Masks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infections: a state of the science review.

SUMMARYThis narrative review and meta-analysis summarizes a broad evidence base on the benefits-and also the practicalities, disbenefits, harms and personal, sociocultural and environmental impacts-of masks and masking. Our synthesis of evidence from over 100 published reviews and selected primary studies, including re-analyzing contested meta-analyses of key clinical trials, produced seven key findings. First, there is strong and consistent evidence for airborne transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and other respiratory pathogens. Second, masks are, if correctly and consistently worn, effective in reducing transmission of respiratory diseases and show a dose-response effect. Third, respirators are significantly more effective than medical or cloth masks. Fourth, mask mandates are, overall, effective in reducing community transmission of respiratory pathogens. Fifth, masks are important sociocultural symbols; non-adherence to masking is sometimes linked to political and ideological beliefs and to widely circulated mis- or disinformation. Sixth, while there is much evidence that masks are not generally harmful to the general population, masking may be relatively contraindicated in individuals with certain medical conditions, who may require exemption. Furthermore, certain groups (notably D/deaf people) are disadvantaged when others are masked. Finally, there are risks to the environment from single-use masks and respirators. We propose an agenda for future research, including improved characterization of the situations in which masking should be recommended or mandated; attention to comfort and acceptability; generalized and disability-focused communication support in settings where masks are worn; and development and testing of novel materials and designs for improved filtration, breathability, and environmental impact.

What is quality in long covid care? Lessons from a national quality improvement collaborative and multi-site ethnography.

BACKGROUND: Long covid (post covid-19 condition) is a complex condition with diverse manifestations, uncertain prognosis and wide variation in current approaches to management. There have been calls for formal quality standards to reduce a so-called "postcode lottery" of care. The original aim of this study-to examine the nature of quality in long covid care and reduce unwarranted variation in services-evolved to focus on examining the reasons why standardizing care was so challenging in this condition. METHODS: In 2021-2023, we ran a quality improvement collaborative across 10 UK sites. The dataset reported here was mostly but not entirely qualitative. It included data on the origins and current context of each clinic, interviews with staff and patients, and ethnographic observations at 13 clinics (50 consultations) and 45 multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings (244 patient cases). Data collection and analysis were informed by relevant lenses from clinical care (e.g. evidence-based guidelines), improvement science (e.g. quality improvement cycles) and philosophy of knowledge. RESULTS: Participating clinics made progress towards standardizing assessment and management in some topics; some variation remained but this could usually be explained. Clinics had different histories and path dependencies, occupied a different place in their healthcare ecosystem and served a varied caseload including a high proportion of patients with comorbidities. A key mechanism for achieving high-quality long covid care was when local MDTs deliberated on unusual, complex or challenging cases for which evidence-based guidelines provided no easy answers. In such cases, collective learning occurred through idiographic (case-based) reasoning, in which practitioners build lessons from the particular to the general. This contrasts with the nomothetic reasoning implicit in evidence-based guidelines, in which reasoning is assumed to go from the general (e.g. findings of clinical trials) to the particular (management of individual patients). CONCLUSION: Not all variation in long covid services is unwarranted. Largely because long covid's manifestations are so varied and comorbidities common, generic "evidence-based" standards require much individual adaptation. In this complex condition, quality improvement resources may be productively spent supporting MDTs to optimise their case-based learning through interdisciplinary discussion. Quality assessment of a long covid service should include review of a sample of individual cases to assess how guidelines have been interpreted and personalized to meet patients' unique needs. STUDY REGISTRATION: NCT05057260, ISRCTN15022307.

Access and triage in contemporary general practice: A novel theory of digital candidacy.

To access contemporary healthcare, patients must find and navigate a complex socio-technical network of human and digital actors linked in multi-modal pathways. Asynchronous, digitally-mediated triage decisions have largely replaced synchronous conversations between humans. In this paper, we draw on a large qualitative dataset from a multi-site study of remote and digital technologies in general practice to understand widening inequities of access. We theorise our data by bringing together traditional candidacy theory (in particular, concepts of self-assessment, help-seeking, adjudication and negotiation) and socio-technical and technology structuration theories (in particular, concepts of user configuration, articulation, distanciation, disembedding, and recursivity), thus producing a novel theory of digital candidacy. We propose that both human and technological actors (in different ways) embody social structures which affect how they 'act' in social situations. Digital technologies contain inbuilt assumptions about users' capabilities, needs, rights, and skills. Patients' ability to self-assess as sick, access digital platforms, self-advocate, and navigate multiple stages in the pathway, including adapting to and compensating for limitations in the technology, vary widely and are markedly patterned by disadvantage. Not every patient can craft an accurate digital facsimile on which the subsequent adjudication decision will be made; those who create incomplete, flawed or unpersuasive digital facsimiles may be deprioritised or misdirected. Staff who know about such patients may use articulation measures to ensure a personalised and appropriate access package, but they cannot identify or fully mitigate all such cases. The decisions and actions of human and technological agents at the time of an attempt to access care can significantly influence, disrupt, and reconstitute candidacy both immediately and recursively over time, and also recursively shape the system itself. These findings underscore the need for services to be (co-)designed with attention to the exclusionary tendencies of digital technologies and technology-supported processes and pathways.

Children's experiences of mask-wearing: a systemic review and narrative synthesis.

RATIONALE: Masks have been widely used as a preventative tool during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the use of masks by children has been controversial, with international guidelines recommending a risk-based approach to national policymakers. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to conduct a systematic review that explores children's experiences of mask-wearing, drawing on an evidence base that describes mask-wearing in different contexts including air pollution, and to prevent the spread of infectious disease. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO in June 2021, with repeat searches in August 2022 and January 2024, for primary research studies exploring children's experiences of masks. Included studies reported on participants between 4 and 14 years (inclusive), with no restrictions on language where an English translation was available. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and reviewed full texts, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool for quality appraisal and narrative synthesis to identify key findings. We also conducted stakeholder consultation (Patient and Public Involvement (PPI)) with nine children, where they submitted annotated drawings of their preferred masks to complement our review findings. RESULTS: We screened 982 titles and abstracts and reviewed 94 full texts. 45 studies were included in the synthesis. Children's experiences of mask-wearing were influenced by their perceived necessity, social norms around their use and parental attitudes. Challenges related to mask-wearing were described, including difficulty reading facial expressions and physical discomfort. Children found it easier to wear masks when sitting and in cooler environments, and they benefited from unmasking during outdoor break time at school. As part of the PPI consultation, children highlighted the importance of mask design and the environmental impact of masks. CONCLUSION: Children's experiences of mask-wearing were varied and context-dependent, with several mask-design challenges raised. Future policy on mask-wearing needs to consider the context in which mask-wearing would be most beneficial, and how local adaptations to policy can respond to children's needs.

Developing user personas to capture intersecting dimensions of disadvantage in older patients who are marginalised: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Remote and digital services must be equitable, but some patients have difficulty using these services. Designing measures to overcome digital disparities can be challenging for practices. Personas (fictional cases) are a potentially useful tool in this regard. AIM: To develop and test a set of personas to reflect the lived experiences and challenges that older people who are disadvantaged face when navigating remote and digital primary care services. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study of digital disparities in NHS community health services offering video appointments. METHOD: Following familiarisation visits and interviews with service providers, 17 older people with multiple markers of disadvantage (limited English, health conditions, and poverty) were recruited and interviewed using narrative prompts. Data were analysed using an intersectionality lens, underpinned by sociological theory. Combining data across all participant interviews, we produced personas and refined these following focus groups involving health professionals, patients, and advocates (n = 12). RESULTS: Digital services create significant challenges for older patients with limited economic, social, and linguistic resources and low digital, health, or system literacy. Four contrasting personas were produced, capturing the variety and complexity of how dimensions of disadvantage intersected and influenced identity and actions. The personas illustrate important themes including experience of racism and discrimination, disorientation, discontinuity, limited presence, weak relationships, loss of agency, and mistrust of services and providers. CONCLUSION: Personas can illuminate the multiple and intersecting dimensions of disadvantage in patient populations who are marginalised and may prove useful when designing or redesigning digital primary care services. Adopting an intersectional lens may help practices address digital disparities.

Training needs for staff providing remote services in general practice: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary general practice includes many kinds of remote encounter. The rise in telephone, video and online modalities for triage and clinical care requires clinicians and support staff to be trained, both individually and as teams, but evidence-based competencies have not previously been produced for general practice. AIM: To identify training needs, core competencies, and learning methods for staff providing remote encounters. DESIGN AND SETTING: Mixed-methods study in UK general practice. METHOD: Data were collated from longitudinal ethnographic case studies of 12 general practices; a multi-stakeholder workshop; interviews with policymakers, training providers, and trainees; published research; and grey literature (such as training materials and surveys). Data were coded thematically and analysed using theories of individual and team learning. RESULTS: Learning to provide remote services occurred in the context of high workload, understaffing, and complex workflows. Low confidence and perceived unmet training needs were common. Training priorities for novice clinicians included basic technological skills, triage, ethics (for privacy and consent), and communication and clinical skills. Established clinicians' training priorities include advanced communication skills (for example, maintaining rapport and attentiveness), working within the limits of technologies, making complex judgements, coordinating multi-professional care in a distributed environment, and training others. Much existing training is didactic and technology focused. While basic knowledge was often gained using such methods, the ability and confidence to make complex judgements were usually acquired through experience, informal discussions, and on-the-job methods such as shadowing. Whole-team training was valued but rarely available. A draft set of competencies is offered based on the findings. CONCLUSION: The knowledge needed to deliver high-quality remote encounters to diverse patient groups is complex, collective, and organisationally embedded. The vital role of non-didactic training, for example, joint clinical sessions, case-based discussions, and in-person, whole-team, on-the-job training, needs to be recognised.

Patient safety in remote primary care encounters: multimethod qualitative study combining Safety I and Safety II analysis.

BACKGROUND: Triage and clinical consultations increasingly occur remotely. We aimed to learn why safety incidents occur in remote encounters and how to prevent them. SETTING AND SAMPLE: UK primary care. 95 safety incidents (complaints, settled indemnity claims and reports) involving remote interactions. Separately, 12 general practices followed 2021-2023. METHODS: Multimethod qualitative study. We explored causes of real safety incidents retrospectively ('Safety I' analysis). In a prospective longitudinal study, we used interviews and ethnographic observation to produce individual, organisational and system-level explanations for why safety and near-miss incidents (rarely) occurred and why they did not occur more often ('Safety II' analysis). Data were analysed thematically. An interpretive synthesis of why safety incidents occur, and why they do not occur more often, was refined following member checking with safety experts and lived experience experts. RESULTS: Safety incidents were characterised by inappropriate modality, poor rapport building, inadequate information gathering, limited clinical assessment, inappropriate pathway (eg, wrong algorithm) and inadequate attention to social circumstances. These resulted in missed, inaccurate or delayed diagnoses, underestimation of severity or urgency, delayed referral, incorrect or delayed treatment, poor safety netting and inadequate follow-up. Patients with complex pre-existing conditions, cardiac or abdominal emergencies, vague or generalised symptoms, safeguarding issues, failure to respond to previous treatment or difficulty communicating seemed especially vulnerable. General practices were facing resource constraints, understaffing and high demand. Triage and care pathways were complex, hard to navigate and involved multiple staff. In this context, patient safety often depended on individual staff taking initiative, speaking up or personalising solutions. CONCLUSION: While safety incidents are extremely rare in remote primary care, deaths and serious harms have resulted. We offer suggestions for patient, staff and system-level mitigations.

Mobilising context as complex and dynamic in evaluations of complex health interventions.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between healthcare interventions and context is widely conceived as involving complex and dynamic interactions over time. However, evaluations of complex health interventions frequently fail to mobilise such complexity, reporting context and interventions as reified and demarcated categories. This raises questions about practices shaping knowledge about context, with implications for who and what we make visible in our research. Viewed through the lens of case study research, we draw on data collected for the Triple C study (focused on Case study, Context and Complex interventions), to critique these practices, and call for system-wide changes in how notions of context are operationalised in evaluations of complex health interventions. METHODS: The Triple C study was funded by the Medical Research Council to develop case study guidance and reporting principles taking account of context and complexity. As part of this study, a one-day workshop with 58 participants and nine interviews were conducted with those involved in researching, evaluating, publishing, funding and developing policy and practice from case study research. Discussions focused on how to conceptualise and operationalise context within case study evaluations of complex health interventions. Analysis focused on different constructions and connections of context in relation to complex interventions and the wider social forces structuring participant's accounts. RESULTS: We found knowledge-making practices about context shaped by epistemic and political forces, manifesting as: tensions between articulating complexity and clarity of description; ontological (in)coherence between conceptualisations of context and methods used; and reified versions of context being privileged when communicating with funders, journals, policymakers and publics. CONCLUSION: We argue that evaluations of complex health interventions urgently requires wide-scale critical reflection on how context is mobilised - by funders, health services researchers, journal editors and policymakers. Connecting with how scholars approach complexity and context across disciplines provides opportunities for creatively expanding the field in which health evaluations are conducted, enabling a critical standpoint to long-established traditions and opening up possibilities for innovating the design of evaluations of complex health interventions.

Protocol: How can people with social care needs be supported through processes of digital care navigation to access remote primary care? A multi-site case study in UK general practice of remote care as the 'new normal'.

Background: Care navigation refers to support for patients accessing primary care and other related services. The expansion of digitally enabled care in the UK since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a greater need for digital care navigation: supporting people to access primary care digitally and, if necessary, to help them find alternative non-digital routes of access. Support to patients with social care needs (including but not limited to those who are homeless and insecurely housed, living in residential care and supported by domiciliary carers) increasingly involves work to navigate primary care provided remotely and accessed digitally. There is little knowledge about how this work is being done. Methods: Care Navigation involves embedded researchers identifying digital care navigation for patients accessing services in 11 GP practices recruited to a linked study of remote primary care ( Remote care as the 'new normal?'). Digital care navigation will be studied through go-along (in-person or remote) interviews with a sample of 20 people offering formal (paid or voluntary) support, 6 national and regional stakeholders who plan, commission or provide digital care navigation and a focus group with 12 social prescribers engaged in digital care navigation. A co-design workshop with people working in, or commissioning, social care settings will consider how findings can inform improved digital care navigation, for example through the development of resources or guidance for care navigators. Results anticipated: Findings are anticipated to include evidence of how digital care navigation is practised, the work that is done to support patients in accessing remote primary care, and how this work is shaped by material resources and variations in the configuration of services and infrastructure. Conclusions: New explanations of the work needed to navigate digital care will inform policy and service developments aimed at helping patients benefit from remote primary care.

Integrating System Dynamics and Action Research: Towards a Consideration of Normative Complexity Comment on "Insights Gained From a Re-analysis of Five Improvement Cases in Healthcare Integrating System Dynamics Into Action Research".

Holmström and co-authors argue for the value of integrating system dynamics into action research to deal with increasing complexity in healthcare. We argue that despite merits, the authors overlook the key aspect of normative complexity, which refers to the existence of multiple, often conflicting values that actors in healthcare systems have to pragmatically develop responses to in their daily practices. We argue that a better theoretical and empirical understanding of the multiplicity of values and how actors deal with value conflicts in daily practices can enrich discussions about complexity in healthcare. We introduce the alternative methodology of 'value exnovation' for action researchers to broaden the scope of system-based thinking and action research in healthcare.

A contemporary ontology of continuity in general practice: Capturing its multiple essences in a digital age.

Continuity is a long-established and fiercely-defended value in primary care. Traditional continuity, based on a one-to-one doctor-patient relationship, has declined in recent years. Contemporary general practice is organisationally and technically complex, with multiple staff roles and technologies supporting patient access (e.g. electronic and telephone triage) and clinical encounters (e.g. telephone, video and electronic consultations). Re-evaluation of continuity's relational, organisational, socio-technical and professional characteristics is therefore timely. We developed theory in parallel with collecting and analysing data from case studies of 11 UK general practices followed from 2021 to 2023 as they introduced (or chose not to introduce) remote and digital services. We used strategic, immersive ethnography, interviews, and material analysis of technologies (e.g. digital walk-throughs). Continuity was almost universally valued but differently defined across practices. It was invariably situated and effortful, influenced by the locality, organisation, technical infrastructure, wider system and the values and ways of working of participating actors, and often requiring articulation and 'tinkering' by staff. Remote and digital modalities provided opportunities for extending continuity across time and space and for achieving-to a greater or lesser extent-continuity of digital records and shared understandings of a patient and illness episode across the clinical team. Delivering continuity for the most vulnerable patients was sometimes labour-intensive and required one-off adaptations. Building on earlier work by Haggerty et al. we propose a novel ontology of four analytically distinct but empirically overlapping kinds of continuity-of the therapeutic relationship (based on psychodynamic and narrative paradigms), of the illness episode (biomedical-interpretive paradigm), of distributed work (sociotechnical paradigm), and of the practice's commitment to a community (political economy and ethics of care paradigm). This ontology allowed us to theorise and critique successes (continuity achieved) and failures (breaches of continuity and fragmentation of care) in our dataset.

Heart failure diagnosis in the general community - Who, how and when? A clinical consensus statement of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

A significant proportion of patients experience delays in the diagnosis of heart failure due to the non-specific signs and symptoms of the syndrome. Diagnostic tools such as measurement of natriuretic peptide concentrations are fundamentally important when screening for heart failure, yet are frequently under-utilized. This clinical consensus statement provides a diagnostic framework for general practitioners and non-cardiology community-based physicians to recognize, investigate and risk-stratify patients presenting in the community with possible heart failure.