Long COVID quality of life and healthcare experiences in the UK: a mixed method online survey.

PURPOSE: The complexity of long COVID and its diverse symptom profile contributes to unprecedented challenges for patients, clinicians, and healthcare services. The threat of long COVID remains ignored by Governments, the media and public health messaging, and patients' experiences must be heard through understanding of the lived experience. This study aimed to understand the lived experience of those living with long COVID. METHODS: An online web-based survey was designed using Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) to increase understanding of the lived experiences of long COVID, and was distributed through PPIE groups, social media, and word of mouth. The survey used closed and open questions relating to demographics, pre- and post-COVID-19 health quality of life, daily activities and long COVID experiences. RESULTS: Within our sample of 132 people living with long COVID, the findings highlight that individuals are being severely impacted by their symptoms and are unable to or limited in participating in their daily activities, reducing quality of life. Long COVID places strain on relationships, the ability to live life fully and is detrimental to mental health. Varying health care experiences are described by participants, with reports of medical gaslighting and inadequate support received. CONCLUSIONS: Long COVID has a severe impact on the ability to live life fully, and strains mental health. The appropriate mechanisms and support services are needed to support those living with long COVID and manage symptoms.

Forming a consensus opinion to inform long COVID support mechanisms and interventions: a modified Delphi approach.

Background: Current approaches to support patients living with post-COVID condition, also known as Long COVID, are highly disparate with limited success in managing or resolving a well-documented and long-standing symptom burden. With approximately 2.1 million people living with the condition in the UK alone and millions more worldwide, there is a desperate need to devise support strategies and interventions for patients. Methods: A three-round Delphi consensus methodology was distributed internationally using an online survey and was completed by healthcare professionals (including clinicians, physiotherapists, and general practitioners), people with long COVID, and long COVID academic researchers (round 1 n = 273, round 2 n = 186, round 3 n = 138). Across the three rounds, respondents were located predominantly in the United Kingdom (UK), with 17.3-15.2% (round 1, n = 47; round 2 n = 32, round 2 n = 21) of respondents located elsewhere (United States of America (USA), Austria, Malta, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Finland, Norway, Malta, Netherlands, Iceland, Canada, Tunisie, Brazil, Hungary, Greece, France, Austrailia, South Africa, Serbia, and India). Respondents were given ∼5 weeks to complete the survey following enrolment, with round one taking place from 02/15/2022 to 03/28/22, round two; 05/09/2022 to 06/26/2022, and round 3; 07/14/2022 to 08/09/2022. A 5-point Likert scale of agreement was used and the opportunity to include free text responses was provided in the first round. Findings: Fifty-five statements reached consensus (defined as >80% agree and strongly agree), across the domains of i) long COVID as a condition, ii) current support and care available for long COVID, iii) clinical assessments for long COVID, and iv) support mechanisms and rehabilitation interventions for long COVID, further sub-categorised by consideration, inclusion, and focus. Consensus reached proposes that long COVID requires specialised, comprehensive support mechanisms and that interventions should form a personalised care plan guided by the needs of the patients. Supportive approaches should focus on individual symptoms, including but not limited to fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, and dyspnoea, utilising pacing, fatigue management, and support returning to daily activities. The mental impact of living with long COVID, tolerance to physical activity, emotional distress and well-being, and research of pre-existing conditions with similar symptoms, such as myalgic encephalomyelitis, should also be considered when supporting people with long COVID. Interpretation: We provide an outline that achieved consensus with stakeholders that could be used to inform the design and implementation of bespoke long COVID support mechanisms. Funding: None.

Lived experience of patients with Long COVID: a qualitative study in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Long COVID is a rapidly evolving global health crisis requiring interdisciplinary support strategies that incorporate the lived experience of patients. Currently, there is a paucity of research documenting the day-to-day experiences of patients living with Long COVID. OBJECTIVE: To explore the lived experience of Long COVID patients. STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal, observation study. SETTING: An inductive, data-driven, qualitative approach was used to evaluate hand-written diaries obtained from individuals who had been referred to a Derbyshire Long COVID clinic. PARTICIPANTS: 12 participants (11 females, age 49±10 years, 11 Caucasians) were recruited. Participants were included if they had a previous confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection with ongoing recovery, >18 years old, understood the study requirements and provided informed consent. METHOD: Participants were directed to complete self-report diaries over 16 weeks. Responses were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three key themes were highlighted: (1) understanding who helps patients manage symptoms, (2) daily activities and the impact on quality of life and health status and (3) the effect of turbulent and episodic symptom profiles on personal identity and recovery. CONCLUSIONS: The novel challenges presented by Long COVID are complex with varying inter-related factors that are broadly impacting functional status and quality of life. Support mechanisms must incorporate the lived experiences and foster true collaborations between health professionals, patients and researchers to improve patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04649957.

Co-infection in critically ill patients with COVID-19: an observational cohort study from England.

Introduction. During previous viral pandemics, reported co-infection rates and implicated pathogens have varied. In the 1918 influenza pandemic, a large proportion of severe illness and death was complicated by bacterial co-infection, predominantly Streptococcus pneumoniae and Staphylococcus aureus.Gap statement. A better understanding of the incidence of co-infection in patients with COVID-19 infection and the pathogens involved is necessary for effective antimicrobial stewardship.Aim. To describe the incidence and nature of co-infection in critically ill adults with COVID-19 infection in England.Methodology. A retrospective cohort study of adults with COVID-19 admitted to seven intensive care units (ICUs) in England up to 18 May 2020, was performed. Patients with completed ICU stays were included. The proportion and type of organisms were determined at <48 and >48 h following hospital admission, corresponding to community and hospital-acquired co-infections.Results. Of 254 patients studied (median age 59 years (IQR 49-69); 64.6 % male), 139 clinically significant organisms were identified from 83 (32.7 %) patients. Bacterial co-infections/ co-colonisation were identified within 48 h of admission in 14 (5.5 %) patients; the commonest pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (four patients) and Streptococcus pneumoniae (two patients). The proportion of pathogens detected increased with duration of ICU stay, consisting largely of Gram-negative bacteria, particularly Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli. The co-infection/ co-colonisation rate >48 h after admission was 27/1000 person-days (95 % CI 21.3-34.1). Patients with co-infections/ co-colonisation were more likely to die in ICU (crude OR 1.78,95 % CI 1.03-3.08, P=0.04) compared to those without co-infections/ co-colonisation.Conclusion. We found limited evidence for community-acquired bacterial co-infection in hospitalised adults with COVID-19, but a high rate of Gram-negative infection acquired during ICU stay.