A Quality Improvement Project to Minimize COVID-19 Infections in Patients Receiving Haemodialysis and the Role of Routine Surveillance Using Nose and Throat Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR and Serum Antibody Testing.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving in-centre haemodialysis (ICHD) are highly vulnerable to COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: We created a quality improvement (QI) project aimed to eliminate outbreaks of COVID-19 in haemodialysis units and evaluated the utility of surveillance rRT-PCR test and SARS-CoV-2 serum antibodies for prompt identification of patients infected with COVID-19. METHODS: A multifaceted QI programme including a bundle of infection prevention control (IPC) measures was implemented across 5 ICHD units following the first wave of the pandemic in June 2020. Primary outcomes evaluated before and after QI implementation were incidence of outbreaks and severe COVID-19 illness defined as COVID-19-related death or hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients identified in the pre-symptomatic/asymptomatic phase on surveillance rRT-PCR screening and the incidence and longevity of SARS-CoV-2 antibody response. RESULTS: Following the implementation of the QI project, there were no further outbreaks. Pre- and post-implementation comparison showed a significant reduction in COVID-19-related mortality and hospitalization (26 vs. 13 events, respectively, p < 0.001). Surveillance rRT-PCR screening identified 39 asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic cases out of a total of 59 rRT-PCR-positive patients (39/59, 66%). SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels were detected in 72/74 (97%) rRT-PCR-positive patients. Amongst rRT-PCR-positive patients diagnosed before August 2020, 96% had detectable antibodies until January 2021 (days from the rRT-PCR test to last antibody testing, 245-280). CONCLUSIONS: Systematic implementation of a bundle of IPC measures using QI methodology and surveillance rRT-PCR eliminated outbreaks in HD facilities. Most HD patients mount and sustain antibody response to COVID-19 for over 8 months.

Development and presentation of an objective risk stratification tool for healthcare workers when dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: risk modelling based on hospitalisation and mortality statistics compared with epidemiological data.

OBJECTIVES: Healthcare workers have greater exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and an estimated 2.5-fold increased risk of contracting COVID-19 than the general population. We wished to explore the predictive role of basic demographics to establish a simple tool that could help risk stratify healthcare workers. SETTING: We undertook a review of the published literature (including multiple search strategies in MEDLINE with PubMed interface) and critically assessed early reports on preprint servers. We explored the relative risk of mortality from readily available demographics to identify the population at the highest risk. RESULTS: The published studies specifically assessing the risk of healthcare workers had limited demographics available; therefore, we explored the general population in the literature. Clinician demographics: Mortality increased with increasing age from 50 years onwards. Male sex at birth, and people of black and minority ethnicity groups had higher susceptibility to both hospitalisation and mortality. Comorbid disease. Vascular disease, renal disease, diabetes and chronic pulmonary disease further increased risk. Risk stratification tool: A risk stratification tool was compiled using a white female aged <50 years with no comorbidities as a reference. A point allocated to risk factors was associated with an approximate doubling in risk. This tool provides numerical support for healthcare workers when determining which team members should be allocated to patient facing clinical duties compared with remote supportive roles. CONCLUSIONS: We generated a tool that provides a framework for objective risk stratification of doctors and healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic, without requiring disclosure of information that an individual may not wish to share with their direct line manager during the risk assessment process. This tool has been made freely available through the British Medical Association website and is widely used in the National Health Service and other external organisations.

Guidelines for the follow-up of patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

Bariatric surgery can facilitate weight loss and improvement in medical comorbidities. It has a profound impact on nutrition, and patients need access to follow-up and aftercare. NICE CG189 Obesity emphasized the importance of a minimum of 2 years follow-up in the bariatric surgical service and recommended that following discharge from the surgical service, there should be annual monitoring as part of a shared care model of chronic disease management. NHS England Obesity Clinical Reference Group commissioned a multi-professional subgroup, which included patient representatives, to develop bariatric surgery follow-up guidelines. Terms of reference and scope were agreed upon. The group members took responsibility for different sections of the guidelines depending on their areas of expertise and experience. The quality of the evidence was rated and strength graded. Four different shared care models were proposed, taking into account the variation in access to bariatric surgical services and specialist teams across the country. The common features include annual review, ability for a GP to refer back to specialist centre, submission of follow-up data to the national data base to NBSR. Clinical commissioning groups need to ensure that a shared care model is implemented as patient safety and long-term follow-up are important.

An evaluation of two Rapid Access Chest Pain Clinics in central Lancashire, UK.

AIM: The aim of the project was to assess critically, using Maxwell's six dimensions, the quality of the services provided by the two Rapid Access Chest Pain Clinics (RACPCs) in Central Lancashire. METHODS: Data on the actual use of the clinic was obtained from the two RACPCs. A record linkage exercise between the database of patients from the RACPC and HES/mortality data was performed. Expected use of the clinic was established from the performance of other RACPCs and from published angina incidence figures. Patient and general practitioner views were obtained by conducting questionnaire surveys. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) Clinic is providing a valuable service and should be continued. (2) A standardized database should be created which includes ethnicity and final diagnosis. (3) Alternative methods for rapid diagnosis and management of chest pain need to be provided for patients who are not suitable for the exercise electrocardiogram. (4) Referral criteria should be redrafted in order to remove the exclusion criteria for patients with chest pain of longer duration than 3 months. (5) Further resources need to be targeted at cardiology outpatients and revascularizations, as waiting times for patients with a positive test are felt to be too long.

Evidence-based standards of care for adults with epilepsy-a literature review.

Epilepsy is the most common serious chronic neurological condition. All patients with epilepsy regardless of location should receive the highest quality of services that can be provided. In order to do this current service provision has to be reviewed and bench marked against ideal standards of service provision that cover a comprehensive range of services to meet all patient needs. By critically reviewing the relevant literature, criteria were developed for an ideal epilepsy service. The literature review generated evidence-based ideal standards for the following service areas: - The role of primary care and the interface with secondary care in the management of epilepsy; - The role of Accident and Emergency (A and E) departments in the care of epilepsy; - Epilepsy clinics; - Specialist epilepsy nurses for treating epilepsy; - The role of the general practitioner (GP) specialist; - Services for adult epileptics with learning disabilities; - Services for complex epilepsy; and - User views. Although many of the recommendations are based on evidence of a lower grade, the direction of the existing evidence obtained from several sources, suggested similar standards for an epilepsy service. The effectiveness and value of epilepsy services, particularly in relation to the changes recommended above, must be further researched.