Safety implications of remote assessments for suspected COVID-19: qualitative study in UK primary care.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of remote triage and assessment early in the pandemic raised questions about patient safety. We sought to capture patients and clinicians' experiences of the management of suspected acute COVID-19 and generate wider lessons to inform safer care. SETTING AND SAMPLE: UK primary healthcare. A subset of relevant data was drawn from five linked in-pandemic qualitative studies. The data set, on a total of 87 participants recruited via social media, patient groups and snowballing, comprised free text excerpts from narrative interviews (10 survivors of acute COVID-19), online focus groups (20 patients and 30 clinicians), contributions to a Delphi panel (12 clinicians) and fieldnotes from an online workshop (15 patients, clinicians and stakeholders). METHODS: Data were uploaded onto NVivo. Coding was initially deductive and informed by WHO and Institute of Medicine frameworks of quality and safety. Further inductive analysis refined our theorisation using a wider range of theories-including those of risk, resilience, crisis management and social justice. RESULTS: In the early weeks of the pandemic, patient safety was compromised by the driving logic of 'stay home' and 'protect the NHS', in which both patients and clinicians were encouraged to act in a way that helped reduce pressure on an overloaded system facing a novel pathogen with insufficient staff, tools, processes and systems. Furthermore, patients and clinicians observed a shift to a more transactional approach characterised by overuse of algorithms and decision support tools, limited empathy and lack of holistic assessment. CONCLUSION: Lessons from the pandemic suggest three key strategies are needed to prevent avoidable deaths and inequalities in the next crisis: (1) strengthen system resilience (including improved resourcing and staffing; support of new tools and processes; and recognising primary care's role as the 'risk sink' of the healthcare system); (2) develop evidence-based triage and scoring systems; and (3) address social vulnerability.

Anti-IL-17A treatment reduces clinical score and VCAM-1 expression detected by in vivo magnetic resonance imaging in chronic relapsing EAE ABH mice.

IL-17 is argued to play an important role in the multiple sclerosis-like disease experimental autoimmune encephalitis (EAE). We investigated the therapeutic effects of anti-IL-17A in a chronic relapsing EAE ABH mouse model using conventional scoring, quantitative behavioral outcomes, and a novel vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1)-targeted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contrast agent [anti-VCAM-microparticles of iron oxide (MPIO)] to identify conventionally undetectable neuropathology. Mice were administered prophylactic or treatment regimens of anti-IL-17A or IgG and two injections of anti-VCAM-MPIO before undergoing T2*-weighted three-dimensional and gadolinium-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid T1-weighted MRI. Rotarod, inverted screen, and open field motor function tests were performed, conventional clinical scores calculated, and central IL-17A mRNA expression quantified during acute disease, remission, and relapse. Prophylactic anti-IL-17A prevents acute disease and relapse and is associated with reduced clinical and functional severity. Treatment regimens delay relapse, improve functional scores, and are associated with reduced VCAM-MPIO lesions during remission. No significant alteration was detectable in levels of gadolinium-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid- or VCAM-MPIO-positive lesions during relapse. Prophylactic and treatment anti-IL-17A were therapeutically effective in chronic relapsing EAE, improving clinical and quantifiable functional outcomes. IL-17A expression seems significant during acute disease but less important chronically. Disease-related immunoneuropathology is more sensitively detected using VCAM-MPIO MRI, which may, therefore, be used to monitor therapy meaningfully.