What is quality in long covid care? Lessons from a national quality improvement collaborative and multi-site ethnography.

BACKGROUND: Long covid (post covid-19 condition) is a complex condition with diverse manifestations, uncertain prognosis and wide variation in current approaches to management. There have been calls for formal quality standards to reduce a so-called "postcode lottery" of care. The original aim of this study-to examine the nature of quality in long covid care and reduce unwarranted variation in services-evolved to focus on examining the reasons why standardizing care was so challenging in this condition. METHODS: In 2021-2023, we ran a quality improvement collaborative across 10 UK sites. The dataset reported here was mostly but not entirely qualitative. It included data on the origins and current context of each clinic, interviews with staff and patients, and ethnographic observations at 13 clinics (50 consultations) and 45 multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings (244 patient cases). Data collection and analysis were informed by relevant lenses from clinical care (e.g. evidence-based guidelines), improvement science (e.g. quality improvement cycles) and philosophy of knowledge. RESULTS: Participating clinics made progress towards standardizing assessment and management in some topics; some variation remained but this could usually be explained. Clinics had different histories and path dependencies, occupied a different place in their healthcare ecosystem and served a varied caseload including a high proportion of patients with comorbidities. A key mechanism for achieving high-quality long covid care was when local MDTs deliberated on unusual, complex or challenging cases for which evidence-based guidelines provided no easy answers. In such cases, collective learning occurred through idiographic (case-based) reasoning, in which practitioners build lessons from the particular to the general. This contrasts with the nomothetic reasoning implicit in evidence-based guidelines, in which reasoning is assumed to go from the general (e.g. findings of clinical trials) to the particular (management of individual patients). CONCLUSION: Not all variation in long covid services is unwarranted. Largely because long covid's manifestations are so varied and comorbidities common, generic "evidence-based" standards require much individual adaptation. In this complex condition, quality improvement resources may be productively spent supporting MDTs to optimise their case-based learning through interdisciplinary discussion. Quality assessment of a long covid service should include review of a sample of individual cases to assess how guidelines have been interpreted and personalized to meet patients' unique needs. STUDY REGISTRATION: NCT05057260, ISRCTN15022307.

Training needs for staff providing remote services in general practice: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary general practice includes many kinds of remote encounter. The rise in telephone, video and online modalities for triage and clinical care requires clinicians and support staff to be trained, both individually and as teams, but evidence-based competencies have not previously been produced for general practice. AIM: To identify training needs, core competencies, and learning methods for staff providing remote encounters. DESIGN AND SETTING: Mixed-methods study in UK general practice. METHOD: Data were collated from longitudinal ethnographic case studies of 12 general practices; a multi-stakeholder workshop; interviews with policymakers, training providers, and trainees; published research; and grey literature (such as training materials and surveys). Data were coded thematically and analysed using theories of individual and team learning. RESULTS: Learning to provide remote services occurred in the context of high workload, understaffing, and complex workflows. Low confidence and perceived unmet training needs were common. Training priorities for novice clinicians included basic technological skills, triage, ethics (for privacy and consent), and communication and clinical skills. Established clinicians' training priorities include advanced communication skills (for example, maintaining rapport and attentiveness), working within the limits of technologies, making complex judgements, coordinating multi-professional care in a distributed environment, and training others. Much existing training is didactic and technology focused. While basic knowledge was often gained using such methods, the ability and confidence to make complex judgements were usually acquired through experience, informal discussions, and on-the-job methods such as shadowing. Whole-team training was valued but rarely available. A draft set of competencies is offered based on the findings. CONCLUSION: The knowledge needed to deliver high-quality remote encounters to diverse patient groups is complex, collective, and organisationally embedded. The vital role of non-didactic training, for example, joint clinical sessions, case-based discussions, and in-person, whole-team, on-the-job training, needs to be recognised.

Patient safety in remote primary care encounters: multimethod qualitative study combining Safety I and Safety II analysis.

BACKGROUND: Triage and clinical consultations increasingly occur remotely. We aimed to learn why safety incidents occur in remote encounters and how to prevent them. SETTING AND SAMPLE: UK primary care. 95 safety incidents (complaints, settled indemnity claims and reports) involving remote interactions. Separately, 12 general practices followed 2021-2023. METHODS: Multimethod qualitative study. We explored causes of real safety incidents retrospectively ('Safety I' analysis). In a prospective longitudinal study, we used interviews and ethnographic observation to produce individual, organisational and system-level explanations for why safety and near-miss incidents (rarely) occurred and why they did not occur more often ('Safety II' analysis). Data were analysed thematically. An interpretive synthesis of why safety incidents occur, and why they do not occur more often, was refined following member checking with safety experts and lived experience experts. RESULTS: Safety incidents were characterised by inappropriate modality, poor rapport building, inadequate information gathering, limited clinical assessment, inappropriate pathway (eg, wrong algorithm) and inadequate attention to social circumstances. These resulted in missed, inaccurate or delayed diagnoses, underestimation of severity or urgency, delayed referral, incorrect or delayed treatment, poor safety netting and inadequate follow-up. Patients with complex pre-existing conditions, cardiac or abdominal emergencies, vague or generalised symptoms, safeguarding issues, failure to respond to previous treatment or difficulty communicating seemed especially vulnerable. General practices were facing resource constraints, understaffing and high demand. Triage and care pathways were complex, hard to navigate and involved multiple staff. In this context, patient safety often depended on individual staff taking initiative, speaking up or personalising solutions. CONCLUSION: While safety incidents are extremely rare in remote primary care, deaths and serious harms have resulted. We offer suggestions for patient, staff and system-level mitigations.

A contemporary ontology of continuity in general practice: Capturing its multiple essences in a digital age.

Continuity is a long-established and fiercely-defended value in primary care. Traditional continuity, based on a one-to-one doctor-patient relationship, has declined in recent years. Contemporary general practice is organisationally and technically complex, with multiple staff roles and technologies supporting patient access (e.g. electronic and telephone triage) and clinical encounters (e.g. telephone, video and electronic consultations). Re-evaluation of continuity's relational, organisational, socio-technical and professional characteristics is therefore timely. We developed theory in parallel with collecting and analysing data from case studies of 11 UK general practices followed from 2021 to 2023 as they introduced (or chose not to introduce) remote and digital services. We used strategic, immersive ethnography, interviews, and material analysis of technologies (e.g. digital walk-throughs). Continuity was almost universally valued but differently defined across practices. It was invariably situated and effortful, influenced by the locality, organisation, technical infrastructure, wider system and the values and ways of working of participating actors, and often requiring articulation and 'tinkering' by staff. Remote and digital modalities provided opportunities for extending continuity across time and space and for achieving-to a greater or lesser extent-continuity of digital records and shared understandings of a patient and illness episode across the clinical team. Delivering continuity for the most vulnerable patients was sometimes labour-intensive and required one-off adaptations. Building on earlier work by Haggerty et al. we propose a novel ontology of four analytically distinct but empirically overlapping kinds of continuity-of the therapeutic relationship (based on psychodynamic and narrative paradigms), of the illness episode (biomedical-interpretive paradigm), of distributed work (sociotechnical paradigm), and of the practice's commitment to a community (political economy and ethics of care paradigm). This ontology allowed us to theorise and critique successes (continuity achieved) and failures (breaches of continuity and fragmentation of care) in our dataset.

The impact of remote care approaches on continuity in primary care: a mixed-studies systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The value of continuity in primary care has been demonstrated for multiple positive outcomes. However, little is known about how the expansion of remote and digital care models in primary care have impacted continuity. AIM: To explore the impact of the expansion of remote and digital care models on continuity in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of continuity in primary care. METHOD: A keyword search of Embase, MEDLINE, and CINAHL databases was used along with snowball sampling to identify relevant English-language qualitative and quantitative studies from any country between 2000 and 2022, which explored remote or digital approaches in primary care and continuity. Relevant data were extracted, analysed using GRADE-CERQual, and narratively synthesised. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included in the review. The specific impact of remote approaches on continuity was rarely overtly addressed. Some patients expressed a preference for relational continuity depending on circumstance, problem, and context; others prioritised access. Clinicians valued continuity, with some viewing remote consultations more suitable where there was high episodic or relational continuity. With lower continuity, patients and clinicians considered remote consultations harder, higher risk, and poorer quality. Some evidence suggested that remote approaches and/or their implementation risked worsening inequalities and causing harm by reducing continuity where it was valuable. However, if deployed strategically and flexibly, remote approaches could improve continuity. CONCLUSION: While the value of continuity in primary care has previously been well demonstrated, the dearth of evidence around continuity in a remote and digital context is troubling. Further research is, therefore, needed to explore the links between the shift to remote care, continuity and equity, using real-world evaluation frameworks to ascertain when and for whom continuity adds most value, and how this can be enabled or maintained.

Safety implications of remote assessments for suspected COVID-19: qualitative study in UK primary care.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of remote triage and assessment early in the pandemic raised questions about patient safety. We sought to capture patients and clinicians' experiences of the management of suspected acute COVID-19 and generate wider lessons to inform safer care. SETTING AND SAMPLE: UK primary healthcare. A subset of relevant data was drawn from five linked in-pandemic qualitative studies. The data set, on a total of 87 participants recruited via social media, patient groups and snowballing, comprised free text excerpts from narrative interviews (10 survivors of acute COVID-19), online focus groups (20 patients and 30 clinicians), contributions to a Delphi panel (12 clinicians) and fieldnotes from an online workshop (15 patients, clinicians and stakeholders). METHODS: Data were uploaded onto NVivo. Coding was initially deductive and informed by WHO and Institute of Medicine frameworks of quality and safety. Further inductive analysis refined our theorisation using a wider range of theories-including those of risk, resilience, crisis management and social justice. RESULTS: In the early weeks of the pandemic, patient safety was compromised by the driving logic of 'stay home' and 'protect the NHS', in which both patients and clinicians were encouraged to act in a way that helped reduce pressure on an overloaded system facing a novel pathogen with insufficient staff, tools, processes and systems. Furthermore, patients and clinicians observed a shift to a more transactional approach characterised by overuse of algorithms and decision support tools, limited empathy and lack of holistic assessment. CONCLUSION: Lessons from the pandemic suggest three key strategies are needed to prevent avoidable deaths and inequalities in the next crisis: (1) strengthen system resilience (including improved resourcing and staffing; support of new tools and processes; and recognising primary care's role as the 'risk sink' of the healthcare system); (2) develop evidence-based triage and scoring systems; and (3) address social vulnerability.

Why do GPs rarely do video consultations? qualitative study in UK general practice.

BACKGROUND: Fewer than 1% of UK general practice consultations occur by video. AIM: To explain why video consultations are not more widely used in general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Analysis of a sub-sample of data from three mixed-method case studies of remote consultation services in various UK settings from 2019-2021. METHOD: The dataset included interviews and focus groups with 121 participants from primary care (33 patients, 55 GPs, 11 other clinicians, nine managers, four support staff, four national policymakers, five technology industry). Data were transcribed, coded thematically, and then analysed using the Planning and Evaluating Remote Consultation Services (PERCS) framework. RESULTS: With few exceptions, video consultations were either never adopted or soon abandoned in general practice despite a strong policy push, short-term removal of regulatory and financial barriers, and advances in functionality, dependability, and usability of video technologies (though some products remained 'fiddly' and unreliable). The relative advantage of video was perceived as minimal for most of the caseload of general practice, since many presenting problems could be sorted adequately and safely by telephone and in-person assessment was considered necessary for the remainder. Some patients found video appointments convenient, appropriate, and reassuring but others found a therapeutic presence was only achieved in person. Video sometimes added value for out-of-hours and nursing home consultations and statutory functions (for example, death certification). CONCLUSION: Efforts to introduce video consultations in general practice should focus on situations where this modality has a clear relative advantage (for example, strong patient or clinician preference, remote localities, out-of-hours services, nursing homes).

'I can't cope with multiple inputs': a qualitative study of the lived experience of 'brain fog' after COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the lived experience of 'brain fog'-the wide variety of neurocognitive symptoms that can follow COVID-19. DESIGN AND SETTING: A UK-wide longitudinal qualitative study comprising online focus groups with email follow-up. METHOD: 50 participants were recruited from a previous qualitative study of the lived experience of long COVID-19 (n=23) and online support groups for people with persistent neurocognitive symptoms following COVID-19 (n=27). In remotely held focus groups, participants were invited to describe their neurocognitive symptoms and comment on others' accounts. Individuals were followed up by email 4-6 months later. Data were audiotaped, transcribed, anonymised and coded in NVIVO. They were analysed by an interdisciplinary team with expertise in general practice, clinical neuroscience, the sociology of chronic illness and service delivery, and checked by people with lived experience of brain fog. RESULTS: Of the 50 participants, 42 were female and 32 white British. Most had never been hospitalised for COVID-19. Qualitative analysis revealed the following themes: mixed views on the appropriateness of the term 'brain fog'; rich descriptions of the experience of neurocognitive symptoms (especially executive function, attention, memory and language), accounts of how the illness fluctuated-and progressed over time; the profound psychosocial impact of the condition on relationships, personal and professional identity; self-perceptions of guilt, shame and stigma; strategies used for self-management; challenges accessing and navigating the healthcare system; and participants' search for physical mechanisms to explain their symptoms. CONCLUSION: These qualitative findings complement research into the epidemiology and mechanisms of neurocognitive symptoms after COVID-19. Services for such patients should include: an ongoing therapeutic relationship with a clinician who engages with their experience of neurocognitive symptoms in its personal, social and occupational context as well as specialist services that include provision for neurocognitive symptoms, are accessible, easily navigable, comprehensive and interdisciplinary.

Remote care in UK general practice: baseline data on 11 case studies.

Background: Accessing and receiving care remotely (by telephone, video or online) became the default option during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but in-person care has unique benefits in some circumstances. We are studying UK general practices as they try to balance remote and in-person care, with recurrent waves of COVID-19 and various post-pandemic backlogs. Methods: Mixed-methods (mostly qualitative) case study across 11 general practices. Researchers-in-residence have built relationships with practices and become familiar with their contexts and activities; they are following their progress for two years via staff and patient interviews, documents and ethnography, and supporting improvement efforts through co-design. In this paper, we report baseline data. Results: Reflecting our maximum-variety sampling strategy, the 11 practices vary in size, setting, ethos, staffing, population demographics and digital maturity, but share common contextual features-notably system-level stressors such as high workload and staff shortages, and UK's technical and regulatory infrastructure. We have identified both commonalities and differences between practices in terms of how they: 1] manage the 'digital front door' (access and triage) and balance demand and capacity; 2] strive for high standards of quality and safety; 3] ensure digital inclusion and mitigate wider inequalities; 4] support and train their staff (clinical and non-clinical), students and trainees; 5] select, install, pilot and use technologies and the digital infrastructure which support them; and 6] involve patients in their improvement efforts. Conclusions: General practices' responses to pandemic-induced disruptive innovation appear unique and situated. We anticipate that by focusing on depth and detail, this longitudinal study will throw light on why a solution that works well in one practice does not work at all in another. As the study unfolds, we will explore how practices achieve timely diagnosis of urgent or serious illness and manage continuity of care, long-term conditions and complex needs.

We describe early results from the Remote by Default 2 study, which is following 11 UK general practices for two years as they introduce various kinds of remote appointment booking and clinical consultations. We have been using interviews and ethnography (watching real-world activities), and analysing documents (such as practice reports and websites) to prepare case studies of the 11 practices, which vary widely in size, ethos, geographical location, practice population and digital maturity. Our initial interviews identified the following cross-cutting themes, which showed both commonalities and differences across the 11 practices: - The 'digital front door' (patients gaining access using digital portals), which was used to a greater or lesser extent in all practices; some found these systems frustrating and inefficient.- Quality and safety. Staff were concerned about the risk of missing an important diagnosis when consulting remotely, and felt that digitisation could threaten continuity of care.- Digital inclusion. All practices were keen to ensure that patients who lacked digital devices or skills were not disadvantaged; this goal was achieved in different ways (and to different degrees) in different settings.- Staff support and training. Some practices are finding current workload unsustainable due to (among other things) rising patient demand, unfilled staff posts, a post-pandemic backlog of unmet need, and task-shifting from secondary care. Digitisation appears to have increased workload in most practices.- Technologies and infrastructure. The IT infrastructure in each practice had grown in a particular way over time, and was in this sense 'path-dependent' (hence, not easily changed). In conclusion, different practices are responding to the 'disruptive innovation' of digital technologies in very different ways, reflecting their different practice populations, settings and priorities. We plan to follow the above themes over time and explore additional themes including the experience and role of patients.

Protocol: Remote care as the 'new normal'? Multi-site case study in UK general practice.

Background: Following a pandemic-driven shift to remote service provision, UK general practices offer telephone, video or online consultation options alongside face-to-face. This study explores practices' varied experiences over time as they seek to establish remote forms of accessing and delivering care. Methods: This protocol is for a mixed-methods multi-site case study with co-design and national stakeholder engagement. 11 general practices were selected for diversity in geographical location, size, demographics, ethos, and digital maturity. Each practice has a researcher-in-residence whose role is to become familiar with its context and activity, follow it longitudinally for two years using interviews, public-domain documents and ethnography, and support improvement efforts. Research team members meet regularly to compare and contrast across cases. Practice staff are invited to join online learning events. Patient representatives work locally within their practice patient involvement groups as well as joining an online patient learning set or linking via a non-digital buddy system. NHS Research Ethics Approval has been granted. Governance includes a diverse independent advisory group with lay chair. We also have policy in-reach (national stakeholders sit on our advisory group) and outreach (research team members sit on national policy working groups). Results anticipated: We expect to produce rich narratives of contingent change over time, addressing cross-cutting themes including access, triage and capacity; digital and wider inequities; quality and safety of care (e.g. continuity, long-term condition management, timely diagnosis, complex needs); workforce and staff wellbeing (including non-clinical staff, students and trainees); technologies and digital infrastructure; patient perspectives; and sustainability (e.g. carbon footprint). Conclusion: By using case study methods focusing on depth and detail, we hope to explain why digital solutions that work well in one practice do not work at all in another. We plan to inform policy and service development through inter-sectoral network-building, stakeholder workshops and topic-focused policy briefings.

The pandemic required general practices to introduce remote (phone, video and email) consultations. That policy undoubtedly saved lives at the time but there are also clear benefits of face-to-face consultations in some circumstances, and the exact role of remote care still needs to be worked out. Despite best efforts, remote care tends to worsen health inequities (people who were poor or less well educated are less able to access and navigate the system and secure the type of appointment they need or prefer). Workstream 1: We will look at 11 GP surgeries across England, Scotland and Wales. We have selected a variety of sites: urban and rural, serving a range of different communities. Each surgery has a different approach to technology. A researcher from our team will work alongside surgery staff to learn what methods and technologies each practice uses to deliver care. They will gather information (mostly qualitative) about how different technological solutions are playing out over time. Workstream 2: Many people experience barriers to accessing care when it is done through technology. This could be because they lack understanding of how to do it, don't have the right equipment, can't afford data, or other reasons. We will ask patients about their experiences and work with them and staff to develop ideas about how to overcome barriers. Workstream 3: We will take what we have learnt in Workstreams 1 and 2 to make suggestions to inform national stakeholders and to influence policymakers. Patients and members of the public helped shape the research design. They continue to help guide our research by reading our reports, giving us their opinions and advising on how best to share our research so everyone can benefit from what we have learnt. Our governance panel is chaired by a member of the public.

Long Covid - The illness narratives.

Callard and Perego depict long Covid as the first illness to be defined by patients who came together on social media. Responding to their call to address why patients were so effective in making long Covid visible and igniting action to improve its care, we use narrative inquiry - a field of research that investigates the place and power of stories and storytelling. We analyse a large dataset of narrative interviews and focus groups with 114 people with long Covid (45 of whom were healthcare professionals) from the United Kingdom, drawing on socio-narratology (Frank), therapeutic emplotment (Mattingly) and polyphonia (Bakhtin). We describe how storytelling devices including chronology, metaphor, characterisation, suspense and imagination were used to create persuasive accounts of a strange and frightening new condition that was beset with setbacks and overlooked or dismissed by health professionals. The most unique feature of long Covid narratives (in most but not all cases) was the absence, for various pandemic-related reasons, of a professional witness to them. Instead of sharing their narratives in therapeutic dialogue with their own clinician, people struggled with a fragmented inner monologue before finding an empathetic audience and other resonant narratives in the online community. Individually, the stories seemed to make little sense. Collectively, they provided a rich description of the diverse manifestations of a grave new illness, a shared account of rejection by the healthcare system, and a powerful call for action to fix the broken story. Evolving from individual narrative postings to collective narrative drama, long Covid communities challenged the prevailing model of Covid-19 as a short-lived respiratory illness which invariably delivers a classic triad of symptoms; undertook and published peer-reviewed research to substantiate its diverse and protracted manifestations; and gained positions as experts by experience on guideline development groups and policy taskforces.

SPIKE-1: A Randomised Phase II/III trial in a community setting, assessing use of camostat in reducing the clinical progression of COVID-19 by blocking SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein-initiated membrane fusion.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to evaluate the efficacy of camostat to prevent respiratory deterioration in patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Secondary objectives include assessment of the ability of camostat to reduce the requirement for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related hospital admission and to reduce the requirement for supplementary oxygen and ventilation as treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection, to evaluate overall mortality related to COVID-19 and to evaluate the efficacy of camostat by effect on clinical improvement. Research objectives include to assess change in COVID-19 symptom severity, to evaluate the ability of camostat to reduce viral load throughout duration of illness as well as translational research on host and viral genomics, serum antibody production, COVID-19 diagnostics, and validation of laboratory testing methods and biomarkers. TRIAL DESIGN: SPIKE-1 is a randomised, multicentre, prospective, open label, community-based clinical trial. Eligible patients will be randomised 1:1 to the camostat treatment arm and control arm (best supportive care). The trial is designed to include a pilot phase recruiting up to 50 patients in each arm. An initial review at the end of the pilot phase will allow assessment of available data and inform the requirement for any protocol adaptations to include refinement of eligibility criteria to enrich the patient population and sample size calculations. Up to 289 additional patients will be randomised in the continuation phase of the trial. A formal interim analysis will be performed once 50% of the maximum sample size has been recruited PARTICIPANTS: The trial will recruit adults (≥ 18 years) who score moderate to very high risk according to COVID-age risk calculation, with typical symptoms of COVID-19 infection as per Public Health England guidance or equivalent organisations in the UK, Health Protection Scotland, Public Health Wales, Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland) and with evidence of current COVID-19 infection from a validated assay. The trial is being conducted in the UK and patients are recruited through primary care and hospital settings. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Eligible patients with be randomised to receive either camostat tablets, 200 mg four times daily (qds) for 14 days (treatment arm) or best supportive care (control arm). MAIN OUTCOMES: Primary outcome measure: the rate of hospital admissions requiring supplemental oxygen. Secondary outcome measures include: the rate of COVID-19 related hospital admission in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection; the number of supplementary oxygen-free days and ventilator-free days measured at 28 days from randomisation; the rate of mortality related to COVID-19 one year from randomisation; the time to worst point on the nine-point category ordinal scale (recommended by the World Health Organization: Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019)) or deterioration of two points or more, within 28 days from randomisation. Research outcomes include the assessment of change in COVID-19 symptom severity on days 1-14 as measured by (1) time to apyrexia (maintained for 48 hrs) by daily self-assessment of temperature, time to improvement (by two points) in peripheral oxygenation saturation defined by daily self-assessment of fingertip peripheral oxygenation saturation levels, (3) assessment of COVID-19 symptoms using the Flu-iiQ questionnaire (determined by app recording and/or daily video call (or phone) consultation and (4) assessment of functional score (where possible) at screening, day 7 and 14. The ability of camostat to reduce viral load throughout duration of illness will be assessed by (1) change in respiratory (oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal swab RT-PCR) log10 viral load from baseline to Days 7 and 14, (2) change in respiratory (saliva RT-PCR) log10 viral load from baseline to Days 1-14 and (3) change in upper respiratory viral shedding at Day 1 -14 measured as time to clearance of nasal SARS-CoV-2, defined as 2 consecutive negative swabs by qPCR. Additional translational research outcomes include assessment of host and viral genomics, serum antibody production and COVID-19 diagnostics at baseline and on Days 7 and 14. RANDOMISATION: Eligible patients will be randomised using an interactive web response system (IWRS) in a 1:1 ratio to one of two arms: (1) treatment arm or (2) control arm. BLINDING (MASKING): The trial is open-label. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): The trial is designed to include a pilot and a continuation phase. Up to 100 patients (randomised 1:1 treatment and control arm) will be recruited in the pilot phase and a maximum of 289 patients (randomised 1:1 treatment and control) will be recruited as part of the continuation phase. The total number of patients recruited will not exceed 389. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version number v3 25 September 2020. Trial opened to recruitment on 04 August 2020. The authors anticipate recruitment to be completed by October 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2020-002110-41; 18 June 2020 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04455815 ; 02 July 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). Unpublished PK data provided under confidentiality agreement to the trial Sponsor has been removed from the background section of the protocol to allow for publication of the trial protocol. In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Developing services for long COVID: lessons from a study of wounded healers.

Persistent symptoms lasting longer than 3 weeks are thought to affect 10-20% of patients following SARS-CoV-2 infection. No formal guidelines exist in the UK for treating patients with long COVID and services are sporadic and variable, although additional funding is promised for their development.In this study, narrative interviews and focus groups are used to explore the lived experience of 43 healthcare professionals with long COVID. These individuals see the healthcare system from both professional and patient perspectives, thus represent an important wealth of expertise to inform service design.We present a set of co-designed quality standards, highlighting equity and ease of access, minimal patient care burden, clinical responsibility, a multidisciplinary and evidence-based approach, and patient involvement; and we apply these to propose a potential care pathway model that could be adapted and translated to improve care of patients long COVID.