RESUMO
Background and aimLong Covid is a significant public health concern with potentially negative implications for health inequalities. We know that those who are already socially disadvantaged in society are more exposed to COVID-19, experience the worst health outcomes and are more likely to suffer economically. We also know that these groups are more likely to experience stigma and discrimination and have negative healthcare experiences even before the pandemic. However, little is known about disadvantaged groups experiences of Long Covid and preliminary evidence suggests they may be under-represented in those who access formal care. We will conduct a pilot study in a defined geographical area (Camden, London, UK) to test the feasibility of a community-based approach of identifying Long Covid cases that have not been formally clinically diagnosed and have not been referred to Long Covid Specialist services. We will explore the barriers to accessing recognition, care and support, as well as experiences of stigma and perceived discrimination. MethodsThis protocol and study materials were co-produced with a Community Advisory Board (CAB) made up primarily of people living with Long Covid. Working with voluntary organisations, promotional material are co-developed and will be distributed in the local community with engagement from key community organisations and leaders to highlight Long Covid symptoms and invite those experiencing them to participate in the study if they are not formally diagnosed and accessing care. Awareness of Long Covid and symptoms, experiences of trying to access care, as well as stigma and discrimination will be explored through qualitative interviews with participants. Upon completion of the interviews, participants will be offered referral to the local social prescribing team to receive support that is personalised to them potentially including, but not restricted to, liaising with their primary care provider and the regional Long Covid clinic run by University College London Hospitals (UCLH). Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been obtained from the Faculty of Medicine Ethics Committee and Research Integrity and Governance, University of Southampton. (reference number 72400). Findings will be reported in a report and submitted for peer-reviewed publication. Definitive methods of dissemination will be decided by the CAB. Summaries of the findings will also be shared on the STIMULATE-ICP website, locally in the study area and through social media. We will specifically target policy makers and those responsible for shaping and commissioning Long Covid healthcare services and social support such as NHSE England Long Covid Group.
RESUMO
IntroductionIndividuals with Long Covid represent a new and growing patient population. In England, fewer than 90 Long Covid clinics deliver assessment and treatment informed by NICE guidelines. However, a paucity of clinical trials or longitudinal cohort studies means that the epidemiology, clinical trajectory, healthcare utilisation and effectiveness of current Long Covid care are poorly documented, and that neither evidence-based treatments nor rehabilitation strategies exist. In addition, and in part due to pre-pandemic health inequalities, access to referral and care varies, and patient experience of the Long Covid care pathways can be poor. In a mixed methods study, we therefore aim to: (1) describe the usual healthcare, outcomes and resource utilisation of individuals with Long Covid; (2) assess the extent of inequalities in access to Long Covid care, and specifically to understand Long Covid patients experiences of stigma and discrimination. Methods and analysisA mixed methods study will address our aims. Qualitative data collection from patients and health professionals will be achieved through surveys, interviews and focus group discussions, to understand their experience and document the function of clinics. A patient cohort study will provide an understanding of outcomes and costs of care. Accessible data will be further analysed to understand the nature of Long Covid, and the care received. Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from South Central - Berkshire Research Ethics Committee (reference 303958). The dissemination plan will be decided by the patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group members and study Co-Is, but will target 1) policy makers, and those responsible for commissioning and delivering Long Covid services, 2) patients and the public, and 3) academics.
RESUMO
IntroductionAs mortality rates from COVID-19 disease fall, the high prevalence of long-term sequelae (Long COVID) is becoming increasingly widespread, challenging healthcare systems globally. Traditional pathways of care for Long Term Conditions (LTCs) have tended to be managed by disease-specific specialties, an approach that has been ineffective in delivering care for patients with multi-morbidity. The multi-system nature of Long COVID and its impact on physical and psychological health demands a more effective model of holistic, integrated care. The evolution of integrated care systems (ICSs) in the UK presents an important opportunity to explore areas of mutual benefit to LTC, multi-morbidity and Long COVID care. There may be benefits in comparing and contrasting ICPs for Long COVID with ICPs for other LTCs. Methods and analysisThis study aims to evaluate health services requirements for ICPs for Long COVID and their applicability to other LTCs including multi-morbidity and the overlap with medically not yet explained symptoms (MNYES). The study will follow a Delphi design and involve an expert panel of stakeholders including people with lived experience, as well as clinicians with expertise in Long COVID and other LTCs. Study processes will include expert panel and moderator panel meetings, surveys, and interviews. The Delphi process is part of the overall STIMULATE-ICP programme, aimed at improving integrated care for people with Long COVID. Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for this Delphi study has been obtained (Research Governance Board of the University of York) as have approvals for the other STIMULATE-ICP studies. Study outcomes are likely to inform policy for ICPs across LTCs. Results will be disseminated through scientific publication, conference presentation and communications with patients and stakeholders involved in care of other LTCs and Long COVID. RegistrationResearchregistry: https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry#home/registrationdetails/6246bfeeeaaed6001f08dadc/.
RESUMO
ImportanceMulti-organ impairment associated with Long COVID is a significant burden to individuals, populations and health systems, presenting challenges for diagnosis and care provision. Standardised assessment across multiple organs over time is lacking, particularly in non-hospitalised individuals. ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence of organ impairment in Long COVID patients at 6 and at 12 months after initial symptoms and to explore links to clinical presentation. DesignThis was a prospective, longitudinal study in individuals following recovery from acute COVID-19. We assessed symptoms, health status, and multi-organ tissue characterisation and function, using consensus definitions for single and multi-organ impairment. Physiological and biochemical investigations were performed at baseline on all individuals and those with organ impairment were reassessed, including multi-organ MRI, 6 months later. SettingTwo non-acute settings (Oxford and London). Participants536 individuals (mean 45 years, 73% female, 89% white, 32% healthcare workers, 13% acute COVID-19 hospitalisation) completed baseline assessment (median: 6 months post-COVID-19). 331 (62%) with organ impairment or incidental findings had follow up, with reduced symptom burden from baseline (median number of symptoms: 10 and 3, at 6 and 12 months). ExposureSARS-CoV-2 infection 6 months prior to first assessment. Main outcomePrevalence of single and multi-organ impairment at 6 and 12 months post-COVID-19. ResultsExtreme breathlessness (36% and 30%), cognitive dysfunction (50% and 38%) and poor health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L<0.7; 55% and 45%) were common at 6 and 12 months, and associated with female gender, younger age and single organ impairment. At baseline, there was fibro-inflammation in the heart (9%), pancreas (9%), kidney (15%) and liver (11%); increased volume in liver (7%), spleen (8%) and kidney (9%); decreased capacity in lungs (2%); and excessive fat deposition in the liver (25%) and pancreas (15%). Single and multi-organ impairment were present in 59% and 23% at baseline, persisting in 59% and 27% at follow-up. Conclusion and RelevanceOrgan impairment was present in 59% of individuals at 6 months post-COVID-19, persisting in 59% of those followed up at 1 year, with implications for symptoms, quality of life and longer-term health, signalling need for prevention and integrated care of Long COVID. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04369807 Key pointsO_LIQuestion: What is the prevalence of organ impairment in Long COVID at 6- and 12-months post-COVID-19? C_LIO_LIFindings: In a prospective study of 536 mainly non-hospitalised individuals, symptom burden decreased, but single organ impairment persisted in 59% at 12 months post-COVID-19. C_LIO_LIMeaning: Organ impairment in Long COVID has implications for symptoms, quality of life and longer-term health, signalling need for prevention and integrated care of Long COVID. C_LI
RESUMO
Background and aimDespite the significant mental health challenges the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated government measures have presented, research have shown that the majority of people have adapted and coped well. The aim of this study was i) to determine the proportion of people with mental stability and volatility during the pandemic in a North West urban environment sample and ii) to establish group differences in psychosocial variables. Mental stability and volatility refer to the extent to which individuals reported change in levels of common mental health symptoms over the course of 12 weeks. Methoda two-wave-online survey (N = 163) was used to explore the psychological and social impact of the pandemic on relatively disadvantaged neighbourhoods within the Liverpool City Region over 12 weeks. Kruskal-Wallis with post-hoc tests were used to determine how people with mental stability and volatility differed on factors categorised within an ecological framework of resilience (individual, community, societal, and COVID-19 specific). ResultsIndividuals categorised as stable in terms of mental health symptoms (63.6%) had better mental and physical health; were more tolerant of uncertainty; reported higher levels of resilience and wellbeing compared to very volatile people (19.8%). These individuals also reported feeling less socially isolated, experienced a greater sense of belonging to their community which was more likely to fulfil their needs, and were more likely to have access to green space nearby for their recommended daily exercise. Stable individuals did not report worrying any more during the pandemic than usual and tolerated uncertainty better compared to those in the volatile group. ImplicationsThe majority of participants in this sample were mentally stable and coping well with the challenges presented by the pandemic. The resilience of these individuals was related to key place-based factors such as a strong sense of community and useable local assets. The data showcase the role of place-based social determinants in supporting resilience and thereby highlight key preventative measures for public mental health during times of international crisis.
RESUMO
The aim of this research was to explore the impact of COVID-19 on the working practices of care home staff, caring for people living with dementia. Remote qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with care home staff caring for people living with dementia (PLWD) in the UK. Participants were recruited to the larger programme of research via convenience sampling. Interviews were conducted via telephone or online platforms. This research employed inductive thematic analysis. Sixteen care home staff were included in this study. Three overarching themes were developed from the analysis that conveyed changes to the everyday working practices of the care home workforce and the impact such changes posed to staff wellbeing: (1) Practical implications of working in a care home during the COVID-19 pandemic; (2); Staff values and changes to the staff roles (3): Impact to the care home staff and concerns for the care sector. The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted the daily working practices of care home staff, with staff forced to adopt additional roles on top of increased workloads to compensate for the loss of external agencies and support. Support and guidance must be offered urgently to inform care home staff on how to best adapt to their new working practices, ensuring that they are adequately trained.
RESUMO
BackgroundVaccination uptake in the UK and increased care home testing are likely affecting care home visitation. With scant scientific evidence to date, the aim of this longitudinal qualitative study was to explore the impact of both (vaccination and testing) on the conduct and experiences of care home visits. MethodsFamily carers of care home residents with dementia and care home staff from across the UK took part in baseline (October/November 2020) and follow-up interviews (March 2021). Public advisers were involved in all elements of the research. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. ResultsAcross 62 baseline and follow-up interviews with family carers (n=26; 11) and care home staff (n=16; 9), five core themes were developed: Delayed and inconsistent offers of face-to-face visits; Procedures and facilitation of visits; Frustration and anger among family carers; Variable uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine; Misinformation, education, and free choice. The variable uptake in staff, compared to family carers, was a key factor seemingly influencing visitation, with a lack of clear guidance leading care homes to implement infection control measures and visitation rights differently. ConclusionsWe make five recommendations in this paper to enable improved care home visitation in the ongoing, and in future, pandemics. Visits need to be enabled and any changes to visiting rights must be used as a last resort, reviewed regularly in consultation with residents and carers and restored as soon as possible as a top priority, whilst more education needs to be provided surrounding vaccination for care home staff.
