Prenatal alcohol prevention in the UK: mapping the landscape through systematic collaborative review

BACKGROUND: UK policy makers have called for urgent action to reduce prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE), but evidence on what is effective is scarce. We aimed to identify, evaluate, and synthesise evidence on content, process aspects, and effectiveness of UK PAE prevention initiatives. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of published and grey literature on UK PAE prevention (PROSPERO: CRD42020209460);consultations with 61 academic, practice, policy, third sector, and public stakeholders;and semi-structured 12 interviews with pregnant people (who were aged ≥18 years and ≥12 weeks' gestation) and service providers to discuss experiences of PAE prevention. Participants were purposively sampled to cover each UK region and identified through maternity sites, social media and, for stakeholder consultees, researcher networks. Information from relevant PAE prevention initiatives from the literature was independently extracted by two reviewers. Ethical approval and informed consent were obtained for interviews, which were recorded and transcribed. Qualitative evidence was synthesised using thematic analysis. Quantitative data will be summarised using descriptive statistics and meta-analysis. FINDINGS: We identified 14 PAE prevention initiatives through literature searches (22 of 4064 results were eligible), stakeholder consultation, and interviews. Initiatives included screening and intervention, campaigns, and education or training. Seven initiatives were identified in the north of England. Two initiatives were identified in Scotland and two in Wales. The East of England, West Midlands, and South East of England had one each. None were identified in Southwest of England or Northern Ireland. Barriers to prevention included absence of resources, excessive workload, concerns around blame, and COVID-19. Enablers included workforce training and trust between pregnant people and service providers. Effectiveness of evidence was scarce. INTERPRETATION: Key strengths include extensive searches and multidisciplinary consultation. Data collection and analyses are ongoing and will be finalised before November, 2022. This research will provide a comprehensive analysis of current provision, providing crucial evidence to inform research and practice. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health and Care Research.

An epidemiological investigation of COVID-19 outbreaks in a group of care homes in Wales, UK: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: This study describes the epidemiology of COVID-19 outbreaks in four care homes in terms of spread, severity, presentation and interventions. METHODS: Participants were 100 residents and 102 staff from four co-located care homes in Wales. Data were collected from the homes and Public Health Wales, including demographics, presentations, test status and results, hospital admissions and deaths. Genomic sequencing of confirmed case samples was completed, where possible. Epi-curves, crude attack rates, a Kaplan-Meier survival curve and adjusted hazard ratios were calculated using R. RESULTS: About 14 confirmed and 43 possible resident cases, 23 confirmed and 47 possible staff cases occurred. Crude attack rates of possible and confirmed cases were 57% (residents) and 69% (staff). Genomic sequencing for 10 confirmed case PCR samples identified at least 5 different UK lineages of COVID-19.42 (42%) residents died, 23 (55%) with COVID-19 or suspected COVID-19 recorded on the death certificate. The hazard ratio for death amongst resident possible and confirmed cases compared to null cases, adjusting for age and sex, was 13.26 (95% CI 5.61-31.34). CONCLUSIONS: There were extensive outbreaks of COVID-19 in these homes with high crude attack rates and deaths. Universal testing and early isolation of residents are recommended.

Where have all the appendicectomies gone?

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic stimulated a national lockdown in the UK. The public were advised to avoid unnecessary hospital attendances and health professionals were advised to avoid aerosol-generating procedures wherever possible. The authors hypothesised that these measures would result in a reduction in the number of patients presenting to hospital with acute appendicitis and alter treatment choices. METHODS: A multicentred, prospective observational study was undertaken during April 2020 to identify adults treated for acute appendicitis. Searches of operative and radiological records were performed to identify patients treated during April 2018 and April 2019 for comparison. RESULTS: A total of 190 patients were treated for acute appendicitis pre-lockdown compared with 64 patients treated during lockdown. Patients treated during the pandemic were more likely to have a higher American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score (p = 0.049) and to have delayed their presentation to hospital (2 versus 3 days, p = 0.03). During the lockdown, the use of computed tomography (CT) increased from 36.3% to 85.9% (p < 0.001), the use of an antibiotic-only approach increased from 6.2% to 40.6% (p < 0.001) and the rate of laparoscopic appendicectomy reduced from 85.3% to 17.2% (p < 0.001). The negative appendicectomy rate decreased from 21.7% to 7.1% during lockdown (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 lockdown was associated with a decreased incidence of acute appendicitis and a significant shift in the management approach. The increased use of CT allows the identification of simple appendicitis for conservative treatment and decreases the negative appendicectomy rate.