Recurrent urinary tract infections and prophylactic antibiotic use in women: cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the considerable morbidity caused by recurrent UTIs (rUTIs), and the wider personal and public health implications from frequent antibiotic use, few studies adequately describe the prevalence and characteristics of women with rUTIs or those who use prophylactic antibiotics. AIM: To describe the prevalence, characteristics, and urine profiles of women with rUTIs with and without prophylactic antibiotic use in Welsh primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cross-sectional study in Welsh General Practice using the SAIL Databank. METHOD: We describe the characteristics of women aged ≥18 years with rUTIs or using prophylactic antibiotics from 2010-2020, and associated urine culture results from 2015 - 2020. RESULTS: 6.0% of women (n=92,213) had rUTIs, and 1.7% (n=26,862) were prescribed prophylactic antibiotics. Only 49% of prophylactic antibiotic users met the definition of rUTIs before initiation. 81% of women with rUTIs had a urine culture result in the preceding 12 months with high rates of resistance to trimethoprim and amoxicillin. 64% of women taking prophylactic antibiotics had a urine culture result before initiation, and 18% (n=320) of women prescribed trimethoprim had resistance to it on the antecedent sample. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of women had rUTIs or incident prophylactic antibiotic use. However, 64% of women had urine cultured before starting prophylaxis. There was a high proportion of cultured bacteria resistant to two antibiotics used for rUTI prevention and evidence of resistance to the prescribed antibiotic. More frequent urine cultures for rUTI diagnosis and before prophylactic antibiotic initiation could better inform antibiotic choices.

Perceptions of the Impact of Comorbidity on the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: Qualitative Study With Bowel Screening Participants and Staff.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of multiple health conditions on bowel cancer screening is currently unknown. We explored the impact of multiple health conditions on bowel cancer screening perceptions, experience and clinical management decisions following a positive stool test. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted remotely with Bowel Screening Wales staff (n = 16) stratified by regional location and role and with screening participants (n = 19) stratified by age, gender and comorbidity. Interview topics were guided by the Common-Sense Model. RESULTS: Screening participants, regardless of comorbidity status, placed great emphasis on the importance of early detection of cancer and completing the bowel screening process. Screening staff emphasised comorbidities in the clinical decision-making process; however, screening participants had low awareness of the impact that comorbidities can have on bowel screening. Participants describe how the presence of multiple health conditions can mask potential bowel symptoms and influence beliefs about follow-up. CONCLUSION: Bowel screening staff try to individualise the service to meet participant needs. The potential mismatch in screening staff and participant awareness and expectations of the bowel screening and diagnostic process needs to be addressed. Clearer and more regular communication with screening participants could support the screening process, particularly for those with significant coexisting health conditions or facing time delays. The possible masking effects and misattribution of symptoms because of comorbidities highlight an opportunity for education and raising awareness for screening participants and a potential area of focus for discussions in clinical consultations and staff training. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Project funding included costs for patients and public contributors to be compensated for their contributions to the project, in line with current standards. A patient and public contributor was involved in the design of the study, including protocol development, and the interpretation of key findings and implications for patients, which are subsequently reflected within the manuscript.

Informing evidence-based policy during the COVID-19 pandemic and recovery period: learning from a national evidence centre.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the vital need for research to inform policy decision-making and save lives. The Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre (WCEC) was established in March 2021 and funded for two years, to make evidence about the impact of the pandemic and ongoing research priorities for Wales available and actionable to policy decision-makers, service leads and the public. OBJECTIVES: We describe the approaches we developed and our experiences, challenges and future vision. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION: The centre operated with a core team, including a public partnership group, and six experienced research groups as collaborating partners. Our rapid evidence delivery process had five stages: 1. Stakeholder engagement (continued throughout all stages); 2. Research question prioritisation; 3. Bespoke rapid evidence review methodology in a phased approach; 4. Rapid primary research; and 5. Knowledge Mobilisation to ensure the evidence was available for decision-makers. MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS: Between March 2021-23 we engaged with 44 stakeholder groups, completed 35 Rapid Evidence Reviews, six Rapid Evidence Maps and 10 Rapid Evidence Summaries. We completed four primary research studies, with three published in peer reviewed journals, and seven ongoing. Our evidence informed policy decision-making and was cited in 19 Welsh Government papers. These included pandemic infection control measures, the Action Plan to tackle gender inequalities, and Education Renew and Reform policy. We conducted 24 Welsh Government evidence briefings and three public facing symposia. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Strong engagement with stakeholder groups, a phased rapid evidence review approach, and primary research to address key gaps in current knowledge enabled high-quality efficient, evidence outputs to be delivered to help inform Welsh policy decision-making during the pandemic. We learn from these processes to continue to deliver evidence from March 2023 as the Health and Care Research Wales Evidence Centre, with a broader remit of health and social care, to help inform policy and practice decisions during the recovery phase and beyond.

Evaluation of different models of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments: a mixed-methods realist evaluation.

Background: Emergency healthcare services are under intense pressure to meet increasing patient demands. Many patients presenting to emergency departments could be managed by general practitioners in general practitioner-emergency department service models. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, patient experience and system implications of the different general practitioner-emergency department models. Design: Mixed-methods realist evaluation. Methods: Phase 1 (2017-8), to understand current practice: rapid realist literature review, national survey and follow-up key informant interviews, national stakeholder event and safety data analysis. Phase 2 (2018-21), to collect and analyse qualitative (observations, interviews) and quantitative data (time series analysis); cost-consequences analysis of routine data; and case site data for 'marker condition' analysis from a purposive sample of 13 case sites in England and Wales. Phase 3 (2021-2), to conduct mixed-methods analysis for programme theory and toolkit development. Results: General practitioners commonly work in emergency departments, but delivery models vary widely in terms of the scope of the general practitioner role and the scale of the general practitioner service. We developed a taxonomy to describe general practitioner-emergency department service models (Integrated with the emergency department service, Parallel within the emergency department, Outside the emergency department on the hospital site) and present a programme theory as principal output of the study to describe how these service models were observed to operate. Routine data were of variable quality, limiting our analysis. Time series analysis demonstrated trends across intervention sites for: increased time spent in the emergency department; increased emergency department attendances and reattendances; and mixed results for hospital admissions. Evidence on patient experience was limited but broadly supportive; we identified department-level processes to optimise the safety of general practitioner-emergency department models. Limitations: The quality, heterogeneity and extent of routine emergency department data collection during the study period limited the conclusions. Recruitment was limited by criteria for case sites (time series requirements) and individual patients (with 'marker conditions'). Pandemic and other pressures limited data collection for marker condition analysis. Data collected and analysed were pre pandemic; new approaches such as 'telephone first' and their relevance to our findings remains unexplored. Conclusion: Findings suggest that general practitioner-emergency department service models do not meet the aim of reducing the overall emergency department waiting times and improving patient flow with limited evidence of cost savings. Qualitative data indicated that general practitioners were often valued as members of the wider emergency department team. We have developed a toolkit, based on our findings, to provide guidance for implementing and delivering general practitioner-emergency department services. Future work: The emergency care data set has since been introduced across England to help standardise data collection to facilitate further research. We would advocate the systematic capture of patient experience measures and patient-reported outcome measures as part of routine care. More could be done to support the development of the general practitioner in emergency department role, including a core set of competencies and governance structure, to reflect the different general practitioner-emergency department models and to evaluate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness to guide future policy. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017069741. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/145/04) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 10. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Hospital emergency departments are under huge pressure. Patients are waiting many hours to be seen, some with problems that general practitioners could deal with. To reduce waiting times and improve patient care, arrangements have been put in place for general practitioners to work in or alongside emergency departments (general practitioner­emergency department models). We studied the different ways of working to find out what works well, how and for whom. We brought together a lot of information. We reviewed existing evidence, sent out surveys to 184 emergency departments, spent time in the emergency departments observing how they operated and interviewing 106 staff in 13 hospitals and 24 patients who visited those emergency departments. We also looked at statistical information recorded by hospitals. Two public contributors were involved from the beginning, and we held two stakeholder events to ensure the relevance of our research to professionals and patients. Getting reliable figures to compare the various general practitioner­emergency department set-ups (inside, parallel to or outside the emergency department) was difficult. Our findings suggest that over time more people are coming to emergency departments and overall waiting times did not generally improve due to general practitioner­emergency department models. Evidence that general practitioners might admit fewer patients to hospital was mixed, with limited findings of cost savings. Patients were generally supportive of the care they received, although we could not speak to as many patients as we planned. The skills and experience of general practitioners were often valued as members of the wider emergency department team. We identified how the care provided was kept safe with: strong leaders, good communication between different types of staff, highly trained and experienced nurses responsible for streaming and specific training for general practitioners on how they were expected to work. We have produced a guide to help professionals develop and improve general practitioner­emergency department services and we have written easy-to-read summaries of all the articles we published.

Methodological approaches to measuring mental health in a cost-of-living crisis: A rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Cost-of-living crises are damaging to population mental health and require a public health response. It is important to assess whether public health interventions are effective. We aimed to identify population-level methods and measures and the appropriateness of the measures for vulnerable populations. METHODS: A rapid evidence review was undertaken. Nineteen databases, including grey literature, were searched for evidence published between 1970 and April 2023. RESULTS: Seven reviews, nine primary studies and two reports from grey literature were identified. Methods consisted of analyses of existing data from national or regional cohort studies, household panel surveys, repeated cross-sectional surveys, routine medical data, or data on suicide death rates. Twelve brief validated mental health measurement tools, embedded in population-level surveys, were identified. Two quasi-experimental studies used data from a UK household panel survey to examine the impact of the introduction of specific welfare policies on mental health. Studies identified socio-economic vulnerabilities, but it was not possible to determine whether data were effectively captured from people from minority ethnic groups. CONCLUSION: Population-level surveys can be used in quasi-experimental studies to measure the effects of a public health initiative with specific roll out dates to tackle cost-of-living impacts. It is unclear as to whether the identified methods and tools are suitable for use with people from minority ethnic groups.

Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on people experiencing incarceration: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on people experiencing incarceration (PEI), focusing particularly on clinical outcomes compared with the general population. DESIGN: Systematic review with narrative synthesis in accordance with the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination's good practice guidelines. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Social Policy and Practice, Criminology Connection, ASSIA, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web Of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Cochrane COVID-19 reviews, COVID-19 Evidence Reviews and L*OVE COVID-19 Evidence databases were searched up to 21 October 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included studies presenting data specific to adults ≥18 years experiencing incarceration, with exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection. All studies with a comparison group, regardless of study design and country were included. Studies with no comparison group data or not measuring clinical outcomes/health inequalities were excluded. Studies focussing on detained migrants, forensic hospitals, prison staff and those not in English were also excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data underwent narrative synthesis using a framework analysis based on the objectives, for infection rates, testing, hospitalisation, mortality, vaccine uptake rates and mental health outcomes. There was no scope for meta-analysis, due to the heterogeneity of evidence available. RESULTS: 4516 references were exported from the databases and grey literature searched, of which 55 met the inclusion criteria. Most were from the USA and were retrospective analyses. Compared with the general population, PEI were usually found to have higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and poorer clinical outcomes. Conflicting data were found regarding vaccine uptake and testing rates compared with the general population. The mental health of PEI declined during the pandemic. Certain subgroups were more adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as ethnic minorities and older PEI. CONCLUSION: PEI have poorer COVID-19 clinical outcomes than the general public, as shown by largely low-quality heterogenous evidence. Further high-quality research of continuing clinical outcomes and appropriate mitigating interventions is required to assess downstream effects of the pandemic on PEI. However, performing such research in the context of incarceration facilities is highly complex and potentially challenging. Prioritisation of resources for this vulnerable group should be a focus of national policy in the event of future pandemics. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022296968.

Programme theories to describe how different general practitioner service models work in different contexts in or alongside emergency departments (GP-ED): realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Addressing increasing patient demand and improving ED patient flow is a key ambition for NHS England. Delivering general practitioner (GP) services in or alongside EDs (GP-ED) was advocated in 2017 for this reason, supported by £100 million (US$130 million) of capital funding. Current evidence shows no overall improvement in addressing demand and reducing waiting times, but considerable variation in how different service models operate, subject to local context. METHODS: We conducted mixed-methods analysis using inductive and deductive approaches for qualitative (observations, interviews) and quantitative data (time series analyses of attendances, reattendances, hospital admissions, length of stay) based on previous research using a purposive sample of 13 GP-ED service models (3 inside-integrated, 4 inside-parallel service, 3 outside-onsite and 3 with no GPs) in England and Wales. We used realist methodology to understand the relationship between contexts, mechanisms and outcomes to develop programme theories about how and why different GP-ED service models work. RESULTS: GP-ED service models are complex, with variation in scope and scale of the service, influenced by individual, departmental and external factors. Quantitative data were of variable quality: overall, no reduction in attendances and waiting times, a mixed picture for hospital admissions and length of hospital stay. Our programme theories describe how the GP-ED service models operate: inside the ED, integrated with patient flow and general ED demand, with a wider GP role than usual primary care; outside the ED, addressing primary care demand with an experienced streaming nurse facilitating the 'right patients' are streamed to the GP; or within the ED as a parallel service with most variability in the level of integration and GP role. CONCLUSION: GP-ED services are complex . Our programme theories inform recommendations on how services could be modified in particular contexts to address local demand, or whether alternative healthcare services should be considered.

Mitigating COVID-19 Burden in People Experiencing Incarceration: A Systematic Review.

People experiencing incarceration (PEI) have poorer COVID-19 clinical outcomes compared with the general population. Many interventions were implemented in incarceration facilities to mitigate the burden of COVID-19. This systematic review seeks to analyze the effectiveness of these interventions. Twenty-two studies were included. Reduction of the incarcerated population/interfacility transfers, cohorting of new and infectious incarcerated people, mass asymptomatic testing (despite often low uptake), hygiene measures, and prioritization of PEI in vaccine policy had some evidence of effectiveness at reducing transmission and risk of COVID-19 in incarceration facilities. Visitation suspension had conflicting evidence of effectiveness. Studies were of low or medium quality. Inadequate control of confounding variables limited the reliability and validity of conclusions drawn. Many studies relied on retrospective, third-party data. Higher quality research is required.

The validity of instruments to measure knowledge in population-based cancer screening targeting individuals at average risk - A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Relevant knowledge is essential for informed choices about (non)participation in population-based cancer screening. Many instruments have been proposed to assess residents' knowledge about cancer screening programmes but their measurement properties are unknown. This systematic review aims to identify and critically evaluate the measurement properties of instruments to measure knowledge about cancer screening in individuals eligible for population-based screening. METHODS: A literature search was undertaken in PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science in August 2023. The review included any study reporting one or more measurement properties of the questionnaire or sub-scale used measuring knowledge of cancer screening including breast, colorectal and/or cervical cancer screening. Studies including males aged 45 or older and females aged 20 or older were included. Two independent reviewers screened the articles and assessed the included articles using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). RESULTS: We included 24 instruments, which varied in number and characteristics of items. All instruments were assessed as having an inadequate instrument development. The results of structural validity, internal consistency, criterion validity and reliability were assessed as indeterminate, while construct validity and responsiveness were assessed as sufficient. CONCLUSION: This systematic review identified no instruments to measure knowledge about cancer screening where the measurement properties were sufficiently evaluated. There is a lack of focus on content validity and structural validity, and further validation of the instruments is needed. The results indicate a lack of shared understanding or agreement of what constitutes relevant knowledge about cancer screening.

The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Community Diagnostic Centres: A Rapid Review.

Objectives: To examine the effectiveness of community diagnostic centres as a potential solution to increasing capacity and reducing pressure on secondary care in the UK. Methods: A comprehensive search for relevant primary studies was conducted in a range of electronic sources in August 2022. Screening and critical appraisal were undertaken by two independent reviewers. There were no geographical restrictions or limits to year of publication. A narrative synthesis approach was used to analyse data and present findings. Results: Twenty primary studies evaluating twelve individual diagnostic centres were included. Most studies were specific to cancer diagnosis and evaluated diagnostic centres located within hospitals. The evidence of effectiveness appeared mixed. There is evidence to suggest diagnostic centres can reduce various waiting times and reduce pressure on secondary care. However, cost-effectiveness may depend on whether the diagnostic centre is running at full capacity. Most included studies used weak methodologies that may be inadequate to infer effectiveness. Conclusion: Further well-designed, quality research is needed to better understand the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of community diagnostic centres.

The quality of care delivered to residents in long-term care in Australia: an indicator-based review of resident records (CareTrack Aged study).

BACKGROUND: This study estimated the prevalence of evidence-based care received by a population-based sample of Australian residents in long-term care (LTC) aged ≥ 65 years in 2021, measured by adherence to clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations. METHODS: Sixteen conditions/processes of care amendable to estimating evidence-based care at a population level were identified from prevalence data and CPGs. Candidate recommendations (n = 5609) were extracted from 139 CPGs which were converted to indicators. National experts in each condition rated the indicators via the RAND-UCLA Delphi process. For the 16 conditions, 236 evidence-based care indicators were ratified. A multi-stage sampling of LTC facilities and residents was undertaken. Trained aged-care nurses then undertook manual structured record reviews of care delivered between 1 March and 31 May 2021 (our record review period) to assess adherence with the indicators. RESULTS: Care received by 294 residents with 27,585 care encounters in 25 LTC facilities was evaluated. Residents received care for one to thirteen separate clinical conditions/processes of care (median = 10, mean = 9.7). Adherence to evidence-based care indicators was estimated at 53.2% (95% CI: 48.6, 57.7) ranging from a high of 81.3% (95% CI: 75.6, 86.3) for Bladder and Bowel to a low of 12.2% (95% CI: 1.6, 36.8) for Depression. Six conditions (skin integrity, end-of-life care, infection, sleep, medication, and depression) had less than 50% adherence with indicators. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study of adherence to evidence-based care for people in LTC using multiple conditions and a standardised method. Vulnerable older people are not receiving evidence-based care for many physical problems, nor care to support their mental health nor for end-of-life care. The six conditions in which adherence with indicators was less than 50% could be the focus of improvement efforts.

Long-term risk prediction after major lower limb amputation: 1-year results of the PERCEIVE study.

BACKGROUND: Decision-making when considering major lower limb amputation is complex and requires individualized outcome estimation. It is unknown how accurate healthcare professionals or relevant outcome prediction tools are at predicting outcomes at 1-year after major lower limb amputation. METHODS: An international, multicentre prospective observational study evaluating healthcare professional accuracy in predicting outcomes 1 year after major lower limb amputation and evaluation of relevant outcome prediction tools identified in a systematic search of the literature was undertaken. Observed outcomes at 1 year were compared with: healthcare professionals' preoperative predictions of death (surgeons and anaesthetists), major lower limb amputation revision (surgeons) and ambulation (surgeons, specialist physiotherapists and vascular nurse practitioners); and probabilities calculated from relevant outcome prediction tools. RESULTS: A total of 537 patients and 2244 healthcare professional predictions of outcomes were included. Surgeons and anaesthetists had acceptable discrimination (C-statistic = 0.715), calibration and overall performance (Brier score = 0.200) when predicting 1-year death, but performed worse when predicting major lower limb amputation revision and ambulation (C-statistics = 0.627 and 0.662 respectively). Healthcare professionals overestimated the death and major lower limb amputation revision risks. Consultants outperformed trainees, especially when predicting ambulation. Allied healthcare professionals marginally outperformed surgeons in predicting ambulation. Two outcome prediction tools (C-statistics = 0.755 and 0.717, Brier scores = 0.158 and 0.178) outperformed healthcare professionals' discrimination, calibration and overall performance in predicting death. Two outcome prediction tools for ambulation (C-statistics = 0.688 and 0.667) marginally outperformed healthcare professionals. CONCLUSION: There is uncertainty in predicting 1-year outcomes following major lower limb amputation. Different professional groups performed comparably in this study. Two outcome prediction tools for death and two for ambulation outperformed healthcare professionals and may support shared decision-making.

Effectiveness and safety of asynchronous telemedicine consultations in general practice: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is a focus on increasing asynchronous telemedicine use, which allows medical data to be transmitted, stored, and interpreted later; however, limited evidence of the quality of care it allows in general practice hinders its use. AIM: To investigate uses and effectiveness of asynchronous telemedicine in general practice, according to the domains of healthcare quality, and describe how the COVID-19 pandemic changed its use. DESIGN & SETTING: Systematic review in general practice. METHOD: A systematic search was carried out across four databases using terms related to general practice, asynchronous telemedicine, uses, and effectiveness, and supported by citation searching. This was followed by screening according to pre-defined criteria, data extraction, and critical appraisal. Narrative synthesis was then undertaken guided by the six domains of healthcare quality and exploring differences in use before and following the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Searches yielded 6864 reports; 27 reports from 23 studies were included. Asynchronous telemedicine is used by a range of staff and patients across many countries. Safety and equity are poorly reported but there were no major safety concerns. Evidence from other domains of healthcare quality show effectiveness in making diagnoses, prescribing medications, replacing other consultations, providing timely care, and increased convenience for patients. Efficiency is impacted by negative effects on workflow, through poor implementation and patient non-adherence, limiting usability and requiring new administrative approaches from healthcare staff. Asynchronous telemedicine use increased rapidly from March 2020, following the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. CONCLUSION: Asynchronous telemedicine provides quality care for patients but is limited by reports of increased workload and inefficient workflow compared with face-to-face consultations. Limits of evidence include heterogeneity and small-scale studies. Further research into cost-effectiveness, equity, safety, and sustained implementation will influence future policy and practice.

Dimensions of equality in uptake of COVID-19 vaccination in Wales, UK: A multivariable linked data population analysis.

Vaccination has proven to be effective at preventing severe outcomes of COVID-19 infection, and uptake in the population has been high in Wales. However, there is a risk that high-level vaccination coverage statistics may mask hidden inequalities in under-served populations, many of whom may be at increased risk of severe outcomes of COVID-19 infection. The study population included 1,436,229 individuals aged 18 years and over, alive and residence in Wales as at 31st July 2022, and excluded immunosuppressed or care home residents. We compared people who had received one or more vaccinations to those with no vaccination using linked data from nine datasets within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank. Multivariable analysis was undertaken to determine the impact of a range of sociodemographic characteristics on vaccination uptake, including ethnicity, country of birth, severe mental illness, homelessness and substance use. We found that overall uptake of first dose of COVID-19 vaccination was high in Wales (92.1 %), with the highest among those aged 80 years and over and females. Those aged under 40 years, household composition (aOR 0.38 95 %CI 0.35-0.41 for 10+ size household compared to two adult household) and being born outside the UK (aOR 0.44 95 %CI 0.43-0.46) had the strongest negative associations with vaccination uptake. This was followed by a history of substance misuse (aOR 0.45 95 %CI 0.44-0.46). Despite high-level population coverage in Wales, significant inequalities remain across several underserved groups. Factors associated with vaccination uptake should not be considered in isolation, to avoid drawing incorrect conclusions. Ensuring equitable access to vaccination is essential to protecting under-served groups from COVID-19 and further work needs to be done to address these gaps in coverage, with focus on tailored vaccination pathways and advocacy, using trusted partners and communities.

The cost of implementing the COVID-19 shielding policy in Wales.

BACKGROUND: The EVITE Immunity study investigated the effects of shielding Clinically Extremely Vulnerable (CEV) people during the COVID-19 pandemic on health outcomes and healthcare costs in Wales, United Kingdom, to help prepare for future pandemics. Shielding was intended to protect those at highest risk of serious harm from COVID-19. We report the cost of implementing shielding in Wales. METHODS: The number of people shielding was extracted from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank. Resources supporting shielding between March and June 2020 were mapped using published reports, web pages, freedom of information requests to Welsh Government and personal communications (e.g. with the office of the Chief Medical Officer for Wales). RESULTS: At the beginning of shielding, 117,415 people were on the shielding list. The total additional cost to support those advised to stay home during the initial 14 weeks of the pandemic was £13,307,654 (£113 per person shielded). This included the new resources required to compile the shielding list, inform CEV people of the shielding intervention and provide medicine and food deliveries. The list was adjusted weekly over the 3-month period (130,000 people identified by June 2020). Therefore the cost per person shielded lies between £102 and £113 per person. CONCLUSION: This is the first evaluation of the cost of the measures put in place to support those identified to shield in Wales. However, no data on opportunity cost was available. The true costs of shielding including its budget impact and opportunity costs need to be investigated to decide whether shielding is a worthwhile policy for future health emergencies.

Impact of an in-consult patient decision aid on treatment choices and outcomes of management for patients with an endoscopically resected malignant colorectal polyp: a study protocol for a non-randomised clinical phase II study.

INTRODUCTION: Management of an endoscopically resected malignant colorectal polyps can be challenging due to the risk of residual tumour and lymphatic spread. International studies have shown, that of those choosing surgical management instead of surveillance strategy, there are between 54% and 82% of bowel resections without evidence of residual tumour or lymphatic spread. As surgical management entails risks of complications and surveillance strategy entails risks of residual tumour or recurrence, a clinical dilemma arises when choosing a management strategy. Shared decision-making is a concept that can be used in preference-sensitive decision-making to facilitate patient involvement and empowerment to facilitate active patient participation in the decision-making process. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study protocol describes our clinical multi-institutional, non-randomised, interventional phase II study at Danish surgical departments planned to commence in the second quarter of 2024. The aim of this study is to examine whether shared decision-making and using a patient decision aid in consultations affect patients' choice of management, comparing with retrospective data. The secondary aim is to investigate patients' experiences, perceived involvement, satisfaction, decision conflict and other outcomes using questionnaire feedback directly from the patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: There are no conflicts of interest for principal or local investigators in any of the study sites. All results will be published at Danish and international meetings, and in English language scientific peer-reviewed journals. Our study underwent evaluation by the Regional Committees on Health Research Ethics for Southern Denmark (file number 20232000-47), concluding that formal approval was not required for this kind of research. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05776381.

The Impact of Being Homeless on the Clinical Outcomes of COVID-19: Systematic Review.

Objective: The homeless population experiences inequality in health compared with the general population, which may have widened during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the impact of being homeless on the outcomes of COVID-19 is uncertain. This systematic review aimed to analyse the impact of experiencing homelessness on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19, including the effects on health inequalities. Methods: A review protocol was developed and registered in PROSPERO (PROSPERO registration 2022 CRD42022304941). Nine databases were searched in November 2022 to identify studies on homeless populations which contained primary research on the following outcomes of COVID-19: incidence, hospitalisation, mortality, long COVID, mental wellbeing, and evidence of inequalities. Included studies were summarised with narrative synthesis. Results: The searches yielded 8,233 initial hits; after screening, 41 studies were included. Overall, evidence showed that those in crowded living settings had a higher risk of COVID-19 infection compared to rough sleepers and the general population. The homeless population had higher rates of hospitalisation and mortality than the general population, lower vaccination rates, and suffered negative mental health impacts. Conclusion: This systematic review shows the homeless population is more susceptible to COVID-19 outcomes. Further research is needed to determine the actual impact of the pandemic on this population, and of interventions to mitigate overall risk, given the low certainty of findings from some of the low-quality evidence available. In addition, further research is required to ascertain the impact of long COVID on those experiencing homelessness, since the present review yielded no studies on this topic.

Analysis of applying a patient safety taxonomy to patient and clinician-reported incident reports during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in major disruption to healthcare delivery worldwide causing medical services to adapt their standard practices. Learning how these adaptations result in unintended patient harm is essential to mitigate against future incidents. Incident reporting and learning system data can be used to identify areas to improve patient safety. A classification system is required to make sense of such data to identify learning and priorities for further in-depth investigation. The Patient Safety (PISA) classification system was created for this purpose, but it is not known if classification systems are sufficient to capture novel safety concepts arising from crises like the pandemic. We aimed to review the application of the PISA classification system during the COVID-19 pandemic to appraise whether modifications were required to maintain its meaningful use for the pandemic context. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study integrating two phases in an exploratory, sequential design. This included a comparative secondary analysis of patient safety incident reports from two studies conducted during the first wave of the pandemic, where we coded patient-reported incidents from the UK and clinician-reported incidents from France. The findings were presented to a focus group of experts in classification systems and patient safety, and a thematic analysis was conducted on the resultant transcript. RESULTS: We identified five key themes derived from the data analysis and expert group discussion. These included capitalising on the unique perspective of safety concerns from different groups, that existing frameworks do identify priority areas to investigate further, the objectives of a study shape the data interpretation, the pandemic spotlighted long-standing patient concerns, and the time period in which data are collected offers valuable context to aid explanation. The group consensus was that no COVID-19-specific codes were warranted, and the PISA classification system was fit for purpose. CONCLUSIONS: We have scrutinised the meaningful use of the PISA classification system's application during a period of systemic healthcare constraint, the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite these constraints, we found the framework can be successfully applied to incident reports to enable deductive analysis, identify areas for further enquiry and thus support organisational learning. No new or amended codes were warranted. Organisations and investigators can use our findings when reviewing their own classification systems.

Communication to promote and support physical distancing for COVID-19 prevention and control.

BACKGROUND: This review is an update of a rapid review undertaken in 2020 to identify relevant, feasible and effective communication approaches to promote acceptance, uptake and adherence to physical distancing measures for COVID-19 prevention and control. The rapid review was published when little was known about transmission, treatment or future vaccination, and when physical distancing measures (isolation, quarantine, contact tracing, crowd avoidance, work and school measures) were the cornerstone of public health responses globally. This updated review includes more recent evidence to extend what we know about effective pandemic public health communication. This includes considerations of changes needed over time to maintain responsiveness to pandemic transmission waves, the (in)equities and variable needs of groups within communities due to the pandemic, and highlights again the critical role of effective communication as integral to the public health response. OBJECTIVES: To update the evidence on the question 'What are relevant, feasible and effective communication approaches to promote acceptance, uptake and adherence to physical distancing measures for COVID-19 prevention and control?', our primary focus was communication approaches to promote and support acceptance, uptake and adherence to physical distancing. SECONDARY OBJECTIVE: to explore and identify key elements of effective communication for physical distancing measures for different (diverse) populations and groups. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases from inception, with searches for this update including the period 1 January 2020 to 18 August 2021. Systematic review and study repositories and grey literature sources were searched in August 2021 and guidelines identified for the eCOVID19 Recommendations Map were screened (November 2021). SELECTION CRITERIA: Guidelines or reviews focusing on communication (information, education, reminders, facilitating decision-making, skills acquisition, supporting behaviour change, support, involvement in decision-making) related to physical distancing measures for prevention and/or control of COVID-19 or selected other diseases (sudden acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), influenza, Ebola virus disease (EVD) or tuberculosis (TB)) were included. New evidence was added to guidelines, reviews and primary studies included in the 2020 review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Methods were based on the original rapid review, using methods developed by McMaster University and informed by Cochrane rapid review guidance. Screening, data extraction, quality assessment and synthesis were conducted by one author and checked by a second author. Synthesis of results was conducted using modified framework analysis, with themes from the original review used as an initial framework. MAIN RESULTS: This review update includes 68 studies, with 17 guidelines and 20 reviews added to the original 31 studies. Synthesis identified six major themes, which can be used to inform policy and decision-making related to planning and implementing communication about a public health emergency and measures to protect the community. Theme 1: Strengthening public trust and countering misinformation: essential foundations for effective public health communication Recognising the key role of public trust is essential. Working to build and maintain trust over time underpins the success of public health communications and, therefore, the effectiveness of public health prevention measures. Theme 2: Two-way communication: involving communities to improve the dissemination, accessibility and acceptability of information Two-way communication (engagement) with the public is needed over the course of a public health emergency: at first, recognition of a health threat (despite uncertainties), and regularly as public health measures are introduced or adjusted. Engagement needs to be embedded at all stages of the response and inform tailoring of communications and implementation of public health measures over time. Theme 3: Development of and preparation for public communication: target audience, equity and tailoring Communication and information must be tailored to reach all groups within populations, and explicitly consider existing inequities and the needs of disadvantaged groups, including those who are underserved, vulnerable, from diverse cultural or language groups, or who have lower educational attainment. Awareness that implementing public health measures may magnify existing or emerging inequities is also needed in response planning, enactment and adjustment over time. Theme 4: Public communication features: content, timing and duration, delivery Public communication needs to be based on clear, consistent, actionable and timely (up-to-date) information about preventive measures, including the benefits (whether for individual, social groupings or wider society), harms (likewise) and rationale for use, and include information about supports available to help follow recommended measures. Communication needs to occur through multiple channels and/or formats to build public trust and reach more of the community. Theme 5: Supporting behaviour change at individual and population levels Supporting implementation of public health measures with practical supports and services (e.g. essential supplies, financial support) is critical. Information about available supports must be widely disseminated and well understood. Supports and communication related to them require flexibility and tailoring to explicitly consider community needs, including those of vulnerable groups. Proactively monitoring and countering stigma related to preventive measures (e.g. quarantine) is also necessary to support adherence. Theme 6: Fostering and sustaining receptiveness and responsiveness to public health communication Efforts to foster and sustain public receptiveness and responsiveness to public health communication are needed throughout a public health emergency. Trust, acceptance and behaviours change over time, and communication needs to be adaptive and responsive to these changing needs. Ongoing community engagement efforts should inform communication and public health response measures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Implications for practice Evidence highlights the critical role of communication throughout a public health emergency. Like any intervention, communication can be done well or poorly, but the consequences of poor communication during a pandemic may mean the difference between life and death. The approaches to effective communication identified in this review can be used by policymakers and decision-makers, working closely with communication teams, to plan, implement and adjust public communications over the course of a public health emergency like the COVID-19 pandemic. Implications for research Despite massive growth in research during the COVID-19 period, gaps in the evidence persist and require high-quality, meaningful research. This includes investigating the experiences of people at heightened COVID-19 risk, and identifying barriers to implementing public communication and protective health measures particular to lower- and middle-income countries, and how to overcome these.

Rationale for the shielding policy for clinically vulnerable people in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Shielding aimed to protect those predicted to be at highest risk from COVID-19 and was uniquely implemented in the UK during the first year of the pandemic from March 2020. As the first stage in the EVITE Immunity evaluation (Effects of shielding for vulnerable people during COVID-19 pandemic on health outcomes, costs and immunity, including those with cancer:quasi-experimental evaluation), we generated a logic model to describe the programme theory underlying the shielding intervention. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed published documentation on shielding to develop an initial draft of the logic model. We then discussed this draft during interviews with 13 key stakeholders involved in putting shielding into effect in Wales and England. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically to inform a final draft of the logic model. RESULTS: The shielding intervention was a complex one, introduced at pace by multiple agencies working together. We identified three core components: agreement on clinical criteria; development of the list of people appropriate for shielding; and communication of shielding advice. In addition, there was a support programme, available as required to shielding people, including food parcels, financial support and social support. The predicted mechanism of change was that people would isolate themselves and so avoid infection, with the primary intended outcome being reduction in mortality in the shielding group. Unintended impacts included negative impact on mental and physical health and well-being. Details of the intervention varied slightly across the home nations of the UK and were subject to minor revisions during the time the intervention was in place. CONCLUSIONS: Shielding was a largely untested strategy, aiming to mitigate risk by placing a responsibility on individuals to protect themselves. The model of its rationale, components and outcomes (intended and unintended) will inform evaluation of the impact of shielding and help us to understand its effect and limitations.