Very rapid insight generation to support UK health and care systems: An AHSN approach.

Introduction: COVID-19 challenges are well documented. Academic Health Science Networks (AHSNs) are a key partner to NHS and care organizations. In response to managing COVID-19 challenges, Wessex AHSN offered rapid insight generation and rapid evaluation to local NHS and care systems to capture learning during this period. This novel "Rapid Insight" approach involved one-off online deliberative events with stakeholders to generate insights linked to specific, priority areas of interest, followed by rapid analysis and dissemination of the findings. Context: Key objectives were to enable system leaders to build their adaptive leadership capability and learn from the experience of COVID-19 to inform recovery planning and system support. Rapid Insight (RI) gathered together health and care professionals into a tightly managed, virtual forum to share system intelligence. Approach: Focused questions asked about the systems' response to the pandemic, what changes to continue and sustain, or discontinue. Participants responded simultaneously to each question using the virtual chat function. Immediate thematic analysis of the chat conducted in 48-72 h by paired analysts for each question strengthened analytical integrity. Mind maps, the key output, provided easily assimilated information and showed linkages between themes. Telephone or virtual interviews of key informants (health and care professionals and patients) and routinely collected data were synthesized into short reports alongside several RI events. However, insufficient time limited the opportunities to engage diverse participants (e.g., mental health users). Data from RI can scope the problem and immediate system needs, to stimulate questions for future evaluative work. Impact: RI facilitated a shared endeavor to discover "clues in the system" by including diverse opinions and experience across NHS and care organizations. Although these rapid virtual events saved on travel time, digital exclusion might constrain participation for some stakeholders which needs other ways to ensure inclusion. Successful rapid engagement required Wessex AHSN's existing system relationships to champion RI and facilitate participant recruitment. RI events "opened the door" to conversations between up to 150 multi-professional clinicians to share their collective response to COVID-19. This paper focuses on the RI approach with a case example and its further development.

(How) is COVID-19 reframing interaction between the NHS and private healthcare?

In March 2020, a 'major deal' was struck between the National Health Service (NHS) and private healthcare sector to facilitate 'crisis' and 'continuity' responses to COVID-19. A further deal was struck in January 2022 to support the NHS in tackling the Omicron variant, suggesting that the pandemic was evolving, rather than definitively over. The legal basis for these deals was a Public Policy Exclusion Order, a temporary relaxation mechanism in UK competition law defined by a 'disruption period'. In a global pandemic, the 'healthcare disruption period' might be considered to be of a different scope and nature to short-term disturbances experienced in other sectors, such as groceries. This article examines the Public Policy Exclusion Orders issued in respect of health services in England and Wales, and the Collective Agreements notified under these between March 2020 and March 2021, and again in March 2022. Amid ongoing tensions surrounding 'NHS privatisation', this enables a timely analysis of whether the underlying relationship between the NHS and private healthcare may be changing in response to COVID-19, and how considerations of ethical frameworks are also relevant to this aspect of the pandemic response.Copyright © The Author(s) 2023.

Increased use of 6-monthly gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist therapy for prostate cancer: a capacity and cost-minimization analysis for England.

AIMS: The National Health Service (NHS) in England is facing extreme capacity pressures. The backbone of prostate cancer care is gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) therapy, commonly administered every month or 3 months. We estimated the cost and capacity savings associated with increased use of 6-monthly GnRHa therapy in England. METHODS: A capacity and cost-minimization model including a societal perspective was developed (in Microsoft Excel) to generate cost and capacity estimates for GnRHa drug acquisition and administration for "Current practice" and for a "Base case" scenario. In the "Base case" scenario, 50% of patients who were receiving monthly or 3-monthly GnRHa therapy in "Current practice" switched/transitioned to a 6-monthly formulation. Cost/capacity estimates were calculated per patient per administration and scaled to annualized population levels. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of individual model assumptions: 1 tested the impact of drug acquisition costs; 2 and 3 tested the level of nurse grade and the time associated with treatment administration, respectively; 4 tested the rate of switch/transition to 6-monthly GnRHa therapy; and 5 tested differing diagnostic patterns following the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. RESULTS: Compared with "Current practice", the "Base case" scenario was associated with annual cost savings of £5,164,296 (148,478 fewer appointments/year and 37,119 fewer appointment-hours/year). The largest savings were in drug administration (£2.2 million) and acquisition (£1.6 million) costs. Annual societal cost savings totaled £1.4 million, mainly in reduced appointment-related travel, productivity and leisure time opportunity losses. Increased use of 6-monthly versus monthly or 3-monthly GnRHa therapy consistently achieved system-wide annual cost and capacity savings across all sensitivity analysis scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Our holistic model suggests that switching/transitioning men from monthly or 3- monthly GnRHa therapy to a 6-monthly formulation can reduce NHS cost and capacity pressures and the societal and environmental costs associated with prostate cancer care.

Men with prostate cancer often receive hormone injections to slow their cancer progression and relieve their symptoms. In England, most men who are prescribed hormone injections receive them once every month or 3 months; however, a 6-monthly option would reduce the number of injection appointments required each year. If some men who are receiving hormone injections every month or every 3 months switched to treatment once every 6 months, it could reduce the impact of prostate cancer treatment on their lives. It might also reduce the demands of prostate cancer treatment on the National Health Service (NHS). We developed a computer-based model to assess how NHS costs and nursing would be affected if half of the men in England who are receiving hormone injections every month or 3 months switched to injections every 6 months. According to our model, this change could save the NHS about £5.2 million each year. The main cost savings would be in reduced nursing costs. The change would also benefit the NHS because nurses would have almost 150,000 fewer injections to give, meaning that they could spend their time providing care elsewhere. Given that men would have to attend fewer appointments, they would also benefit from reduced time traveling, which would benefit the environment as well. Overall, these benefits to society would contribute about £1.4 million of savings per year. Given how stretched the NHS is in England, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic, opportunities to reduce time and staffing pressures are very important.

General practitioners' wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic: Novel methods with social media data.

BACKGROUND: It is difficult to engage busy healthcare professionals in research. Yet during the COVID-19 pandemic, gaining their perspectives has never been more important. OBJECTIVE: To explore social media data for insights into the wellbeing of UK General Practitioners (GPs) during the Covid-19 pandemic. METHODS: We used a combination of search approaches to identify 381 practising UK NHS GPs on Twitter. Using a two stage social media analysis, we firstly searched for key themes from 91,034 retrieved tweets (before and during the pandemic). Following this we used qualitative content analysis to provide in-depth insights from 7145 tweets related to wellbeing. RESULTS: Social media proved a useful tool to identify a cohort of UK GPs; following their tweets longitudinally to explore key themes and trends in issues related to GP wellbeing during the pandemic. These predominately related to support, resources and public perceptions and fluctuations were identified at key timepoints during the pandemic, all achieved without burdening busy GPs. CONCLUSION: Social media data can be searched to identify a cohort of GPs to explore their wellbeing and changes over time.

NHS librarians collaborate to develop a search bank peer reviewing and sharing COVID-19 searches: an evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, Health Education England (HEE) mobilised a group of expert searchers from NHS libraries in England to develop a platform for librarians to share peer reviewed search strategies and results on the Knowledge for Healthcare website. OBJECTIVES: (1) To document the origins of the COVID-19 search bank, (2) evaluate attitudes of NHS librarians in England towards the search bank and (3) identify lessons learned and consider whether the initiative might be developed further. METHODS: Structured interviews with the peer reviewers (n = 10) were conducted, and a questionnaire survey of the NHS library community using the search bank was undertaken. RESULTS: The interviews confirmed the value of collaboration. Expert searchers worked in pairs to peer review submitted search strategies. The survey (85 responses) indicated that a majority had used the search bank, and approved of the project, with some differences of opinion on functionality and future developments. DISCUSSION: Collaborative working for the search bank probably saved time for individual NHS librarians. The quality of the searches submitted was variable as were librarians' approaches to presentation and development of search strategies. Peer review benefits from a buddy approach among expert searchers and agreement about feedback provided to contributors. CONCLUSION: Search strategies are the most useful element of a search bank. Peer review can be challenging and would benefit from a formal structure, but it is professionally rewarding.

The National Health Service (NHS) response to the COVID-19 pandemic: a colorectal surgeons experience in the UK.

The UK government was arguably slow to take action against the COVID-19 pandemic. However, since switching their policy from "mitigation" to "suppression", swift changes have been implemented to all aspects of life. In this unprecedented crisis healthcare has been on the battlefront across the globe. Every effort has been made in the UK to stop the National Health Service (NHS) from being overwhelmed, leading to the national slogan: "Stay at home. Protect the NHS. Save lives". In this article, a consultant general and colorectal surgeon in Southampton reports on the NHS response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19: Results of a national survey of United Kingdom healthcare professionals' perceptions of current management strategy - A cross-sectional questionnaire study.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 has caused a global healthcare crisis with increasing number of people getting infected and dying each day. Different countries have tried to control its spread by applying the basic principles of social distancing and testing. Healthcare professionals have been the frontline workers globally with different opinions regarding the preparation and management of this pandemic. We aim to get the opinion of healthcare professionals in United Kingdom regarding their perceptions of preparedness in their workplace and general views of current pandemic management strategy. METHOD: A questionnaire survey, drafted using Google Forms, was distributed among healthcare professionals working in the National Health Service (NHS) across the United Kingdom. The study was kept open for the first 2 weeks of April 2020. RESULTS: A total of 1007 responses were obtained with majority of the responses from England (n = 850, 84.40%). There were 670 (66.53%) responses from doctors and 204 (20.26%) from nurses. Most of the respondents (95.23%) had direct patient contact in day to day activity. Only one third of the respondents agreed that they felt supported at their trust and half of the respondents reported that adequate training was provided to the frontline staff. Two-thirds of the respondents were of the view that there was not enough Personal Protective Equipment available while 80% thought that this pandemic has improved their hand washing practice. Most of the respondents were in the favour of an earlier lockdown (90%) and testing all the NHS frontline staff (94%). CONCLUSION: Despite current efforts, it would seem this is not translating to a sense of security amongst the UK NHS workforce in terms of how they feel trained and protected. It is vital that healthcare professionals have adequate support and protection at their workplace and that these aspects be actively monitored.