An evaluation of the national testing response during the COVID-19 pandemic in England: a multistage mixed-methods study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: In 2020, the UK government established a large-scale testing programme to rapidly identify individuals in England who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and had COVID-19. This comprised part of the UK government's COVID-19 response strategy, to protect those at risk of severe COVID-19 disease and death and to reduce the burden on the health system. To assess the success of this approach, the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) commissioned an independent evaluation of the activities delivered by the National Health System testing programme in England. The primary purpose of this evaluation will be to capture key learnings from the roll-out of testing to different target populations via various testing services between October 2020 and March 2022 and to use these insights to formulate recommendations for future pandemic preparedness strategy. In this protocol, we detail the rationale, approach and study design. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The proposed study involves a stepwise mixed-methods approach, aligned with established methods for the evaluation of complex interventions in health, to retrospectively assess the combined impact of key asymptomatic and symptomatic testing services nationally. The research team will first develop a theory of change, formulated in collaboration with testing service stakeholders, to understand the causal pathways and intended and unintended outcomes of each testing service and explore contextual impacts on each testing service's intended outcomes. Insights gained will help identify indicators to evaluate how the combined aims of the testing programme were achieved, using a mixed-methods approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was granted ethics approval by the UKHSA Research Ethics and Governance Group (reference NR0347). All relevant ethics guidelines will be followed throughout. Findings arising from this evaluation will be used to inform lessons learnt and recommendations for UKHSA on appropriate pandemic preparedness testing programme designs; findings will also be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, a publicly available report to be published online and at academic conferences. The final report of findings from the evaluation will be used as part of a portfolio of evidence produced for the independent COVID-19 government inquiry in the UK. TRANSPARENCY DECLARATION: The lead author (the manuscript's guarantor) affirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate and transparent account of the study being reported; no important aspects of the study have been omitted, and any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained.

Decision to self-isolate during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: a rapid scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Testing for COVID-19 was a key component of the UK's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This strategy relied on positive individuals self-isolating to reduce transmission, making isolation the lynchpin in the public health approach. Therefore, we scoped evidence to systematically identify and categorise barriers and facilitators to compliance with self-isolation guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK, to inform public health strategies in future pandemics. DESIGN: A rapid scoping review was conducted. SEARCH STRATEGY: Key terms were used to search literature databases (PubMed, Scopus and the WHO COVID-19 Research Database, on 7 November 2022), Google Scholar and stakeholder-identified manuscripts, ultimately including evidence published in English from UK-based studies conducted between 2020 and 2022. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted and synthesised into themes, organised broadly into capability, opportunity and motivation, and reviewed with key stakeholders from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA). RESULTS: We included 105 sources, with 63 identified from UKHSA and used to inform their decision-making during the pandemic. Influences on the decision to comply with isolation guidance were categorised into six themes: perceived ability to isolate; information and guidance; logistics; social influences, including trust; perceived value; and perceived consequences. Individuals continuously assessed these factors in deciding whether or not to comply with guidance and self-isolate. CONCLUSIONS: Decisions to self-isolate after a positive test were influenced by multiple factors, including individuals' beliefs, concerns, priorities and personal circumstances. Future testing strategies must facilitate meaningful financial, practical and mental health support to allow individuals to overcome the perceived and actual negative consequences of isolating. Clear, consistent communication of the purpose and procedures of isolating will also be critical to support compliance with self-isolation guidance, and should leverage people's perceived value in protecting others. Building public trust is also essential, but requires investment before the next pandemic starts.

Prioritising 'already-scarce' intensive care unit resources in the midst of COVID-19: a call for regional triage committees in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: The worsening COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa poses multiple challenges for clinical decision making in the context of already-scarce ICU resources. Data from national government and the last published national audit of ICU resources indicate gross shortages. While the Critical Care Society of Southern Africa (CCSSA) guidelines provide a comprehensive guideline for triage in the face of overwhelmed ICU resources, such decisions present massive ethical and moral dilemmas for triage teams. It is therefore important for the health system to provide clinicians and critical care facilities with as much support and resources as possible in the face of impending pandemic demand. Following a discussion of the ethical considerations and potential challenges in applying the CCSSA guidelines, the authors propose a framework for regional triage committees adapted to the South African context. DISCUSSION: Beyond the national CCSSA guidelines, the clinician has many additional ethical and clinical considerations. No single ethical approach to decision-making is sufficient, instead one which considers multiple contextual factors is necessary. Scores such as the Clinical Frailty Score and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment are of limited use in patients with COVID-19. Furthermore, the clinician is fully justified in withdrawing ICU care based on medical futility decisions and to reallocate this resource to a patient with a better prognosis. However, these decisions bear heavy emotional and moral burden compounded by the volume of clinical work and a fear of litigation. CONCLUSION: We propose the formation of Provincial multi-disciplinary Critical Care Triage Committees to alleviate the emotional, moral and legal burden on individual ICU teams and co-ordinate inter-facility collaboration using an adapted framework. The committee would provide an impartial, broader and ethically-sound viewpoint which has time to consider broader contextual factors such as adjusting rationing criteria according to different levels of pandemic demand and the latest clinical evidence. Their functioning will be strengthened by direct feedback to national level and accountability to a national monitoring committee. The potential applications of these committees are far-reaching and have the potential to enable a more effective COVID-19 health systems response in South Africa.