{ "items": [ "\n\n
Background Residents in care homes have been severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We describe trends in risk of mortality among care home residents compared to residents in private homes in England. Methods On behalf of NHS England, we used OpenSAFELY-TPP, an analytics platform running across the linked electronic health records of approximately a third of the English population, to calculate monthly age-standardised risks of death due to all causes and COVID-19 among adults aged >=65 years between 1/2/2019 and 31/03/2021. Care home residents were identified using linkage to the Care and Quality Commission. Findings We included 4,329,078 people aged 65 years or older on the 1st of February 2019, 2.2% of whom were classified as residing in a care or nursing home. Age-standardised mortality risks were approximately 10 times higher among care home residents compared to non-residents in February 2019 residents (CMF = 10.59, 95%CI = 9.51, 11.81 among women, CMF = 10.82, 95%CI = 9.89, 11.84 among men). This increased to more than 17 times in April 2020 (CMF = 17.52, 95%CI = 16.38, 18.74 among women, CMF = 18.12, 95%CI = 17.17 \u2013 19.12 among men) before returning to pre-pandemic levels in June 2020. CMFs did not increase during the second wave, despite a rise in the absolute age-standardised COVID-19 mortality risks. Interpretation The first COVID-19 wave had a disproportionate impact on care home residents in England compared to older private home residents. A degree of immunity, improved protective measures or changes in the underlying frailty of the populations may explain the lack of an increase in the relative mortality risks during the second wave. The care home population should be prioritised for measures aimed at controlling the spread of COVID-19. Funding Medical Research Council MR/V015737/1
\n \n\n \n \nOBJECTIVES: To develop a clinical prediction model to risk stratify children admitted to PICUs in locations with limited resources, and compare performance of the model to nine existing pediatric severity scores. DESIGN: Retrospective, single-center, cohort study. SETTING: PICU of a pediatric hospital in Siem Reap, northern Cambodia. PATIENTS: Children between 28 days and 16 years old admitted nonelectively to the PICU. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Clinical and laboratory data recorded at the time of PICU admission were collected. The primary outcome was death during PICU admission. One thousand five hundred fifty consecutive non-elective PICU admissions were included, of which 97 died (6.3%). Most existing severity scores achieved comparable discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves [AUCs], 0.71-0.76) but only three scores demonstrated moderate diagnostic utility for triaging admissions into high- and low-risk groups (positive likelihood ratios [PLRs], 2.65-2.97 and negative likelihood ratios [NLRs], 0.40-0.46). The newly derived model outperformed all existing severity scores (AUC, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.80-0.88; p < 0.001). Using one particular threshold, the model classified 13.0% of admissions as high risk, among which probability of mortality was almost ten-fold greater than admissions triaged as low-risk (PLR, 5.75; 95% CI, 4.57-7.23 and NLR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.37-0.59). Decision curve analyses indicated that the model would be superior to all existing severity scores and could provide utility across the range of clinically plausible decision thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Existing pediatric severity scores have limited potential as risk stratification tools in resource-constrained PICUs. If validated, our prediction model would be a readily implementable mechanism to support triage of critically ill children at admission to PICU and could provide value across a variety of contexts where resource prioritization is important.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground. Due to limited inclusion of patients on kidney replacement therapy (KRT) in clinical trials, the effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies in this population remains unclear. We sought to address this by comparing the effectiveness of sotrovimab against molnupiravir, two commonly used treatments for non-hospitalised KRT patients with COVID-19 in the UK. Methods. With the approval of National Health Service England, we used routine clinical data from 24 million patients in England within the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform linked to the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) to identify patients on KRT. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of sotrovimab versus molnupiravir with regards to COVID-19-related hospitalisations or deaths in the subsequent 28 days. We also conducted a complementary analysis using data from the Scottish Renal Registry (SRR). Results. Among the 2367 kidney patients treated with sotrovimab (n = 1852) or molnupiravir (n = 515) between 16 December 2021 and 1 August 2022 in England, 38 cases (1.6%) of COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths were observed. Sotrovimab was associated with substantially lower outcome risk than molnupiravir {adjusted HR 0.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17\u20130.71]; P = .004}, with results remaining robust in multiple sensitivity analyses. In the SRR cohort, sotrovimab showed a trend toward lower outcome risk than molnupiravir [HR 0.39 (95% CI 0.13\u20131.21); P = .106]. In both datasets, sotrovimab had no evidence of an association with other hospitalisation/death compared with molnupiravir (HRs ranged from 0.73 to 1.29; P > .05). Conclusions. In routine care of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 on KRT, sotrovimab was associated with a lower risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes compared with molnupiravir during Omicron waves.
\n \n\n \n \nBackgroundNumeric results of pathology tests are sometimes returned as a range rather than a precise value, e.g. \"<10\". In health data research, test result values above or below clinical threshold values are often used to categorise patients into groups; however comparators ( etc) are typically stored separately to the numeric values and often ignored, but may influence interpretation.MethodsWith the approval of NHS England we used routine clinical data from 24 million patients in OpenSAFELY to identify pathology tests with comparators commonly attached to result values. For each test we report: the proportion returned with comparators present, split by comparator type and geographic region; the specific numeric result values returned with comparators, and the associated reference limits.ResultsWe identified 11 common test codes where at least one in four results had comparators. Three codes related to glomerular filtration rate (GFR) tests/calculations, with 31-45% of results returned with \"\u2265\" comparators. At least 90% of tests with numeric values 60 and 90 represented ranges (\u226560 and \u226590 respectively) rather than exact values. The other tests - four blood tests (Nucleated red blood cell count, Plasma C reactive protein, Tissue transglutaminase immunoglobulin A, and Rheumatoid factor), two urine tests (albumin/microalbumin) and two faecal tests (calprotectin and quantitative faecal immunochemical test) - were returned with \"\u2264\" comparators (29-86%).ConclusionsComparators appear commonly in certain pathology tests in electronic health records. For most common affected tests, we expect there to be minimal implications for researchers for most use-cases. However, care should be taken around whether results falling exactly on clinical threshold values should be considered \"normal\" or \"abnormal\". Results from GFR tests/calculations cannot reliably distinguish between mild kidney disease (60-<90) versus healthy kidney function (90+). More broadly, health data researchers using numeric test result values should consider the impact of comparators.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground: Play is essential for the cognitive, social, and emotional development of all children. Disparities potentially exist in access to play for children with disabilities, and the extent of this inequity is unknown. Methods: Data from 212,194 children aged 2\u20134 years in 38 Low and Middle-Income Countries were collected in the UNICEF supported Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (2017\u20132020). Disability was assessed by the Washington Group-Child Functioning Module. Logistic regression models were applied to investigate the relationship between disability and play opportunities, controlling for age, sex, and wealth status. Meta-analysis was used to pool the estimates (overall, and disaggregated by sex), with heterogeneity assessed by Cochran's Q test. Findings: Children with disabilities have approximately 9% fewer play opportunities than those without disabilities (adjusted RR [aRR] = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.82\u20130.93), and this varied across countries. Mongolia and Democratic Republic of S\u00e3o Tom\u00e9 and Pr\u00edncipe had the lowest likelihood of play opportunities for children with disabilities ((aRR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.09\u20130.75; aRR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.23\u20130.93, respectively). Moreover, children with disabilities are 17% less likely to be provided with opportunities to play with their mothers (aRR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73\u20130.93), which is further reduced for girls with disabilities (aRR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.60\u20130.90) compared to their peers without disabilities. The associations varied by impairment type, and children with communication and learning impairments are less likely to have opportunities for play with aRR of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.60\u20130.79) and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.71\u20130.86), compared to those without disabilities, respectively. Interpretation: Children with disabilities are being left behind in their access to play and this is likely to have negative impacts on their overall development and well-being. Funding: HK and TS are funded by HK's NIHR Global Research Professorship (NIHR301621). SR is funded by a Rhodes Scholarship. This study was funded by the Programme for Evidence to Inform Disability Action (PENDA) grant from the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
\n \n\n \n \nObjectives: To investigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on prostate cancer incidence, prevalence, and mortality in England. Patients and Methods: With the approval of NHS England and using the OpenSAFELY-TPP dataset of 24 million patients, we undertook a cohort study of men diagnosed with prostate cancer. We visualised monthly rates in prostate cancer incidence, prevalence, and mortality per 100 000 adult men from January 2015 to July 2023. To assess the effect of the pandemic, we used generalised linear models and the pre-pandemic data to predict the expected rates from March 2020 as if the pandemic had not occurred. The 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the predicted values were used to estimate the significance of the difference between the predicted and observed rates. Results: In 2020, there was a drop in recorded incidence by 4772 (31%) cases (15 550 vs 20 322; 95% CI 19 241\u201321 403). In 2021, the incidence started to recover, and the drop was 3148 cases (18%, 17 950 vs 21 098; 95% CI 19 740\u201322 456). By 2022, the incidence returned to the levels that would be expected. During the pandemic, the age at diagnosis shifted towards older men. In 2020, the average age was 71.6 (95% CI 71.5\u201371.8) years, in 2021 it was 71.8 (95% CI 71.7\u201372.0) years as compared to 71.3 (95% CI 71.1\u201371.4) years in 2019. Conclusions: Given that our dataset represents 40% of the population, we estimate that proportionally the pandemic led to 20 000 missed prostate cancer diagnoses in England alone. The increase in incidence recorded in 2023 was not enough to account for the missed cases. The prevalence of prostate cancer remained lower throughout the pandemic than expected. As the recovery efforts continue, healthcare should focus on finding the men who were affected. The research should focus on investigating the potential harms to men diagnosed at older age.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground: Triage and clinical consultations increasingly occur remotely. We aimed to learn why safety incidents occur in remote encounters and how to prevent them. Setting and sample: UK primary care. 95 safety incidents (complaints, settled indemnity claims and reports) involving remote interactions. Separately, 12 general practices followed 2021-2023. Methods: Multimethod qualitative study. We explored causes of real safety incidents retrospectively ('Safety I' analysis). In a prospective longitudinal study, we used interviews and ethnographic observation to produce individual, organisational and system-level explanations for why safety and near-miss incidents (rarely) occurred and why they did not occur more often ('Safety II' analysis). Data were analysed thematically. An interpretive synthesis of why safety incidents occur, and why they do not occur more often, was refined following member checking with safety experts and lived experience experts. Results: Safety incidents were characterised by inappropriate modality, poor rapport building, inadequate information gathering, limited clinical assessment, inappropriate pathway (eg, wrong algorithm) and inadequate attention to social circumstances. These resulted in missed, inaccurate or delayed diagnoses, underestimation of severity or urgency, delayed referral, incorrect or delayed treatment, poor safety netting and inadequate follow-up. Patients with complex pre-existing conditions, cardiac or abdominal emergencies, vague or generalised symptoms, safeguarding issues, failure to respond to previous treatment or difficulty communicating seemed especially vulnerable. General practices were facing resource constraints, understaffing and high demand. Triage and care pathways were complex, hard to navigate and involved multiple staff. In this context, patient safety often depended on individual staff taking initiative, speaking up or personalising solutions. Conclusion: While safety incidents are extremely rare in remote primary care, deaths and serious harms have resulted. We offer suggestions for patient, staff and system-level mitigations.
\n \n\n \n \nBACKGROUND: Contemporary general practice includes many kinds of remote encounter. The rise in telephone, video and online modalities for triage and clinical care requires clinicians and support staff to be trained, both individually and as teams, but evidence-based competencies have not previously been produced for general practice. AIM: To identify training needs, core competencies, and learning methods for staff providing remote encounters. DESIGN AND SETTING: Mixed-methods study in UK general practice. METHOD: Data were collated from longitudinal ethnographic case studies of 12 general practices; a multi-stakeholder workshop; interviews with policymakers, training providers, and trainees; published research; and grey literature (such as training materials and surveys). Data were coded thematically and analysed using theories of individual and team learning. RESULTS: Learning to provide remote services occurred in the context of high workload, understaffing, and complex workflows. Low confidence and perceived unmet training needs were common. Training priorities for novice clinicians included basic technological skills, triage, ethics (for privacy and consent), and communication and clinical skills. Established clinicians' training priorities include advanced communication skills (for example, maintaining rapport and attentiveness), working within the limits of technologies, making complex judgements, coordinating multi-professional care in a distributed environment, and training others. Much existing training is didactic and technology focused. While basic knowledge was often gained using such methods, the ability and confidence to make complex judgements were usually acquired through experience, informal discussions, and on-the-job methods such as shadowing. Whole-team training was valued but rarely available. A draft set of competencies is offered based on the findings. CONCLUSION: The knowledge needed to deliver high-quality remote encounters to diverse patient groups is complex, collective, and organisationally embedded. The vital role of non-didactic training, for example, joint clinical sessions, case-based discussions, and in-person, whole-team, on-the-job training, needs to be recognised.
\n \n\n \n \nThe COVID-19 pandemic prompted a dramatic shift towards remote and digital consulting in general practice. Supported by the wider political policy for \u2018Digital-First\u2019 primary care, many practices began offering a wider range of consultation modalities, including online, telephone and video options. Since the COVID-19 pandemic the proportion of appointments carried out remotely has slightly decreased, but still makes up a significant proportion of appointments. According to the latest data from NHS Digital, over a million video and online consultations took place in 2023 (the data does not differentiate between them). Video consulting is used more often in out-of-hours settings and for nursing home ward rounds. Remote consulting requires specific consultation skills, some interchangeable with other modes of consulting, and all important for future practice.
\n \n\n \n \nOBJECTIVE: To explore the perceived wisdom that papal mortality is related to the success of the Welsh rugby union team. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study of historical Vatican and sporting data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Papal deaths between 1883 and the present day. RESULTS: There is no evidence of a link between papal deaths and any home nation grand slams (when one nation succeeds in beating all other competing teams in every match). There was, however, weak statistical evidence to support an association between Welsh performance and the number of papal deaths. CONCLUSION: Given the dominant Welsh performances of 2008, the Vatican medical team should take special care of the pontiff this Christmas.
\n \n\n \n \n