Informing evidence-based policy during the COVID-19 pandemic and recovery period: learning from a national evidence centre.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the vital need for research to inform policy decision-making and save lives. The Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre (WCEC) was established in March 2021 and funded for two years, to make evidence about the impact of the pandemic and ongoing research priorities for Wales available and actionable to policy decision-makers, service leads and the public. OBJECTIVES: We describe the approaches we developed and our experiences, challenges and future vision. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION: The centre operated with a core team, including a public partnership group, and six experienced research groups as collaborating partners. Our rapid evidence delivery process had five stages: 1. Stakeholder engagement (continued throughout all stages); 2. Research question prioritisation; 3. Bespoke rapid evidence review methodology in a phased approach; 4. Rapid primary research; and 5. Knowledge Mobilisation to ensure the evidence was available for decision-makers. MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS: Between March 2021-23 we engaged with 44 stakeholder groups, completed 35 Rapid Evidence Reviews, six Rapid Evidence Maps and 10 Rapid Evidence Summaries. We completed four primary research studies, with three published in peer reviewed journals, and seven ongoing. Our evidence informed policy decision-making and was cited in 19 Welsh Government papers. These included pandemic infection control measures, the Action Plan to tackle gender inequalities, and Education Renew and Reform policy. We conducted 24 Welsh Government evidence briefings and three public facing symposia. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Strong engagement with stakeholder groups, a phased rapid evidence review approach, and primary research to address key gaps in current knowledge enabled high-quality efficient, evidence outputs to be delivered to help inform Welsh policy decision-making during the pandemic. We learn from these processes to continue to deliver evidence from March 2023 as the Health and Care Research Wales Evidence Centre, with a broader remit of health and social care, to help inform policy and practice decisions during the recovery phase and beyond.

The Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Community Diagnostic Centres: A Rapid Review.

Objectives: To examine the effectiveness of community diagnostic centres as a potential solution to increasing capacity and reducing pressure on secondary care in the UK. Methods: A comprehensive search for relevant primary studies was conducted in a range of electronic sources in August 2022. Screening and critical appraisal were undertaken by two independent reviewers. There were no geographical restrictions or limits to year of publication. A narrative synthesis approach was used to analyse data and present findings. Results: Twenty primary studies evaluating twelve individual diagnostic centres were included. Most studies were specific to cancer diagnosis and evaluated diagnostic centres located within hospitals. The evidence of effectiveness appeared mixed. There is evidence to suggest diagnostic centres can reduce various waiting times and reduce pressure on secondary care. However, cost-effectiveness may depend on whether the diagnostic centre is running at full capacity. Most included studies used weak methodologies that may be inadequate to infer effectiveness. Conclusion: Further well-designed, quality research is needed to better understand the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of community diagnostic centres.

Effectiveness and safety of asynchronous telemedicine consultations in general practice: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is a focus on increasing asynchronous telemedicine use, which allows medical data to be transmitted, stored, and interpreted later; however, limited evidence of the quality of care it allows in general practice hinders its use. AIM: To investigate uses and effectiveness of asynchronous telemedicine in general practice, according to the domains of healthcare quality, and describe how the COVID-19 pandemic changed its use. DESIGN & SETTING: Systematic review in general practice. METHOD: A systematic search was carried out across four databases using terms related to general practice, asynchronous telemedicine, uses, and effectiveness, and supported by citation searching. This was followed by screening according to pre-defined criteria, data extraction, and critical appraisal. Narrative synthesis was then undertaken guided by the six domains of healthcare quality and exploring differences in use before and following the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Searches yielded 6864 reports; 27 reports from 23 studies were included. Asynchronous telemedicine is used by a range of staff and patients across many countries. Safety and equity are poorly reported but there were no major safety concerns. Evidence from other domains of healthcare quality show effectiveness in making diagnoses, prescribing medications, replacing other consultations, providing timely care, and increased convenience for patients. Efficiency is impacted by negative effects on workflow, through poor implementation and patient non-adherence, limiting usability and requiring new administrative approaches from healthcare staff. Asynchronous telemedicine use increased rapidly from March 2020, following the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. CONCLUSION: Asynchronous telemedicine provides quality care for patients but is limited by reports of increased workload and inefficient workflow compared with face-to-face consultations. Limits of evidence include heterogeneity and small-scale studies. Further research into cost-effectiveness, equity, safety, and sustained implementation will influence future policy and practice.

Analysis of applying a patient safety taxonomy to patient and clinician-reported incident reports during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in major disruption to healthcare delivery worldwide causing medical services to adapt their standard practices. Learning how these adaptations result in unintended patient harm is essential to mitigate against future incidents. Incident reporting and learning system data can be used to identify areas to improve patient safety. A classification system is required to make sense of such data to identify learning and priorities for further in-depth investigation. The Patient Safety (PISA) classification system was created for this purpose, but it is not known if classification systems are sufficient to capture novel safety concepts arising from crises like the pandemic. We aimed to review the application of the PISA classification system during the COVID-19 pandemic to appraise whether modifications were required to maintain its meaningful use for the pandemic context. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study integrating two phases in an exploratory, sequential design. This included a comparative secondary analysis of patient safety incident reports from two studies conducted during the first wave of the pandemic, where we coded patient-reported incidents from the UK and clinician-reported incidents from France. The findings were presented to a focus group of experts in classification systems and patient safety, and a thematic analysis was conducted on the resultant transcript. RESULTS: We identified five key themes derived from the data analysis and expert group discussion. These included capitalising on the unique perspective of safety concerns from different groups, that existing frameworks do identify priority areas to investigate further, the objectives of a study shape the data interpretation, the pandemic spotlighted long-standing patient concerns, and the time period in which data are collected offers valuable context to aid explanation. The group consensus was that no COVID-19-specific codes were warranted, and the PISA classification system was fit for purpose. CONCLUSIONS: We have scrutinised the meaningful use of the PISA classification system's application during a period of systemic healthcare constraint, the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite these constraints, we found the framework can be successfully applied to incident reports to enable deductive analysis, identify areas for further enquiry and thus support organisational learning. No new or amended codes were warranted. Organisations and investigators can use our findings when reviewing their own classification systems.

Household Composition and Inequalities in COVID-19 Vaccination in Wales, UK.

The uptake of COVID-19 vaccination in Wales is high at a population level but many inequalities exist. Household composition may be an important factor in COVID-19 vaccination uptake due to the practical, social, and psychological implications associated with different living arrangements. In this study, the role of household composition in the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination in Wales was examined with the aim of identifying areas for intervention to address inequalities. Records within the Wales Immunisation System (WIS) COVID-19 vaccination register were linked to the Welsh Demographic Service Dataset (WDSD; a population register for Wales) held within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank. Eight household types were defined based on household size, the presence or absence of children, and the presence of single or multiple generations. Uptake of the second dose of any COVID-19 vaccine was analysed using logistic regression. Gender, age group, health board, rural/urban residential classification, ethnic group, and deprivation quintile were included as covariates for multivariable regression. Compared to two-adult households, all other household types were associated with lower uptake. The most significantly reduced uptake was observed for large, multigenerational, adult group households (aOR 0.45, 95%CI 0.43-0.46). Comparing multivariable regression with and without incorporation of household composition as a variable produced significant differences in odds of vaccination for health board, age group, and ethnic group categories. These results indicate that household composition is an important factor for the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination and consideration of differences in household composition is necessary to mitigate vaccination inequalities.

Emergency department clinical leads' experiences of implementing primary care services where GPs work in or alongside emergency departments in the UK: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: To manage increasing demand for emergency and unscheduled care NHS England policy has promoted services in which patients presenting to Emergency Departments (EDs) with non-urgent problems are directed to general practitioners (GPs) and other primary care clinicians working within or alongside emergency departments. However, the ways that hospitals have implemented primary care services in EDs are varied. The aim of this study was to describe ED clinical leads' experiences of implementing and delivering 'primary care services' and 'emergency medicine services' where GPs were integrated into the ED team. METHODS: We conducted interviews with ED clinical leads in England (n = 19) and Wales (n = 2). We used framework analysis to analyse interview transcripts and explore differences across 'primary care services', 'emergency medicine services' and emergency departments without primary care services. RESULTS: In EDs with separate primary care services, success was reported when having a distinct workforce of primary care clinicians, who improved waiting times and flow by seeing primary care-type patients in a timely way, using fewer investigations, and enabling ED doctors to focus on more acutely unwell patients. Some challenges were: trying to align their service with the policy guidance, inconsistent demand for primary care, accessible community primary care services, difficulties in recruiting GPs, lack of funding, difficulties in agreeing governance protocols and establishing effective streaming pathways. Where GPs were integrated into an ED workforce success was reported as managing the demand for both emergency and primary care and reducing admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Introducing a policy advocating a preferred model of service to address primary care demand was not useful for all emergency departments. To support successful and sustainable primary care services in or alongside EDs, policy makers and commissioners should consider varied ways that GPs can be employed to manage variation in local demand and also local contextual factors such as the ability to recruit and retain GPs, sustainable funding, clear governance frameworks, training, support and guidance for all staff. Whether or not streaming to a separate primary care service is useful also depended on the level of primary care demand.

Management of erectile dysfunction after prostate cancer treatment: cross-sectional surveys of the perceptions and experiences of patients and healthcare professionals in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is known to be a common consequence of radical treatment for prostate cancer (PCa) but is often under-reported and undertreated. This study aimed to explore how ED in patients with PCa is managed in real-life clinical practice, from the perspective of patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs). DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a UK-wide cross-sectional survey of men with ED after treatment for PCa which covered assessment and discussion of erectile function, provision of supportive care and satisfaction with management. Parallel surveys of primary and secondary HCPs were also conducted. RESULTS: Responses were received from 546 men with ED after PCa treatment, 167 primary (general practitioners and practice nurses) and 94 secondary care HCPs (urologists and urology clinical nurse specialists). Survey findings revealed inadequate management of ED in primary care, particularly underprescribing of effective management options. A fifth of men (21%) were not offered any ED management, and a similar proportion (23%) were not satisfied with the way HCPs addressed their ED concerns. There was poor communication between HCPs and men, including failure to initiate discussions about ED and/or involve partners, with 12% of men not told that ED was a risk factor of PCa treatment. These issues seemed to reflect poor access to effective ED management or services and lack of primary HCP confidence in managing ED, as well as confusion over the roles and responsibilities among both HCPs and men. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the need for better support for men from HCPs and more tailored and timely access to effective ED management after treatment for PCa. A clearly defined pathway is required for the discussion and management of ED, starting from the planning stage of PCa treatment. Improved adherence to ED management guidelines and better education and training for primary care HCPs are areas of priority.

The impact of general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments: a rapid realist review.

OBJECTIVES: Worldwide, emergency healthcare systems are under intense pressure from ever-increasing demand and evidence is urgently needed to understand how this can be safely managed. An estimated 10%-43% of emergency department patients could be treated by primary care services. In England, this has led to a policy proposal and £100 million of funding (US$130 million), for emergency departments to stream appropriate patients to a co-located primary care facility so they are 'free to care for the sickest patients'. However, the research evidence to support this initiative is weak. DESIGN: Rapid realist literature review. SETTING: Emergency departments. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Articles describing general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments. AIM: To develop context-specific theories that explain how and why general practitioners working in or alongside emergency departments affect: patient flow; patient experience; patient safety and the wider healthcare system. RESULTS: Ninety-six articles contributed data to theory development sourced from earlier systematic reviews, updated database searches (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane DSR & CRCT, DARE, HTA Database, BSC, PsycINFO and SCOPUS) and citation tracking. We developed theories to explain: how staff interpret the streaming system; different roles general practitioners adopt in the emergency department setting (traditional, extended, gatekeeper or emergency clinician) and how these factors influence patient (experience and safety) and organisational (demand and cost-effectiveness) outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors influence the effectiveness of emergency department streaming to general practitioners; caution is needed in embedding the policy until further research and evaluation are available. Service models that encourage the traditional general practitioner approach may have shorter process times for non-urgent patients; however, there is little evidence that this frees up emergency department staff to care for the sickest patients. Distinct primary care services offering increased patient choice may result in provider-induced demand. Economic evaluation and safety requires further research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017069741.

Sources of unsafe primary care for older adults: a mixed-methods analysis of patient safety incident reports.

Background: older adults are frequent users of primary healthcare services, but are at increased risk of healthcare-related harm in this setting. Objectives: to describe the factors associated with actual or potential harm to patients aged 65 years and older, treated in primary care, to identify action to produce safer care. Design and Setting: a cross-sectional mixed-methods analysis of a national (England and Wales) database of patient safety incident reports from 2005 to 2013. Subjects: 1,591 primary care patient safety incident reports regarding patients aged 65 years and older. Methods: we developed a classification system for the analysis of patient safety incident reports to describe: the incident and preceding chain of incidents; other contributory factors; and patient harm outcome. We combined findings from exploratory descriptive and thematic analyses to identify key sources of unsafe care. Results: the main sources of unsafe care in our weighted sample were due to: medication-related incidents e.g. prescribing, dispensing and administering (n = 486, 31%; 15% serious patient harm); communication-related incidents e.g. incomplete or non-transfer of information across care boundaries (n = 390, 25%; 12% serious patient harm); and clinical decision-making incidents which led to the most serious patient harm outcomes (n = 203, 13%; 41% serious patient harm). Conclusion: priority areas for further research to determine the burden and preventability of unsafe primary care for older adults, include: the timely electronic tools for prescribing, dispensing and administering medication in the community; electronic transfer of information between healthcare settings; and, better clinical decision-making support and guidance.