risks for childhood obesity. Significant effort is required to turn around the prevailing tide of weight gain necessitating changes in personal and family behavior and diet, as well as high-level governmental and educational policy. Evidence-based, focused, long-term interventions which are adequately funded are required. Enthusiasm and optimism for change coupled with public engagement by utilization of new technology as well as traditional methods offers hope for change. Public health interventions in isolation are inadequate and bolder changes to central policies and social structure are needed for sustained change. This will allow some mitigation of the affects of COVID-19 but also reduce negative outcomes in future comparable situations.

Life in lockdown: a telephone survey to investigate the impact of COVID-19 lockdown measures on the lives of older people (≥75 years).

BACKGROUND: In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the UK government introduced social distancing measures and identified specific populations at high risk from the virus. People ≥70 were deemed 'Clinically Vulnerable'. Distancing measures were introduced to reduce the risk of contracting COVID-19. However, these may have a negative impact on older people who are vulnerable to social isolation and may have challenges accessing services and provisions. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of COVID-19 lockdown measures on the lives of older people. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional telephone survey. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling older people, 76-97 years. OUTCOMES: Health anxiety; General health (RAND Short-form 36 Survey); Physical activity; Depression (PHQ-8); Anxiety (GAD-2); Loneliness; Access to services; Challenges, concerns and positive experiences. DATA ANALYSIS: Counts (%), means (SDs). Thematic analysis was used to identify themes from open questions. RESULTS: n = 142. 52% did not worry about their health; 76% rated their health as 'good', 'very good' or 'excellent'; <10% met the criteria indicative of depression (PHQ-8), or anxiety (GAD-2); 42% were less active than before lockdown; and 27% were lonely at least some of the time. Over half of participants identified positive aspects. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants reported good health with low levels of health anxiety, anxiety and depression. Many were able to identify positive aspects to lockdown and may be better equipped to deal with lockdown than anticipated. Strategies may be required to ameliorate the negative impact of loneliness for a minority of older people, and help some resume previous activity levels and pursuits.

Correction to: ChemoPROphyLaxIs with hydroxychloroquine For covId-19 infeCtious disease (PROLIFIC) to prevent covid-19 infection in frontline healthcare workers: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

"Covibesity," a new pandemic.

The COVID-19 lockdown produced behavioral, psychosocial and environmental changes which, through a variety of mechanisms, has led to widespread rapid weight gain amongst certain populations worldwide. We have termed this phenomenon 'covibesity'. There has been an increase in food shopping, food take ways and increase in alcohol sales. Furthermore, the combination of working from home, on-line education and social media usage have all caused screen time to surge. The food industry has intensified on-line advertising focused on children. A swift response is needed from all stakeholders to prevent covibesity becoming a pandemic.

ChemoPROphyLaxIs with hydroxychloroquine For covId-19 infeCtious disease (PROLIFIC) to prevent covid-19 infection in frontline healthcare workers: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether chemoprophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine versus placebo increases time to contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in frontline healthcare workers. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: 1) To determine whether chemoprophylaxis with daily versus weekly dosing of hydroxychloroquine increases time to contracting COVID-19 disease in frontline healthcare workers. 2) To compare the number of COVID-19 cases between each trial arm on the basis of positive tests (as per current clinical testing methods and/or serology) 3) To compare the percentage of COVID-19 positive individuals with current testing methods versus serologically-proven COVID-19 in each trial arm 4) To compare COVID-19 disease severity in each trial arm 5) To compare recovery time from COVID-19 infection in each trial arm EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVES: 1) To determine compliance (as measured by trough pharmacokinetic hydroxychloroquine levels) on COVID-19 positive tests 2) To determine if genetic factors determine susceptibility to COVID-19 disease or response to treatment 3) To determine if blood group determines susceptibility to COVID-19 disease 4) To compare serum biomarkers of COVID-19 disease in each arm TRIAL DESIGN: Double-blind, multi-centre, 2-arm (3:3:2 ratio) randomised placebo-controlled trial PARTICIPANTS: National Health Service (NHS) workers who have direct patient contact delivering care to patients with COVID-19. Participants in the trial will be recruited from a number of NHS hospitals directly caring for patients with COVID-19. INCLUSION CRITERIA: To be included in the trial the participant MUST: 1) Have given written informed consent to participate 2) Be aged 18 years to 70 years 3) Not previously have been diagnosed with COVID-19 4) Work in a high-risk secondary or tertiary healthcare setting (hospitals accepting COVID-19 patients) with direct patient-facing care EXCLUSION CRITERIA: The presence of any of the following will mean participants are ineligible: 1) Known COVID-19 positive test at baseline (if available) 2) Symptomatic for possible COVID-19 at baseline 3) Known hypersensitivity reaction to hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine or 4-aminoquinolines 4) Known retinal disease 5) Known porphyria 6) Known chronic kidney disease (CKD; eGFR<30ml/min) 7) Known epilepsy 8) Known heart failure or conduction problems 9) Known significant liver disease (Gilbert's syndrome is permitted) 10) Known glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency 11) Currently taking any of the following contraindicated medications: Digoxin, Chloroquine, Halofantrine, Amiodarone, Moxifloxacin, Cyclosporin, Mefloquine, Praziquantel, Ciprofloxacin, Clarithromycin, Prochlorperazine, Fluconazole 12) Currently taking hydroxychloroquine or having a clinical indication for taking hydroxychloroquine 13) Currently breastfeeding 14) Unable to be followed-up during the trial 15) Current or future involvement in the active treatment phase of other interventional research studies (excluding observational/non-interventional studies) before study follow-up visit 16) Not able to use or have access to a modern phone device/web-based technology 17) Any other clinical reason which may preclude entry in the opinion of the investigator INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Interventions being evaluated are: A) Daily hydroxychloroquine or B) Weekly hydroxychloroquine or C) Placebo The maximum treatment period is approximately 13 weeks per participant. Hydroxychloroquine-identical matched placebo tablets will ensure that all participants are taking the same number and dosing regimen of tablets across the three trial arms. There is no variation in the dose of hydroxychloroquine by weight. The dosing regimen for the three arms of the study (A, B, C) are described in further detail below. Arm A: Active Hydroxychloroquine (- daily dosing and placebo-matched hydroxychloroquine - weekly dosing). Form: Tablets Route: Oral. Dose and Frequency: Active hydroxychloroquine: Days 1-2: Loading phase - 400mg (2 x 200mg tablets) taken twice a day for 2 days Days 3 onwards: Maintenance Phase - 200mg (1 x 200mg tablet) taken once daily, every day for 90 days (~3 months) Matched Placebo hydroxychloroquine: Days 3 onwards: Maintenance Phase - 2 tablets taken once a week on the same day each week (every 7th day) for 90 days (~3 months) Arm B: Active Hydroxychloroquine (- weekly dosing and placebo matched hydroxychloroquine - daily dosing.) Form: Tablets Route: Oral. Dose and Frequency: Active hydroxychloroquine: Days 1-2: Loading Phase - 400mg (2 x 200mg tablets) taken twice daily for 2 days Days 3 onwards: Maintenance Phase - 400mg (2 x 200mg tablets) taken once a week on the same day each week (every 7th day) for 90 days (~3 months) Matched Placebo hydroxychloroquine: Days 3 onwards: Maintenance Phase - 1 tablet taken once daily for 90 days (~3 months) Arm C: Matched placebo Hydroxychloroquine (- daily dosing and matched placebo hydroxychloroquine - weekly dosing.) Form: Table. Route: Oral. Frequency: Matched placebo hydroxychloroquine - daily dosing: Days 1-2: Loading Phase - 2 tablets taken twice daily for 2 days Days 3 onwards: Maintenance Phase - 1 tablet taken once daily for 90 days (~3 months) Matched placebo hydroxychloroquine - weekly dosing: Days 3 onwards: Maintenance Phase - 2 tablets taken once a week on the same day each week (every 7th day) for 90 days (~3 months) A schematic of the dosing schedule can be found in the full study protocol (Additional File 1). MAIN OUTCOMES: Time to diagnosis of positive COVID-19 disease (defined by record of date of symptoms onset and confirmed by laboratory test) RANDOMISATION: Participants will be randomised to either hydroxychloroquine dosed daily with weekly placebo, HCQ dosed weekly with daily placebo, or placebo dosed daily and weekly. Randomisation will be in a 3:3:2 ratio [hydroxychloroquine-(daily), hydroxychloroquine-(weekly), placebo], using stratified block randomisation. Random block sizes will be used, and stratification will be by study site. BLINDING (MASKING): Participants and trial investigators consenting participants, delivering trial assessments and procedures will be blinded to intervention. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A sufficient number of participants will be enrolled so that approximately 1000 participants in total will have data suitable for the primary statistical analysis. It is anticipated that approximately 1,200 participants will need to be enrolled in total, to allow for a 20% dropout over the period of the trial. This would result in approximately 450:450:300 participants randomised to hydroxychloroquine daily, hydroxychloroquine weekly+daily matched placebo or matched-placebo daily and weekly. TRIAL STATUS: V 1.0, 7th April 2020 EU Clinical Trials Register EudraCT Number: 2020-001331-26 Date of registration: 14th April 2020 Trial registered before first participant enrolment. Trial site is Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Recruitment started on 11th May 2020. It is anticipated that the trial will run for 12 months. The recruitment end date cannot yet be accurately predicted. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).