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.

Perceived threat of COVID-19, attitudes towards vaccination, and vaccine hesitancy: A prospective longitudinal study in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: Using the Health Belief Model as a conceptual framework, we investigated the association between attitudes towards COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccinations, and vaccine hesitancy and change in these variables over a 9-month period in a UK cohort. METHODS: The COPE study cohort (n = 11,113) was recruited via an online survey at enrolment in March/April 2020. The study was advertised via the HealthWise Wales research registry and social media. Follow-up data were available for 6942 people at 3 months (June/July 2020) and 5037 at 12 months (March/April 2021) post-enrolment. Measures included demographics, perceived threat of COVID-19, perceived control, intention to accept or decline a COVID-19 vaccination, and attitudes towards vaccination. Logistic regression models were fitted cross-sectionally at 3 and 12 months to assess the association between motivational factors and vaccine hesitancy. Longitudinal changes in motivational variables for vaccine-hesitant and non-hesitant groups were examined using mixed-effect analysis of variance models. RESULTS: Fear of COVID-19, perceived susceptibility to COVID-19, and perceived personal control over COVID-19 infection transmission decreased between the 3- and 12-month surveys. Vaccine hesitancy at 12 months was independently associated with low fear of the disease and more negative attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination. Specific barriers to COVID-19 vaccine uptake included concerns about safety and efficacy in light of its rapid development, mistrust of government and pharmaceutical companies, dislike of coercive policies, and perceived lack of relaxation in COVID-19-related restrictions as the vaccination programme progressed. CONCLUSIONS: Decreasing fear of COVID-19, perceived susceptibility to the disease, and perceptions of personal control over reducing infection-transmission may impact future COVID-19 vaccination uptake.

C-reactive protein point-of-care testing for safely reducing antibiotics for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the PACE RCT.

BACKGROUND: Most patients presenting with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) in primary care are prescribed antibiotics, but these may not be beneficial, and they can cause side effects and increase the risk of subsequent resistant infections. Point-of-care tests (POCTs) could safely reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial resistance. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether or not the use of a C-reactive protein (CRP) POCT to guide prescribing decisions for AECOPD reduces antibiotic consumption without having a negative impact on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) health status and is cost-effective. DESIGN: A multicentre, parallel-arm, randomised controlled open trial with an embedded process, and a health economic evaluation. SETTING: General practices in Wales and England. A UK NHS perspective was used for the economic analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (aged ≥ 40 years) with a primary care diagnosis of COPD, presenting with an AECOPD (with at least one of increased dyspnoea, increased sputum volume and increased sputum purulence) of between 24 hours' and 21 days' duration. INTERVENTION: CRP POCTs to guide antibiotic prescribing decisions for AECOPD, compared with usual care (no CRP POCT), using remote online randomisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported antibiotic consumption for AECOPD within 4 weeks post randomisation and COPD health status as measured with the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) at 2 weeks. For the economic evaluation, patient-reported resource use and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions were included. RESULTS: In total, 653 participants were randomised from 86 general practices. Three withdrew consent and one was randomised in error, leaving 324 participants in the usual-care arm and 325 participants in the CRP POCT arm. Antibiotics were consumed for AECOPD by 212 out of 274 participants (77.4%) and 150 out of 263 participants (57.0%) in the usual-care and CRP POCT arm, respectively [adjusted odds ratio 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.47]. The CCQ analysis comprised 282 and 281 participants in the usual-care and CRP POCT arms, respectively, and the adjusted mean CCQ score difference at 2 weeks was 0.19 points (two-sided 90% CI -0.33 to -0.05 points). The upper limit of the CI did not contain the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 0.3. The total cost from a NHS perspective at 4 weeks was £17.59 per patient higher in the CRP POCT arm (95% CI -£34.80 to £69.98; p = 0.408). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £222 per 1% reduction in antibiotic consumption compared with usual care at 4 weeks and £15,251 per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 6 months with no significant changes in sensitivity analyses. Patients and clinicians were generally supportive of including CRP POCT in the assessment of AECOPD. CONCLUSIONS: A CRP POCT diagnostic strategy achieved meaningful reductions in patient-reported antibiotic consumption without impairing COPD health status or increasing costs. There were no associated harms and both patients and clinicians valued the diagnostic strategy. FUTURE WORK: Implementation studies that also build on our qualitative findings could help determine the effect of this intervention over the longer term. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24346473. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often experience flare-ups known as acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Antibiotics are prescribed for most flare-ups, but they do not always benefit patients and may cause harm, such as side effects or subsequent infections that are resistant. Rapid point-of-care tests (POCTs) can be used to help determine when antibiotics are more likely to be needed. C-reactive protein (CRP) is a marker of inflammation that can be measured with a POCT. Patients with flare-ups and a low CRP value are less likely to benefit from antibiotics. The PACE trial asked whether or not measuring CRP with a POCT could lead to fewer antibiotics being consumed for flare-ups, without having negative effects for patients. We aimed to recruit 650 patients with a COPD flare-up from primary care. Patients were randomly assigned to either (1) usual care with the addition of a CRP POCT, or (2) usual care without the addition of the test. Antibiotic use over the first 4 weeks and patients' self-assessment of their health 2 weeks after enrolment were measured in both groups. Patients in the CRP test group used fewer antibiotics than those managed as usual, and had improved patient-reported outcomes. Costs were a little higher in the CRP POCT group. Interviews with patients and clinicians found that they appreciated the CRP test being included in the decision-making process.

C-Reactive Protein Testing to Guide Antibiotic Prescribing for COPD Exacerbations.

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care testing of C-reactive protein (CRP) may be a way to reduce unnecessary use of antibiotics without harming patients who have acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: We performed a multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial involving patients with a diagnosis of COPD in their primary care clinical record who consulted a clinician at 1 of 86 general medical practices in England and Wales for an acute exacerbation of COPD. The patients were assigned to receive usual care guided by CRP point-of-care testing (CRP-guided group) or usual care alone (usual-care group). The primary outcomes were patient-reported use of antibiotics for acute exacerbations of COPD within 4 weeks after randomization (to show superiority) and COPD-related health status at 2 weeks after randomization, as measured by the Clinical COPD Questionnaire, a 10-item scale with scores ranging from 0 (very good COPD health status) to 6 (extremely poor COPD health status) (to show noninferiority). RESULTS: A total of 653 patients underwent randomization. Fewer patients in the CRP-guided group reported antibiotic use than in the usual-care group (57.0% vs. 77.4%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20 to 0.47). The adjusted mean difference in the total score on the Clinical COPD Questionnaire at 2 weeks was -0.19 points (two-sided 90% CI, -0.33 to -0.05) in favor of the CRP-guided group. The antibiotic prescribing decisions made by clinicians at the initial consultation were ascertained for all but 1 patient, and antibiotic prescriptions issued over the first 4 weeks of follow-up were ascertained for 96.9% of the patients. A lower percentage of patients in the CRP-guided group than in the usual-care group received an antibiotic prescription at the initial consultation (47.7% vs. 69.7%, for a difference of 22.0 percentage points; adjusted odds ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.45) and during the first 4 weeks of follow-up (59.1% vs. 79.7%, for a difference of 20.6 percentage points; adjusted odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.46). Two patients in the usual-care group died within 4 weeks after randomization from causes considered by the investigators to be unrelated to trial participation. CONCLUSIONS: CRP-guided prescribing of antibiotics for exacerbations of COPD in primary care clinics resulted in a lower percentage of patients who reported antibiotic use and who received antibiotic prescriptions from clinicians, with no evidence of harm. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Program; PACE Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN24346473.).

Sparking interest in public health amongst future doctors to tackle our NHS sustainability crisis.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. The new NHS 'Long Term Plan' has a particular focus on the public health issues of disease prevention and reducing health inequalities. However, medical students often perceive public health as abstract and irrelevant to clinical practice. We believe students need to be encouraged to appreciate wider public health issues and ultimately be able to apply clinical and public health tools to achieve change for patients and populations. Our aim is for all medical graduates to be able to apply public health and evidence-based principles to their chosen specialties. In the undergraduate curriculum, we hope to extend problem-, case-, and simulation-based learning into public health education, emphasise the context around statistics and epidemiology teaching, and make the teaching more relevant, tangible and enjoyable. Intercalated BSc students will gain an interdisciplinary perspective by joining Master of Public Health (MPH) students to learn about the prevention and control of disease and the promotion of health and wellbeing. They will also have opportunities to join the new Health Intelligence Team (H.I.T.), on a voluntary reserve list to support Public Health Wales in the event of real investigations. We will evaluate these strategies, and we hope that medical educators worldwide will share their experience of innovative approaches to public health and evidence-based medicine teaching in response to this article, so that public health teaching may be improved.

Availability of breastfeeding peer support in the United Kingdom: A cross-sectional study.

Peer support is recommended by the World Health Organization for the initiation and continuation of breastfeeding, and this recommendation is included in United Kingdom (U.K.) guidance. There is a lack of information about how, when, and where breastfeeding peer support was provided in the U.K. We aimed to generate an overview of how peer support is delivered in the U.K. and to gain an understanding of challenges for implementation. We surveyed all U.K. infant feeding coordinators (n = 696) who were part of U.K.-based National Infant Feeding Networks, covering 177 National Health Service (NHS) organisations. We received 136 responses (individual response rate 19.5%), covering 102 U.K. NHS organisations (organisational response rate 58%). We also searched NHS organisation websites to obtain data on the presence of breastfeeding peer support. Breastfeeding peer support was available in 56% of areas. However, coverage within areas was variable. The provision of training and ongoing supervision, and peer-supporter roles, varied significantly between services. Around one third of respondents felt that breastfeeding peer-support services were not well integrated with NHS health services. Financial issues were commonly reported to have a negative impact on service provision. One quarter of respondents stated that breastfeeding peer support was not accessed by mothers from poorer social backgrounds. Overall, there was marked variation in the provision of peer-support services for breastfeeding in the U.K. A more robust evidence base is urgently needed to inform guidance on the structure and provision of breastfeeding peer-support services.

A novel peer-support intervention using motivational interviewing for breastfeeding maintenance: a UK feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: In total, 81% of women in the UK start breastfeeding, but fewer than half continue beyond 6 weeks. Peer support in the early postnatal period may encourage women to breastfeed for longer. OBJECTIVE: To develop a breastfeeding peer-support intervention based on motivational interviewing (MI) for breastfeeding maintenance and to test the feasibility of delivering it to mothers in areas with high levels of social deprivation. DESIGN: Intervention development and a non-randomised multisite feasibility study. SETTING: Community maternity services in three areas with high levels of social deprivation and low breastfeeding initiation rates in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Pregnant women considering breastfeeding. Women who did not plan to breastfeed, who had a clinical reason that precluded breastfeeding continuation or who were unable to consent were excluded. INTERVENTION: The intervention Mam-Kind was informed by a survey of infant feeding co-ordinators, rapid literature review, focus groups with service users and peer supporters and interviews with health-care professionals and a Stakeholder Advisory Group. It consisted of face-to-face contact at 48 hours after birth and proactive one-to-one peer support from the Mam-Kind buddy for 2 weeks, followed by mother-led contact for a further 2-6 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recruitment and retention of Mam-Kind buddies, uptake of Mam-Kind by participants, feasibility of delivering Mam-Kind as specified and of data collection methods, and acceptability of Mam-Kind to mothers, buddies and health-care professionals. RESULTS: Nine buddies were recruited to deliver Mam-Kind to 70 participants (61% of eligible women who expressed an interest in taking part in the study). Participants were aged between 19 and 41 years and 94% of participants were white. Intervention uptake was 75% and did not vary according to age or parity. Most contacts (79%) were initiated by the buddy, demonstrating the intended proactive nature of the intervention and 73% (n = 51) of participants received a contact within 48 hours. Follow-up data were available for 78% of participants at 10 days and 64% at 8 weeks. Data collection methods were judged feasible and acceptable. Data completeness was > 80% for almost all variables. Interviews with participants, buddies and health service professionals showed that the intervention was acceptable. Buddies delivered the intervention content with fidelity (93% of intervention objectives were met), and, in some cases, developed certain MI skills to a competency level. However, they reported difficulties in changing from an information-giving role to a collaborative approach. These findings were used to refine the training and intervention specification to emphasise the focus of the intervention on providing mother-centric support. Health-care professionals were satisfied that the intervention could be integrated with existing services. CONCLUSIONS: The Mam-Kind intervention was acceptable and feasible to deliver within NHS maternity services and should be tested for effectiveness in a multicentre randomised controlled trial. The feasibility study highlighted the need to strengthen strategies for birth notification and retention of participants, and provided some insights on how this could be achieved in a full trial. LIMITATIONS: The response rate to the survey of infant feeding co-ordinators was low (19.5%). In addition, the women who were recruited may not be representative of the study sites. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

General practitioner use of a C-reactive protein point-of-care test to help target antibiotic prescribing in patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (the PACE study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients presenting with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) in primary care are prescribed an antibiotic, which may not always be appropriate and may cause harm. C-reactive protein (CRP) is an acute-phase biomarker that can be rapidly measured at the point of care and may predict benefit from antibiotic treatment in AECOPD. It is not clear whether the addition of a CRP point-of-care test (POCT) to clinical assessment leads to a reduction in antibiotic consumption without having a negative impact on COPD health status. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multicentre, individually randomised controlled trial (RCT) aiming to include 650 participants with a diagnosis of AECOPD in primary care. Participants will be randomised to be managed according to usual care (control) or with the addition of a CRP POCT to guide antibiotic prescribing. Antibiotic consumption for AECOPD within 4 weeks post randomisation and COPD health status (total score) measured by the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) at 2 weeks post randomisation will be co-primary outcomes. Primary analysis (by intention-to-treat) will determine differences in antibiotic consumption for superiority and COPD health status for non-inferiority. Secondary outcomes include: COPD health status, CCQ domain scores, use of other COPD treatments (weeks 1, 2 and 4), EQ-5D utility scores (weeks 1, 2 and 4 and month 6), disease-specific, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at 6 months, all-cause antibiotic consumption (antibiotic use for any condition) during first 4 weeks post randomisation, total antibiotic consumption (number of days during first 4 weeks of antibiotic consumed for AECOPD/any reason), antibiotic prescribing at the index consultation and during following 4 weeks, adverse effects over the first 4 weeks, incidence of pneumonia (weeks 4 and 6 months), health care resource use and cost comparison over the 6 months following randomisation. Prevalence and resistance profiles of bacteria will be assessed using throat and sputum samples collected at baseline and 4-week follow-up. A health economic evaluation and qualitative process evaluation will be carried out. DISCUSSION: If shown to be effective (i.e. leads to a reduction in antibiotic use with no worse COPD health status), the use of the CRP POCT could lead to better outcomes for patients with AECOPD and help reduce selective pressures driving the development of antimicrobial resistance. PACE will be one of the first studies to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a POCT biomarker to guide clinical decision-making in primary care on patient-reported outcomes, antibiotic prescribing and antibiotic resistance for AECOPD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN24346473 . Registered on 20 August 2014.

Cost-effectiveness of classroom-based cognitive behaviour therapy in reducing symptoms of depression in adolescents: a trial-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: A substantial minority of adolescents suffer from depression and it is associated with increased risk of suicide, social and educational impairment, and mental health problems in adulthood. A recently conducted randomized controlled trial in England evaluated the effectiveness of a manualized universally delivered age-appropriate CBT programme in school classrooms. The cost-effectiveness of the programme for preventing low mood and depression for all participants from a health and social care sector perspective needs to be determined. METHODS: A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis based on a cluster-randomized controlled trial (trial registration--ISRCTN 19083628) comparing classroom-based CBT with usual school provision of Personal Social and Health Education. Per-student cost of intervention was estimated from programme records. The study was undertaken in eight mixed-sex U.K. secondary schools, and included 3,357 school children aged 12 to 16 years (in the two trial arms evaluated in the cost-effectiveness analysis). The main outcome measures were individual self-reported data on care costs, Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs, based on the EQ-5D health-related quality-of-life instrument) and symptoms of depression (Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire) at baseline, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Although there was lower quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months (-.05 QALYs per person, 95% confidence interval -.09 to -.005, p = .03) with CBT, this is a 'clinically' negligible difference, which was not found in the complete case analyses. There was little evidence of any between-arm differences in SMFQ scores (0.19, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.95, p = .62), or costs (£142, 95% CI -£132 to £415, p = .31) per person for CBT versus usual school provision. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests that the universal provision of classroom-based CBT is unlikely to be either more effective or less costly than usual school provision.

Could a brief assessment of negative emotions and self-esteem identify adolescents at current and future risk of self-harm in the community? A prospective cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Self-harm is common in adolescents, but it is often unreported and undetected. Available screening tools typically ask directly about self-harm and suicidal ideation. Although in an ideal world, direct enquiry and open discussion around self-harm would be advocated, non-psychiatric professionals in community settings are often reluctant to ask about this directly and disclosure can be met with feeling of intense anxiety. Training non-specialist staff to directly ask about self-harm has limited effects suggesting that alternative approaches are required. This study investigated whether a targeted analysis of negative emotions and self-esteem could identify young adolescents at risk of self-harm in community settings. METHODS: Data were collected as part of a clinical trial from young people in school years 8-11 (aged 12-16) at eight UK secondary schools (N = 4503 at baseline, N = 3263 in prospective analysis). The Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire, Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, personal failure (Children's Automatic Thoughts Scale), and two items on self-harm were completed at baseline, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Following a process of Principal Components Analysis, item reduction, and logistic regression analysis, three internally reliable factors were identified from the original measures that were independently associated with current and future self-harm; personal failure (3 items), physical symptoms of depression/anxiety (6 items), positive self-esteem (5 items). The summed score of these 14 items had good accuracy in identifying current self-harm (AUC 0.87 girls, 0.81 boys) and at six months for girls (0.81), and fair accuracy at six months for boys (AUC 0.74) and 12 months for girls (AUC 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: A brief and targeted assessment of negative emotions and self-esteem, focusing on factors that are strongly associated with current and future self-harm, could potentially be used to help identify adolescents who are at risk in community settings. Further research should assess the psychometric properties of the items identified and test this approach in more diverse community contexts.

School-based intervention to reduce anxiety in children: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (PACES).

BACKGROUND: Emotional problems such as anxiety and low mood in children are common, impair everyday functioning and increase the risk of severe mental health disorders in adulthood. Relatively few children with emotional health problems are identified and referred for treatment indicating the need to investigate preventive approaches. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is designed to be a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of an efficacious school-based cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) prevention program (FRIENDS) on symptoms of anxiety and low mood in children 9 to 10 years of age. The unit of allocation is schools which are assigned to one of three conditions: school-led FRIENDS, health-led FRIENDS or treatment as usual. Assessments will be undertaken at baseline, 6 months and 12 months. The primary outcome measure is change on the Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale. Secondary outcome measures assess changes in self-esteem, worries, bullying and life satisfaction. An economic evaluation will be undertaken. DISCUSSION: As of September 2011, 41 schools have been recruited and randomized. Final 12-month assessments are scheduled to be completed by May 2013. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN23563048.