Search

Background: The global impact of COVID-19 has been profound, with efforts to manage and contain the virus placing increased pressure on healthcare systems and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in particular. There has been no previous review of studies investigating EMS interventions or experiences during pandemics. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and present published quantitative and qualitative evidence of EMS pandemic interventions, and how this translates into practice. Methods: Six electronic databases were searched from inception to July 2022, supplemented with internet searches and forward and backward citation tracking from included studies and review articles. A narrative synthesis of all eligible quantitative studies was performed and structured around the aims, key findings, as well as intervention type and content, where appropriate. Data from the qualitative studies were also synthesised narratively and presented thematically, according to their main aims and key findings. Results: The search strategy identified a total of 22,599 citations and after removing duplicates and excluding citations based on title and abstract, and full text screening, 90 studies were included. The quantitative narrative synthesis included seven overarching themes, describing EMS pandemic preparedness plans and interventions implemented in response to pandemics. The qualitative data synthesis included five themes, detailing the EMS workers' experiences of providing care during pandemics, their needs and their suggestions for best practices moving forward. Conclusions: Despite concerns for their own and their families' safety and the many challenges they are faced with, especially their knowledge, training, lack of appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and constant protocol changes, EMS personnel were willing and prepared to report for duty during pandemics. Participants also made recommendations for future outbreak response, which should be taken into consideration in order for EMS to cope with the current pandemic and to better prepare to respond to any future ones. Trial registration: The review protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework (osf.io/2pcy7). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A protocol for the e-Delphi consensus study [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Guillain‐Barré syndrome (GBS) is a rare inflammatory peripheral nerve disorder with variable recovery. Evidence is lacking on experiences of people with GBS and measurement of these experiences. Objective: We aimed to develop and validate an instrument to measure experiences of people with GBS. Design: We used a cross‐sectional design and online self‐administered questionnaire survey. Question domains, based on a previous systematic review and qualitative study, covered experiences of GBS, symptom severity at each stage, healthcare and factors supporting or hindering recovery. Descriptive, exploratory factor and reliability analyses and multivariable regression analysis were used to investigate the relationships between variables of interest, explore questionnaire reliability and validity and identify factors predicting recovery. Setting and Participants: People with a previous diagnosis of GBS were recruited through a social media advert. Results: A total of 291 responders, of different sexes, and marital statuses, were included, with most diagnosed between 2015 and 2019. Factor analysis showed four scales: symptoms, information provided, factors affecting recovery and care received. Positive social interactions, physical activity including physiotherapy and movement, changes made at home and immunoglobulin treatment were important for recovery. Multivariable models showed that immunoglobulin and/or plasma exchange were significant predictors of recovery. Employment and recovery factors (positive interactions, work support and changes at work or home, physical activity and therapy), though associated with recovery, did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion: The questionnaire demonstrated good internal reliability of scales and subscales and construct validity for people following GBS. Patient Contribution: Patients were involved in developing and piloting the questionnaire. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background the perceptions and experiences of care home residents and their families are important for understanding and improving the quality of emergency care. Methods we conducted a systematic review and metasynthesis to understand the perceptions and experiences of care home residents and their family members who experienced medical emergencies in a care home setting. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020167018). We searched five electronic databases, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO, supplemented with internet searches and forward and backward citation tracking from included studies and review articles. Data were synthesised thematically following the Thomas and Harden approach. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist was used to assess the quality of studies included in this review. Results of the 6,140 references retrieved, 10 studies from four countries (Australia, Canada, UK and USA) were included in the review and metasynthesis. All the included studies were assessed as being of good quality. Through an iterative approach, we developed six analytical themes: (i) infrastructure and process requirements in care homes to prevent and address emergencies; (ii) the decision to transfer to hospital; (iii) experiences of transfer and hospitalisation for older patients; (iv) good communication is vital for desirable outcomes; (v) legal, regulatory and ethical concerns and (vi) trusting relationships enabled residents to feel safe. Conclusions the emergency care experience for care home residents can be enhanced by ensuring resources, staff capacity and processes for high quality care and trusting relationships between staff, patients and relatives, underpinned by good communication and attention to ethical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims Methods Results Conclusions Research in diabetes‐related foot conditions (DRFC) often focuses on ulcer‐related care, whilst the patient experience and influence of sociodemographic factors are under‐researched. This systematic review investigated patient‐reported outcomes and experience in people with DRFC.Multiple databases were searched from inception to 16 August 2023. All original articles that assessed any patient‐reported outcome or experience in DRFC and reported participant ethnicity were included. Data were synthesized using a sequential contingent approach. Study quality was assessed using study design‐specific tools.Twenty‐three studies were included (11 qualitative, 11 quantitative and one mixed‐methods). DRFC had a largely negative impact on various life dimensions, including social and daily life, work, emotional and psychological well‐being, necessitating dependence on others in the form of emotional, social and/or religious support, which were experienced differently by different groups. Patient DRFC knowledge and self‐care habits were typically suboptimal, and levels of hope and feeling of control over their condition varied between groups. Outcomes varied slightly between ethnicities across studies, with some ethnicity‐specific themes identified such as beliefs about disease cause and footwear habits. Quantitative and qualitative findings were mostly congruent.DRFC profoundly and negatively impacts patient‐reported outcomes and experience, with limited evidence suggesting an influence of ethnicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Ethnic minority populations experience significant health and social care disparities; despite experiencing a greater burden of diseases, these groups are underrepresented in health and social care research. Consequently, related research can be less applicable to these population groups. The REPRESENT study aims to explore the health and social care experiences of ethnic minorities and other minoritised populations, their research interests and appropriate research practices., Methods: Focus groups and semistructured interviews were conducted between May and September 2022 with members of a number of ethnic minority communities in England. Data were audio recorded, transcribed and thematically coded using NVivo 12. Rigour was determined through extensive sampling, iterative data collection and analysis., Findings: Fifty-two ethnic minority members were engaged in group interviews and one-to-one interviews. Participants included representatives of the following groups: African Caribbean, Eastern European, Gypsy Travellers, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex and Asexual+, Refugee/Asylum Seekers, Somali and South Asian communities. Interviews were also conducted with ethnic minority healthcare providers and researchers. Three overarching categories were identified: health information, medical service experiences, health and social care concerns and health research. Health and social care services challenges were mostly attributed to discrimination, delayed services, poor cultural relevance and language and cultural barriers. The most influential information sources were local community organisations and word-of-mouth. The main health and social care concerns were chronic long-term health conditions, mental health, maternal health and child development. Recommendations for research involved understanding the motivations for participation, improving communication and empowering communities. Top research priorities were long-term health conditions, health promotion and education, early care interventions and understanding community needs., Interpretation: Discrimination and bias in health and social care provision have severe implications for worsening ethnic health inequalities. Healthcare commissioning authorities and policymakers can leverage the preference of ethnic minority groups for pharmacy services and community organisations to improve access to care. Improving research interest and engagement requires understanding individual community needs, community sensitivity, research relevance and cultural appropriateness., Patient or Public Contribution: Members of ethnic minority Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement group and Community Advisory Board supported the REPRESENT study design, conceptualisation and report development., (© 2023 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The aim of this study was to systematically synthesise the global evidence on the prevalence of persistent symptoms in a general post COVID-19 population., Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using multiple electronic databases (MEDLINE and The Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL, and medRxiv) until January 2022. Studies with at least 100 people with confirmed or self-reported COVID-19 symptoms at ≥28 days following infection onset were included. Patient-reported outcome measures and clinical investigations were both assessed. Results were analysed descriptively, and meta-analyses were conducted to derive prevalence estimates. This study was pre-registered (PROSPERO-ID: CRD42021238247)., Findings: 194 studies totalling 735,006 participants were included, with five studies conducted in those <18 years of age. Most studies were conducted in Europe (n = 106) or Asia (n = 49), and the time to follow-up ranged from ≥28 days to 387 days. 122 studies reported data on hospitalised patients, 18 on non-hospitalised, and 54 on hospitalised and non-hospitalised combined (mixed). On average, at least 45% of COVID-19 survivors, regardless of hospitalisation status, went on to experience at least one unresolved symptom (mean follow-up 126 days). Fatigue was frequently reported across hospitalised (28.4%; 95% CI 24.7%-32.5%), non-hospitalised (34.8%; 95% CI 17.6%-57.2%), and mixed (25.2%; 95% CI 17.7%-34.6%) cohorts. Amongst the hospitalised cohort, abnormal CT patterns/x-rays were frequently reported (45.3%; 95% CI 35.3%-55.7%), alongside ground glass opacification (41.1%; 95% CI 25.7%-58.5%), and impaired diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (31.7%; 95% CI 25.8%-3.2%)., Interpretation: Our work shows that 45% of COVID-19 survivors, regardless of hospitalisation status, were experiencing a range of unresolved symptoms at ∼ 4 months. Current understanding is limited by heterogeneous study design, follow-up durations, and measurement methods. Definition of subtypes of Long Covid is unclear, subsequently hampering effective treatment/management strategies., Funding: No funding., Competing Interests: This work was supported by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) ARC East Midlands. AB is PI of the NIHR funded STIMULATE-ICP study (COV-LT2-0043) and has also received other research funding from Astra Zeneca, NIHR, BMA, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and EU. MC is Director of the Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, Director of the Centre for the Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research and is a NIHR Senior Investigator. MC receives funding from the NIHR, UKRI, NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, the NIHR Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre, NIHR ARC West Midlands, UK SPINE, European Regional Development Fund–Demand Hub and Health Data Research UK at the University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Innovate UK (part of UKRI), Macmillan Cancer Support, UCB Pharma, Janssen, GSK and Gilead. She is senior author of the Symptom Burden Questionnaire™ for Long COVID. MC has received personal fees from Aparito Ltd, CIS Oncology, Takeda, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, Glaukos, GSK and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) outside the submitted work. In addition, a family member owns shares in GSK. TS and RS receive funding from the NIHR, and by the UKRI who have awarded funding grant number COVLT0022. All research at Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health is made possible by the NIHR Great Ormond Street Hospital Biomedical Research Centre. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. HW is an NIHR Senior Investigator Award, and acknowledges support from the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Health Data Research UK, NIHR Applied Research Collaborative North West London, and the Wellcome Trust. KK is Chair of the Ethnicity Subgroup of the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) and Member of SAGE and also Chair of the National Long Covid working group which reports to the Chief Medical Officer. TW receives funding from the NIHR, the views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. JS receives funding from the NIHR and UKRI., (© 2022 The Author(s).)