Hendra virus vaccine, a one health approach to protecting horse, human, and environmental health.

In recent years, the emergence of several highly pathogenic zoonotic diseases in humans has led to a renewed emphasis on the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health, otherwise known as One Health. For example, Hendra virus (HeV), a zoonotic paramyxovirus, was discovered in 1994, and since then, infections have occurred in 7 humans, each of whom had a strong epidemiologic link to similarly affected horses. As a consequence of these outbreaks, eradication of bat populations was discussed, despite their crucial environmental roles in pollination and reduction of the insect population. We describe the development and evaluation of a vaccine for horses with the potential for breaking the chain of HeV transmission from bats to horses to humans, thereby protecting horse, human, and environmental health. The HeV vaccine for horses is a key example of a One Health approach to the control of human disease.

Efficacy of oclacitinib (Apoquel®) compared with prednisolone for the control of pruritus and clinical signs associated with allergic dermatitis in client-owned dogs in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Oral glucocorticoids are widely used to reduce pruritus and dermatitis associated with allergic dermatitis. Data suggest that oclacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, is a safe and effective alternative. HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oclacitinib compared with prednisolone for the control of pruritus associated with allergic dermatitis in a single-masked, controlled clinical trial with a randomized complete block design. ANIMALS: Client-owned dogs (n = 123) with a presumptive diagnosis of allergic dermatitis and moderate to severe pruritus as assessed by the pet owner were enrolled. METHODS: Dogs were randomized to treatment with either oclacitinib (0.4-0.6 mg/kg orally twice daily for 14 days, then once daily) or prednisolone (0.5-1.0 mg/kg once daily for 6 days, then every other day) for 28 days. An enhanced visual analog scale (VAS) was used by owners to assess pruritus and by veterinarians to assess dermatitis, at all time points assessed. RESULTS: Both treatments produced a rapid onset of efficacy within 4 h. The mean reductions in pruritus and dermatitis scores were not significantly different between the treatments except on day 14, when reductions were more pronounced for oclacitinib than prednisolone (P = 0.0193 for owner pruritus scores; P = 0.0252 for veterinarian dermatitis scores). Adverse events were reported with similar frequency in both groups. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: In this study, both oclacitinib and prednisolone provided rapid, effective and safe control of pruritus associated with allergic dermatitis, with substantial improvement in pruritus, reported by owners, and dermatitis, reported by veterinarians.

The Wolfson Prize: designing the hospital of the future.

Background: The 2021 Wolfson Economics Prize asked how new hospitals should be designed to radically improve patient experiences, clinical outcomes, staff wellbeing and integration with wider health and social care. With a major programme to rebuild and renew hospitals in England underway, the Prize offered an opportunity to understand current thinking about hospitals and their future place. Methods: The 41 submissions that were identified as 'most promising' were reviewed and subjected to framework analysis. Emerging themes were identified and discussed iteratively. Results: Five dominant themes were identified: a calming environment; systems of care; distribution of services; use of technology; and going green. Several tensions and trade-offs were evident across the submissions and a number of gaps were identified in the knowledge base that need to be remedied to ensure that new hospitals are safe and efficient. Conclusion: The previous approach to building new hospitals, with its over-riding drive to reduce costs, has not served the UK well. New ways of thinking about hospital building and design are urgently needed, especially the funding of research and the creation of a national repository devoted to design solutions and post-build evaluations of new hospitals.

What next for the polyclinic? New models of primary health care are required in many former Soviet Union countries.

BACKGROUND: There is unfinished reform in primary care in Russia and other former Soviet Union (FSU) countries. The traditional 'Semashko' multi-specialty polyclinic model has been retained, while its major characteristics are increasingly questioned. The search for a new model is on a health policy agenda. It is relevant for many other countries. OBJECTIVES: In this paper, we explore the strengths and weaknesses of the multi-specialty polyclinic model currently found in Russia and other FSU countries, as well as the features of the emerging multi-disciplinary and large-scale primary care models internationally. The comparison of the two is a major research question. Health policy implications are discussed. METHODS: We use data from two physicians' surveys and recent literature to identify the characteristics of multi-specialty polyclinics, indicators of their performance and the evaluation in the specific country context. The review of the literature is used to describe new primary care models internationally. RESULTS: The Semashko polyclinic model has lost some of its original strengths due to the excessive specialization of service delivery. We demonstrate the strengths of extended practices in Western countries and conclude that FSU countries should "leapfrog" the phase of developing solo practices and build a multi-disciplinary model similar to the extended practices model in Europe. The latter may act as a 'golden mean' between the administrative dominance of the polyclinic model and the limited capacity of solo practices. The new model requires a separation of primary care and outpatient specialty care, with the transformation of polyclinics into centers of outpatient diagnostic and specialty services that become part of hospital services while working closely with primary care. CONCLUSION: The comprehensiveness of care in a big setting and potential economies of scale, which are major strengths of the polyclinic model, should be retained in the provision of specialty care rather than primary care. Internationally, there are lessons about the risks associated with models based on narrow specialization in caring for patients who increasingly have multiple conditions.

United Kingdom: Health System Review.

This analysis provides a review of developments in financing, governance, organisation and delivery, health reforms and performance of the health systems in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has enjoyed a national health service with access based on clinical need, and not ability to pay for over 70 years. This has provided several important benefits including protection against the financial consequences of ill-health, redistribution of wealth from rich to poor, and relatively low administrative costs. Despite this, the United Kingdom continues to lag behind many other comparable high-income countries in key measures including life expectancy, infant mortality and cancer survival. Total health spending in the United Kingdom is slightly above the average for Europe, but it is below many other comparable high-income countries such as Germany, France and Canada. The United Kingdom also has relatively lower levels of doctors, nurses, hospital beds and equipment than many other comparable high-income countries. Wider social determinants of health also contribute to poor outcomes, and the United Kingdom has one of the highest levels of income inequality in Europe. Devolution of responsibility for health care services since the late 1990s to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has resulted in divergence in policies between countries, including in prescription charges, and eligibility for publicly funded social care services. However, more commonalities than differences remain between these health care systems. The United Kingdom initially experienced one of the highest death rates associated with COVID-19; however, the success and speed of the United Kingdom's vaccination programme has since improved the United Kingdom's performance in this respect. Principal health reforms in each country are focusing on facilitating cross-sectoral partnerships and promoting integration of services in a manner that improves the health and well-being of local populations. These include the establishment of integrated care systems in England, integrated joint boards in Scotland, regional partnership boards in Wales and integrated partnership boards in Northern Ireland. Policies are also being developed to align the social care funding model closer to the National Health Service funding model. These include a cap on costs over an individual's lifetime in England, and a national care service free at the point of need in Scotland and Wales. Currently, and for the future, significant investment is needed to address major challenges including a growing backlog of elective care, and staffing shortfalls exacerbated by Brexit.

Transformations in the landscape of primary health care during COVID-19: Themes from the European region.

The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically impacted primary health care (PHC) across Europe. Since March 2020, the COVID-19 Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) has documented country-level responses using a structured template distributed to country experts. We extracted all PHC-relevant data from the HSRM and iteratively developed an analysis framework examining the models of PHC delivery employed by PHC providers in response to the pandemic, as well as the government enablers supporting these models. Despite the heterogenous PHC structures and capacities across European countries, we identified three prevalent models of PHC delivery employed: (1) multi-disciplinary primary care teams coordinating with public health to deliver the emergency response and essential services; (2) PHC providers defining and identifying vulnerable populations for medical and social outreach; and (3) PHC providers employing digital solutions for remote triage, consultation, monitoring and prescriptions to avoid unnecessary contact. These were supported by government enablers such as increasing workforce numbers, managing demand through public-facing risk communications, and prioritising pandemic response efforts linked to vulnerable populations and digital solutions. We discuss the importance of PHC systems maintaining and building on these models of PHC delivery to strengthen preparedness for future outbreaks and better respond to the contemporary health challenges.

Hospitals and delivery systems: the need for change.

Hospitals across Europe are facing huge pressures and need to change. They are not very well adapted to deal with these challenges and in many cases the policy frameworks are poorly adapted to help them change. Hospitals increasingly need to be seen as part of the wider system and need bold and imaginative solutions to deal with the problems they face.

The problems of smaller, rural and remote hospitals: Separating facts from fiction.

Smaller hospitals internationally are under threat. The narratives around the closure of smaller hospitals, regardless of size and location, are all constructed around three common problems - cost, quality and workforce. The literature is reviewed, demonstrating that there is little hard evidence to support the contention that hospital merger/closure solves these problems. The disbenefits of mergers and closures, including loss of resources, increased pressure on neighbouring organisations, shifting risk from the healthcare system to patients and their families, and the threat hospital closure represents to communities, are explored. Alternative structures, policies and funding mechanisms, based on the evidence, are urgently needed to support smaller hospitals in the UK and elsewhere.

Roundtable. Will the penny drop for clinical managers?

Increasing clinical engagement is an NHS priority. Some medical staff have been reluctant to get involved in management. Giving clinicians more data about what their interventions are costing and how this compares with their peers could help get them more involved.