Procalcitonin Evaluation of Antibiotic Use in COVID-19 Hospitalised Patients (PEACH): Protocol for a Retrospective Observational Study.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel virus responsible for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although COVID-19 is a viral illness, many patients admitted to hospital are prescribed antibiotics, based on concerns that COVID-19 patients may experience secondary bacterial infections, and the assumption that they may respond well to antibiotic therapy. This has led to an increase in antibiotic use for some hospitalised patients at a time when accumulating antibiotic resistance is a major global threat to health. Procalcitonin (PCT) is an inflammatory marker measured in blood samples and widely recommended to help diagnose bacterial infections and guide antibiotic treatment. The PEACH study will compare patient outcomes from English and Welsh hospitals that used PCT testing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic with those from hospitals not using PCT. It will help to determine whether, and how, PCT testing should be used in the NHS in future waves of COVID-19 to protect patients from antibiotic overuse. PEACH is a retrospective observational cohort study using patient-level clinical data from acute hospital Trusts and Health Boards in England and Wales. The primary objective is to measure the difference in antibiotic use between COVID-19 patients who did or did not have PCT testing at the time of diagnosis. Secondary objectives include measuring differences in length of stay, mortality, intensive care unit admission, and resistant bacterial infections between these groups.

Design and evaluation of an interactive quality dashboard for national clinical audit data: a realist evaluation

BackgroundNational audits aim to reduce variations in quality by stimulating quality improvement. However, varying provider engagement with audit data means that this is not being realised.AimThe aim of the study was to develop and evaluate a quality dashboard (i.e. QualDash) to support clinical teams’ and managers’ use of national audit data.DesignThe study was a realist evaluation and biography of artefacts study.SettingThe study involved five NHS acute trusts.Methods and resultsIn phase 1, we developed a theory of national audits through interviews. Data use was supported by data access, audit staff skilled to produce data visualisations, data timeliness and quality, and the importance of perceived metrics. Data were mainly used by clinical teams. Organisational-level staff questioned the legitimacy of national audits. In phase 2, QualDash was co-designed and the QualDash theory was developed. QualDash provides interactive customisable visualisations to enable the exploration of relationships between variables. Locating QualDash on site servers gave users control of data upload frequency. In phase 3, we developed an adoption strategy through focus groups. ‘Champions’, awareness-raising through e-bulletins and demonstrations, and quick reference tools were agreed. In phase 4, we tested the QualDash theory using a mixed-methods evaluation. Constraints on use were metric configurations that did not match users’ expectations, affecting champions’ willingness to promote QualDash, and limited computing resources. Easy customisability supported use. The greatest use was where data use was previously constrained. In these contexts, report preparation time was reduced and efforts to improve data quality were supported, although the interrupted time series analysis did not show improved data quality. Twenty-three questionnaires were returned, revealing positive perceptions of ease of use and usefulness. In phase 5, the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial of QualDash was assessed. Interviews were undertaken to understand how QualDash could be revised to support a region-wide Gold Command. Requirements included multiple real-time data sources and functionality to help to identify priorities.ConclusionsAudits seeking to widen engagement may find the following strategies beneficial: involving a range of professional groups in choosing metrics;real-time reporting;presenting ‘headline’ metrics important to organisational-level staff;using routinely collected clinical data to populate data fields;and dashboards that help staff to explore and report audit data. Those designing dashboards may find it beneficial to include the following: ‘at a glance’ visualisation of key metrics;visualisations configured in line with existing visualisations that teams use, with clear labelling;functionality that supports the creation of reports and presentations;the ability to explore relationships between variables and drill down to look at subgroups;and low requirements for computing resources. Organisations introducing a dashboard may find the following strategies beneficial: clinical champion to promote use;testing with real data by audit staff;establishing routines for integrating use into work practices;involving audit staff in adoption activities;and allowing customisation.LimitationsThe COVID-19 pandemic stopped phase 4 data collection, limiting our ability to further test and refine the QualDash theory. Questionnaire results should be treated with caution because of the small, possibly biased, sample. Control sites for the interrupted time series analysis were not possible because of research and development delays. One intervention site did not submit data. Limited uptake meant that assessing the impact on more measures was not appropriate.Future workThe extent to which national audit dashboards are used and the strategies national audits use to encourage uptake, a realist review of the impact of dashboards, and rigorous evaluations of the impact of dashboards and the effectiveness of adoption strategies should be explored.Study registrationThis study is registered as ISRCTN18289782.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research;Vol. 10, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Safeguarding adolescent mental health in India (SAMA): study protocol for codesign and feasibility study of a school systems intervention targeting adolescent anxiety and depression in India.

INTRODUCTION: Symptoms of anxiety and depression in Indian adolescents are common. Schools can be opportune sites for delivery of mental health interventions. India, however, is without a evidence-based and integrated whole-school mental health approach. This article describes the study design for the safeguarding adolescent mental health in India (SAMA) project. The aim of SAMA is to codesign and feasibility test a suite of multicomponent interventions for mental health across the intersecting systems of adolescents, schools, families and their local communities in India. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our project will codesign and feasibility test four interventions to run in parallel in eight schools (three assigned to waitlist) in Bengaluru and Kolar in Karnataka, India. The primary aim is to reduce the prevalence of adolescent anxiety and depression. Codesign of interventions will build on existing evidence and resources. Interventions for adolescents at school will be universal, incorporating curriculum and social components. Interventions for parents and teachers will target mental health literacy, and also for teachers, training in positive behaviour practices. Intervention in the school community will target school climate to improve student mental health literacy and care. Intervention for the wider community will be via adolescent-led films and social media. We will generate intervention cost estimates, test outcome measures and identify pathways to increase policy action on the evidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the National Institute of Mental Health Neurosciences Research Ethics Committee (NIMHANS/26th IEC (Behv Sc Div/2020/2021)) and the University of Leeds School of Psychology Research Ethics Committee (PSYC-221). Certain data will be available on a data sharing site. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

Burden of allergic disease among ethnic minority groups in high-income countries.

The COVID-19 pandemic raised acute awareness regarding inequities and inequalities and poor clinical outcomes amongst ethnic minority groups. Studies carried out in North America, the UK and Australia have shown a relatively high burden of asthma and allergies amongst ethnic minority groups. The precise reasons underpinning the high disease burden are not well understood, but it is likely that this involves complex gene-environment interaction, behavioural and cultural elements. Poor clinical outcomes have been related to multiple factors including access to health care, engagement with healthcare professionals and concordance with advice which are affected by deprivation, literacy, cultural norms and health beliefs. It is unclear at present if allergic conditions are intrinsically more severe amongst patients from ethnic minority groups. Most evidence shaping our understanding of disease pathogenesis and clinical management is biased towards data generated from white population resident in high-income countries. In conjunction with standards of care, it is prudent that a multi-pronged approach towards provision of composite, culturally tailored, supportive interventions targeting demographic variables at the individual level is needed, but this requires further research and validation. In this narrative review, we provide an overview of epidemiology, sensitization patterns, poor clinical outcomes and possible factors underpinning these observations and highlight priority areas for research.

Impact of introducing procalcitonin testing on antibiotic usage in acute NHS hospitals during the first wave of COVID-19 in the UK: a controlled interrupted time series analysis of organization-level data.

BACKGROUND: Blood biomarkers have the potential to help identify COVID-19 patients with bacterial coinfection in whom antibiotics are indicated. During the COVID-19 pandemic, procalcitonin testing was widely introduced at hospitals in the UK to guide antibiotic prescribing. We have determined the impact of this on hospital-level antibiotic consumption. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, controlled interrupted time series analysis of organization-level data describing antibiotic dispensing, hospital activity and procalcitonin testing for acute hospitals/hospital trusts in England and Wales during the first wave of COVID-19 (24 February to 5 July 2020). RESULTS: In the main analysis of 105 hospitals in England, introduction of procalcitonin testing in emergency departments/acute medical admission units was associated with a statistically significant decrease in total antibiotic use of -1.08 (95% CI: -1.81 to -0.36) DDDs of antibiotic per admission per week per trust. This effect was then lost at a rate of 0.05 (95% CI: 0.02-0.08) DDDs per admission per week. Similar results were found specifically for first-line antibiotics for community-acquired pneumonia and for COVID-19 admissions rather than all admissions. Introduction of procalcitonin in the ICU setting was not associated with any significant change in antibiotic use. CONCLUSIONS: At hospitals where procalcitonin testing was introduced in emergency departments/acute medical units this was associated with an initial, but unsustained, reduction in antibiotic use. Further research should establish the patient-level impact of procalcitonin testing in this population and understand its potential for clinical effectiveness.