Access and feasibility of orthopaedic training in the independent sector - A Deanery's experience.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus (COVID-19) has negatively impacted healthcare around the world. It has had a major impact on orthopaedic training. The independent sector has been proposed as a facility for future training. Our aim was to provide an overview of the current higher surgical trainees' experience in the independent sector. METHOD: Training orthopaedic registrars within the East of England deanery were asked to complete an electronic questionnaire of their training experience in the independent sector between 5th November to 2nd December 2020. RESULTS: 57 of 64 registrars (89%) from across all thirteen regional training hospitals responded. 44% attended the independent sector, but 7 only assisted (28%). No third year trainees went, but there was an even spread of other training years attending a mean of four sessions. Sixty-six indicative procedures were performed, all with supervisors scrubbed. Second year trainees performed the most cases with 4 on average. Completion of work based assessments was low. 20% trainees reported a negative experience. 80% enjoyed themselves. 52% felt they achieved their goals. 29% trainees felt that independent sector operating would compensate for the shortfall in training brought about by COVID-19. The main obstacles to independent sector training were lack of access and opportunity (51%) and poor induction and paperwork issues (22%) CONCLUSION: This is the first deanery-wide assessment of access to and training within the independent sector due to COVID-19. Independent sector operating for orthopaedic trainees is feasible on scale and should be embedded to supplement training in the future. In their current state independent sector facilities are not easily and universally accessible to fulfil training needs.

Scalable modEls of Community rehAbilitation for Individuals Recovering From COVID:19 reLated illnEss: A Longitudinal Service Evaluation Protocol-"SeaCole Cohort Evaluation".

Introduction: High levels of physical, cognitive, and psychosocial impairments are anticipated for those recovering from the COVID-19. In the UK, ~50% of survivors will require additional rehabilitation. Despite this, there is currently no evidence-based guideline available in England and Wales that addresses the identification, timing and nature of effective interventions to manage the morbidity associated following COVID-19. It is now timely to accelerate the development and evaluation of a rehabilitation service to support patients and healthcare services. Nuffield Health have responded by configuring a scalable rehabilitation pathway addressing the immediate requirements for those recovering from COVID-19 in the community. Methods and Analysis: This long-term evaluation will examine the effectiveness of a 12-week community rehabilitation programme for COVID-19 patients who have been discharged following in-patient treatment. Consisting of two distinct 6-week phases; Phase 1 is an entirely remote service, delivered via digital applications. Phase 2 sees the same patients transition into a gym-based setting for supervised group-based rehabilitation. Trained rehabilitation specialists will coach patients across areas such as goal setting, exercise prescription, symptom management and emotional well-being. Outcomes will be collected at 0, 6, and 12 weeks and at 6- and 12-months. Primary outcome measures will assess changes in health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and COVID-19 symptoms using EuroQol Five Dimension Five Level Version (EQ-5D-5L) and Dyspnea-12, respectively. Secondary outcome measures of the Duke Activity Status Questionnaire (DASI), 30 s sit to stand test, General Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Patient Experience Questionnaire (PEQ) and Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) will allow for the evaluation of outcomes, mediators and moderators of outcome, and cost-effectiveness of treatment. Discussion: This evaluation will investigate the immediate and long-term impact, as well as the cost effectiveness of a blended rehabilitation programme for COVID-19 survivors. This evaluation will provide a founding contribution to the literature, evaluating one of the first programmes of this type in the UK. The evaluation has international relevance, with the potential to show how a new model of service provision can support health services in the wake of COVID-19. Trial Registration: Current Trials ISRCTN ISRCTN14707226 Web: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN14707226.

The perception of patient safety in an alternate site of care for elective surgery during the first wave of the novel coronavirus pandemic in the United Kingdom: a survey of 158 patients.

BACKGROUND: We undertook a prospective qualitative survey to ascertain the perceptions and experience of National Health Service patients in the United Kingdom who underwent planned or elective procedures and surgery at alternate 'clean' hospital sites during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. These alternate 'clean' hospital sites were independent hospitals running active staff and patient testing programmes for COVID-19 and which did not admit or treat patients suffering with COVID-19. METHODS: A prospective survey was undertaken to include patients at least 30 days after a planned surgery or procedure conducted at a 'clean' alternate hospital site during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study was conducted using structured interviews undertaken by trained assessors. A 20% sample group of patients were randomly selected to participate in this study. Qualitative data related to confidence, safety and perceptions of safety were collected. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients (60%) reported that they had prior worries or concerns about undergoing an elective procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 47 patients (30%) had delayed their surgery at least once because of these concerns. A total of 150 patients (95%) felt that the precautions in place to protect their safety in the setting of an alternate 'clean' hospital site were well thought out and proportionate. Patients reported high levels of confidence in the measures undertaken. Separation of patient pathways using the independent sector and patient testing were identified by patients as having the greatest impact on their perception of safety. CONCLUSIONS: Patient confidence will be key to ensuring uptake of planned and elective procedures and surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Perceptions of safety will be key to this confidence and efforts to demonstrably enhance safety are well received by patients. In particular, patients felt that a dedicated programme of patient testing and separation of patient pathways provided the greatest levels of confidence in the safety of their treatment.

The use of the independent sector in providing NHS services during the Covid-19 outbreak; two hospitals experience.

This paper reviews the activity undertaken between a teaching hospital and its adjacent Independent Hospital and its implementation under the Independent Sector Provider Contract between NHSE and the Independent Sector. RESULTS: From the instigation of the NHSE contract with the Independent Sector up until 28th June 2020 The Norfolk and Norwich University NHS Trust (NNUH) delivered 9016 episodes of care including 576 surgical episodes at its nearby Independent Hospital. During the time that a seven day household isolation period was required, no patients from the 31 tested postoperatively were recorded as testing positive for Covid-19. In the month after moving to a mandatory 14 day period of household isolation, 29 patients had their surgery postponed as they were unable to comply with the required period of isolation. CONCLUSION: Working cooperatively with the independent sector can deliver significant additional capacity for the NHS. Fourteen days household isolation may impact on a patient's decision to have surgery, despite, in some cases, that surgery being time-sensitive. The recommendation from NICE reducing the length of isolation largely reversed this impact.