INTRODUCTION: Health visiting services, providing support to under 5s and their families, are organised and delivered in very different ways in different parts of the UK. While there has been attention to the key components of health visiting practice and what works well and how, there is little research on how health visiting services are organised and delivered and how that affects their ability to meet their objectives. The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly disrupted service delivery from March 2020. This realist review aims to synthesise the evidence on changes during the pandemic to identify the potential for improving health visiting services and their delivery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will follow the RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) quality standards and Pawson's five iterative stages to locate existing theories, search for evidence, select literature, extract data, synthesise evidence and draw conclusions. It will be guided by stakeholder engagement with practitioners, commissioners, policymakers, policy advocates and people with lived experience. This approach will consider the emerging strategies and evolving contexts in which the services are delivered, and the varied outcomes for different groups. A realist logic of analysis will be used to make sense of what was happening to health visiting services during and following the pandemic response through the identification and testing of programme theories. Our refined programme theory will then be used to develop recommendations for improving the organisation, delivery and ongoing postpandemic recovery of health visiting services. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: General University Ethics Panel approval has been obtained from University of Stirling (reference 7662). Dissemination will build on links to policymakers, commissioners, providers, policy advocates and the public. A range of audiences will be targeted using outputs tailored to each. A final stakeholder event focused on knowledge mobilisation will aid development of recommendations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022343117.
\n \n\n \n \nINTRODUCTION: The impact of long COVID on health-related quality of-life (HRQoL) and productivity is not currently known. It is important to understand who is worst affected by long COVID and the cost to the National Health Service (NHS) and society, so that strategies like booster vaccines can be prioritised to the right people. OpenPROMPT aims to understand the impact of long COVID on HRQoL in adults attending English primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will ask people to participate in this cohort study through a smartphone app (Airmid), and completing a series of questionnaires held within the app. Questionnaires will ask about HRQoL, productivity and symptoms of long COVID. Participants will be asked to fill in the questionnaires once a month, for 90 days. Questionnaire responses will be linked, where possible, to participants' existing health records from primary care, secondary care, and COVID testing and vaccination data. Analysis will take place using the OpenSAFELY data platform and will estimate the impact of long COVID on HRQoL, productivity and cost to the NHS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Proportionate Review Sub-Committee of the South Central-Berkshire B Research Ethics Committee has reviewed and approved the study and have agreed that we can ask people to take part (22/SC/0198). Our results will provide information to support long-term care, and make recommendations for prevention of long COVID in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05552612.
\n \n\n \n \nBACKGROUND: Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular events with only a minority of people treated to satisfactory levels. There is an increasing body of literature pertaining to the beneficial effect of self-blood pressure monitoring (SBPM) on blood pressure control in hypertensive patients. It is cost-effective, well tolerated, and has been shown to be a better predictor of end organ damage than traditional office blood pressure monitoring (OBPM). The aim of this Cochrane review is to provide an up-to-date assessment on the effectiveness of self-monitoring in the management of hypertension.Is SBPM more efficacious in reducing blood pressure, compared with OBPM or usual care?Is SBPM with additional supports more efficacious in reducing blood pressure, compared with no additional support?Are there any adverse events associated with SBPM, compared with OBPM or usual care? METHODS: All randomised controlled trials of adult patients with a diagnosis of primary hypertension where the intervention of interest is SBPM will be included. Data extraction, analysis and risk of bias assessment will be carried out by two independent authors. Analysis will be based on intention-to-treat (ITT) data from individual trials. RESULTS: Primary outcome measures include change in mean office systolic and/or diastolic BP, change in mean ambulatory blood pressure, the proportion of patients reaching target BP, and adverse events including mortality or cardiovascular morbidity or related to treatment with antihypertensive agents. DISCUSSION: This review will help to determine if self-monitoring of blood pressure, with or without co-interventions, is effective in lowering blood pressure. Results will be available for conference.
\n \n\n \n \nThe opioid crisis in the United States (US) is one of the most high-profile public health scandals of the 21st century with millions of people unknowingly becoming dependent on opioids. The United Kingdom (UK) had the world\u2019s highest rate of opioid consumption in 2019, and opiate-related drug poisoning deaths have increased by 388% since 1993 in England and Wales. This article explores the epidemiological definitions of public health emergencies and epidemics in the context of opioid use, misuse, and mortality in England, to establish whether England is facing an opioid crisis.
\n \n\n \n \nMedicines cause over 1700 preventable deaths annually in England. Coroners' Prevention of Future Death reports (PFDs) are produced in response to preventable deaths to facilitate change. The information in PFDs may help reduce medicine-related preventable deaths. We aimed to identify medicine-related deaths in coroners' reports and to explore concerns to prevent future deaths. We carried out a retrospective case series of PFDs across England and Wales, dated between 1 July, 2013 and 23 February, 2022, collected from the UK's Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website using web scraping, generating an openly available database: https://preventabledeathstracker.net/ . We used descriptive techniques and content analysis to assess the main outcome criteria: the proportion of PFDs in which coroners reported that a therapeutic medicine or drug of abuse had caused or contributed to a death; the characteristics of included PFDs; coroners' concerns; the recipients of PFDs; and the timeliness of their responses. There were 704 PFDs (18%; 716 deaths) that involved medicines, representing an estimated 19,740 years of life lost (average of 50 years lost per death). Opioids (22%), antidepressants (9.7%), and hypnotics (9.2%) were the most common drugs involved. Coroners expressed 1249 concerns, primarily around the major themes of patient safety (29%) and communication (26%), including minor themes of failures of monitoring (10%) and poor communication between organizations (7.5%). Most expected responses to PFDs (51%; 630/1245) were not reported on the UK's Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website. One in five coroner-reported preventable deaths involved medicines. Addressing coroners' concerns, including problems with patient safety and communication, should reduce harms from medicines. Despite concerns being raised repeatedly, half of the PFD recipients failed to respond, suggesting that lessons are not generally learned. The rich information in PFDs should be used to foster a learning environment in clinical practice that may help reduce preventable deaths. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/TX3CS .
\n \n\n \n \nBackgroundWearable devices could be used to continuously monitor vital signs in patients who are hospitalized, but they require validation.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the clinical validity of the prototype of a semiautomated wearable wrist device (ChroniSense Polso) to measure vital signs and provide National Early Warning Scores (NEWSs).MethodsVital signs and NEWSs measured using the wearable device were compared with standard, nurse-lead manual measurements. We enrolled adult patients (aged \u226518 years) who required vital sign measurements at least every 6 hours in a UK teaching district general hospital. Wearable device measurements were not used for clinical decision-making. The primary outcome was the agreement on the individual National Early Warning parameter scores and vital sign measurements: respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, body temperature, systolic blood pressure, and heart rate. Secondary outcomes were the agreement on the total NEWS, incidence of adverse events, and user acceptance. To compare the wearable device measurements with the standard measurements, we analyzed vital sign measurements by limits of agreement (Bland-Altman analysis) and conducted \u03ba agreement analyses for NEWSs. A user experience survey was conducted with questions about comfort of the wrist device, safety, preference, and use.ResultsWe included 132 participants in the study, with a mean age of 62 (SD 15.81) years; most of them were men (102/132, 77.3%). The highest weighted \u03ba values were found for heart rate (0.69, 95% CI 0.57-0.81 for all 385 measurements) and systolic blood pressure (0.39, 95% CI 0.30-0.47 for all 339 measurements). Weighted \u03ba values were low for respiration rate (0.03, 95% CI -0.001 to 0.05 for all 445 measurements), temperature (0, 95% CI 0-0 for all 231 measurements), and oxygen saturation (-0.11, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.02 for all 187 measurements). Weighted \u03ba using Cicchetti-Allison weights showed \u03ba of 0.20 (95% CI 0.03-0.38) when using all 56 total NEWSs. The user acceptance survey found that approximately half (45/91, 49%) of the participants found it comfortable to wear the device and liked its appearance. Most (85/92, 92%) of them said that they would wear the device during their next hospital visit, and many (74/92, 80%) said that they would recommend it to others.ConclusionsThis study shows the promising use of a prototype wearable device to measure vital signs in a hospital setting. Agreement between the standard measurements and wearable device measurements was acceptable for systolic blood pressure and heart rate, but needed to be improved for respiration rate, temperature, and oxygen saturation. Future studies need to improve the clinical validity of this wearable device. Large studies are required to assess clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of wearable devices for vital sign measurement.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028219.
\n \n\n \n \nIn England and Wales, coroners are required to write Prevention of Future Deaths reports when a death is deemed preventable so that action is taken to avert similar deaths. Since July 2013, Prevention of Future Deaths reports have been openly available via the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary website (https://www.judiciary.uk/prevention-of-future-death-reports/). However, their presentation to date have been insufficient to identify trends and learn lessons. We designed a web scraper to create the Preventable Deaths Tracker (https://preventabledeathstracker.net/). On 22 June 2022, 4001 PFDs were scraped, analysed, and compared to the Office of National Statistics' preventable mortality statistics. This commentary summarises the key findings and offers recommendations to improve the Prevention of Future Deaths system so lessons can be learnt to avert preventable deaths.
\n \n\n \n \nINTRODUCTION: Objective structured clinical exams (OSCEs) are a cornerstone of assessing the competence of trainee healthcare professionals, but have been criticised for (1) lacking authenticity, (2) variability in examiners' judgements which can challenge assessment equivalence and (3) for limited diagnosticity of trainees' focal strengths and weaknesses. In response, this study aims to investigate whether (1) sharing integrated-task OSCE stations across institutions can increase perceived authenticity, while (2) enhancing assessment equivalence by enabling comparison of the standard of examiners' judgements between institutions using a novel methodology (video-based score comparison and adjustment (VESCA)) and (3) exploring the potential to develop more diagnostic signals from data on students' performances. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will use a complex intervention design, developing, implementing and sharing an integrated-task (research) OSCE across four UK medical schools. It will use VESCA to compare examiner scoring differences between groups of examiners and different sites, while studying how, why and for whom the shared OSCE and VESCA operate across participating schools. Quantitative analysis will use Many Facet Rasch Modelling to compare the influence of different examiners groups and sites on students' scores, while the operation of the two interventions (shared integrated task OSCEs; VESCA) will be studied through the theory-driven method of Realist evaluation. Further exploratory analyses will examine diagnostic performance signals within data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will be extra to usual course requirements and all participation will be voluntary. We will uphold principles of informed consent, the right to withdraw, confidentiality with pseudonymity and strict data security. The study has received ethical approval from Keele University Research Ethics Committee. Findings will be academically published and will contribute to good practice guidance on (1) the\u2009use of VESCA and (2) sharing\u2009and use of integrated-task OSCE stations.
\n \n\n \n \nSocial prescribing is a non-clinical approach to addressing social, environmental, and economic factors affecting how people feel physical and/or emotionally. It involves connecting people to \"community assets\" (e.g., local groups, organizations, and charities) that can contribute to positive well-being. We sought to explain in what ways, for whom, and why the cultural sector can support social prescribing with older people. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 28 older people (aged 60+) and 25 cultural sector staff. The following nine concepts, developed from interview data, progressed the understanding of tailoring cultural offers, which came from our previous realist review-immersion, buddying, caf\u00e9 culture, capacity, emotional involvement, perseverance, autonomy, elitism, and virtual cultural offers. Through tailoring, we propose that older people might experience one or more of the following benefits from engaging with a cultural offer as part of social prescribing-being immersed, psychological holding, connecting, and transforming through self-growth.
\n \n\n \n \nOBJECTIVE: To characterise factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine uptake among people with kidney disease in England. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, performed with the approval of NHS England. SETTING: Individual-level routine clinical data from 24 million people across GPs in England using TPP software. Primary care data were linked directly with COVID-19 vaccine records up to 31 August 2022 and with renal replacement therapy (RRT) status via the UK Renal Registry (UKRR). PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of adults with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) or receiving RRT at the start of the COVID-19 vaccine roll-out was identified based on evidence of reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) or inclusion in the UKRR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dose-specific vaccine coverage over time was determined from 1 December 2020 to 31 August 2022. Individual-level factors associated with receipt of a 3-dose or 4-dose vaccine series were explored via Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: 992\u2009205 people with stage 3-5 CKD or receiving RRT were included. Cumulative vaccine coverage as of 31 August 2022 was 97.5%, 97.0% and 93.9% for doses 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and 81.9% for dose 4 among individuals with one or more indications for eligibility. Delayed 3-dose vaccine uptake was associated with younger age, minority ethnicity, social deprivation and severe mental illness-associations that were consistent across CKD severity subgroups, dialysis patients and kidney transplant recipients. Similar associations were observed for 4-dose uptake. CONCLUSION: Although high primary vaccine and booster dose coverage has been achieved among people with kidney disease in England, key disparities in vaccine uptake remain across clinical and demographic groups and 4-dose coverage is suboptimal. Targeted interventions are needed to identify barriers to vaccine uptake among under-vaccinated subgroups identified in the present study.
\n \n\n \n \n