Does a screening checklist for complex health and social care needs have potential clinical usefulness for predicting unplanned hospital readmissions in intensive care survivors: development and prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Intensive care (ICU) survivors are at high risk of long-term physical and psychosocial problems. Unplanned hospital readmission rates are high, but the best way to triage patients for interventions is uncertain. We aimed to develop and evaluate a screening checklist to help predict subsequent readmissions or deaths. DESIGN: A checklist for complex health and social care needs (CHSCNs) was developed based on previous research, comprising six items: multimorbidity; polypharmacy; frequent previous hospitalisations; mental health issues; fragile social circumstances and impaired activities of daily living. Patients were considered to have CHSCNs if two or more were present. We prospectively screened all ICU discharges for CHSCNs for 12 months. SETTING: ICU, Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh, UK. PARTICIPANTS: ICU survivors over a 12-month period (1 June 2018 and 31 May 2019). INTERVENTIONS: None. OUTCOME MEASURE: Readmission or death in the community within 3 months postindex hospital discharge. RESULTS: Of 1174 ICU survivors, 937 were discharged alive from the hospital. Of these 253 (27%) were classified as having CHSCNs. In total 28% (266/937) patients were readmitted (N=238) or died (N=28) within 3 months. Among CHSCNs patients 45% (n=115) patients were readmitted (N=105) or died (N=10). Patients without CHSCNs had a 22% readmission (N=133) or death (N=18) rate. The checklist had: sensitivity 43% (95% CI 37% to 49%), specificity 79% (95% CI 76% to 82%), positive predictive value 45% (95% CI 41% to 51%), and negative predictive value 78% (95% CI 76% to 80%). Relative risk of readmission/death for patients with CHSCNs was 2.06 (95% CI 1.69 to 2.50), indicating a pretest to post-test probability change of 28%-45%. The checklist demonstrated high inter-rater reliability (percentage agreement ≥87% for all domains; overall kappa, 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Early evaluation of a screening checklist for CHSCNs at ICU discharge suggests potential clinical usefulness, but this requires further evaluation as part of a care pathway.

First dose ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccinations and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis: A pooled self-controlled case series study of 11.6 million individuals in England, Scotland, and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Several countries restricted the administration of ChAdOx1 to older age groups in 2021 over safety concerns following case reports and observed versus expected analyses suggesting a possible association with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST). Large datasets are required to precisely estimate the association between Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination and CVST due to the extreme rarity of this event. We aimed to accomplish this by combining national data from England, Scotland, and Wales. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We created data platforms consisting of linked primary care, secondary care, mortality, and virological testing data in each of England, Scotland, and Wales, with a combined cohort of 11,637,157 people and 6,808,293 person years of follow-up. The cohort start date was December 8, 2020, and the end date was June 30, 2021. The outcome measure we examined was incident CVST events recorded in either primary or secondary care records. We carried out a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis of this outcome following first dose vaccination with ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2. The observation period consisted of an initial 90-day reference period, followed by a 2-week prerisk period directly prior to vaccination, and a 4-week risk period following vaccination. Counts of CVST cases from each country were tallied, then expanded into a full dataset with 1 row for each individual and observation time period. There was a combined total of 201 incident CVST events in the cohorts (29.5 per million person years). There were 81 CVST events in the observation period among those who a received first dose of ChAdOx1 (approximately 16.34 per million doses) and 40 for those who received a first dose of BNT162b2 (approximately 12.60 per million doses). We fitted conditional Poisson models to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Vaccination with ChAdOx1 was associated with an elevated risk of incident CVST events in the 28 days following vaccination, IRR = 1.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 3.11). We did not find an association between BNT162b2 and CVST in the 28 days following vaccination, IRR = 0.78 (95% CI 0.34 to 1.77). Our study had some limitations. The SCCS study design implicitly controls for variables that are constant over the observation period, but also assumes that outcome events are independent of exposure. This assumption may not be satisfied in the case of CVST, firstly because it is a serious adverse event, and secondly because the vaccination programme in the United Kingdom prioritised the clinically extremely vulnerable and those with underlying health conditions, which may have caused a selection effect for individuals more prone to CVST. Although we pooled data from several large datasets, there was still a low number of events, which may have caused imprecision in our estimates. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed a small elevated risk of CVST events following vaccination with ChAdOx1, but not BNT162b2. Our analysis pooled information from large datasets from England, Scotland, and Wales. This evidence may be useful in risk-benefit analyses of vaccine policies and in providing quantification of risks associated with vaccination to the general public.

Ethnic and social inequalities in COVID-19 outcomes in Scotland: protocol for early pandemic evaluation and enhanced surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II).

INTRODUCTION: Evidence from previous pandemics, and the current COVID-19 pandemic, has found that risk of infection/severity of disease is disproportionately higher for ethnic minority groups, and those in lower socioeconomic positions. It is imperative that interventions to prevent the spread of COVID-19 are targeted towards high-risk populations. We will investigate the associations between social characteristics (such as ethnicity, occupation and socioeconomic position) and COVID-19 outcomes and the extent to which characteristics/risk factors might explain observed relationships in Scotland.The primary objective of this study is to describe the epidemiology of COVID-19 by social factors. Secondary objectives are to (1) examine receipt of treatment and prevention of COVID-19 by social factors; (2) quantify ethnic/social differences in adverse COVID-19 outcomes; (3) explore potential mediators of relationships between social factors and SARS-CoV-2 infection/COVID-19 prognosis; (4) examine whether occupational COVID-19 differences differ by other social factors and (5) assess quality of ethnicity coding within National Health Service datasets. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use a national cohort comprising the adult population of Scotland who completed the 2011 Census and were living in Scotland on 31 March 2020 (~4.3 million people). Census data will be linked to the Early Assessment of Vaccine and Anti-Viral Effectiveness II cohort consisting of primary/secondary care, laboratory data and death records. Sensitivity/specificity and positive/negative predictive values will be used to assess coding quality of ethnicity. Descriptive statistics will be used to examine differences in treatment and prevention of COVID-19. Poisson/Cox regression analyses and mediation techniques will examine ethnic and social differences, and drivers of inequalities in COVID-19. Effect modification (on additive and multiplicative scales) between key variables (such as ethnicity and occupation) will be assessed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the National Research Ethics Committee, South East Scotland 02. We will present findings of this study at international conferences, in peer-reviewed journals and to policy-makers.

Interim findings from first-dose mass COVID-19 vaccination roll-out and COVID-19 hospital admissions in Scotland: a national prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) COVID-19 vaccines have shown high efficacy against disease in phase 3 clinical trials and are now being used in national vaccination programmes in the UK and several other countries. Studying the real-world effects of these vaccines is an urgent requirement. The aim of our study was to investigate the association between the mass roll-out of the first doses of these COVID-19 vaccines and hospital admissions for COVID-19. METHODS: We did a prospective cohort study using the Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19-EAVE II-database comprising linked vaccination, primary care, real-time reverse transcription-PCR testing, and hospital admission patient records for 5·4 million people in Scotland (about 99% of the population) registered at 940 general practices. Individuals who had previously tested positive were excluded from the analysis. A time-dependent Cox model and Poisson regression models with inverse propensity weights were fitted to estimate effectiveness against COVID-19 hospital admission (defined as 1-adjusted rate ratio) following the first dose of vaccine. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 22, 2021, a total of 1 331 993 people were vaccinated over the study period. The mean age of those vaccinated was 65·0 years (SD 16·2). The first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was associated with a vaccine effect of 91% (95% CI 85-94) for reduced COVID-19 hospital admission at 28-34 days post-vaccination. Vaccine effect at the same time interval for the ChAdOx1 vaccine was 88% (95% CI 75-94). Results of combined vaccine effects against hospital admission due to COVID-19 were similar when restricting the analysis to those aged 80 years and older (83%, 95% CI 72-89 at 28-34 days post-vaccination). INTERPRETATION: Mass roll-out of the first doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA and ChAdOx1 vaccines was associated with substantial reductions in the risk of hospital admission due to COVID-19 in Scotland. There remains the possibility that some of the observed effects might have been due to residual confounding. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, Health Data Research UK.