Real-world effectiveness of steroids in severe COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials have shown that steroids reduce the risk of dying in patients with severe Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), whilst many real-world studies have failed to replicate this result. We aim to investigate real-world effectiveness of steroids in severe COVID-19. METHODS: Clinical, demographic, and viral genome data extracted from electronic patient record (EPR) was analysed from all SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive patients admitted with severe COVID-19, defined by hypoxia at presentation, between March 13th 2020 and May 27th 2021. Steroid treatment was measured by the number of prescription-days with dexamethasone, hydrocortisone, prednisolone or methylprednisolone. The association between steroid > 3 days treatment and disease outcome was explored using multivariable cox proportional hazards models with adjustment for confounders (including age, gender, ethnicity, co-morbidities and SARS-CoV-2 variant). The outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: 1100 severe COVID-19 cases were identified having crude hospital mortality of 15.3%. 793/1100 (72.1%) individuals were treated with steroids and 513/1100 (46.6%) received steroid ≤ 3 days. From the multivariate model, steroid > 3 days was associated with decreased hazard of in-hospital mortality (HR: 0.47 (95% CI: 0.31-0.72)). CONCLUSION: The protective effect of steroid treatment for severe COVID-19 reported in randomised clinical trials was replicated in this retrospective study of a large real-world cohort.

The organization and impacts of clinical research delivery workforce redeployment during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative case study of one research-intensive acute hospital trust.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has tested healthcare and research systems around the world, forcing the large-scale reorganization of hospitals, research infrastructure and resources. The United Kingdom has been singled out for the speed and scale of its research response. The efficiency of the United Kingdom's research mobilization was in large part predicated on the pre-existing embeddedness of the clinical research system within the National Health Service (NHS), a public, free-at-point-of-delivery healthcare system. In this paper we discuss the redeployment of the clinical research workforce to support the pandemic clinical services, detailing the process of organizing this redeployment, as well as the impacts redeployment has had on both staff and research delivery at one research-intensive acute NHS trust in London. METHODS: A social science case study of one large research-active NHS trust drawing on data from an online questionnaire; participant observation of key research planning meetings; semi-structured interviews with staff involved in research; and document analysis of emails and official national and trust communications. RESULTS: We found that at our case-study hospital trust, the research workforce was a resource that was effectively redeployed as part of the pandemic response. Research delivery workers were redeployed to clinical roles, to COVID-related research and to work maintaining the research system during the redeployment itself. Redeployed research workers faced some difficulties with technology and communication, but many had a positive experience and saw the redeployment as a significant and valuable moment in their career. CONCLUSIONS: This study explicates the role of the research delivery workforce for the United Kingdom's COVID response. Redeployed research workers facilitated the emergency response by delivering significant amounts of patient care. The public also benefited from having a well-developed research infrastructure in place that was able to flexibly respond to a novel virus. Many research workers feel that the NHS should provide more support for this distinctive workforce.

IT Evaluation of Foundation Healthcare Group NHS Vanguard programme: IT simultaneously an enabler and a rate limiting factor.

The goal of the Foundation Healthcare Group (FHG) Vanguard model was to develop a sustainable local hospital model between two National Health Service (NHS) Trusts (a London Teaching Hospital Trust and a District General Hospital Trust) that makes best use of scarce resources and can be replicated across the NHS, UK. The aim of this study was to evaluate the provision, use, and implementation of the IT infrastructure based on qualitative interviews focused mainly on the perspectives of the IT staff and the clinicians' perspectives. METHODS: In total, 24 interview transcripts, along with 'Acute Care Collaboration' questionnaire responses, were analyzed using a thematic framework for IT infrastructure, sharing themes across the vascular, pediatric, and cardiovascular strands of the FHG programme. RESULTS: Findings indicated that Skype for Business had been an innovative and helpful development widely available to be used between the two Trusts. Clinicians initially reported lack of IT support and infrastructure expected at the outset for a national Vanguard project but later appreciated that remote access to most clinical applications including scans between the two Trusts became operational. The Local Care Record (LCR), an IT project was perceived to have been delivered successfully in South London. Shared technology reduced patient traveling time by providing locally based shared care. CONCLUSION: Lesson learnt is that ensuring patient benefit and priorities is a strong driver to implementation and one needs to identify IT rate-limiting steps at an early stage and on a regular basis and then focus on rapid implementation of solutions. In fact, future work may also assess how the IT infrastructure developed by FHG vanguard project might have helped/boosted the 'digital health' practice during the COVID-19 times. Spreading and scaling-up innovations from the Vanguard sites was the aspiration and challenge for system leaders. After COVID-19, the use of IT is scaled up and now, the challenges in the use of IT are much less compared to the pre-COVID-19 time when this project was evaluated.

Impacts of COVID-19 on clinical research in the UK: A multi-method qualitative case study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical research has been central to the global response to COVID-19, and the United Kingdom (UK), with its research system embedded within the National Health Service (NHS), has been singled out globally for the scale and speed of its COVID-19 research response. This paper explores the impacts of COVID-19 on clinical research in an NHS Trust and how the embedded research system was adapted and repurposed to support the COVID-19 response. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using a multi-method qualitative case study of a research-intensive NHS Trust in London UK, we collected data through a questionnaire (n = 170) and semi-structured interviews (n = 24) with research staff working in four areas: research governance; research leadership; research delivery; and patient and public involvement. We also observed key NHS Trust research prioritisation meetings (40 hours) and PPI activity (4.5 hours) and analysed documents produced by the Trust and national organisation relating to COVID-19 research. Data were analysed for a descriptive account of the Trust's COVID-19 research response and research staff's experiences. Data were then analysed thematically. Our analysis identifies three core themes: centralisation; pace of work; and new (temporary) work practices. By centralising research prioritisation at both national and Trust levels, halting non-COVID-19 research and redeploying research staff, an increased pace in the setup and delivery of COVID-19-related research was possible. National and Trust-level responses also led to widescale changes in working practices by adapting protocols and developing local processes to maintain and deliver research. These were effective practical solutions borne out of necessity and point to how the research system was able to adapt to the requirements of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The Trust and national COVID-19 response entailed a rapid large-scale reorganisation of research staff, research infrastructures and research priorities. The Trust's local processes that enabled them to enact national policy prioritising COVID-19 research worked well, especially in managing finite resources, and also demonstrate the importance and adaptability of the research workforce. Such findings are useful as we consider how to adapt our healthcare delivery and research practices both at the national and global level for the future. However, as the pandemic continues, research leaders and policymakers must also take into account the short and long term impact of COVID-19 prioritisation on non-COVID-19 health research and the toll of the emergency response on research staff.

Stroke Care in the United Kingdom During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has potentially caused indirect harm to patients with other conditions via reduced access to health care services. We aimed to describe the impact of the initial wave of the pandemic on admissions, care quality, and outcomes in patients with acute stroke in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Registry-based cohort study of patients with acute stroke admitted to hospital in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland between October 1, 2019, and April 30, 2020, and equivalent periods in the 3 prior years. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen hospitals provided data for a study cohort of 184 017 patients. During the lockdown period (March 23 to April 30), there was a 12% reduction (6923 versus 7902) in the number of admissions compared with the same period in the 3 previous years. Admissions fell more for ischemic than hemorrhagic stroke, for older patients, and for patients with less severe strokes. Quality of care was preserved for all measures and in some domains improved during lockdown (direct access to stroke unit care, 1-hour brain imaging, and swallow screening). Although there was no change in the proportion of patients discharged with good outcome (modified Rankin Scale score, ≤2; 48% versus 48%), 7-day inpatient case fatality increased from 6.9% to 9.4% (P<0.001) and was 22.0% in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 (adjusted rate ratio, 1.41 [1.11-1.80]). CONCLUSIONS: Assuming that the true incidence of acute stroke did not change markedly during the pandemic, hospital avoidance may have created a cohort of untreated stroke patients at risk of poorer outcomes or recurrent events. Unanticipated improvements in stroke care quality should be used as an opportunity for quality improvement and to learn about how to develop resilient health care systems.