Lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic in selected countries to inform strengthening of public health systems: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted governments internationally to consider strengthening their public health systems. To support the work of Ireland's Public Health Reform Expert Advisory Group, the Health Information and Quality Authority, an independent governmental agency, was asked to describe the lessons learnt regarding the public health response to COVID-19 internationally and the applicability of this response for future pandemic preparedness. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with key public health representatives from nine countries were conducted. Interviews were conducted in March and April 2022 remotely via Zoom and were recorded. Notes were taken by two researchers, and a thematic analysis undertaken. RESULTS: Lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic related to three main themes: 1) setting policy; 2) delivering public health interventions; and 3) providing effective communication. Real-time surveillance, evidence synthesis, and cross-sectoral collaboration were reported as essential for policy setting; it was noted that having these functions established prior to the pandemic would lead to a more efficient implementation in a health emergency. Delivering public health interventions such as testing, contact tracing, and vaccination were key to limiting and or mitigating the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. However, a number of challenges were highlighted such as staff capacity and burnout, delays in vaccination procurement, and reduced delivery of regular healthcare services. Clear, consistent, and regular communication of the scientific evidence was key to engaging citizens with mitigation strategies. However, these communication strategies had to compete with an infodemic of information being circulated, particularly through social media. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, functions relating to policy setting, public health interventions, and communication are key to pandemic response. Ideally, these should be established in the preparedness phase so that they can be rapidly scaled-up during a pandemic.

Why do healthcare professionals fail to escalate as per the early warning system (EWS) protocol? A qualitative evidence synthesis of the barriers and facilitators of escalation.

BACKGROUND: Early warning systems (EWSs) are used to assist clinical judgment in the detection of acute deterioration to avoid or reduce adverse events including unanticipated cardiopulmonary arrest, admission to the intensive care unit and death. Sometimes healthcare professionals (HCPs) do not trigger the alarm and escalate for help according to the EWS protocol and it is unclear why this is the case. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis was to answer the question 'why do HCPs fail to escalate care according to EWS protocols?' The findings will inform the update of the National Clinical Effectiveness Committee (NCEC) National Clinical Guideline No. 1 Irish National Early Warning System (INEWS). METHODS: A systematic search of the published and grey literature was conducted (until February 2018). Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by two reviewers independently using standardised data extraction forms and quality appraisal tools. A thematic synthesis was conducted by two reviewers of the qualitative studies included and categorised into the barriers and facilitators of escalation. GRADE CERQual was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: Eighteen studies incorporating a variety of HCPs across seven countries were included. The barriers and facilitators to the escalation of care according to EWS protocols were developed into five overarching themes: Governance, Rapid Response Team (RRT) Response, Professional Boundaries, Clinical Experience, and EWS parameters. Barriers to escalation included: Lack of Standardisation, Resources, Lack of accountability, RRT behaviours, Fear, Hierarchy, Increased Conflict, Over confidence, Lack of confidence, and Patient variability. Facilitators included: Accountability, Standardisation, Resources, RRT behaviours, Expertise, Additional support, License to escalate, Bridge across boundaries, Clinical confidence, empowerment, Clinical judgment, and a tool for detecting deterioration. These are all individual yet inter-related barriers and facilitators to escalation. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this qualitative evidence synthesis provide insight into the real world experience of HCPs when using EWSs. This in turn has the potential to inform policy-makers and HCPs as well as hospital management about emergency response system-related issues in practice and the changes needed to address barriers and facilitators and improve patient safety and quality of care.

Supporting prescribing in Irish primary care: protocol for a non-randomised pilot study of a general practice pharmacist (GPP) intervention to optimise prescribing in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing for patients taking multiple medicines (i.e. polypharmacy) is challenging for general practitioners (GPs). Limited evidence suggests that the integration of pharmacists into the general practice team could improve the management of these patients. The aim of this study is to develop and test an intervention involving pharmacists, working within GP practices, to optimise prescribing in Ireland, which has a mixed public and private primary healthcare system. METHODS: This non-randomised pilot study will use a mixed-methods approach. Four general practices will be purposively sampled and recruited. A pharmacist will join the practice team for 6 months. They will participate in the management of repeat prescribing and undertake medication reviews (which will address high-risk prescribing and potentially inappropriate prescribing, deprescribing and cost-effective and generic prescribing) with adult patients. Pharmacists will also provide prescribing advice regarding the use of preferred drugs, undertake clinical audits, join practice team meetings and facilitate practice-based education. Throughout the 6-month intervention period, anonymised practice-level medication (e.g. medication changes) and cost data will be collected. A nested Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) study will be undertaken during months 4 and 5 of the 6-month intervention period to explore the impact of the intervention in older adults (aged ≥ 65 years). For this, a sub-set of 50 patients aged ≥ 65 years with significant polypharmacy (≥ 10 repeat medicines) will be recruited from each practice and invited to a medication review with the pharmacist. PROMs and healthcare utilisation data will be collected using patient questionnaires, and a 6-week follow-up review conducted. Acceptability of the intervention will be explored using pre- and post-intervention semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. Quantitative and qualitative data analysis will be undertaken and an economic evaluation conducted. DISCUSSION: This non-randomised pilot study will provide evidence regarding the feasibility and potential effectiveness of general practice-based pharmacists in Ireland and provide data on whether a randomised controlled trial of this intervention is indicated. It will also provide a deeper understanding as to how a pharmacist working as part of the general practice team will affect organisational processes and professional relationships in a mixed public and private primary healthcare system.

Syphilis testing.

The organism that causes syphilis, Treponema pallidum, is impossible to culture in the clinical laboratory. Direct visualization of the pathogen is one laboratory technique used in the diagnosis of syphilis. Currently, serologic testing is the most widely used laboratory technique in diagnosing syphilis and monitoring its course after treatment. Serologic tests are divided into two categories, the nontreponemal and treponemal antibody tests. Newer techniques such as enzyme immunoassays have shown excellent results.

The C-reactive protein.

C-reactive protein (CRP) was identified in 1930 and was subsequently considered to be an "acute phase protein," an early indicator of infectious or inflammatory conditions. Since its discovery, CRP has been studied as a screening device for inflammation, a marker for disease activity, and as a diagnostic adjunct. Improved methods of quantifying CRP have led to increased application to clinical medicine. In the emergency department (ED), CRP must be interpreted in the clinical context; no single value can be used to rule in or rule out a specific diagnosis. We conclude that CRP has limited utility in the ED. It may be a useful adjunct to serial examinations in equivocal presentations of appendicitis in those centers without ready access to computed tomography (CT) scan. It may be elevated with complications or treatment failures in patients with pneumonia, pancreatitis, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), and urinary tract infections. In patients with meningitis, neonatal sepsis, and occult bacteremia, CRP is usually elevated. However, CRP has no role in diagnosing these clinical entities, and a normal CRP level should never delay antibiotic coverage.