Search

In the recent COVID-19 pandemic, a wide range of epidemiological modelling approaches were used to predict the effective reproduction number, R(t), and other COVID-19-related measures such as the daily rate of exponential growth, r(t). These candidate models use different modelling approaches or differing assumptions about spatial or age-mixing, and some capture genuine uncertainty in scientific understanding of disease dynamics. Combining estimates using appropriate statistical methodology from multiple candidate models is important to better understand the variation of these outcome measures to help inform decision-making. In this paper, we combine estimates for specific UK nations/regions using random-effects meta-analyses techniques, utilising the restricted maximum-likelihood (REML) method to estimate the heterogeneity variance parameter, and two approaches to calculate the confidence interval for the combined estimate: the standard Wald-type and the Knapp and Hartung (KNHA) method. As estimates in this setting are derived using model predictions, each with varying degrees of uncertainty, equal-weighting is favoured over the standard inverse-variance weighting to avoid potential up-weighting of models providing estimates with lower levels of uncertainty that are not fully accounting for inherent uncertainties. Both equally-weighted models using REML alone and REML+KNHA approaches were found to provide similar variation for R(t) and r(t), with both approaches providing wider, and therefore more conservative, confidence intervals around the combined estimate compared to the standard inverse-variance weighting approach. Utilising these meta-analysis techniques has allowed for statistically robust combined estimates to be calculated for key COVID-19 outcome measures. This in turn allows timely and informed decision-making based on all available information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Successful adoption of POCTs (Point-of-Care tests) for COVID-19 in care homes requires the identification of ideal use cases and a full understanding of the contextual and usability factors that affect test results and minimise biosafety risks. This paper presents a scoping-usability and test performance study of a microfluidic immunofluorescence assay for COVID-19 in care homes. Methods: A mixed-methods evaluation was conducted in four UK care homes to scope usability and to assess the agreement with qRT-PCR. A dry run with luminescent dye was conducted to explore biosafety issues. Results: The agreement analysis was conducted on 227 asymptomatic participants (159 staff and 68 residents) and 14 symptomatic participants (5 staff and 9 residents). Asymptomatic specimens showed 50% (95% CI:1.3%−98.7%) positive agreement and 96% (95% CI: 92.5%−98.1%) negative agreement with overall prevalence and bias-adjusted Kappa (PABAK) of 0.911 (95% CI: 0.857−0.965). Symptomatic specimens showed 83.3% (95% CI: 35.9%−99.6%) positive agreement and 100% (95% CI: 63.1%−100%) negative agreement with overall prevalence and bias-adjusted Kappa (PABAK) of 0.857 (95% CI: 0.549−1). The dry run highlighted four main sources of contamination that led to the modification of the standard operating procedures. Simulation post-modification showed no further evidence of contamination. Conclusion: Careful consideration of biosafety issues and contextual factors associated with care home are mandatory for safe use the POCT. Whilst POCT may have some utility for ruling out COVID-19, further diagnostic accuracy evaluations are needed to promote effective adoption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Palliative medicine physicians may be at higher risk of burnout due to increased stressors and compromised resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Burnout prevalence and factors influencing this among UK and Irish palliative medicine physicians is unknown. Aim: To determine the prevalence of burnout and the degree of resilience among UK and Irish palliative medicine physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic, and associated factors. Design: Online survey using validated assessment scales assessed burnout and resilience: The Maslach Burnout Inventory Human Services Survey for Medical Personnel [MBI-HSS (MP)] and the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Additional tools assessed depressive symptoms, alcohol use, and quality of life. Setting/participants: Association of Palliative Medicine of UK and Ireland members actively practising in hospital, hospice or community settings. Results: There were 544 respondents from the 815 eligible participants (66.8%), 462 provided complete MBI-HSS (MP) data and were analysed. Of those 181/462 (39.2%) met burnout criteria, based on high emotional exhaustion or depersonalisation subscales of the MBI-HSS (MP). A reduced odds of burnout was observed among physicians who worked ⩽20 h/week (vs 31–40 h/week, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.002–0.56) and who had a greater perceived level of clinical support (aOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62–0.80). Physicians with higher levels of depressive symptoms had higher odds of burnout (aOR 18.32, 95% CI 6.75–49.73). Resilience, mean (SD) CD-RISC score, was lower in physicians who met burnout criteria compared to those who did not (62.6 (11.1) vs 70.0 (11.3); p < 0.001). Conclusions: Over one-third of palliative medicine physicians meet burnout criteria. The provision of enhanced organisational and colleague support is paramount in both the current and future pandemics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Experiences of end-of-life care and early bereavement during the COVID-19 pandemic are poorly understood. Aim: To identify clinical and demographic risk factors for sub-optimal end-of-life care and pandemic-related challenges prior to death and in early bereavement, to inform clinical practice, policy and bereavement support. Design: Online national survey of adults bereaved in the UK (deaths between 16 March 2020 and 2 January 2021), recruited via media, social media, national associations and organisations. Setting/participants: 711 participants, mean age 49.5 (SD 12.9, range 18–90). 628 (88.6%) were female. Mean age of the deceased was 72.2 (SD 16.1, range miscarriage to 102 years). 311 (43.8%) deaths were from confirmed/suspected COVID-19. Results: Deaths in hospital/care home increased the likelihood of poorer experiences at the end of life; for example, being unable to visit or say goodbye as wanted (p < 0.001). COVID-19 was also associated with worse experiences before and after death; for example, feeling unsupported by healthcare professionals (p < 0.001), social isolation/loneliness (OR = 0.439; 95% CI: 0.261–0.739), and limited contact with relatives/friends (OR = 0.465; 95% CI: 0.254–0.852). Expected deaths were associated with a higher likelihood of positive end-of-life care experiences. The deceased being a partner or child also increased the likelihood of positive experiences, however being a bereaved partner strongly increased odds of social isolation/loneliness, for example, OR = 0.092 (95% CI: 0.028–0.297) partner versus distant family member. Conclusions: Four clear risk factors were found for poorer end-of-life care and pandemic-related challenges in bereavement: place, cause and expectedness of death, and relationship to the deceased. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding impact of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) on Adolescents and Young Adults (AYA) with cancer is important to inform care. Online survey of 16–24 year olds receiving cancer treatment at eight cancer centres in the UK. We measured: self-perceived increased anxiety since COVID-19, impact of COVID-19 on treatment, life and relationships, PHQ-8, GAD and the two-item Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). 112 AYA participated. 59.8% had previous mental health difficulties. 78.6% reported COVID-19 having a significant impact on life. 79% reported experiencing increased anxiety since COVID-19.43.4% had moderate-severe PHQ-8 scores and 37.1% GADS-7 scores. Impact on life was associated with moderate-severe PHQ-8 scores (OR 5.23, 95% CI 1.65–16.56, p < 0.01), impact on relationships with moderate-severe GADS-7 and PHQ-8 score (OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.11–7.54, p = 0,03; OR 3.54, 95% CI 2.32–15.17, p < 0.01; OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.11–5.25, p =0.03). Greater resilience was associated with lower mod-severe GADS-7and PHQ-8 scores (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.41–0.81, p < 0.01; OR 0.55 95% CI 0.4–0.72, p < 0.01; OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38–0.69, p < 0.01). We found high levels of psychological distress. Perceived impact of COVID-19 on relationships and life was predictive of poorer mental health, with resilience a protective factor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the safety, utilization, ability to reduce length of hospitalization and overall outcomes of a COVID-19 virtual ward providing ongoing treatment at home. Method: A retrospective single-center study of patients discharged to the COVID-19 virtual "step down" ward between January 27th 2021 and March 2nd 2021. The referral process, length of hospitalization, length of stay on the virtual ward, readmissions, and ongoing treatment requirements including supplemental oxygen, antibiotics, and/or steroids were all noted. Results: A total of 50 patients were referred to the virtual ward. 43 referrals were accepted, 39 of which were from the respiratory ward. Four patients were readmitted, all due to hypoxia. All readmissions occurred within 5 days of discharge. 72% (n = 31) were discharged home with an ongoing oxygen requirement. 14.3% of patients were discharged with antibiotics only, 9.5% with steroids only and 23.8% with both antibiotics and steroids. The mean length of hospital stay for patients discharged to the virtual ward was 10.3 ± 9.7 days and 11.9 ± 11.6 days for all covid positive patients during this time. On average, patients spent 13.7 ± 7.3 days on the virtual ward. The average number of days spent on oxygen on the virtual ward was 11.6 ± 6.0 days. Conclusion: The virtual ward model exemplifies the potential benefits of collaborative working between primary and secondary care services, relieving pressure on hospitals whilst providing ongoing treatments at home such as supplemental oxygen. It also facilitates an early supported discharge of clinically stable patients with an improving clinical trajectory by managing them in the community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Understanding patterns of mortality and place of death during the COVID-19 pandemic is important to help provide appropriate services and resources. Aims: To analyse patterns of mortality including place of death in the United Kingdom (UK) (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) during the COVID-19 pandemic to date. Design: Descriptive analysis of UK mortality data between March 2020 and March 2021. Weekly number of deaths was described by place of death, using the following definitions: (1) expected deaths: average expected deaths estimated using historical data (2015–19); (2) COVID-19 deaths: where COVID-19 is mentioned on the death certificate; (3) additional non-COVID-19 deaths: above expected but not attributed to COVID-19; (4) baseline deaths: up to and including expected deaths but excluding COVID-19 deaths. Results: During the analysis period, 798,643 deaths were registered in the UK, of which 147,282 were COVID-19 deaths and 17,672 were additional non-COVID-19 deaths. While numbers of people who died in care homes and hospitals increased above expected only during the pandemic waves, the numbers of people who died at home remained above expected both during and between the pandemic waves, with an overall increase of 41%. Conclusions: Where people died changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, with an increase in deaths at home during and between pandemic waves. This has implications for planning and organisation of palliative care and community services. The extent to which these changes will persist longer term remains unclear. Further research could investigate whether this is reflected in other countries with high COVID-19 mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Day care services support older people living with long-term conditions (LTC's). Aims: The aims of the study were to determine outcomes in terms of loneliness and health-related quality of life for older people with LTCs attending day care services in the United Kingdom. Methods: Newly referred older people with LTCs to day care services in North West of England and Wales were invited to participate. The EQ-5D-3L and De Jong Loneliness questionnaires were completed at recruitment, 6 and 12 weeks. Results: Ninty-four older people (64% female), age range 65–99 years; mean number of LTCs 4.3 (range: 2–9) were recruited. About 52% lived alone and 36% lived in one of the 20% most deprived local authorities in England and Wales. Outcomes over 12 weeks were comparable for paid, blended, and for volunteer-led services. Conclusion: Following the Covid-19 pandemic, it is increasingly urgent to support older people with LTCs who may have lost physical and cognitive function during lockdown and to support their recovery. Our study suggests that volunteers can provide services and complement the care provided by paid staff, freeing up resources and enabling increasing numbers of older people to be supported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]