Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population. METHODS: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir. INTERPRETATION: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

How do primary care clinicians approach the management of frailty? A qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Around 15% of adults aged over 65 live with moderate or severe frailty. Contractual requirements for management of frailty are minimal and neither incentivised nor reinforced. Previous research has shown frailty identification in primary care is ad hoc and opportunistic, but there has been little focus on the challenges of frailty management, particularly within the context of recent introduction of primary care networks and an expanding allied health professional workforce. AIM: Explore the views of primary care clinicians in England on the management of frailty. DESIGN AND SETTING: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians across England, including general practitioners (GPs), physician associates, nurse practitioners, paramedics and clinical pharmacists. Thematic analysis was facilitated through NVivo (Version 12). RESULTS: A total of 31 clinicians participated. Frailty management was viewed as complex and outside of clinical guidelines with medication optimisation highlighted as a key example. Senior clinicians, particularly experienced GPs, were more comfortable with managing risk. Relational care was important in prioritising patient wishes and autonomy, for instance to remain at home despite deteriorations in health. In settings where more formalised multidisciplinary frailty services had been established this was viewed as successful by clinicians involved. CONCLUSION: Primary care clinicians perceive frailty as best managed through trusted relationships with patients, and with support from experienced clinicians. New multidisciplinary working in primary care could enhance frailty services, but must keep continuity in mind. There is a lack of evidence or guidance for specific interventions or management approaches.

Correction: Internet Tool to Support Self-Assessment and Self-Swabbing of Sore Throat: Development and Feasibility Study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/39791.].

Identifying infection in chronic wounds in a community setting: A systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy studies.

AIM: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of different methods currently available to identify infection in chronic wounds applicable to adult patients in a community setting. DESIGN: Systematic review of diagnostic test accuracy studies. REVIEW METHODS: Two authors independently completed screening, data extraction and quality and bias assessments (QUADAS2). Eligible studies compared a method (index test) for detecting infection (diagnosis of interest) with microscopy and culture of either deep tissue biopsy or wound swab (reference test) in adult patients with wounds of >4 weeks duration (participants). The results were synthesized narratively. DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched CINAHL, Embase and Medline from 2011 to April 2022. RESULTS: Four studies were included, all recruiting from secondary care wound clinics. Two studies assessed the diagnostic accuracy of Moleculight i:X, a bacterial fluorescence imaging device against deep tissue biopsy culture. One study assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the elevation of various enzymes detected in wound fluid against wound swab microscopy of culture. One study assessed the diagnostic accuracy of bacterial protease activity against wound swab microscopy and culture. Sensitivities of these methods ranged from 50 to 75% and specificities from 47 to 100%. CONCLUSION: Only a small number of studies were included in this systematic review due to our strict inclusion criteria. We have not identified any methods for diagnosing infection in chronic wounds with either a sufficient quality of evidence to recommend their use in community settings at present. Further research is needed to develop and evaluate appropriate diagnostics for this purpose. IMPACT: This study highlights the paucity of research into wound diagnostics in a community setting and should prompt further research in this area. Accurate diagnostic tests have the potential to improve community-based wound care by optimizing antibiotic use and potentially improving healing time. REPORTING METHOD: PRISMA-DTA checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The PPI group for the NIHR Community Healthcare MIC were supportive of this topic of work.

Diagnosis and Severity Assessment of COPD Using a Novel Fast-Response Capnometer and Interpretable Machine Learning.

INTRODUCTION: Spirometry is the gold standard for COPD diagnosis and severity determination, but is technique-dependent, nonspecific, and requires administration by a trained healthcare professional. There is a need for a fast, reliable, and precise alternative diagnostic test. This study's aim was to use interpretable machine learning to diagnose COPD and assess severity using 75-second carbon dioxide (CO2) breath records captured with TidalSense's N-TidalTM capnometer. METHOD: For COPD diagnosis, machine learning algorithms were trained and evaluated on 294 COPD (including GOLD stages 1-4) and 705 non-COPD participants. A logistic regression model was also trained to distinguish GOLD 1 from GOLD 4 COPD with the output probability used as an index of severity. RESULTS: The best diagnostic model achieved an AUROC of 0.890, sensitivity of 0.771, specificity of 0.850 and positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.834. Evaluating performance on all test capnograms that were confidently ruled in or out yielded PPV of 0.930 and NPV of 0.890. The severity determination model yielded an AUROC of 0.980, sensitivity of 0.958, specificity of 0.961 and PPV of 0.958 in distinguishing GOLD 1 from GOLD 4. Output probabilities from the severity determination model produced a correlation of 0.71 with percentage predicted FEV1. CONCLUSION: The N-TidalTM device could be used alongside interpretable machine learning as an accurate, point-of-care diagnostic test for COPD, particularly in primary care as a rapid rule-in or rule-out test. N-TidalTM also could be effective in monitoring disease progression, providing a possible alternative to spirometry for disease monitoring.

Evidence-based appraisal of two guidelines for the diagnosis of suspected, uncomplicated urinary tract infections in primary care: a diagnostic accuracy validation study.

OBJECTIVES: Given the lack of accurate rapid diagnostics for urinary tract infection (UTI) in women, many countries have developed guidelines aiming to support appropriate antibiotic prescribing, but some guidelines have not been validated. We performed a diagnostic accuracy validation study of two guidelines: Public Health England (GW-1263) and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN160). METHODS: We used data from women with symptoms suggestive of uncomplicated UTI from a randomized controlled trial comparing urine collection devices. Symptom information was recorded via baseline questionnaire and primary care assessment. Women provided urine samples for dipstick testing and culture. We calculated the number within each risk category of diagnostic flowcharts who had positive/mixed growth/no significant growth urine culture. Results were presented as positive/negative predictive values, with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Of women aged under 65 years, 311/509 (61.1%, 95% CI 56.7%-65.3%) classified to the highest risk category (recommended to consider immediate antibiotic prescribing) and 80/199 (40.2%, 95% CI 33.4%-47.4%) classified to the lowest risk category (recommended to reassure that UTI is less likely) by the GW-1263 guideline (n = 810) had positive culture. For the SIGN160 guideline (n = 814), the proportion with positive culture ranged from 60/82 (73.2%, 95% CI 62.1%-82.1%) in those for whom immediate treatment was indicated to 33/76 (43.4%, 95% CI 32.3%-55.3%) in those recommended a self-care/waiting strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should be aware of the potential for diagnostic error when using diagnostic guidelines for managing uncomplicated UTI and making antimicrobial prescribing decisions. Infection cannot be excluded on the basis of symptoms and dipstick testing alone.

Machine diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using a novel fast-response capnometer.

BACKGROUND: Although currently most widely used in mechanical ventilation and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, features of the carbon dioxide (CO2) waveform produced through capnometry have been shown to correlate with V/Q mismatch, dead space volume, type of breathing pattern, and small airway obstruction. This study applied feature engineering and machine learning techniques to capnography data collected by the N-Tidal™ device across four clinical studies to build a classifier that could distinguish CO2 recordings (capnograms) of patients with COPD from those without COPD. METHODS: Capnography data from four longitudinal observational studies (CBRS, GBRS, CBRS2 and ABRS) was analysed from 295 patients, generating a total of 88,186 capnograms. CO2 sensor data was processed using TidalSense's regulated cloud platform, performing real-time geometric analysis on CO2 waveforms to generate 82 physiologic features per capnogram. These features were used to train machine learning classifiers to discriminate COPD from 'non-COPD' (a group that included healthy participants and those with other cardiorespiratory conditions); model performance was validated on independent test sets. RESULTS: The best machine learning model (XGBoost) performance provided a class-balanced AUROC of 0.985 ± 0.013, positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.914 ± 0.039 and sensitivity of 0.915 ± 0.066 for a diagnosis of COPD. The waveform features that are most important for driving classification are related to the alpha angle and expiratory plateau regions. These features correlated with spirometry readings, supporting their proposed properties as markers of COPD. CONCLUSION: The N-Tidal™ device can be used to accurately diagnose COPD in near-real-time, lending support to future use in a clinical setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Please see NCT03615365, NCT02814253, NCT04504838 and NCT03356288.

'Frailty as an adjective rather than a diagnosis'-identification of frailty in primary care: a qualitative interview study.

INTRODUCTION: In 2017, NHS England introduced proactive identification of frailty into the General Practitioners (GP) contract. There is currently little information as to how this policy has been operationalised by front-line clinicians, their working understanding of frailty and impact of recognition on patient care. We aimed to explore the conceptualisation and identification of frailty by multidisciplinary primary care clinicians in England. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with primary care staff across England including GPs, physician associates, nurse practitioners, paramedics and pharmacists. Thematic analysis was facilitated through NVivo (Version 12). RESULTS: Totally, 31 clinicians participated. Frailty was seen as difficult to define, with uncertainty about its value as a medical diagnosis. Clinicians conceptualised frailty differently, dependant on job-role, experience and training. Identification of frailty was most commonly informal and opportunistic, through pattern recognition of a frailty phenotype. Some practices had embedded population screening and structured reviews. Visual assessment and continuity of care were important factors in recognition. Most clinicians were familiar with the electronic frailty index, but described poor accuracy and uncertainty as to how to interpret and use this tool. There were different perspectives amongst professional groups as to whether frailty should be more routinely identified, with concerns of capacity and feasibility in the current climate of primary care workload. CONCLUSIONS: Concepts of frailty in primary care differ. Identification is predominantly ad hoc and opportunistic. A more cohesive approach to frailty, relevant to primary care, together with better diagnostic tools and resource allocation, may encourage wider recognition.

What are important areas where better technology would support women's health? Findings from a priority setting partnership.

BACKGROUND: Women's health has historically lacked investment in research and development. Technologies that enhance women's health ('FemTech') could contribute to improving this. However, there has been little work to understand which priority unmet needs should be a focus for women's health technology development. The voices of clinicians and those who experience and utilise these technologies (including those used at home or encountered in clinical settings) are needed to ensure that device development aligns with need, without risking exacerbating or creating health inequities. METHOD: We undertook a priority setting partnership project exploring unmet needs in women's health and well-being where physical technologies or innovations could help. This comprised gathering feedback from: patients and clinicians using both qualitative surveys and discussions; collating and publishing these responses and asking for feedback; evidence checking unmet needs identified, and holding a partnership priority setting event to agree a top 10 and top 20 list of priorities. RESULTS: We generated a 'longlist' of 54 suggestions for areas where better kit, devices or equipment could support women's health. For three, we found evidence of existing technologies which mitigated against that need. We took the remaining 51 suggestions to a partnership priority setting meeting which brought together clinicians and service users. Through discussion as this group, we generated a list of the top 10 areas identified as priorities for technological development and improvement. These included better devices to manage examination, diagnosis and treatment of pelvic pain (including endometriosis), prolapse care, continence (treatment and prevention, related to pregnancy and beyond), menstruation, vaginal pain and vaginismus, point of care tests for common infections, and nipple care when breastfeeding. CONCLUSION: The top priorities suggest far-reaching areas of unmet need across women's life course and across multiple domains of health and well-being, and opportunities where innovation in the devices that people use themselves or encounter in health settings could potentially enhance health and healthcare experiences.

Internet Tool to Support Self-Assessment and Self-Swabbing of Sore Throat: Development and Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Sore throat is a common problem and a common reason for the overuse of antibiotics. A web-based tool that helps people assess their sore throat, through the use of clinical prediction rules, taking throat swabs or saliva samples, and taking throat photographs, has the potential to improve self-management and help identify those who are the most and least likely to benefit from antibiotics. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a web-based tool to help patients and parents or carers self-assess sore throat symptoms and take throat photographs, swabs, and saliva samples for diagnostic testing. We then explored the acceptability and feasibility of using the tool in adults and children with sore throats. METHODS: We used the Person-Based Approach to develop a web-based tool and then recruited adults and children with sore throats who participated in this study by attending general practices or through social media advertising. Participants self-assessed the presence of FeverPAIN and Centor score criteria and attempted to photograph their throat and take throat swabs and saliva tests. Study processes were observed via video call, and participants were interviewed about their views on using the web-based tool. Self-assessed throat inflammation and pus were compared to clinician evaluation of patients' throat photographs. RESULTS: A total of 45 participants (33 adults and 12 children) were recruited. Of these, 35 (78%) and 32 (71%) participants completed all scoring elements for FeverPAIN and Centor scores, respectively, and most (30/45, 67%) of them reported finding self-assessment relatively easy. No valid response was provided for swollen lymph nodes, throat inflammation, and pus on the throat by 11 (24%), 9 (20%), and 13 (29%) participants respectively. A total of 18 (40%) participants provided a throat photograph of adequate quality for clinical assessment. Patient assessment of inflammation had a sensitivity of 100% (3/3) and specificity of 47% (7/15) compared with the clinician-assessed photographs. For pus on the throat, the sensitivity was 100% (3/3) and the specificity was 71% (10/14). A total of 89% (40/45), 93% (42/45), 89% (40/45), and 80% (30/45) of participants provided analyzable bacterial swabs, viral swabs, saliva sponges, and saliva drool samples, respectively. Participants were generally happy and confident in providing samples, with saliva samples rated as slightly more acceptable than swab samples. CONCLUSIONS: Most adult and parent participants were able to use a web-based intervention to assess the clinical features of throat infections and generate scores using clinical prediction rules. However, some had difficulties assessing clinical signs, such as lymph nodes, throat pus, and inflammation, and scores were assessed as sensitive but not specific. Many participants had problems taking photographs of adequate quality, but most were able to take throat swabs and saliva samples.

Inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in people at high risk of complications in the community in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: A previous efficacy trial found benefit from inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in patients not admitted to hospital, but effectiveness in high-risk individuals is unknown. We aimed to establish whether inhaled budesonide reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related hospital admissions or deaths among people at high risk of complications in the community. METHODS: PRINCIPLE is a multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial done remotely from a central trial site and at primary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 65 years or older or 50 years or older with comorbidities, and unwell for up to 14 days with suspected COVID-19 but not admitted to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800 µg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions, and followed up for 28 days. Participants were aware of group assignment. The coprimary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The primary analysis population included all eligible SARS-CoV-2-positive participants randomly assigned to budesonide, usual care, and other interventions, from the start of the platform trial until the budesonide group was closed. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN86534580) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: The trial began enrolment on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to budesonide from Nov 27, 2020, until March 31, 2021, when the prespecified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. 4700 participants were randomly assigned to budesonide (n=1073), usual care alone (n=1988), or other treatments (n=1639). The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, with 787 in the budesonide group, 1069 in the usual care group, and 974 receiving other treatments. There was a benefit in time to first self-reported recovery of an estimated 2·94 days (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] 1·19 to 5·12) in the budesonide group versus the usual care group (11·8 days [95% BCI 10·0 to 14·1] vs 14·7 days [12·3 to 18·0]; hazard ratio 1·21 [95% BCI 1·08 to 1·36]), with a probability of superiority greater than 0·999, meeting the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·99. For the hospital admission or death outcome, the estimated rate was 6·8% (95% BCI 4·1 to 10·2) in the budesonide group versus 8·8% (5·5 to 12·7) in the usual care group (estimated absolute difference 2·0% [95% BCI -0·2 to 4·5]; odds ratio 0·75 [95% BCI 0·55 to 1·03]), with a probability of superiority 0·963, below the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·975. Two participants in the budesonide group and four in the usual care group had serious adverse events (hospital admissions unrelated to COVID-19). INTERPRETATION: Inhaled budesonide improves time to recovery, with a chance of also reducing hospital admissions or deaths (although our results did not meet the superiority threshold), in people with COVID-19 in the community who are at higher risk of complications. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation.

BSAC Vanguard Series: Antimicrobial resistance and the future of diagnostic testing.

In the UK around 80% of all antibiotics are prescribed by GP surgeries and in other community settings. Diagnostic technology has the potential to enable transformative change to antimicrobial stewardship in these settings. Current diagnostics are limited in terms of the information they can provide prescribers and the speed they can provide it. We need to develop diagnostics that are cheap enough for mass application, rapid enough to change prescribing decisions and able to detect bacteria which are causing disease rather than simply resident in the host. To be successful in creating change these diagnostics need to be appropriately funded and embedded in practice in ways which encourage change in prescribing behaviours. Collaboration between academia and industry is key in developing tests which are fit for purpose, well evidenced and appropriately funded in these settings.

COVID-19 testing in English care homes and implications for staff and residents.

INTRODUCTION: Care home residents are at high risk of dying from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Regular testing, producing rapid and reliable results is important in this population because infections spread quickly, and presentations are often atypical or asymptomatic. This study evaluated current testing pathways in care homes to explore the role of point-of-care tests (POCTs). METHODS: A total of 10 staff from eight care homes, purposively sampled to reflect care organisational attributes that influence outbreak severity, underwent a semi-structured remote videoconference interview. Transcripts were analysed using process mapping tools and framework analysis focussing on perceptions about, gaps within and needs arising from current pathways. RESULTS: Four main steps were identified in testing: infection prevention, preparatory steps, swabbing procedure and management of residents. Infection prevention was particularly challenging for mobile residents with cognitive impairment. Swabbing and preparatory steps were resource-intensive, requiring additional staff resource. Swabbing required flexibility and staff who were familiar to the resident. Frequent approaches to residents were needed to ensure they would participate at a suitable time. After-test management varied between sites. Several homes reported deviating from government guidance to take more cautious approaches, which they perceived to be more robust. CONCLUSION: Swab-based testing is organisationally complex and resource-intensive in care homes. It needs to be flexible to meet the needs of residents and provide care homes with rapid information to support care decisions. POCT could help address gaps but the complexity of the setting means that each technology must be evaluated in context before widespread adoption in care homes.

COVID-19 point-of-care testing in care homes: what are the lessons for policy and practice?

COVID-19 has devastated care homes. Point-of-care tests (POCTs), mainly using lateral flow devices (LFDs), have been deployed hurriedly without much consideration of their usability or impact on care workflow. Even after the pandemic, POCTs, particularly multiplex tests, may be an important control against spread of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory infections in care homes by enabling identification of cases. They should not, however, replace other infection control measures such as barrier methods and quarantine. Adherence to LFDs as implemented among care home staff is suboptimal. Other tests-such as point-of-care polymerase chain reaction and automated antigen tests-would also need to be accommodated into care home workflows to improve adherence. The up-front costs of POCTs are straightforward but additional costs, including staffing preparation and reporting processes and the impacts of false positive and negative tests on absence rates and infection days, are more complex and as yet unquantified. A detailed appraisal is needed as the future of testing in care homes is considered.

Is point-of-care testing feasible and safe in care homes in England? An exploratory usability and accuracy evaluation of a point-of-care polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2.

INTRODUCTION: Reliable rapid testing for COVID-19 is needed in care homes to reduce the risk of outbreaks and enable timely care. This study aimed to examine the usability and test performance of a point of care polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for detection of SARS-CoV-2 (POCKITTM Central) in care homes. METHODS: POCKITTM Central was evaluated in a purposeful sample of four UK care homes. Test agreement with laboratory real-time PCR and usability and used errors were assessed. RESULTS: No significant usability-related hazards emerged, and the sources of error identified were found to be amendable with minor changes in training or test workflow. POCKITTM Central has acceptable sensitivity and specificity based on RT-PCR as the reference standard, especially for symptomatic cases.Asymptomatic specimens showed 83.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 35.9-99.6%) positive agreement and 98.7% negative agreement (95% CI: 96.2-99.7%), with overall prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) of 0.965 (95% CI: 0.932- 0.999). Symptomatic specimens showed 100% (95% CI: 2.5-100%) positive agreement and 100% negative agreement (95% CI: 85.8-100%), with overall PABAK of 1.Recommendations are provided to mitigate the frequency of occurrence of the residual use errors observed. Integration pathways were discussed to identify opportunities and limitations of adopting POCKIT™ Central for screening and diagnostic testing purposes. CONCLUSIONS: Point-of-care PCR testing in care homes can be considered with appropriate preparatory steps and safeguards. Further diagnostic accuracy evaluations and in-service evaluation studies should be conducted, if the test is to be implemented more widely, to build greater certainty on this initial exploratory analysis.

Mental healthcare clinician engagement with point of care testing; a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Point of Care Testing (POCT) is being increasingly used to augment the delivery of physical health care in a variety of settings, but their use in mental health has been limited. Research into understanding the barriers faced for successful implementation of POCT in these settings is lacking. We aimed to identify factors affecting engagement and implementation of POCT within mental health teams by exploring the attitudes to POCT, and the perceived impact POCT has on the practice of mental healthcare clinicians. METHODS: Alongside a study evaluating the impact of a point of care device in Community Mental Health Teams (CMHTs), qualitative interviews were carried out with CMHT clinicians using POCT as part of annual physical checks for patients with severe and enduring mental illness. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Fifteen clinicians were interviewed across a range of professional backgrounds. Clinicians identified usability of the technology, positive impact on their patient's experience and improved self-efficacy as drivers for successful implementation of POCT into their clinical practice. Issues with device functioning and the potential for a negative effect on the therapeutic relationship with their patients were identified as barriers. Level of physical heath training was not found to be a barrier by mental health professionals to using POCT. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding barriers and drivers for engagement is important to allow co-production of POCT and guidelines to facilitate introduction of POCT into routine clinical practice.

Parents' concerns and beliefs about temperature measurement in children: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 40% of parents with children aged 6 to 17 months consult a healthcare professional when their child has a high temperature. Clinical guidelines recommend temperature measurement in these children, but little is known about parents' experiences of and beliefs about temperature measurement. This study aimed to explore parents' concerns and beliefs about temperature measurement in children. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted from May 2017 to June 2018 with 21 parents of children aged 4 months to 5.5 years, who were purposively sampled from the METRIC study (a method comparison study comparing non-contact infrared thermometers to axillary and tympanic thermometers in acutely ill children). Data analysis followed a thematic approach. RESULTS: Parents described the importance of being able to detect fever, in particular high fevers, and how this then influenced their actions. The concept of "accuracy" was valued by parents but the aspects of performance which were felt to reflect accuracy varied. Parents used numerical values of temperature in four main ways: determining precision of the thermometer on repeat measures, detecting a "bad" fever, as an indication to administer antipyretics, or monitoring response to treatment. Family and social networks, the internet, and medical professionals and resources, were all key sources of advice for parents regarding fever, and guiding thermometer choice. CONCLUSIONS: Temperature measurement in children has diagnostic value but can either empower, or cause anxiety and practical challenges for parents. This represents an opportunity for both improved communication between parents and healthcare professionals, and technological development, to support parents to manage febrile illness with greater confidence in the home.

Variation in referral rates to emergency departments and inpatient services from a GP out of hours service and the potential impact of alternative staffing models.

INTRODUCTION: Out of hours (OOHs) primary care is a critical component of the acute care system overnight and at weekends. Referrals from OOH services to hospital will add to the burden on hospital assessment in the ED and on-call specialties. METHODS: We studied the variation in referral rates (to the ED and direct specialty admission) of individual clinicians working in the Oxfordshire, UK OOH service covering a population of 600 000 people. We calculated the referral probability for each clinician over a 13-month period of practice (1 December 2014 to 31 December 2015), stratifying by clinician factors and location and timing of assessment. We used Simul8 software to determine the range of hospital referrals potentially due to variation in clinician referral propensity. RESULTS: Among the 119 835 contacts with the service, 5261 (4.4%) were sent directly to the ED and 3474 (3.7%) were admitted directly to specialties. More referrals were made to ED by primary care physicians if they did not work in the local practices (5.5% vs 3.5%, p=0.011). For clinicians with >1000 consultations, percentage of patients referred varied from 1% to 21% of consultations. Simulations where propensity to refer was made less extreme showed a difference in maximum referrals of 50 patients each week. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation in clinician referral rates from OOHs primary care to the acute hospital setting. The number of patients referred could be influenced by this variation in clinician behaviour. Referral propensity should be studied including casemix adjustment to determine if interventions targeting such behaviour are effective.

Corticosteroids as standalone or add-on treatment for sore throat.

BACKGROUND: Sore throat is a common condition associated with a high rate of antibiotic prescriptions, despite limited evidence for the effectiveness of antibiotics. Corticosteroids may improve symptoms of sore throat by reducing inflammation of the upper respiratory tract. This review is an update to our review published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical benefit and safety of corticosteroids in reducing the symptoms of sore throat in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (Issue 4, 2019), MEDLINE (1966 to 14 May 2019), Embase (1974 to 14 May 2019), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE, 2002 to 2015), and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (inception to 2015). We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared steroids to either placebo or standard care in adults and children (aged over three years) with sore throat. We excluded studies of hospitalised participants, those with infectious mononucleosis (glandular fever), sore throat following tonsillectomy or intubation, or peritonsillar abscess. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included one new RCT in this update, for a total of nine trials involving 1319 participants (369 children and 950 adults). In eight trials, participants in both corticosteroid and placebo groups received antibiotics; one trial offered delayed prescription of antibiotics based on clinical assessment. Only two trials reported funding sources (government and a university foundation). In addition to any effect of antibiotics and analgesia, corticosteroids increased the likelihood of complete resolution of pain at 24 hours by 2.40 times (risk ratio (RR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 4.47; P = 0.006; I² = 67%; high-certainty evidence) and at 48 hours by 1.5 times (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.76; P < 0.001; I² = 0%; high-certainty evidence). Five people need to be treated to prevent one person continuing to experience pain at 24 hours. Corticosteroids also reduced the mean time to onset of pain relief and the mean time to complete resolution of pain by 6 and 11.6 hours, respectively, although significant heterogeneity was present (moderate-certainty evidence). At 24 hours, pain (assessed by visual analogue scales) was reduced by an additional 10.6% by corticosteroids (moderate-certainty evidence). No differences were reported in recurrence/relapse rates, days missed from work or school, or adverse events for participants taking corticosteroids compared to placebo. However, the reporting of adverse events was poor, and only two trials included children or reported days missed from work or school. The included studies were assessed as moderate quality evidence, but the small number of included studies has the potential to increase the uncertainty, particularly in terms of applying these results to children. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral or intramuscular corticosteroids, in addition to antibiotics, moderately increased the likelihood of both resolution and improvement of pain in participants with sore throat. Given the limited benefit, further research into the harms and benefits of short courses of steroids is needed to permit informed decision-making.

Paediatric contacts with the UK out-of-hours primary care service and contact outcomes: a regional service evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Demand on hospital emergency departments for paediatric problems is increasing. However, the volume and nature of paediatric health demands placed on other parts of the urgent care system have not been explored. This understanding is an important first step in developing and improving out-of-hospital care. We aimed to describe the volume, nature, and outcomes of paediatric contacts with out-of-hours general practice (OOH GP). We performed a retrospective service evaluation using data from 12 months of paediatric patient contacts with the Oxfordshire OOH GP service. METHODS: A database of contacts with the Oxfordshire OOH GP service was created for a 12 month period from December 2014 to November 2015. Descriptive statistics were calculated using SPSS Version 25. RESULTS: 27,455 contacts were made by 18,987 individuals during a 12 month period. The majority of these were for children aged under 5. Over 70% of contacts were at the weekend. The peak contact period was between 18:30 and 21:30. Over 40% of contacts resulted in advice only (no onward referral, requirement for GP follow up, or prescription). 19.7% of contacts resulted in an antibiotic prescription, most commonly those linked with ear, chest, and throat infections. DISCUSSION: Paediatric contacts with the Oxfordshire OOH GP service were predominantly in younger age groups and in the evening, with 19.7% resulting in an antibiotic prescription. Almost half of the contacts had no follow up or prescription, suggesting non-prescribing health care professionals could be involved in providing care in OOH GP. Further research should consider how children and their parents can be best supported to optimise OOH consulting.