COVID-19 inequalities in England: a mathematical modelling study of transmission risk and clinical vulnerability by socioeconomic status.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in major inequalities in infection and disease burden between areas of varying socioeconomic deprivation in many countries, including England. Areas of higher deprivation tend to have a different population structure-generally younger-which can increase viral transmission due to higher contact rates in school-going children and working-age adults. Higher deprivation is also associated with a higher presence of chronic comorbidities, which were convincingly demonstrated to be risk factors for severe COVID-19 disease. These two major factors need to be combined to better understand and quantify their relative importance in the observed COVID-19 inequalities. METHODS: We used UK Census data on health status and demography stratified by decile of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), which is a measure of socioeconomic deprivation. We calculated epidemiological impact using an age-stratified COVID-19 transmission model, which incorporated different contact patterns and clinical health profiles by decile. To separate the contribution of each factor, we considered a scenario where the clinical health profile of all deciles was at the level of the least deprived. We also considered the effectiveness of school closures and vaccination of over 65-year-olds in each decile. RESULTS: In the modelled epidemics in urban areas, the most deprived decile experienced 9% more infections, 13% more clinical cases, and a 97% larger peak clinical size than the least deprived; we found similar inequalities in rural areas. Twenty-one per cent of clinical cases and 16% of deaths in England observed under the model assumptions would not occur if all deciles experienced the clinical health profile of the least deprived decile. We found that more deaths were prevented in more affluent areas during school closures and vaccination rollouts. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that both clinical and demographic factors synergise to generate health inequalities in COVID-19, that improving the clinical health profile of populations would increase health equity, and that some interventions can increase health inequalities.

The dinosaurs that weren't: osteohistology supports giant ichthyosaur affinity of enigmatic large bone segments from the European Rhaetian.

Very large unidentified elongate and rounded fossil bone segments of uncertain origin recovered from different Rhaetian (Late Triassic) fossil localities across Europe have been puzzling the paleontological community since the second half of the 19th century. Different hypotheses have been proposed regarding the nature of these fossils: (1) giant amphibian bones, (2) dinosaurian or other archosaurian long bone shafts, and (3) giant ichthyosaurian jaw bone segments. We call the latter proposal the 'Giant Ichthyosaur Hypothesis' and test it using bone histology. In presumable ichthyosaur specimens from SW England (Lilstock), France (Autun), and indeterminate cortical fragments from Germany (Bonenburg), we found a combination of shared histological features in the periosteal cortex: an unusual woven-parallel complex of strictly longitudinal primary osteons set in a novel woven-fibered matrix type with intrinsic coarse collagen fibers (IFM), and a distinctive pattern of Haversian substitution in which secondary osteons often form within primary ones. The splenial and surangular of the holotype of the giant ichthyosaur Shastasaurus sikanniensis from Canada were sampled for comparison. The results of the sampling indicate a common osteohistology with the European specimens. A broad histological comparison is provided to reject alternative taxonomic affinities aside from ichthyosaurs of the very large bone segment. Most importantly, we highlight the occurrence of shared peculiar osteogenic processes in Late Triassic giant ichthyosaurs, reflecting special ossification strategies enabling fast growth and achievement of giant size and/or related to biomechanical properties akin to ossified tendons.

Trends and determinants of clinical staff retention in the English NHS: a double retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate how demographic, contractual and organisational factors are related to the retention of hospital workers in the English NHS. The study will specifically examine the trends in age-retention profiles. DESIGN: A double retrospective cross-cohort study using administrative data on senior and specialty doctors, nurses and midwives who were included in the 2009 and 2014 payrolls of all English NHS hospital Trusts. These individuals were tracked over time until 2019 to examine the associations between sociodemographic characteristics and the retention of hospital workers in each cohort. Logistic regressions were estimated at the individual worker level to analyse the data. Additionally, a multilevel panel regression was performed using linked payroll-survey data to investigate the association between hospital organisation characteristics and the retention of clinical staff. SETTING: Secondary acute and mental healthcare NHS hospital Trusts in England. PARTICIPANTS: 70 777 senior doctors (specialty and specialist doctors and hospital consultants) aged 30-70, and a total of 448 568 between nurses and midwives of any grade aged 20-70, employed by English NHS Trusts. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Employee retention, measured through binary indicators for stayers and NHS leavers, at 1-year and 5-year horizons. RESULTS: Minority doctors had lower 1-year retention rates in acute care than white doctors, while minority nurses and midwives saw higher retention. Part-time roles decreased retention for doctors but improved it for nurses. Fixed-term contracts negatively impacted both groups' retention. Trends diverged for nurses and doctors from 2009 to 2014-nurses' retention declined while doctors' 5-year retention slightly rose. Engagement boosted retention among clinical staff under 51 years of age in acute care. For nurses over 50, addressing their feedback was positively associated with retention. CONCLUSIONS: Demographic and contractual factors appear to be stronger predictors of hospital staff retention than organisational characteristics.

Assisted dying: principles, possibilities, and practicalities. An English physician's perspective.

It seems probable that some form of medically-assisted dying will become legal in England and Wales in the foreseeable future. Assisted dying Bills are at various stages of preparation in surrounding jurisdictions (Scotland, Republic of Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey), and activists campaign unceasingly for a change in the law in England and Wales. There is generally uncritical supportive media coverage, and individual autonomy is seen as the unassailable trump card: 'my life, my death'.However, devising a law which is 'fit for purpose' is not an easy matter. The challenge is to achieve an appropriate balance between compassion and patient autonomy on the one hand, and respect for human life generally and medical autonomy on the other. More people should benefit from a change in the law than be harmed. In relation to medically-assisted dying, this may not be possible. Protecting the vulnerable is a key issue. Likewise, not impacting negatively on societal attitudes towards the disabled and frail elderly, particularly those with dementia.This paper compares three existing models of physician-assisted suicide: Switzerland, Oregon (USA), and Victoria (Australia). Vulnerability and autonomy are discussed, and concern expressed about the biased nature of much of the advocacy for assisted dying, tantamount to disinformation. A 'hidden' danger of assisted dying is noted, namely, increased suffering as more patients decline referral to palliative-hospice care because they fear they will be 'drugged to death'.Finally, suggestions are made for a possible 'least worse' way forward. One solution would seem to be for physician-assisted suicide to be the responsibility of a stand-alone Department for Assisted Dying overseen by lawyers or judges and operated by technicians. Doctors would be required only to confirm a patient's medical eligibility. Palliative-hospice care should definitely not be involved, and healthcare professionals must have an inviolable right to opt out of involvement. There is also an urgent need to improve the provision of care for all terminally ill patients.

Challenges and patient outcomes in chronic subdural haematoma at the level of a regional care system A multi-centre, mixed-methods study from the East of England.

BACKGROUND: Chronic subdural haematoma (cSDH) is a common neurosurgical pathology affecting older patients with other health conditions. A significant proportion (up-to 90%) of referrals for surgery in neurosciences units (NSU) come from secondary care. However, the organisation of this care and the experience of patients repatriated to non-specialist centres are currently unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to clarify patient outcome in non-specialist centres following NSU discharge for cSDH surgery and to understand key system challenges. The study was set within a representative neurosurgical care system in the east of England. DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients referred for cSDH surgery. Alongside case record review, patient and staff experience were explored using surveys as well as an interactive c-design workshop. Challenges were identified from thematic analysis of survey responses and triangulated by focussed workshop discussions. RESULTS: Data on 381 patients referred for cSDH surgery from six centres was reviewed. One hundred and fifty-six (41%) patients were repatriated following surgery. Sixty-one (39%) of those repatriated suffered an inpatient complication (new infection, troponin rise or renal injury) following NSU discharge, with 58 requiring institutional discharge or new care. Surveys for staff (n = 42) and patients (n = 209) identified that resourcing, communication, and inter-hospital distance posed care challenges. This was corroborated through workshop discussions with stakeholders from two institutions. CONCLUSIONS: A significant amount of perioperative care for cSDH is delivered outside of specialist centres. Future improvement initiatives must recognise the system-wide nature of delivery and the challenges such an arrangement presents.

Trends in hospital admissions and prescribing due to diseases of the digestive system in England and Wales between 1999 and 2019: An ecological study.

This study aimed to investigate the trends in diseases of the digestive system hospital admissions (DDSHA) in England and Wales between (1999-2019). Secondary objectives were to investigate the type of admission and medication prescribing related to the digestive system in England. This is an ecological study using data from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database and the Patient Episode Database between April 1999 and March 2019. The rate of hospital admissions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated by dividing the number of DDSHA by the mid-year population. The trend in hospital admissions was assessed using a Poisson model. Overall, the rate of DDSHA rose by 84.2% (from 2231.27 [95% CI 2227.26-2235.28] in 1999 to 4109.33 [95% CI 4104.29-4114.38] in 2019 per 100,000 persons, trend test, P < .001). The most remarkable rise in hospital admission was seen in liver diseases, followed by other diseases of intestines with 1.85-fold, and 1.59-fold, respectively. Between 2004 and 2019, the overall prescribing rate for medications related to the gastrointestinal system increased by 74.6%, and stoma care related medications prescribing rate increased by 2.25-fold, followed by drugs affecting intestinal secretions and antisecretory drugs and mucosal protectants. There was an increase in hospital admission rate due to GI diseases in the United Kingdom (UK) by 84.2% from 1999 to 2019. The most remarkable rise in the rate of hospital admissions was seen in diseases of the liver and intestine.

The role of depression in the association between mobilisation timing and live discharge after hip fracture surgery: Secondary analysis of the UK National Hip Fracture Database.

PURPOSE: The aim was to compare the probability of discharge after hip fracture surgery conditional on being alive and in hospital between patients mobilised within and beyond 36-hours of surgery across groups defined by depression. METHODS: Data were taken from the National Hip Fracture Database and included patients 60 years of age or older who underwent hip fracture surgery in England and Wales between 2014 and 2016. The conditional probability of postsurgical live discharge was estimated for patients mobilised early and for patients mobilised late across groups with and without depression. The association between mobilisation timing and the conditional probability of live discharge were also estimated separately through adjusted generalized linear models. RESULTS: Data were analysed for 116,274 patients. A diagnosis of depression was present in 8.31% patients. In those with depression, 7,412 (76.7%) patients mobilised early. In those without depression, 84,085 (78.9%) patients mobilised early. By day 30 after surgery, the adjusted odds ratio of discharge among those who mobilised early compared to late was 1.79 (95% CI: 1.56-2.05, p<0.001) and 1.92 (95% CI: 1.84-2.00, p<0.001) for those with and without depression, respectively. CONCLUSION: A similar proportion of patients with depression mobilised early after hip fracture surgery when compared to those without a diagnosis of depression. The association between mobilisation timing and time to live discharge was observed for patients with and without depression.

Using digital tools in clinical, health and social care research: a mixed-methods study of UK stakeholders.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated changes to clinical research methodology, with clinical studies being carried out via online/remote means. This mixed-methods study aimed to identify which digital tools are currently used across all stages of clinical research by stakeholders in clinical, health and social care research and investigate their experience using digital tools. DESIGN: Two online surveys followed by semistructured interviews were conducted. Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: To explore the digital tools used since the pandemic, survey participants (researchers and related staff (n=41), research and development staff (n=25)), needed to have worked on clinical, health or social care research studies over the past 2 years (2020-2022) in an employing organisation based in the West Midlands region of England (due to funding from a regional clinical research network (CRN)). Survey participants had the opportunity to participate in an online qualitative interview to explore their experiences of digital tools in greater depth (n=8). RESULTS: Six themes were identified in the qualitative interviews: 'definition of a digital tool in clinical research'; 'impact of the COVID-19 pandemic'; 'perceived benefits/drawbacks of digital tools'; 'selection of a digital tool'; 'barriers and overcoming barriers' and 'future digital tool use'. The context of each theme is discussed, based on the interview results. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate how digital tools are becoming embedded in clinical research, as well as the breadth of tools used across different research stages. The majority of participants viewed the tools positively, noting their ability to enhance research efficiency. Several considerations were highlighted; concerns about digital exclusion; need for collaboration with digital expertise/clinical staff, research on tool effectiveness and recommendations to aid future tool selection. There is a need for the development of resources to help optimise the selection and use of appropriate digital tools for clinical research staff and participants.

Authoritarianism, perceptions of security threats, and the COVID-19 pandemic: A new perspective.

This article offers a new perspective on when and why individual-level authoritarian perceptions of security threats change. We reexamine claims that authoritarian members of the public responded to the COVID-19 pandemic in a counterintuitive fashion. The response was counterintuitive in that, rather than a desire for a stronger government with the ability to impose measures to address the pandemic and its consequences, authoritarian individuals rejected a stronger government response and embraced individual autonomy. The article draws on perceptions of security threats-issues that directly or indirectly harm personal or collective safety and welfare-from surveys in two different contexts in England: 2012, when perceptions of the threat from infectious disease was low relative to most other security threats, and 2020, when perceptions of the personal and collective threat of COVID-19 superseded all other security threats. We argue that the authoritarian response was not counterintuitive once we account for the type of threat it represented.

Investigating the impact of primary care networks on continuity of care in English general practice: Analysis of interviews with patients and clinicians from a mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: In England, primary care networks (PCNs) offer opportunities to improve access to and sustainability of general practice through collaboration between groups of practices to provide care with a broader range of practitioner roles. However, there are concerns that these changes may undermine continuity of care. Our study investigates what the organisational shift to PCNs means for continuity of care. METHODS: The paper uses thematic analysis of qualitative data from interviews with general practitioners and other healthcare professionals (HCPs, n = 33) in 19 practices in five PCNs, and their patients (n = 35). Three patient cohorts within each participating practice were recruited, based on anticipated higher or lower needs for continuity of care: patients over 65 years with polypharmacy, patients with anxiety or depression and 'working age' adults aged between 18 and 45 years. FINDINGS: Patients and clinicians perceived changes to continuity in PCNs in our study. Larger-scale care provision in PCNs required better care coordination and information-sharing processes, aimed at improving care for 'vulnerable' patients in target groups. However, new working arrangements and ways of delivering care in PCNs undermine HCPs' ability to maintain continuity through ongoing relationships with patients. Patients experience this in terms of reduced availability of their preferred clinician, inefficiencies in care and unfamiliarity of new staff, roles and processes. CONCLUSIONS: New practitioners need to be effectively integrated to support effective team-based care. However, for patients, especially those not deemed 'vulnerable', this may not be sufficient to counter the loss of relationship with their practice. Therefore, caution is required in relation to designating patients as in need of, or not in need of continuity. Rather, continuity for all patients could be maintained through a dynamic understanding of the need for it as fluctuating and situational and by supporting clinicians to provide follow-up care. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT (PPI): A PPI group was recruited and consulted during the study for feedback on the study design, recruitment materials and interpretation of findings.

Co-creation of injury prevention measures for competitive adolescent distance runners: knowledge, behavior, and needs of athletes and coaches enrolled on England Athletics' Youth Talent Programme.

This study assessed the knowledge, behavior, and needs of competitive adolescent (16-18 years) distance runners and distance running coaches enrolled as part of England Athletics' Youth Talent Programme in relation to the prevention of running-related injury (RRI). Two online surveys were developed and distributed to the distance runners (survey one) and coaches (survey two). Both surveys included sections related to: (1) current knowledge; (2) current behavior; (3) need and support for RRI prevention measures; and (4) possible content and form of RRI prevention measures. A total of 39 distance runners (36% of total possible sample) completed survey 1, and 29 coaches (32% of total possible sample) completed survey 2. Key findings included that the majority of distance runners and coaches: (1) agreed that it is 'very important' to try to prevent RRI; (2) are currently implementing something in practice (e.g., strength training) to prevent RRI; and (3) view the creation of RRI prevention measures as an important initiative. Differences between distance runners and coaches were identified in relation to their understanding of the most common causes of RRI. Interestingly, distance runners identified a modifiable cause of RRI (i.e., too much training) as the most common cause of RRI, while coaches selected a non-modifiable cause of RRI (i.e., growth and maturation). These key findings were supplemented by competitive adolescent runners and distance running coaches detailing their delivery preferences for such RRI prevention measures. Results from this study will help inform subsequent steps of the larger co-creation process, with an emphasis on developing multifaceted and context-specific RRI prevention measures that are deemed to be feasible and acceptable for real-world implementation.

The majority of competitive adolescent distance runners and distance running coaches who took part in this study agreed that it is 'very important' to try to prevent RRI and view the creation of RRI prevention measures as an important initiative.Alongside this support, interesting differences between the distance runners and coaches were also identified, including, for example: (1) their understanding of the most common causes of RRI and (2) their preferences about where and when to complete RRI prevention measures.Results from this study will help inform subsequent steps of the larger co-creation process, with an emphasis on developing multifaceted and context-specific RRI prevention measures that are deemed to be feasible and acceptable for real-world implementation.

Qualitative study exploring the design of a patient-reported symptom-based risk stratification system for suspected head and neck cancer referrals: protocol for work packages 1 and 2 within the EVEREST-HN programme.

INTRODUCTION: Between 2009/2010 and 2019/2020, England witnessed an increase in suspected head and neck cancer (sHNC) referrals from 140 to 404 patients per 100 000 population. 1 in 10 patients are not seen within the 2-week target, contributing to patient anxiety. We will develop a pathway for sHNC referrals, based on the Head and Neck Cancer Risk Calculator. The evolution of a patient-reported symptom-based risk stratification system to redesign the sHNC referral pathway (EVEREST-HN) Programme comprises six work packages (WPs). This protocol describes WP1 and WP2. WP1 will obtain an understanding of language to optimise the SYmptom iNput Clinical (SYNC) system patient-reported symptom questionnaire for sHNC referrals and outline requirements for the SYNC system. WP2 will codesign key elements of the SYNC system, including the SYNC Questionnaire, and accompanying behaviour change materials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: WP1 will be conducted at three acute National Health Service (NHS) trusts with variation in service delivery models and ensuring a broad mixture of social, economic and cultural backgrounds of participants. Up to 150 patients with sHNC (n=50 per site) and 15 clinicians (n=5 per site) will be recruited. WP1 will use qualitative methods including interviews, observation and recordings of consultations. Rapid qualitative analysis and inductive thematic analysis will be used to analyse the data. WP2 will recruit lay patient representatives to participate in online focus groups (n=8 per focus group), think-aloud technique and experience-based codesign and will be analysed using qualitative and quantitative approaches. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The committee for clinical research at The Royal Marsden, a research ethics committee and the Health Research Authority approved this protocol. All participants will give informed consent. Ethical issues of working with patients on an urgent cancer diagnostic pathway have been considered. Findings will be disseminated via journal publications, conference presentations and public engagement activities.

Advancing a collective vision for equity-based cocreation through prototyping at an international forum.

BACKGROUND: Cocreation has the potential to engage people with lived and living experiences in the design and evaluation of health and social services. However, guidance is needed to better include people from equity-deserving groups (EDGs), who are more likely to face barriers to participation, experience ongoing or historical harm, and benefit from accessible methods of engagement. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this international forum (CoPro2022) was to advance a collective vision for equity-based cocreation. DESIGN: A participatory process of engagement in experiential colearning and arts-based creative and reflective dialogue. Visual prototypes were created and synthesised to generate a collective vision for inclusive equity-based cocreation. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The Forum was held at the Gathering Place by the Grand River in Ohsweken, Ontario, Canada. A total of 48 participants attended the forum. They were purposely invited and have intersecting positionalities (21 academic experts, six experience experts, 10 trainees, and 11 members of EDGs) from nine countries (Bangladesh, Botswana, Canada, England, Italy, Norway, Scotland, Singapore, Sweden). COPRO2022 ACTIVITIES: CoPro2022 was an immersive experience hosted on Indigenous land that encouraged continuous participant reflection on their own worldviews and those of others as participants openly discussed the challenges and opportunities with engaging EDGs in cocreation activities. Visual prototypes and descriptions created in small groups were informed by participants' reflections on the panel presentations at the Forum and their own experiences with equity-based cocreation. Following the event, the authorship team inductively coded themes from the prototype descriptions and met to discuss the cross-cutting themes. These informed the design of an illustrated collective vision for Equity Based Co-Creation (EqCC). RESULTS: Six prototypes were cocreated by each small group to illustrate their vision for EqCC. Within these, four cross-cutting themes were identified: (i) go to where people are, (ii) nurture relationships and creativity, (iii) reflect, replenish and grow, (iv) and promote thriving and transformation. These four themes are captured in the Collective EqCC Vision to guide a new era of inclusive excellence in cocreation activities. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Service users, caregivers, and people with lived experience were involved in leading the design of the CoPro2022 and co-led the event. This included activities at the event such as presenting, facilitating small and large group discussion, leading art-based activities, and reflecting with the team on the lessons learned. People with lived experience were involved in the analysis and knowledge sharing from this event. Several members of the research team (students and researchers) also identified as members of EDGs and were invited to draw from their personal and academic knowledge.

Solving poverty or tackling healthcare inequalities? Qualitative study exploring local interpretations of national policy on health inequalities under new NHS reforms in England.

OBJECTIVES: Major reforms to the organisation of the National Health Service (NHS) in England established 42 integrated care systems (ICSs) to plan and coordinate local services. The changes are based on the idea that cross-sector collaboration is needed to improve health and reduce health inequalities-and similar policy changes are happening elsewhere in the UK and internationally. We explored local interpretations of national policy objectives on reducing health inequalities among senior leaders working in three ICSs. DESIGN: We carried out qualitative research based on semistructured interviews with NHS, public health, social care and other leaders in three ICSs in England. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We selected three ICSs with varied characteristics all experiencing high levels of socioeconomic deprivation. We conducted 32 in-depth interviews with senior leaders of NHS, local government and other organisations involved in the ICS's work on health inequalities. Our interviewees comprised 17 leaders from NHS organisations and 15 leaders from other sectors. RESULTS: Local interpretations of national policy objectives on health inequalities varied, and local leaders had contrasting-sometimes conflicting-perceptions of the boundaries of ICS action on reducing health inequalities. Translating national objectives into local priorities was often a challenge, and clarity from national policy-makers was frequently perceived as limited or lacking. Across the three ICSs, local leaders worried that objectives on tackling health inequalities were being crowded out by other short-term policy priorities, such as reducing pressures on NHS hospitals. The behaviour of national policy-makers appeared to undermine their stated priorities to reduce health inequalities. CONCLUSIONS: Varied and vague interpretations of NHS policy on health inequalities are not new, but lack of clarity among local health leaders brings major risks-including interventions being poorly targeted or inadvertently widening inequalities. Greater conceptual clarity is likely needed to guide ICS action in future.

Can communities be mobilised to build capacity to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic? A qualitative process evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Government guidance to manage COVID-19 was challenged by low levels of health and digital literacy and lack of information in different languages. 'Covid Confidence' sessions (CC-sessions) were evaluated to assess their effectiveness in counteracting misinformation and provide an alternative source of information about the pandemic. DESIGN: We worked with community anchor organisations to co-ordinate online CC-sessions serving three economically deprived, ethnically mixed, neighbourhoods. We conducted a qualitative, participatory process evaluation, in tandem with the CC-sessions to explore whether a popular opinion leader/local champion model of health promotion could mobilise pandemic responses. Group discussions were supplemented by final interviews to assess changes in community capacity to mobilise. SETTING: Sheffield, England, September 2020 to November 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Community leaders, workers and volunteers representing a variety of local organisations resulted in 314 attendances at CC-sessions. A group of local health experts helped organisations make sense of government information. RESULTS: CC-sessions fostered cross-organisational relationships, which enabled rapid community responses. Community champions successfully adapted information to different groups. Listening, identifying individual concerns and providing practical support enabled people to make informed decisions on managing exposure and getting vaccinated. Some people were unable to comply with self-isolation due to overcrowded housing and the need to work. Communities drew on existing resources and networks. CONCLUSIONS: CC-sessions promoted stronger links between community organisations which reduced mistrust of government information. In future, government efforts to manage pandemics should partner with communities to codesign and implement prevention and control measures.

Mixed Methods EvAluation of the high-volume low-complexity Surgical hUb pRogrammE (MEASURE): a mixed methods study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The waiting list for elective surgery in England recently reached over 7.8 million people and waiting time targets have been missed since 2010. The high-volume low complexity (HVLC) surgical hubs programme aims to tackle the backlog of patients awaiting elective surgery treatment in England. This study will evaluate the impact of HVLC surgical hubs on productivity, patient care and the workforce. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This 4-year project consists of six interlinked work packages (WPs) and is informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. WP1: Mapping current and future HVLC provision in England through document analysis, quantitative data sets (eg, Hospital Episodes Statistics) and interviews with national service leaders. WP2: Exploring the effects of HVLC hubs on key performance outcomes, primarily the volume of low-complexity patients treated, using quasi-experimental methods. WP3: Exploring the impact and implementation of HVLC hubs on patients, health professionals and the local NHS through approximately nine longitudinal, multimethod qualitative case studies. WP4: Assessing the productivity of HVLC surgical hubs using the Centre for Health Economics NHS productivity measure and Lord Carter's operational productivity measure. WP5: Conducting a mixed-methods appraisal will assess the influence of HVLC surgical hubs on the workforce using: qualitative data (WP3) and quantitative data (eg, National Health Service (NHS) England's workforce statistics and intelligence from WP2). WP6: Analysing the costs and consequences of HVLC surgical hubs will assess their achievements in relation to their resource use to establish value for money. A patient and public involvement group will contribute to the study design and materials. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the East Midlands-Nottingham Research Ethics Committee 23/EM/0231. Participants will provide informed consent for qualitative study components. Dissemination plans include multiple academic and non-academic outputs (eg, Peer-reviewed journals, conferences, social media) and a continuous, feedback-loop of findings to key stakeholders (eg, NHS England) to influence policy development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Research registry: Researchregistry9364 (https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry%23home/registrationdetails/64cb6c795cbef8002a46f115/).

"I am in favour of organ donation, but I feel you should opt-in"-qualitative analysis of the #options 2020 survey free-text responses from NHS staff toward opt-out organ donation legislation in England.

BACKGROUND: In May 2020, England moved to an opt-out organ donation system, meaning adults are presumed to be an organ donor unless within an excluded group or have opted-out. This change aims to improve organ donation rates following brain or circulatory death. Healthcare staff in the UK are supportive of organ donation, however, both healthcare staff and the public have raised concerns and ethical issues regarding the change. The #options survey was completed by NHS organisations with the aim of understanding awareness and support of the change. This paper analyses the free-text responses from the survey. METHODS: The #options survey was registered as a National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) portfolio trial [IRAS 275992] 14 February 2020, and was completed between July and December 2020 across NHS organisations in the North-East and North Cumbria, and North Thames. The survey contained 16 questions of which three were free-text, covering reasons against, additional information required and family discussions. The responses to these questions were thematically analysed. RESULTS: The #options survey received 5789 responses from NHS staff with 1404 individuals leaving 1657 free-text responses for analysis. The family discussion question elicited the largest number of responses (66%), followed by those against the legislation (19%), and those requiring more information (15%). Analysis revealed six main themes with 22 sub-themes. CONCLUSIONS: The overall #options survey indicated NHS staff are supportive of the legislative change. Analysis of the free-text responses indicates that the views of the NHS staff who are against the change reflect the reasons, misconceptions, and misunderstandings of the public. Additional concerns included the rationale for the change, informed decision making, easy access to information and information regarding organ donation processes. Educational materials and interventions need to be developed for NHS staff to address the concepts of autonomy and consent, organ donation processes, and promote family conversations. Wider public awareness campaigns should continue to promote the positives and refute the negatives thus reducing misconceptions and misunderstandings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) [IRAS 275992].