'Good' and 'Bad' deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic: insights from a rapid qualitative study.

Dealing with excess death in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic has thrown the question of a 'good or bad death' into sharp relief as countries across the globe have grappled with multiple peaks of cases and mortality; and communities mourn those lost. In the UK, these challenges have included the fact that mortality has adversely affected minority communities. Corpse disposal and social distancing guidelines do not allow a process of mourning in which families and communities can be involved in the dying process. This study aimed to examine the main concerns of faith and non-faith communities across the UK in relation to death in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The research team used rapid ethnographic methods to examine the adaptations to the dying process prior to hospital admission, during admission, during the disposal and release of the body, during funerals and mourning. The study revealed that communities were experiencing collective loss, were making necessary adaptations to rituals that surrounded death, dying and mourning and would benefit from clear and compassionate communication and consultation with authorities.

Evaluation of a health service adopting proactive approach to reduce high risk of lung cancer: The Liverpool Healthy Lung Programme.

OBJECTIVES: This Liverpool Healthy Lung Programme is a response to high rates of lung cancer and respiratory diseases locally and aims to diagnose lung cancer at an earlier stage by proactive approach to those at high risk of lung cancer. The objective of this study is to evaluate the programme in terms of its likely effect on mortality from lung cancer and its delivery to deprived populations. METHODS: Persons aged 58-75 years, with a history of smoking or a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)2 according to general practice records were invited for lung health check in a community health hub setting. A detailed risk assessment and spirometry were performed in eligible patients. Those with a 5% or greater five-year risk of lung cancer were referred for a low dose CT3 scan. RESULTS: A total of 4 566 subjects attended the appointment for risk assessment and 3 591 (79%) consented to data sharing. More than 80% of the patients were in the most deprived quintile of the index of multiple deprivation. Of those attending, 63% underwent spirometry and 43% were recommended for a CT scan. A total of 25 cancers were diagnosed, of which 16 (64%) were stage I. Comparison with the national stage distribution implied that the programme was reducing lung cancer mortality by 22%. CONCLUSIONS: Community based proactive approaches to early diagnosis of lung cancer in health deprived regions are likely to be effective in early detection of lung cancer.

Vitamin D assessment in primary care: changing patterns of testing.

BACKGROUND: Over recent years there has been increased interest in the disease burden associated with vitamin D deficiency. This, combined with recognition that the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency is high in the UK, has led to increased requests for vitamin D assessment from primary care clinicians. SETTING: A primary care cohort in Liverpool. QUESTION: How has the usefulness of vitamin D testing changed over time in identifying deficiency? METHODS: Vitamin D results from primary care practices in Liverpool were collected between 2007 and 2012, inclusive. Results were allocated to six cohorts based on year of request and each was grouped into three categories (adequate, insufficient and deficient). RESULTS: Vitamin D results of 9460 (74%) first tests and 3263 (26%) retests were analysed. Total number of requests increased 11-fold, from 503 in 2007 to 5552 in 2012. Overall 42% of first-test results were deficient (< 30 nmol). With each incremental year, more cases of vitamin D deficiency were detected - but the odds of detecting vitamin D deficiency decreased. CONCLUSIONS: An exponential increase in the number of vitamin D requests was observed over this six-year period. Although more patients with vitamin deficiency were identified, the increased number of tests represents a significant cost to health services. Moreover, the practice of retesting too soon after treatment can be inappropriate. There is a need to develop clear guidance for assessing vitamin D status in primary care.