Primary care preparedness for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a survey of NHS GPs.

BACKGROUND: Primary care manages a significant proportion of healthcare in the United Kingdom and should be a key part of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic response. AIM: To assess preparedness for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic by understanding GPs' perception of their ability to manage current and future service demand, set-up of triage processes, and training in Covid-19 infection prevention and control procedures. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional survey of practicing GPs in the United Kingdom, with 2 rounds of data collection early in the pandemic. METHODS: Online survey, scripted and hosted by medeConnect Healthcare, comprising 6 closed prompts on 7-point Likert scales, and an optional free-text component. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Free-text data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: One thousand two GPs completed each round; 51 GPs completed free-text responses in March, and 64 in April. Quantitative data showed greatest confidence in triage of Covid-19 patients, and GPs were more confident managing current than future Covid-19 demand. GPs' responses were more optimistic and aligned in April than March. Free-text data highlighted that GPs were concerned about lack of appropriate personal protective equipment and personal risk of Covid-19 infection in March, and unmet needs of non-Covid-19 patients in April. In both rounds, GPs expressed feeling overlooked by government and public health bodies. CONCLUSION: Guidance to support general practice clinicians to manage future waves of Covid-19 or other health emergencies must be tailored to general practice from the outset, to support clinicians to manage competing health demands, and mitigate impacts on primary care providers' wellbeing.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has posed significant challenges for the health services in the United Kingdom and abroad. A Doctors Association UK poll published in early March 2020 found that only 1% of 800 GPs believed the NHS was well prepared for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We surveyed 1,002 GPs across the United Kingdom to gauge how well prepared they felt to cope with the challenges posed by Covid-19. We conducted surveys in March and April 2020, an important time early in the pandemic with rapid changes and uncertainty. We found that GPs were more confident about their ability to manage Covid-19 patients, and do so safely, in April. GPs were most confident that they would be able to triage Covid-19 patients but were concerned about future Covid-19 demand. GPs expressed frustration about a lack of personal protective equipment in March. In April, GPs' primary concern was that patients with other health concerns were not being seen. In both samples, GPs expressed feelings of being overlooked by the government. Primary care needs tailored guidance from as early as possible in a health crisis to support clinicians to manage the competing demands of responding to emergency situations, maintain usual care and their own wellbeing.

How do Healthcare Workers 'Do' Guidelines? Exploring How Policy Decisions Impacted UK Healthcare Workers During the First Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

We describe how COVID-19-related policy decisions and guidelines impacted healthcare workers (HCWs) during the UK's first COVID-19 pandemic phase. Guidelines in healthcare aim to streamline processes, improve quality and manage risk. However, we argue that during this time the guidelines we studied often fell short of these goals in practice. We analysed 74 remote interviews with 14 UK HCWs over 6 months (February-August 2020). Reframing guidelines through Mol's lens of 'enactment', we reveal embodied, relational and material impacts that some guidelines had for HCWs. Beyond guideline 'adherence', we show that enacting guidelines is an ongoing, complex process of negotiating and balancing multilevel tensions. Overall, guidelines: (1) were inconsistently communicated; (2) did not sufficiently accommodate contextual considerations; and (3) were at times in tension with HCWs' values. Healthcare policymakers should produce more agile, acceptable guidelines that frontline HCWs can enact in ways which make sense and are effective in their contexts.

Canadian critical care nurses experiences on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Recent pandemics have provided important lessons to inform planning for public health emergencies. Despite these lessons, gaps in implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic are evident. Additionally, research to inform interventions to support the needs of front-line nurses during a prolonged pandemic are lacking. We aimed to gain an understanding of critical care nurses' perspectives of the ongoing pandemic, including their opinions of their organization and governments response to the pandemic, to inform interventions to improve the response to the current and future pandemics. METHODS: This sub-study is part of a cross-sectional online survey distributed to Canadian critical care nurses at two time points during the pandemic (March-May 2020; April-May 2021). We employed a qualitative descriptive design comprised of three open-ended questions to provide an opportunity for participants to share perspectives not specifically addressed in the main survey. Responses were analyzed using conventional content analysis. RESULTS: One hundred nine of the 168 (64.9%) participants in the second survey responded to the open-ended questions. While perspectives about effectiveness of both their organization's and the government's responses to the pandemic were mixed, most noted that inconsistent and unclear communication made it difficult to trust the information provided. Several participants who had worked during previous pandemics noted that their organization's COVID-19 response failed to incorporate lessons from these past experiences. Many respondents reported high levels of burnout and moral distress that negatively affected both their professional and personal lives. Despite these experiences, several respondents noted that support from co-workers had helped them to cope with the stress and challenges. CONCLUSION: One year into the pandemic, critical care nurses' lived experiences continue to reflect previously identified challenges and opportunities for improvement in pandemic preparedness and response. These findings suggest that lessons from the current and prior pandemics have been inadequately considered in the COVID-19 response. Incorporation of these perspectives into interventions to improve the health system response, and support the needs of critical care nurses is essential to fostering a resilient health workforce. Research to understand the experience of other front-line workers and to learn from more and less successful interventions, and leaders, is needed.

Risk Communication and Community Engagement During the Migrant Worker COVID-19 Outbreak in Singapore.

In early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore, Risk Communication and Community Engagement (RCCE) with large, diverse communities of migrant workers living in high-density accommodation was slow to develop. By August 2020, Singapore had reported 55,661 cases of COVID-19, with migrant workers comprising 94.6% of the cases. A system of RCCE among migrant worker communities in Singapore was developed to maximize synergy in RCCE. Proactive stakeholder engagement and participatory approaches with affected communities were key to effective dissemination of scientific information about COVID-19 and its prevention.

Immunity certification for COVID-19: ethical considerations.

Restrictive measures imposed because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have resulted in severe social, economic and health effects. Some countries have considered the use of immunity certification as a strategy to relax these measures for people who have recovered from the infection by issuing these individuals a document, commonly called an immunity passport. This document certifies them as having protective immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19. The World Health Organization has advised against the implementation of immunity certification at present because of uncertainty about whether long-term immunity truly exists for those who have recovered from COVID-19 and concerns over the reliability of the proposed serological test method for determining immunity. Immunity certification can only be considered if scientific thresholds for assuring immunity are met, whether based on antibodies or other criteria. However, even if immunity certification became well supported by science, it has many ethical issues in terms of different restrictions on individual liberties and its implementation process. We examine the main considerations for the ethical acceptability of immunity certification to exempt individuals from restrictive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. As well as needing to meet robust scientific criteria, the ethical acceptability of immunity certification depends on its uses and policy objectives and the measures in place to reduce potential harms, and prevent disproportionate burdens on non-certified individuals and violation of individual liberties and rights.

Les restrictions imposées dans le cadre de la lutte contre la pandémie de maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) ont eu de lourdes conséquences économiques, sociales et sanitaires. Certains pays ont envisagé la mise en place d'une stratégie visant à alléger ces restrictions pour les individus guéris en leur octroyant un document communément appelé «passeport d'immunité¼. Ce document atteste qu'ils ont développé une immunité protectrice contre le coronavirus 2 du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère (SARS-CoV-2), le virus à l'origine de la COVID-19. L'Organisation mondiale de la Santé a déconseillé l'usage du certificat d'immunité pour l'instant, car l'incertitude demeure quant à l'existence réelle d'une immunité à long terme pour ceux qui se sont remis de la COVID-19. En outre, la fiabilité des tests sérologiques censés déterminer si l'individu est immunisé n'est pas avérée. Un tel certificat ne peut être instauré que si les seuils scientifiques en matière d'immunité sont respectés, qu'ils soient fondés sur les anticorps ou sur d'autres critères. Néanmoins, même si le certificat d'immunité est désormais bien accepté par la science, il s'accompagne de nombreuses questions d'ordre éthique en ce qui concerne la limitation des libertés individuelles et la mise en œuvre. Dans le présent document, nous examinons les principales considérations à prendre en compte pour garantir l'acceptabilité éthique du certificat d'immunité visant à lever les mesures de restriction pour certaines personnes durant la pandémie de COVID-19. Cette acceptabilité éthique dépend non seulement de son degré de conformité à des critères scientifiques stricts, mais aussi de son usage, des objectifs politiques ainsi que des mesures mises en place pour atténuer les préjudices potentiels et éviter d'imposer une charge disproportionnée sur les individus dépourvus de certificat, ou de bafouer les droits et libertés de tout un chacun.

Las medidas restrictivas impuestas a causa de la pandemia de la enfermedad coronavirus de 2019 (COVID-19) han tenido graves efectos sociales, económicos y sanitarios. Algunos países han considerado la posibilidad de utilizar la certificación de inmunidad como estrategia para flexibilizar dichas medidas para las personas que se han recuperado de la infección mediante la expedición a dichas personas de un documento, comúnmente denominado pasaporte de inmunidad. Este documento certifica que han desarrollado inmunidad protectora contra el coronavirus-2 del síndrome respiratorio agudo severo (SARS-CoV-2), el virus que causa la COVID-19. La Organización Mundial de la Salud ha desaconsejado la aplicación de la certificación de la inmunidad en la actualidad debido a la incertidumbre sobre si existe realmente una inmunidad a largo plazo para quienes se han recuperado de la COVID-19 y a las preocupaciones sobre la fiabilidad del método de prueba serológica propuesto para determinar la inmunidad. La certificación de la inmunidad solo puede considerarse si se cumplen los umbrales científicos para asegurar la inmunidad, ya sea que se basen en anticuerpos o en otros criterios. Sin embargo, incluso si la certificación de la inmunidad llegara a estar bien respaldada por la ciencia, tiene muchas cuestiones éticas en cuanto a las diferentes restricciones de las libertades individuales y su proceso de aplicación. Examinamos las principales consideraciones sobre la aceptabilidad ética de la certificación de la inmunidad para eximir a los individuos de las medidas restrictivas durante la pandemia de la COVID-19. Además de necesitar cumplir criterios científicos sólidos, la aceptabilidad ética de la certificación de inmunidad depende de sus usos y objetivos de política y de las medidas que se apliquen para reducir los posibles daños y evitar que se impongan cargas desproporcionadas a las personas que no cuenten con dicha certificación y se violen las libertades y derechos individuales.

Perspectives on COVID-19 testing policies and practices: a qualitative study with scientific advisors and NHS health care workers in England.

BACKGROUND: As COVID-19 death rates have risen and health-care systems have experienced increased demand, national testing strategies have come under scrutiny. Utilising qualitative interview data from a larger COVID-19 study, this paper provides insights into influences on and the enactment of national COVID-19 testing strategies for health care workers (HCWs) in English NHS settings during wave one of the COVID-19 pandemic (March-August 2020). Through the findings we aim to inform learning about COVID-19 testing policies and practices; and to inform future pandemic diagnostic preparedness. METHODS: A remote qualitative, semi-structured longitudinal interview method was employed with a purposive snowball sample of senior scientific advisors to the UK Government on COVID-19, and HCWs employed in NHS primary and secondary health care settings in England. Twenty-four interviews from 13 participants were selected from the larger project dataset using a key term search, as not all of the transcripts contained references to testing. Framework analysis was informed by the non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability of patient-facing health and care technologies implementation framework (NASSS) and by normalisation process theory (NPT). RESULTS: Our account highlights tensions between the communication and implementation of national testing developments; scientific advisor and HCW perceptions about infectiousness; and uncertainties about the responsibility for testing and its implications at the local level. CONCLUSIONS: Consideration must be given to the implications of mass NHS staff testing, including the accuracy of information communicated to HCWs; how HCWs interpret, manage, and act on testing guidance; and the influence these have on health care organisations and services.

Developing a whole-school mental health and wellbeing intervention through pragmatic formative process evaluation: a case-study of innovative local practice within The School Health Research network.

BACKGROUND: The evidence-base for whole school approaches aimed at improving student mental health and wellbeing remains limited. This may be due to a focus on developing and evaluating de-novo, research-led interventions, while neglecting the potential of local, contextually-relevant innovation that has demonstrated acceptability and feasibility. This study reports a novel approach to modelling and refining the programme theory of a whole-school restorative approach, alongside plans to scale up through a national educational infrastructure in order to support robust scientific evaluation. METHODS: A pragmatic formative process evaluation was conducted of a routinized whole-school restorative approach aimed at improving student mental health and wellbeing in Wales. RESULTS: The study reports the six phases of the pragmatic formative process evaluation. These are: 1) identification of innovative local practice; 2) scoping review of evidence-base to identify potential programme theory; outcomes; and contextual characteristics that influence implementation; 3) establishment of a Transdisciplinary Action Research (TDAR) group; 4) co-production and confirmation of an initial programme theory with stakeholders; 5) planning to optimise intervention delivery in local contexts; and 6) planning for feasibility and outcome evaluation. The phases of this model may be iterative and not necessarily sequential. CONCLUSIONS: Formative, pragmatic process evaluations can support researchers, policy-makers and practitioners in developing robust scientific evidence-bases for acceptable and feasible local innovations that do not already have a clear evidence base. The case of a whole-school restorative approach provides a case example of how such an evaluation may be undertaken.

COVID-19 infection prevention and control procedures and institutional trust: Perceptions of Canadian intensive care and emergency department nurses.

PURPOSE: Healthcare workers must ensure effective infection prevention and control (IPC) to prevent nosocomial spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. This questionnaire study aims to evaluate Canadian critical care and emergency department nurses' readiness to follow IPC guidelines in their workplace, and to understand their perceptions of trust in organizational preparedness, communication, and infection risk. METHODS: We adapted an internationally distributed survey for the Canadian context. This cross-sectional questionnaire, incorporating validated scales for items including institutional trust, was distributed by email to nurses via the Canadian Association of Critical Care Nurses and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians networks between 16 March and 25 May 2020. We evaluated intensive care unit and emergency department nurses' adherence to IPC protocols, barriers and facilitators to IPC guideline adherence, and their level of institutitonal trust. RESULTS: Three hundred and nineteen nurses responded to the survey. There was higher trust in organizational preparedness among nurses who were older (B = 0.31, P < 0.001) and more experienced (F = 18.09, P < 0.001), and particularly among those with previous experience working in outbreak settings (F = 7.87, P = 0.005). Compared with those without experience working in outbreak settings, respondents with this experience reported higher levels of fear of becoming ill and fear of providing care for COVID-19 patients (χ2 = 21.48, P = 0.002 and χ2 = 12.61, P = 0.05, respectively). Older and more experienced nurses reported greater comfort with IPC skills and easier access to personal protective equipment. While the vast majority (96%) of respondents reported using masks and gloves, only 83% had access to isolation facilities for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases. CONCLUSION: Canadian nurses had strong self-reported adherence to IPC measures and personal protective equipment use. There were high levels of trust in health system leadership to ensure protective measures are present and reliable. Trust was particularly high among older and more experienced nurses despite these populations reporting higher levels of fear of personal illness.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les travailleurs de la santé doivent assurer l'efficacité de la prévention et du contrôle des infections (PCI) pour prévenir la propagation nosocomiale du SRAS-CoV-2, le virus qui cause la COVID-19. Cette étude sous forme de questionnaire vise à évaluer le degré de préparation des infirmières et infirmiers des services d'urgence et de soins intensifs canadiens à suivre les lignes directrices de la PCI sur leur lieu de travail, ainsi qu'à comprendre leur degré de confiance dans la préparation, la communication et le risque d'infection au niveau de l'organisation. MéTHODE: Nous avons adapté un sondage distribué à l'échelle internationale au contexte canadien. Ce questionnaire sectoriel, incorporant des échelles validées pour des éléments tels que la confiance institutionnelle, a été distribué par courriel aux infirmières et infirmiers par l'entremise de l'Association canadienne des infirmiers/infirmières en soins intensifs et des réseaux de l'Association canadienne des médecins d'urgence entre le 16 mars et le 25 mai 2020. Nous avons évalué l'adhésion du personnel infirmier des unités de soins intensifs et des services d'urgence aux protocoles de la PCI, les obstacles et les facilitateurs à l'observance des lignes directrices de la PCI, ainsi que leur niveau de confiance institutionnelle. RéSULTATS: Trois cent dix-neuf infirmières et infirmiers ont répondu au questionnaire. Il y avait une plus grande confiance dans la préparation organisationnelle chez les infirmières et infirmiers plus âgés (B = 0,31, P < 0,001) et plus expérimentés (F = 18,09, P < 0,001), et en particulier parmi celles et ceux qui avaient déjà travaillé dans des contextes d'éclosion (F = 7,87, P = 0,005). Comparativement à celles et ceux qui n'ont pas d'expérience dans des contextes d'éclosion, les répondant(e)s avec expérience ont signalé des niveaux plus élevés de peur de tomber malade et de peur de fournir des soins aux patients atteints de la COVID-19 (χ2 = 21,48, P = 0,002 et χ2 = 12,61, P = 0,05, respectivement). Les infirmières et infirmiers plus âgés et plus expérimentés ont déclaré être plus à l'aise avec leurs compétences en PCI et avoir un meilleur accès aux équipements de protection individuelle. Alors que la grande majorité (96 %) des répondant(e)s ont déclaré avoir utilisé des masques et des gants, seulement 83 % avaient accès à des zones d'isolement pour les cas présumés ou confirmés de COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Les infirmières et infirmiers canadiens ont rapporté une forte adhésion aux mesures de la PCI et à l'utilisation des équipements de protection individuelle. Il y avait un niveau élevé de confiance dans le leadership du système de santé pour s'assurer que les mesures de protection étaient présentes et fiables. La confiance était particulièrement élevée chez le personnel infirmier plus âgé et plus expérimenté, bien les niveaux de peur d'être personnellement atteint de la maladie étaient plus élevés pour ces infirmières et infirmiers.

Addressing challenges for clinical research responses to emerging epidemics and pandemics: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Major infectious disease outbreaks are a constant threat to human health. Clinical research responses to outbreaks generate evidence to improve outcomes and outbreak control. Experiences from previous epidemics have identified multiple challenges to undertaking timely clinical research responses. This scoping review is a systematic appraisal of political, economic, administrative, regulatory, logistical, ethical and social (PEARLES) challenges to clinical research responses to emergency epidemics and solutions identified to address these. METHODS: A scoping review. We searched six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, PsycINFO, Scopus and Epistemonikos) for articles published from 2008 to July 2018. We included publications reporting PEARLES challenges to clinical research responses to emerging epidemics and pandemics and solutions identified to address these. Two reviewers screened articles for inclusion, extracted and analysed the data. RESULTS: Of 2678 articles screened, 76 were included. Most presented data relating to the 2014-2016 Ebola virus outbreak or the H1N1 outbreak in 2009. The articles related to clinical research responses in Africa (n = 37), Europe (n = 8), North America (n = 5), Latin America and the Caribbean (n = 3) and Asia (n = 1) and/or globally (n = 22). A wide range of solutions to PEARLES challenges was presented, including a need to strengthen global collaborations and coordination at all levels and develop pre-approved protocols and equitable frameworks, protocols and standards for emergencies. Clinical trial networks and expedited funding and approvals were some solutions implemented. National ownership and community engagement from the outset were a key enabler for delivery. Despite the wide range of recommended solutions, none had been formally evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: To strengthen global preparedness and response to the COVID-19 pandemic and future epidemics, identified solutions for rapid clinical research deployment, delivery, and dissemination must be implemented. Improvements are urgently needed to strengthen collaborations, funding mechanisms, global and national research capacity and capability, targeting regions vulnerable to epidemics and pandemics. Solutions need to be flexible to allow timely adaptations to context, and research led by governments of affected regions. Research communities globally need to evaluate their activities and incorporate lessons learnt to refine and rehearse collaborative outbreak response plans in between epidemics.

Implementation of the Family Nurse Partnership programme in England: experiences of key health professionals explored through trial parallel process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The Family Nurse Partnership (FNP) programme was introduced to support young first-time mothers. A randomised trial found FNP added little short-term benefit compared to usual care. The study included a comprehensive parallel process evaluation, including focus groups, conducted to aid understanding of the introduction of the programme into a new service and social context. The aim of the focus groups was to investigate views of key health professionals towards the integration and delivery of FNP programme in England. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted separately with Family Nurses, Health Visitors and Midwives at trial sites during 2011-2012. Transcripts from audio-recordings were analysed thematically. RESULTS: A total of 122 professionals participated in one of 19 focus groups. Family Nurses were confident in the effectiveness of FNP, although they experienced practical difficulties meeting programme fidelity targets and considered that programme goals did not sufficiently reflect client or community priorities. Health Visitors and Midwives regarded FNP as well-resourced and beneficial to clients, describing their own services as undervalued and struggling. They wished to work closely with Family Nurses, but felt excluded from doing so by practical barriers and programme protection. CONCLUSION: FNP was described as well-resourced and delivered by highly motivated and well supported Family Nurses. FNP eligibility, content and outcomes conflicted with individual client and community priorities. These factors may have restricted the potential effectiveness of a programme developed and previously tested in a different social milieu. Building Blocks ISRCTN23019866 Registered 20/04/2009.