Collective-Documentary of a National Health Care Tragedy.

This Arts and Medicine feature reviews the 2019 movie Collective, which documents corruption underlying poor patient outcomes in the Romanian national health system and provides an update on the people and reform efforts featured in the film.

OpenSAFELY: impact of national guidance on switching anticoagulant therapy during COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Health Service (NHS) recommended that appropriate patients anticoagulated with warfarin should be switched to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs), requiring less frequent blood testing. Subsequently, a national safety alert was issued regarding patients being inappropriately coprescribed two anticoagulants following a medication change and associated monitoring. OBJECTIVE: To describe which people were switched from warfarin to DOACs; identify potentially unsafe coprescribing of anticoagulants; and assess whether abnormal clotting results have become more frequent during the pandemic. METHODS: With the approval of NHS England, we conducted a cohort study using routine clinical data from 24 million NHS patients in England. RESULTS: 20 000 of 164 000 warfarin patients (12.2%) switched to DOACs between March and May 2020, most commonly to edoxaban and apixaban. Factors associated with switching included: older age, recent renal function test, higher number of recent INR tests recorded, atrial fibrillation diagnosis and care home residency. There was a sharp rise in coprescribing of warfarin and DOACs from typically 50-100 per month to 246 in April 2020, 0.06% of all people receiving a DOAC or warfarin. International normalised ratio (INR) testing fell by 14% to 506.8 patients tested per 1000 warfarin patients each month. We observed a very small increase in elevated INRs (n=470) during April compared with January (n=420). CONCLUSIONS: Increased switching of anticoagulants from warfarin to DOACs was observed at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic in England following national guidance. There was a small but substantial number of people coprescribed warfarin and DOACs during this period. Despite a national safety alert on the issue, a widespread rise in elevated INR test results was not found. Primary care has responded rapidly to changes in patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Modelling the impact of changes to abdominal aortic aneurysm screening and treatment services in England during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The National Health Service (NHS) abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening programme (NAAASP) in England screens 65-year-old men. The programme monitors those with an aneurysm, and early intervention for large aneurysms reduces ruptures and AAA-related mortality. AAA screening services have been disrupted following COVID-19 but it is not known how this may impact AAA-related mortality, or where efforts should be focussed as services resume. METHODS: We repurposed a previously validated discrete event simulation model to investigate the impact of COVID-19-related service disruption on key outcomes. This model was used to explore the impact of delayed invitation and reduced attendance in men invited to screening. Additionally, we investigated the impact of temporarily suspending scans, increasing the threshold for elective surgery to 7cm and increasing drop-out in the AAA cohort under surveillance, using data from NAAASP to inform the population. FINDINGS: Delaying invitation to primary screening up to two years had little impact on key outcomes whereas a 10% reduction in attendance could lead to a 2% lifetime increase in AAA-related deaths. In surveillance patients, a 1-year suspension of surveillance or increase in the elective threshold resulted in a 0.4% increase in excess AAA-related deaths (8% in those 5-5.4cm at the start). Longer suspensions or a doubling of drop-out from surveillance would have a pronounced impact on outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Efforts should be directed towards encouraging men to attend AAA screening service appointments post-COVID-19. Those with AAAs on surveillance should be prioritised as the screening programme resumes, as changes to these services beyond one year are likely to have a larger impact on surgical burden and AAA-related mortality.

Impact of changes to national UK Guidance on testing for gestational diabetes screening during a pandemic: a single-centre observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the differences in detection rate for gestational diabetes (GDM) comparing the methodology recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) compared with testing described as appropriate during the Covid-19 pandemic by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). DESIGN: Cohort study of women delivering between 1 January 2016 and 1 July 2020. SETTING: London Teaching Hospital. POPULATION: All women delivering between 1 January 2016 and 13 May 2020 and follow up of women screening negative between 1 April 2020 and 13 May 2020. METHODS: Retrospective study of prospectively collected data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Detection rate of gestational diabetes. RESULTS: Using the RCOG guidance, the overall rate of women identified as having gestational diabetes fell from 7.7% (1853/24168) to 4.2% (35/831)(P = 0.0003). Of 230 women who tested negative according to the RCOG criteria from 1 April to 13 May but who subsequently had an oral glucose tolerance test, 47 (20.4%) were diagnosed as having gestational diabetes according to the NICE criteria. CONCLUSIONS: In our setting, the RCOG Covid-19 gestational diabetes screening regime failed to detect 47 of 82 (57%) women subsequently identified as gestational diabetics, and therefore cannot be recommended for general use. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Screening for GDM using RCOG Covid criteria reduced detection rates.

Evaluation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Diagnostics Assessment Program Decisions: Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio Thresholds and Decision-Modifying Factors.

OBJECTIVES: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Diagnostics Assessment Programme (DAP) evaluates the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic technologies. A decision-making process benchmarking the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) against a threshold while considering decision-modifying factors is common to NICE evaluations. This study investigated whether DAP decisions are consistent with the ICER thresholds described in the DAP manual, and to assess the impact of decision-modifying factors. METHODS: DAP evaluations published before March 2018 were reviewed, and the following items were extracted: diagnostic technologies evaluated, decision problems assessed, Diagnostics Advisory Committee (DAC) decisions, incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental costs, ICERs considered to be most plausible by the DAC, and decision justifications. RESULTS: All 30 evaluations were reviewed; 8 were excluded because the DAC concluded there was "insufficient evidence" for decision making. In the remaining 22 evaluations, 91 decision problems were identified for further analysis, of which 52, 15, and 24 received "recommended," "not recommended," and "not recommended-only in research" guidance, respectively. The overall consistency rate of the DAC decisions with the £20 000/QALY threshold was 73.6%. Diagnostic technologies that were not recommended, despite an ICER less than £20 000/QALY, were associated with a larger number of decision-modifying factors favoring the comparator, versus recommended diagnostic technologies with ICERs less than £20 000/QALY. For technologies with ICERs greater than £20 000/QALY, the number of decision-modifying factors was comparable for positive and negative recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Most DAP decisions were consistent with the ICER threshold. However, cost-effectiveness was not the only determining factor in decision making; recommendations also considered patient- and healthcare-centric factors and uncertainty.