Health screening clinic to reduce absenteeism and presenteeism among NHS Staff: eTHOS a pilot RCT.

Background: Staff sickness absenteeism and presenteeism (attending work while unwell) incur high costs to the NHS, are associated with adverse patient outcomes and have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The main causes are mental and musculoskeletal ill health with cardiovascular risk factors common. Objectives: To undertake a feasibility study to inform the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a health screening clinic in reducing absenteeism and presenteeism amongst the National Health Service staff. Design: Individually randomised controlled pilot trial of the staff health screening clinic compared with usual care, including qualitative process evaluation. Setting: Four United Kingdom National Health Service hospitals from two urban and one rural Trust. Participants: Hospital employees who had not previously attended a pilot health screening clinic at Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham. Interventions: Nurse-led staff health screening clinic with assessment for musculoskeletal health (STarT musculoskeletal; STarT Back), mental health (patient health questionnaire-9; generalised anxiety disorder questionnaire-7) and cardiovascular health (NHS health check if aged ≥ 40, lifestyle check if < 40 years). Screen positives were given advice and/or referral to services according to UK guidelines. Main outcome measures: The three coprimary outcomes were recruitment, referrals and attendance at referred services. These formed stop/go criteria when considered together. If any of these values fell into the 'amber' zone, then the trial would require modifications to proceed to full trial. If all were 'red', then the trial would be considered unfeasible. Secondary outcomes collected to inform the design of the definitive randomised controlled trial included: generalisability, screening results, individual referrals required/attended, health behaviours, acceptability/feasibility of processes, indication of contamination and costs. Outcomes related to the definitive trial included self-reported and employee records of absenteeism with reasons. Process evaluation included interviews with participants, intervention delivery staff and service providers. Descriptive statistics were presented and framework analysis conducted for qualitative data. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, outcomes were captured up to 6 months only. Results: Three hundred and fourteen participants were consented (236 randomised), the majority within 4 months. The recruitment rate of 314/3788 (8.3%) invited was lower than anticipated (meeting red for this criteria), but screening identified that 57/118 (48.3%) randomised were eligible for referral to either general practitioner (81%), mental health (18%) and/or physiotherapy services (30%) (green). Early trial closure precluded determination of attendance at referrals, but 31.6% of those eligible reported intending to attend (amber). Fifty-one of the 80 (63.75%) planned qualitative interviews were conducted. Quantitative and qualitative data from the process evaluation indicated that the electronic database-driven screening intervention and data collection were efficient, promoting good fidelity, although needing more personalisation at times. Recruitment and delivery of the full trial would benefit from a longer development period to better understand local context, develop effective strategies for engaging with underserved groups, provide longer training and better integration with referral services. Delivery of the pilot was limited by the impact of COVID-19 with staff redeployment, COVID-research prioritisation and reduced availability of community and in-house referral services. While recruitment was rapid, it did not fully represent ethnic minority groups and truncated follow-up due to funding limitations prevented full assessment of attendance at recommended services and secondary outcomes. Conclusions: There is both a clinical need (evidenced by 48% screened eligible for a referral) and perceived benefit (data from the qualitative interviews) for this National Health Service staff health screening clinic. The three stop/go criteria were red, green and amber; therefore, the Trial Oversight Committee recommended that a full-scale trial should proceed, but with modifications to adapt to local context and adopt processes to engage better with underserved communities. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN10237475. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 17/42/42) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 23. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Sickness absenteeism and presenteeism (attendance at work while ill, with poor work performance) are major problems in the NHS and associated with worse patient health care. The most common causes of NHS staff sickness absenteeism and presenteeism are muscular complaints and mental ill health. Poor lifestyle and illnesses associated with heart disease are also important factors. Staff health checks might improve the health of NHS staff, but no studies have included screening tests to address the most common causes of poor staff health. This pilot study tested whether it would be possible to deliver a randomised controlled trial of an NHS staff health screening clinic, where some people get the screening check and others do not (chosen at random, like flipping a coin). We used an electronic database to capture all data. Participants completed initial questionnaires either at home or at work, then attended a face-to-face screening clinic using recognised screening questionnaires and tests to detect problems with muscular, mental or heart health. We considered how NHS staff and healthcare organisations would want the screening clinic and trial to run, how a diverse range of NHS staff could best be approached, how many staff might need to be invited and what their healthcare needs would be. The study ran in four UK NHS hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two hundred and thirty-six NHS staff participated, but early trial closure due to the pandemic meant that some results were unavailable. For the primary feasibility outcomes, although recruitment rates of around 8% were lower than anticipated, half of staff screened needed referral for further health care and one-third reported intending to attend. Staff felt that the clinic addressed an important health need. The Trial Oversight Committee recommended proceeding to a full-scale trial but with modifications to address findings from the process evaluation, including ways to encourage a wider group of NHS staff to take part.

Persons diagnosed with COVID-19 in England in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD): a cohort description.

OBJECTIVE: To create case definitions for confirmed COVID-19 diagnoses, COVID-19 vaccination status and three separate definitions of high risk of severe COVID-19, as well as to assess whether the implementation of these definitions in a cohort reflected the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 epidemiology in England. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Electronic healthcare records from primary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink, CPRD) linked to secondary care data (Hospital Episode Statistics) data covering 24% of the population in England. PARTICIPANTS: 2 271 072 persons aged 1 year and older diagnosed with COVID-19 in CPRD Aurum between 1 August 2020 and 31 January 2022. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Age, sex and regional distribution of COVID-19 cases and COVID-19 vaccine doses received prior to diagnosis were assessed separately for the cohorts of cases identified in primary care and those hospitalised for COVID-19 (primary diagnosis code of ICD-10 U07.1 'COVID-19'). Smoking status, body mass index and Charlson Comorbidity Index were compared for the two cohorts, as well as for three separate definitions of high risk of severe disease used in the UK (National Health Service Highest Risk, PANORAMIC trial eligibility, UK Health Security Agency Clinical Risk prioritisation for vaccination). RESULTS: Compared with national estimates, CPRD case estimates under-represented older adults in both the primary care (age 65-84: 6% in CPRD vs 9% nationally) and hospitalised (31% vs 40%) cohorts, and over-represented people living in regions with the highest median wealth areas of England (20% primary care and 20% hospital admitted cases in South East vs 15% nationally). The majority of non-hospitalised cases and all hospitalised cases had not completed primary series vaccination. In primary care, persons meeting high-risk definitions were older, more often smokers, overweight or obese, and had higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score. CONCLUSIONS: CPRD primary care data are a robust real-world data source and can be used for some COVID-19 research questions, however, limitations of the data availability should be carefully considered. Included in this publication are supplemental files for a total of over 28 000 codes to define each of three definitions of high risk of severe disease.

Randomised controlled trial testing effectiveness of feedback about lung age or exhaled CO combined with very brief advice for smoking cessation compared to very brief advice alone in North Macedonia: findings from the Breathe Well group.

INTRODUCTION: In 2019, smoking prevalence in North Macedonia was one of the world's highest at around 46% in adults. However, access to smoking cessation treatment is limited and no co-ordinated smoking cessation programmes are provided in primary care. METHODS: We conducted a three parallel-armed randomised controlled trial (n = 1368) to investigate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lung age (LA) or exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) feedback combined with very brief advice (VBA) to prompt smoking cessation compared with VBA alone, delivered by GPs in primary care in North Macedonia. All participants who decided to attempt to quit smoking were advised about accessing smoking cessation medications and were also offered behavioural support as part of the "ACT" component of VBA. Participants were aged ≥ 35 years, smoked ≥ 10 cigarettes per day, were recruited from 31 GP practices regardless of motivation to quit and were randomised (1:1:1) using a sequence generated before the start of recruitment. The primary outcome was biochemically validated 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 4 weeks (wks). Participants and GPs were not blinded to allocation after randomisation, however outcome assessors were blind to treatment allocation. RESULTS: There was no evidence of a difference in biochemically confirmed quitting between intervention and control at 4wks (VBA + LA RR 0.90 (97.5%CI: 0.35, 2.27); VBA + CO RR 1.04 (97.5%CI: 0.44, 2.44)), however the absolute number of quitters was small (VBA + LA 1.6%, VBA + CO 1.8%, VBA 1.8%). A similar lack of effect was observed at 12 and 26wks, apart from in the VBA + LA arm where the point estimate was significant but the confidence intervals were very wide. In both treatment arms, a larger proportion reported a reduction in cigarettes smoked per day at 4wks (VBA + LA 1.30 (1.10, 1.54); VBA + CO 1.23 (1.03, 1.49)) compared with VBA. The point estimates indicated a similar direction of effect at 12wks and 26wks, but differences were not statistically significant. Quantitative process measures indicated high fidelity to the intervention delivery protocols, but low uptake of behavioural and pharmacological support. VBA was the dominant intervention in the health economic analyses. CONCLUSION: Overall, there was no evidence that adding LA or CO to VBA increased quit rates. However, a small effect cannot be ruled out as the proportion quitting was low and therefore estimates were imprecise. There was some evidence that participants in the intervention arms were more likely to reduce the amount smoked, at least in the short term. More research is needed to find effective ways to support quitting in settings like North Macedonia where a strong smoking culture persists. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at http://www.isrctn.com (ISRCTN54228638) on the 07/09/2018.