Deprivation effects on length of stay and death of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in Greater Manchester.

Introduction: The World Health Organisation declared a global pandemic in March 2020. The impact of COVID-19 has not been felt equally by all regions and sections of society. The extent to which socio-demographic and deprivation factors have adversely impacted on outcomes is of concern to those looking to 'level-up' and decrease widening health inequalities. Objectives: In this paper we investigate the impact of deprivation on the outcomes for hospitalised COVID-19 patients in Greater Manchester during the first wave of the pandemic in the UK (30/12/19-2/1/21), controlling for proven risk factors from elsewhere in the literature. Methods: We fitted Negative Binomial and logistic regression models to NHS administrative data to investigate death from COVID in hospital and length of stay for surviving patients in a sample of adult patients admitted within Greater Manchester (N = 10,372, spell admission start dates from 30/12/2019 to 02/01/2021 inclusive). Results: Deprivation was associated with death risk for hospitalised patients but not with length of stay. Male sex, co-morbidities and older age was associated with higher death risk. Male sex and co-morbidities were associated with increased length of stay. Black and other ethnicities stayed longer in hospital than White and Asian patients. Period effects were detected in both models with death risk reducing over time, but the length of stay increasing. Conclusion: Deprivation is important for death risk; however, the picture is complex, and the results of this analysis suggest that the reported COVID related mortality and deprivation linked reductions in life expectancy, may have occurred in the community, rather than in acute settings. Highlights: Older age and male sex are predictive of longer hospital stays and higher death risk for hospitalised cases in this analysis.Deprivation is associated with death risk but not length of stay for hospitalised patients.Ethnicity is associated with length of stay, but not with death risk.There is a social gradient in health, but these data would suggest that once in the care of an NHS hospital in an acute health episode, outcomes are more equal.

An analysis of changes in wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.

Purpose: We investigated the trajectory of wellbeing over the course of the first wave and sought to determine whether the change in wellbeing is distributed equally across the population. Specifically we investigated pre-existing medical conditions, social isolation, financial stress and deprivation as a predictor for wellbeing and whether there were community level characteristics which protect against poorer wellbeing. Methods: Using online survey responses from the COVID-19 modules of Understanding society, we linked 8379 English cases across five waves of data collection to location based deprivation statistics. We used ordinary least squares regression to estimate the association between deprivation, pre-existing conditions and socio-demographic factors and the change in well-being scores over time, as measured by the GHQ-12 questionnaire. Results: A decline in wellbeing was observed at the beginning of the first lock down period at the beginning of March 2020. This was matched with a corresponding recovery between April and July as restrictions were gradually lifted. There was no association between the decline and deprivation, nor between deprivation and recovery. The strongest predictor of wellbeing during the lock down, was the baseline score, with the counterintuitive finding that for those will pre-existing poor wellbeing, the impact of pandemic restrictions on mental health were minimal, but for those who had previously felt well, the restrictions and the impact of the pandemic on well-being were much greater. Conclusions: These data show no evidence of a social gradient in well-being related to the pandemic. In fact, well-being was shown to be highly elastic in this period indicating a national level of resilience which cut across the usually observed health inequalities.

Investigating the impact of distance on the use of primary care extended hours.

INTRODUCTION: Poor access to general practice services has been attributed to increasing pressure on the health system more widely and low satisfaction among patients. Recent initiatives in England have sought to expand access by the provision of appointments in the evening and at weekends. Services are provided using a hub model. NHS national targets mandate extended opening hours as a mechanism for increasing access to primary care, based on the assumption that unmet need is caused by a lack of appointments at the right time. However, research has shown that other factors affect access to healthcare and it may not simply be appointment availability that limits an individual's ability to access general practice services. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether distance and deprivation impact on the uptake of extended hours GP services that use a hub practice model. METHODS: We linked a dataset (N = 25,408) concerning extended access appointments covering 158 general practice surgeries in four Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) to the General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS) survey, deprivation statistics and primary care registration data. We used negative binomial regression to estimate associations between distance and deprivation on the uptake of extended hours GP services in the Greater Manchester City Region. Distance was defined as a straight line between the extended hours provider location and the patient's home practice, the English Indices of Multiple Deprivation were used to determine area deprivation based upon the home practice, and familiarity was defined as whether the patient's home practice provided an extended hours service. RESULTS: The number of uses of the extended hours service at a GP practice level was associated with distance. After allowing for distance, the number of uses of the service for hub practices was higher than for non-hub practices. Deprivation was not associated with rates of use. CONCLUSION: The results indicate geographic inequity in the extended hours service. There may be many patients with unmet need for whom the extension of hours via a hub and spoke model does not address barriers to access. Findings may help to inform the choice of hub practices when designing an extended access service. Providers should consider initiatives to improve access for those patients located in practices furthest away from hub practices. This is particularly of importance in the context of closing health inequality gaps.

Quantifying the RR of harm to self and others from substance misuse: results from a survey of clinical experts across Scotland.

OBJECTIVE: To produce an expert consensus hierarchy of harm to self and others from legal and illegal substance use. DESIGN: Structured questionnaire with nine scored categories of harm for 19 different commonly used substances. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: 292 clinical experts from across Scotland. RESULTS: There was no stepped categorical distinction in harm between the different legal and illegal substances. Heroin was viewed as the most harmful, and cannabis the least harmful of the substances studied. Alcohol was ranked as the fourth most harmful substance, with alcohol, nicotine and volatile solvents being viewed as more harmful than some class A drugs. CONCLUSIONS: The harm rankings of 19 commonly used substances did not match the A, B, C classification under the Misuse of Drugs Act. The legality of a substance of misuse is not correlated with its perceived harm. These results could inform any legal review of drug misuse and help shape public health policy and practice.