Attendance at remote versus in-person outpatient appointments in an NHS Trust.

INTRODUCTION: With the growing use of remote appointments within the National Health Service, there is a need to understand potential barriers of access to care for some patients. In this observational study, we examined missed appointments rates, comparing remote and in-person appointments among different patient groups. METHODS: We analysed adult outpatient appointments at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust in Northwest London in 2021. Rates of missed appointments per patient were compared between remote versus in-person appointments using negative binomial regression models. Models were stratified by appointment type (first or a follow-up). RESULTS: There were 874,659 outpatient appointments for 189,882 patients, 29.5% of whom missed at least one appointment. Missed rates were 12.5% for remote first appointments and 9.2% for in-person first appointments. Remote and in-person follow-up appointments were missed at similar rates (10.4% and 10.7%, respectively). For remote and in-person appointments, younger patients, residents of more deprived areas, and patients of Black, Mixed and 'other' ethnicities missed more appointments. Male patients missed more in-person appointments, particularly at younger ages, but gender differences were minimal for remote appointments. Patients with long-term conditions (LTCs) missed more first appointments, whether in-person or remote. In follow-up appointments, patients with LTCs missed more in-person appointments but fewer remote appointments. DISCUSSION: Remote first appointments were missed more often than in-person first appointments, follow-up appointments had similar attendance rates for both modalities. Sociodemographic differences in outpatient appointment attendance were largely similar between in-person and remote appointments, indicating no widening of inequalities in attendance due to appointment modality.

'Maze' not pathway: focus group exploration of patients' and public experiences of the UK NHS elective total joint arthroplasty pathway.

OBJECTIVE: To explore patient and public perceptions of planned improvements to the National Health Service (NHS) total joint arthroplasty (TJA) pathway. DESIGN: Three qualitative focus groups undertaken March-May 2018, as part of a mixed-methods evaluation of Getting It Right First Time. Transcripts were subject to framework analysis to identify thematic content between October 2018 and October 2021. SETTING: Elective TJA surgery in the English NHS. PARTICIPANTS: Two focus groups including patients who had undergone TJA in the previous 2 years (group 1: n=5; group 2: n=4) and the other individuals who had not but were aged 60+ (group 3: n=5). Participants were recruited via community groups and patient panels. RESULTS: Fourteen individuals took part in the focus groups; all were aged over 60; seven (50%) were female and nine (64%) had undergone TJA surgery. Participants' perspectives were categorised into themes and mapped onto stages of the TJA pathway. Although perioperative care is often the focus of improvement efforts, participants argued that the patient journey begins before individuals present to primary care. Participants had concerns about other aspects of the pathway, such as obtaining a surgical referral, with prereferral interventions aimed at potentially avoiding the need for surgery (ie, physiotherapy) being perceived as a mechanism to restrict access to secondary care. Patient experience was also conceptualised as a 'maze', rather than the logical, sequential process set out in clinical guidelines; exacerbated by a lack of information, knowledge and power imbalances. CONCLUSION: The linear conceptualisation of the TJA pathway is at odds with patient experience. Improvement programmes focused on perioperative care fail to consider patient concerns and priorities. Patients should be directly involved in improvement programmes, to ensure that patient experience is optimised, as well as informing related processes and important outcomes of care.

Suicidal thoughts and behaviour among healthcare workers in England during the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, concern has been raised about suicide risk among healthcare workers (HCWs). We investigated the incidence risk and prevalence of suicidal thoughts and behaviour (STB), and their relationship with occupational risk factors, among National Health Service HCWs in England between April 2020 and August 2021. METHODS: In this longitudinal study, we analysed online survey data completed by 22,501 HCWs from 17 NHS Trusts at baseline (Time 1) and six months (Time 2). The primary outcome measures were suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and non-suicidal self-injury. We used logistic regression to investigate the relationship between these outcomes and demographic characteristics and occupational factors. Results were stratified by occupational role (clinical/non-clinical). RESULTS: Time 1 and Time 2 surveys were completed by 12,514 and 7,160 HCWs, respectively. At baseline, 10.8% (95% CI = 10.1%, 11.6%) of participants reported having experienced suicidal thoughts in the previous two months, whilst 2.1% (95% CI = 1.8%, 2.5%) of participants reported having attempted suicide over the same period. Among HCWs who had not experienced suicidal thoughts at baseline (and who completed the Time 2 survey), 11.3% (95%CI = 10.4%, 12.3%) reported such thoughts six months later. Six months after baseline, 3.9% (95% CI = 3.4%, 4.4%) of HCWs reported attempting suicide for the first time. Exposure to potentially morally injurious events, lack of confidence about raising safety concerns and these concerns being addressed, feeling unsupported by managers, and providing a reduced standard of care were all associated with increased suicidal ideation among HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. At six months, among clinicians, a lack of confidence about safety concerns being addressed, independently predicted suicidal ideation. CONCLUSION: Suicidal thoughts and behaviour among healthcare workers could be reduced by improving managerial support and enhancing the ability of staff to raise safety concerns.

Moral injury and psychological wellbeing in UK healthcare staff.

BACKGROUND: Potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs) can negatively impact mental health. The COVID-19 pandemic may have placed healthcare staff at risk of moral injury. AIM: To examine the impact of PMIE on healthcare staff wellbeing. METHODS: Twelve thousand nine hundred and sixty-five healthcare staff (clinical and non-clinical) were recruited from 18 NHS-England trusts into a survey of PMIE exposure and wellbeing. RESULTS: PMIEs were significantly associated with adverse mental health symptoms across healthcare staff. Specific work factors were significantly associated with experiences of moral injury, including being redeployed, lack of PPE, and having a colleague die of COVID-19. Nurses who reported symptoms of mental disorders were more likely to report all forms of PMIEs than those without symptoms (AOR 2.7; 95% CI 2.2, 3.3). Doctors who reported symptoms were only more likely to report betrayal events, such as breach of trust by colleagues (AOR 2.7, 95% CI 1.5, 4.9). CONCLUSION: A considerable proportion of NHS healthcare staff in both clinical and non-clinical roles report exposure to PMIEs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prospective research is needed to identify the direction of causation between moral injury and mental disorder as well as continuing to monitor the longer term outcomes of exposure to PMIEs.

Implementation of the national Getting it Right First Time orthopaedic programme in England: a qualitative case study analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the implementation and impact of the Getting it Right First Time (GIRFT) national orthopaedic improvement programme at the level of individual National Health Service (NHS) Trusts. DESIGN: Qualitative case studies conducted at six NHS Trusts, as part of a mixed-methods evaluation of GIRFT. SETTING: NHS elective orthopaedic surgery in England. PARTICIPANTS: 59 NHS staff. INTERVENTION: Improvement bundle, including bespoke routine performance data and improvement recommendations for each organisation, delivered via 'deep-dive' visits to NHS Trusts by a senior orthopaedic clinician. RESULTS: Although all case study sites had made improvements to care, very few of these were reportedly a direct consequence of GIRFT. A range of factors, operating at three different levels, influenced their ability to implement GIRFT recommendations: at the level of the orthopaedic team (micro-eg, how individuals perceived the intervention); the wider Trust (meso-eg, competition for theatre/bed space) and the health economy more broadly (macro-eg, requirements to form local networks). Some sites used GIRFT evidence to support arguments for change which helped cement and formalise existing plans. However, where GIRFT measures were not a Trust priority because of more immediate demands-for example, financial and bed pressures-it was less likely to influence change. CONCLUSION: Dynamic relationships between the different contextual factors, within and between the three levels, can impact the effectiveness of a large-scale improvement intervention and may account for variations in implementation outcomes in different settings. When designing an intervention, those leading future improvement programmes should consider how it sits in relation to these three contextual levels and the interactions that may occur between them.

'You get looked at like you're failing': A reflexive thematic analysis of experiences of mental health and wellbeing support for NHS staff.

Staff in the National Health Service (NHS) are under considerable strain, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic; whilst NHS Trusts provide a variety of health and wellbeing support services, there has been little research investigating staff perceptions of these services. We interviewed 48 healthcare workers from 18 NHS Trusts in England about their experiences of workplace health and wellbeing support during the pandemic. Reflexive thematic analysis identified that perceived stigma around help-seeking, and staffing shortages due to wider socio-political contexts such as austerity, were barriers to using support services. Visible, caring leadership at all levels (CEO to line managers), peer support, easily accessible services, and clear communication about support offers were enablers. Our evidence suggests Trusts should have active strategies to improve help-seeking, such as manager training and peer support facilitated by building in time for this during working hours, but this will require long-term strategic planning to address workforce shortages.

Tackling barriers to COVID-19 vaccine uptake in London: a mixed-methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the first vaccine was administered in December 2020 in England. However, vaccination uptake has historically been lower in London than in other English regions. METHODS: Mixed-methods: This comprised an analysis of cumulative percentage uptake across London between 8 December 2020 and 6 June 2021 by vaccine priority cohorts and ethnicity. We also undertook thematic analyses of uptake barriers, interventions to tackle these and key learning from a qualitative survey of 27 London local authority representatives, vaccine plans from London's five Integrated Care Systems and interviews with 38 London system representatives. RESULTS: Vaccine uptake was lower in Black ethnic (57-65% uptake) compared with the White British group (90% uptake). Trust was a critical issue, including mistrust in the vaccine itself and in authorities administering or promoting it. The balance between putative costs and benefits of vaccination created uptake barriers for zero-hour and shift workers. Intensive, targeted and 'hyper-local' initiatives, which sustained community relationships and were not constrained by administrative boundaries, helped tackle these barriers. CONCLUSIONS: The success of the national vaccination programme depended on conceding local autonomy, investing in responsive and long-term partnerships to engender trust through in-depth understanding of communities' beliefs.

Prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder and common mental disorders in health-care workers in England during the COVID-19 pandemic: a two-phase cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of health-care workers have relied on self-reported screening measures to estimate the point prevalence of common mental disorders. Screening measures, which are designed to be sensitive, have low positive predictive value and often overestimate prevalence. We aimed to estimate prevalence of common mental disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among health-care workers in England using diagnostic interviews. METHODS: We did a two-phase, cross-sectional study comprising diagnostic interviews within a larger multisite longitudinal cohort of health-care workers (National Health Service [NHS] CHECK; n=23 462) during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the first phase, health-care workers across 18 NHS England Trusts were recruited. Baseline assessments were done using online surveys between April 24, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021. In the second phase, we selected a proportion of participants who had responded to the surveys and conducted diagnostic interviews to establish the prevalence of mental disorders. The recruitment period for the diagnostic interviews was between March 1, 2021 and Aug 27, 2021. Participants were screened with the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) and assessed with the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised (CIS-R) for common mental disorders or were screened with the 6-item Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL-6) and assessed with the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) for PTSD. FINDINGS: The screening sample contained 23 462 participants: 2079 participants were excluded due to missing values on the GHQ-12 and 11 147 participants due to missing values on the PCL-6. 243 individuals participated in diagnostic interviews for common mental disorders (CIS-R; mean age 42 years [range 21-70]; 185 [76%] women and 58 [24%] men) and 94 individuals participated in diagnostic interviews for PTSD (CAPS-5; mean age 44 years [23-62]; 79 [84%] women and 15 [16%] men). 202 (83%) of 243 individuals in the common mental disorders sample and 83 (88%) of 94 individuals in the PTSD sample were White. GHQ-12 screening caseness for common mental disorders was 52·8% (95% CI 51·7-53·8). Using CIS-R diagnostic interviews, the estimated population prevalence of generalised anxiety disorder was 14·3% (10·4-19·2), population prevalence of depression was 13·7% (10·1-18·3), and combined population prevalence of generalised anxiety disorder and depression was 21·5% (16·9-26·8). PCL-6 screening caseness for PTSD was 25·4% (24·3-26·5). Using CAPS-5 diagnostic interviews, the estimated population prevalence of PTSD was 7·9% (4·0-15·1). INTERPRETATION: The prevalence estimates of common mental disorders and PTSD in health-care workers were considerably lower when assessed using diagnostic interviews compared with screening tools. 21·5% of health-care workers met the threshold for diagnosable mental disorders, and thus might benefit from clinical intervention. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council; UCL/Wellcome; Rosetrees Trust; NHS England and Improvement; Economic and Social Research Council; National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the Maudsley and King's College London (KCL); NIHR Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response at KCL.

Multicentre, England-wide randomised controlled trial of the 'Foundations' smartphone application in improving mental health and well-being in a healthcare worker population.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) have faced considerable pressures during the COVID-19 pandemic. For some, this has resulted in mental health distress and disorder. Although interventions have sought to support HCWs, few have been evaluated. AIMS: We aimed to determine the effectiveness of the 'Foundations' application (app) on general (non-psychotic) psychiatric morbidity. METHOD: We conducted a multicentre randomised controlled trial of HCWs at 16 NHS trusts (trial registration number: EudraCT: 2021-001279-18). Participants were randomly assigned to the app or wait-list control group. Measures were assessed at baseline, after 4 and 8 weeks. The primary outcome was general psychiatric morbidity (using the General Health Questionnaire). Secondary outcomes included: well-being; presenteeism; anxiety; depression and insomnia. The primary analysis used mixed-effects multivariable regression, presented as adjusted mean differences (aMD). RESULTS: Between 22 March and 3 June 2021, 1002 participants were randomised (500:502), and 894 (89.2%) followed-up. The sample was predominately women (754/894, 84.3%), with a mean age of 44⋅3 years (interquartile range (IQR) 34-53). Participants randomised to the app had a reduction in psychiatric morbidity symptoms (aMD = -1.39, 95% CI -2.05 to -0.74), improvement in well-being (aMD = 0⋅54, 95% CI 0⋅20 to 0⋅89) and reduction in insomnia (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0⋅36, 95% CI 0⋅21 to 0⋅60). No other significant findings were found, or adverse events reported. CONCLUSIONS: The app had an effect in reducing psychiatric morbidity symptoms in a sample of HCWs. Given it is scalable with no adverse effects, the app may be used as part of an organisation's tiered staff support package. Further evidence is needed on long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

'It hurts your heart': frontline healthcare worker experiences of moral injury during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Moral injury is defined as the strong emotional and cognitive reactions following events which clash with someone's moral code, values or expectations. During the COVID-19 pandemic, increased exposure to Potentially Morally Injurious Events (PMIEs) has placed healthcare workers (HCWs) at risk of moral injury. Yet little is known about the lived experience of cumulative PMIE exposure and how NHS staff respond to this. Objective: We sought to rectify this knowledge gap by qualitatively exploring the lived experiences and perspectives of clinical frontline NHS staff who responded to COVID-19. Methods: We recruited a diverse sample of 30 clinical frontline HCWs from the NHS CHECK study cohort, for single time point qualitative interviews. All participants endorsed at least one item on the 9-item Moral Injury Events Scale (MIES) [Nash et al., 2013. Psychometric evaluation of the moral injury events scale. Military Medicine, 178(6), 646-652] at six month follow up. Interviews followed a semi-structured guide and were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: HCWs described being routinely exposed to ethical conflicts, created by exacerbations of pre-existing systemic issues including inadequate staffing and resourcing. We found that HCWs experienced a range of mental health symptoms primarily related to perceptions of institutional betrayal as well as feeling unable to fulfil their duty of care towards patients. Conclusion: These results suggest that a multi-facetted organisational strategy is warranted to prepare for PMIE exposure, promote opportunities for resolution of symptoms associated with moral injury and prevent organisational disengagement. HIGHLIGHTS Clinical frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) have been exposed to an accumulation of potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs) throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, including feeling betrayed by both government and NHS leaders as well as feeling unable to provide duty of care to patients.HCWs described the significant adverse impact of this exposure on their mental health, including increased anxiety and depression symptoms and sleep disturbance.Most HCWs interviewed believed that organisational change within the NHS was necessary to prevent excess PMIE exposure and promote resolution of moral distress.

Antecedentes: El daño moral se define como las fuertes reacciones emocionales y cognitivas que siguen a los eventos que chocan con el código moral de una persona, sus valores o expectativas. Durante la pandemia de COVID-19, el aumento de la exposición a Eventos Potencialmente Dañinos para la Moral (PMIEs, por su sigla en inglés) ha puesto a los trabajadores de la salud (HCWs, por su sigla en inglés) en riesgo de daño moral. Aún se conoce poco sobre la experiencia vivida de la exposición acumulada a PMIE y cómo el personal del Servicio Nacional de Salud de Inglaterra (NHS en su sigla en inglés) responde a esto.Objetivo: Buscamos rectificar esta brecha de conocimiento a través de la exploración cualitativa de las experiencias vividas y perspectivas del personal clínico de primera línea de NHS que respondió al COVID-19.Métodos: Reclutamos una muestra diversa de 30 HCWs clínicos de primera línea de la cohorte del estudio CHECK del NHS, para entrevistas cualitativas de una sola vez. Todos los participantes aprobaron al menos un ítem de los 9 de la Escala de Eventos de Daño Moral (MIES) [Nash y cols., 2013. Psychometric evaluation of the moral injury events scale. Military Medicine, 178(6), 646­652] en el seguimiento a los 6 meses. Las entrevistas siguieron una guía semi-estructurada y fueron analizadas utilizando análisis temático reflexivo.Resultados: Los HCWs describieron estar expuestos de forma rutinaria a conflictos éticos, creados por exacerbación de problemas sistémicos pre-existentes que incluían falta de personal y de recursos. Encontramos que los HCWs experimentaron un rango de síntomas de salud mental primariamente relacionados a percepciones de traición institucional y al sentirse incapaces de cumplir con su deber de cuidado hacia los pacientes.Conclusión: Estos resultados sugieren que se requiere una estrategia organizacional multifacética para preparar para la exposición a PMIE fomentar oportunidades de resolución de los síntomas asociados al daño moral y prevenir la separación organizacional.

Capturing the experiences of UK healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A structural topic modelling analysis of 7,412 free-text survey responses.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) have provided vital services during the COVID-19 pandemic, but existing research consists of quantitative surveys (lacking in depth or context) or qualitative interviews (with limited generalisability). Structural Topic Modelling (STM) of large-scale free-text survey data offers a way of capturing the perspectives of a wide range of HCWs in their own words about their experiences of the pandemic. METHODS: In an online survey distributed to all staff at 18 geographically dispersed NHS Trusts, we asked respondents, "Is there anything else you think we should know about your experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic?". We used STM on 7,412 responses to identify topics, and thematic analysis on the resultant topics and text excerpts. RESULTS: We identified 33 topics, grouped into two domains, each containing four themes. Our findings emphasise: the deleterious effect of increased workloads, lack of PPE, inconsistent advice/guidance, and lack of autonomy; differing experiences of home working as negative/positive; and the benefits of supportive leadership and peers in ameliorating challenges. Themes varied by demographics and time: discussion of home working decreasing over time, while discussion of workplace challenges increased. Discussion of mental health was lowest between September-November 2020, between the first and second waves of COVID-19 in the UK. DISCUSSION: Our findings represent the most salient experiences of HCWs through the pandemic. STM enabled statistical examination of how the qualitative themes raised differed according to participant characteristics. This relatively underutilised methodology in healthcare research can provide more nuanced, yet generalisable, evidence than that available via surveys or small interview studies, and should be used in future research.

Mixed methods evaluation of the Getting it Right First Time programme in elective orthopaedic surgery in England: an analysis from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the 'Getting it Right First Time' (GIRFT) national improvement programme in orthopaedics, which started in 2012. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study comprising statistical analysis of linked national datasets (National Joint Registry; Hospital Episode Statistics; Patient-Reported Outcomes); economic analysis and qualitative case studies in six National Health Service (NHS) Trusts. SETTING: NHS elective orthopaedic surgery in England. PARTICIPANTS: 736 088 patients who underwent primary hip or knee replacement at 126 NHS Trusts between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2018, plus 50 NHS staff. INTERVENTION: Improvement bundle including 'deep dive' visits by senior clinician to NHS Trusts, informed by bespoke set of routine performance data, to discuss how improvements could be made locally. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of procedures conducted by low volume surgeons; use of uncemented hip implants in patients >65; arthroscopy in year prior to knee replacement; hospital length of stay; emergency readmissions within 30 days; revision surgery within 1 year; health-related quality of life and functional status. RESULTS: National trends demonstrated substantial improvements beginning prior to GIRFT. Between 2012 and 2018, there were reductions in procedures by low volume surgeons (ORs (95% CI) hips 0.58 (0.53 to 0.63), knees 0.77 (0.72 to 0.83)); uncemented hip prostheses in >65 s (OR 0.56 (0.51 to 0.61)); knee arthroscopies before surgery (OR 0.48 (0.41 to 0.56)) and mean length of stay (hips -0.90 (-1.00 to -0.81), knees -0.74 days (-0.82 to -0.66)). The additional impact of visits was mixed and comprised an overall economic saving of £431 848 between 2012 and 2018, but this was offset by the costs of the visits. Staff reported that GIRFT's influence ranged from procurement changes to improved regional collaboration. CONCLUSION: Nationally, we found substantial improvements in care, but the specific contribution of GIRFT cannot be reliably estimated due to other concurrent initiatives. Our approach enabled additional analysis of the discrete impact of GIRFT visits.

Developing Reporting Guidelines for Social Media Research (RESOME) by Using a Modified Delphi Method: Protocol for Guideline Development.

BACKGROUND: Social media platforms, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, are being increasingly used to deliver public health interventions. Despite the high level of research interest, there is no consensus or guidance on how to report on social media interventions. Reporting guidelines that incorporate elements from behavior change theories and social media engagement frameworks could foster more robust evaluations that capture outcomes that have an impact on behavior change and engagement. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project is to develop, publish, and promote a list of items for our Reporting Guidelines for Social Media Research (RESOME) checklist. METHODS: RESOME will be developed by using a modified Delphi approach wherein 2 rounds of questionnaires will be sent to experts and stakeholders. The questionnaires will ask them to rate their agreement with a series of statements until a level of consensus is reached. This will be followed by a web-based consensus meeting to finalize the reporting guidelines. After the consensus meeting, the reporting guidelines will be published in the form of a paper outlining the need for the new guidelines and how the guidelines were developed, along with the finalized checklist for reporting. Prior to publication, the guidelines will be piloted to check for understanding and simplify the language used, if necessary. RESULTS: The first draft of RESOME has been developed. Round 1 of the Delphi survey took place between July and December 2021. Round 2 is due to take place in February 2022, and the web-based consensus meeting will be scheduled for the spring of 2022. CONCLUSIONS: Developing RESOME has the potential to contribute to improved reporting, and such guidelines will make it easier to assess the effectiveness of social media interventions. Future work will be needed to evaluate our guidelines' usefulness and practicality. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/31739.

The effectiveness of using virtual patient educational tools to improve medical students' clinical reasoning skills: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Use of virtual patient educational tools could fill the current gap in the teaching of clinical reasoning skills. However, there is a limited understanding of their effectiveness. The aim of this study was to synthesise the evidence to understand the effectiveness of virtual patient tools aimed at improving undergraduate medical students' clinical reasoning skills. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science and PsycINFO from 1990 to January 2022, to identify all experimental articles testing the effectiveness of virtual patient educational tools on medical students' clinical reasoning skills. Quality of the articles was assessed using an adapted form of the MERSQI and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A narrative synthesis summarised intervention features, how virtual patient tools were evaluated and reported effectiveness. RESULTS: The search revealed 8,186 articles, with 19 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Average study quality was moderate (M = 6.5, SD = 2.7), with nearly half not reporting any measurement of validity or reliability for their clinical reasoning outcome measure (8/19, 42%). Eleven articles found a positive effect of virtual patient tools on reasoning (11/19, 58%). Four reported no significant effect and four reported mixed effects (4/19, 21%). Several domains of clinical reasoning were evaluated. Data gathering, ideas about diagnosis and patient management were more often found to improve after virtual patient use (34/47 analyses, 72%) than application of knowledge, flexibility in thinking and problem-solving (3/7 analyses, 43%). CONCLUSIONS: Using virtual patient tools could effectively complement current teaching especially if opportunities for face-to-face teaching or other methods are limited, as there was some evidence that virtual patient educational tools can improve undergraduate medical students' clinical reasoning skills. Evaluations that measured more case specific clinical reasoning domains, such as data gathering, showed more consistent improvement than general measures like problem-solving. Case specific measures might be more sensitive to change given the context dependent nature of clinical reasoning. Consistent use of validated clinical reasoning measures is needed to enable a meta-analysis to estimate effectiveness.

A Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Process Evaluation of a Local Population Health Management System to Reduce Inequities in COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake.

Population health management is an emerging technique to link and analyse patient data across several organisations in order to identify population needs and plan care. It is increasingly used in England and has become more important as health policy has sought to drive greater integration across health and care organisations. This protocol describes a mixed-methods process evaluation of an innovative population health management system in North Central London, England, serving a population of 1.5 million. It focuses on how staff have used a specific tool within North Central London's population health management system designed to reduce inequities in COVID-19 vaccination. The COVID-19 vaccination Dashboard was first deployed from December 2020 and enables staff in North London to view variations in the uptake of COVID-19 vaccinations by population characteristics in near real-time. The evaluation will combine interviews with clinical and non-clinical staff with staff usage analytics, including the volume and frequency of staff Dashboard views, to describe the tool's reach and identify possible mechanisms of impact. While seeking to provide timely insights to optimise the design of population health management tools in North Central London, it also seeks to provide longer term transferable learning on methods to evaluate population health management systems.

Health system influences on potentially avoidable hospital admissions by secondary mental health service use: A national ecological study.

OBJECTIVES: Potentially avoidable hospital admissions (PAAs) are costly to health services and potentially harmful for patients. This study aimed to compare area-level PAA rates among people using and not using secondary mental health services in England and to identify health system features that may influence between-area PAA variation. METHODS: National ecological study using linked English hospital admissions and secondary mental health services data (2016-2018). We calculated two-year average age-sex standardised area-level PAA rates according to primary admission diagnoses for 12 physical conditions, among, first, secondary mental health service users with any non-organic diagnosis, and, second, people not in contact with secondary mental health services. We used penalised regression analyses to identify predictors of area-level variation in PAA rates. RESULTS: Area-level PAA rates were over four times greater in the mental health group, at 7,594 per 100,000 population compared to 1,819 per 100,000 in the comparator group. Common predictors of variation were greater density of older age groups (lower PAA rates), higher underlying population morbidity of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and, to a lesser extent, urbanity (higher PAA rates). For both groups, health system factors such as the number of general practitioners per capita or ambulance despatch rates were significant but weak predictors of variation. Mental health diagnosis data were available for half of secondary mental health care records only and sensitivity analyses found that urbanity remained the sole significant predictor for PAAs in this group. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the need for improved management of physical conditions for secondary mental health service users. Understanding and predicting variation in PAAs among mental health service users is constrained by availability of data on mental health diagnosis, physical health care and needs.

NHS CHECK: protocol for a cohort study investigating the psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound effects on the working lives of healthcare workers (HCWs), but the extent to which their well-being and mental health have been affected remains unclear. This longitudinal cohort study aims to recruit a cohort of National Health Service (NHS) HCWs, conducting surveys at regular intervals to provide evidence about the prevalence of symptoms of mental disorders, and investigate associated factors such as occupational contexts and support interventions available. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: All staff, students and volunteers working in the 18 participating NHS Trusts in England will be sent emails inviting them to complete a survey at baseline, with email invitations for the follow-up surveys sent 6 months and 12 months later. Opening in late April 2020, the baseline survey collects data on demographics, occupational/organisational factors, experiences of COVID-19, validated measures of symptoms of poor mental health (eg, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder), and constructs such as resilience and moral injury. These surveys will be complemented by in-depth psychiatric interviews with a sample of HCWs. Qualitative interviews will also be conducted, to gain deeper understanding of the support programmes used or desired by staff, and facilitators and barriers to accessing such programmes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Health Research Authority (reference: 20/HRA/210, IRAS: 282686) and local Trust Research and Development approval. Cohort data are collected via Qualtrics online survey software, pseudonymised and held on secure university servers. Participants are aware that they can withdraw from the study at any time, and there is signposting to support services if participants feel they need it. Only those consenting to be contacted about further research will be invited to participate in further components. Findings will be rapidly shared with NHS Trusts, and via academic publications in due course.

International Evidence on the Impact of Health-Justice Partnerships: A Systematic Scoping Review.

Background: Health-justice partnerships (HJPs) are collaborations between healthcare and legal services which support patients with social welfare issues such as welfare benefits, debt, housing, education and employment. HJPs exist across the world in a variety of forms and with diverse objectives. This review synthesizes the international evidence on the impacts of HJPs. Methods: A systematic scoping review of international literature was undertaken. A wide-ranging search was conducted across academic databases and grey literature sources, covering OECD countries from January 1995 to December 2018. Data from included publications were extracted and research quality was assessed. A narrative synthesis approach was used to analyze and present the results. Results: Reported objectives of HJPs related to: prevention of health and legal problems; access to legal assistance; health improvement; resolution of legal problems; improvement of patient care; support for healthcare services; addressing inequalities; and catalyzing systemic change. There is strong evidence that HJPs: improve access to legal assistance for people at risk of social and health disadvantage; positively influence material and social circumstances through resolution of legal problems; and improve mental wellbeing. A wide range of other positive impacts were identified for individuals, services and communities; the strength of evidence for each is summarized and discussed. Conclusion: HJPs are effective in tackling social welfare issues that affect the health of disadvantaged groups in society and can therefore form a key part of public health strategies to address inequalities.

Psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on 4378 UK healthcare workers and ancillary staff: initial baseline data from a cohort study collected during the first wave of the pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: This study reports preliminary findings on the prevalence of, and factors associated with, mental health and well-being outcomes of healthcare workers during the early months (April-June) of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. METHODS: Preliminary cross-sectional data were analysed from a cohort study (n=4378). Clinical and non-clinical staff of three London-based NHS Trusts, including acute and mental health Trusts, took part in an online baseline survey. The primary outcome measure used is the presence of probable common mental disorders (CMDs), measured by the General Health Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are probable anxiety (seven-item Generalised Anxiety Disorder), depression (nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (six-item Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder checklist), suicidal ideation (Clinical Interview Schedule) and alcohol use (Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test). Moral injury is measured using the Moray Injury Event Scale. RESULTS: Analyses showed substantial levels of probable CMDs (58.9%, 95% CI 58.1 to 60.8) and of PTSD (30.2%, 95% CI 28.1 to 32.5) with lower levels of depression (27.3%, 95% CI 25.3 to 29.4), anxiety (23.2%, 95% CI 21.3 to 25.3) and alcohol misuse (10.5%, 95% CI 9.2 to 11.9). Women, younger staff and nurses tended to have poorer outcomes than other staff, except for alcohol misuse. Higher reported exposure to moral injury (distress resulting from violation of one's moral code) was strongly associated with increased levels of probable CMDs, anxiety, depression, PTSD symptoms and alcohol misuse. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that mental health support for healthcare workers should consider those demographics and occupations at highest risk. Rigorous longitudinal data are needed in order to respond to the potential long-term mental health impacts of the pandemic.