Changes in hospital mortality in patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic (ISARIC-CCP-UK): a prospective, multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer are at greater risk of dying from COVID-19 than many other patient groups. However, how this risk evolved during the pandemic remains unclear. We aimed to determine, on the basis of the UK national pandemic protocol, how factors influencing hospital mortality from COVID-19 could differentially affect patients undergoing cancer treatment. We also examined changes in hospital mortality and escalation of care in patients on cancer treatment during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients aged older than 19 years and admitted to 306 health-care facilities in the UK with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, who were enrolled in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol (CCP) across the UK from April 23, 2020, to Feb 28, 2022; this analysis included all patients in the complete dataset when the study closed. The primary outcome was 30-day in-hospital mortality, comparing patients on cancer treatment and those without cancer. The study was approved by the South Central-Oxford C Research Ethics Committee in England (Ref: 13/SC/0149) and the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (Ref 20/SS/0028), and is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN66726260). FINDINGS: 177 871 eligible adult patients either with no history of cancer (n=171 303) or on cancer treatment (n=6568) were enrolled; 93 205 (52·4%) were male, 84 418 (47·5%) were female, and in 248 (13·9%) sex or gender details were not specified or data were missing. Patients were followed up for a median of 13 (IQR 6-21) days. Of the 6568 patients receiving cancer treatment, 2080 (31·7%) died at 30 days, compared with 30 901 (18·0%) of 171 303 patients without cancer. Patients aged younger than 50 years on cancer treatment had the highest age-adjusted relative risk (hazard ratio [HR] 5·2 [95% CI 4·0-6·6], p<0·0001; vs 50-69 years 2·4 [2·2-2·6], p<0·0001; 70-79 years 1·8 [1·6-2·0], p<0·0001; and >80 years 1·5 [1·3-1·6], p<0·0001) but a lower absolute risk (51 [6·7%] of 763 patients <50 years died compared with 459 [30·2%] of 1522 patients aged >80 years). In-hospital mortality decreased for all patients during the pandemic but was higher for patients on cancer treatment than for those without cancer throughout the study period. INTERPRETATION: People with cancer have a higher risk of mortality from COVID-19 than those without cancer. Patients younger than 50 years with cancer treatment have the highest relative risk of death. Continued action is needed to mitigate the poor outcomes in patients with cancer, such as through optimising vaccination, long-acting passive immunisation, and early access to therapeutics. These findings underscore the importance of the ISARIC-WHO pandemic preparedness initiative. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research and the Medical Research Council.

Patient emergency health-care use before hospital admission for COVID-19 and long-term outcomes in Scotland: a national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear what effect the pattern of health-care use before admission to hospital with COVID-19 (index admission) has on the long-term outcomes for patients. We sought to describe mortality and emergency readmission to hospital after discharge following the index admission (index discharge), and to assess associations between these outcomes and patterns of health-care use before such admissions. METHODS: We did a national, retrospective, complete cohort study by extracting data from several national databases and linking the databases for all adult patients admitted to hospital in Scotland with COVID-19. We used latent class trajectory modelling to identify distinct clusters of patients on the basis of their emergency admissions to hospital in the 2 years before the index admission. The primary outcomes were mortality and emergency readmission up to 1 year after index admission. We used multivariable regression models to explore associations between these outcomes and patient demographics, vaccination status, level of care received in hospital, and previous emergency hospital use. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2020, and Oct 25, 2021, 33 580 patients were admitted to hospital with COVID-19 in Scotland. Overall, the Kaplan-Meier estimate of mortality within 1 year of index admission was 29·6% (95% CI 29·1-30·2). The cumulative incidence of emergency hospital readmission within 30 days of index discharge was 14·4% (95% CI 14·0-14·8), with the number increasing to 35·6% (34·9-36·3) patients at 1 year. Among the 33 580 patients, we identified four distinct patterns of previous emergency hospital use: no admissions (n=18 772 [55·9%]); minimal admissions (n=12 057 [35·9%]); recently high admissions (n=1931 [5·8%]), and persistently high admissions (n=820 [2·4%]). Patients with recently or persistently high admissions were older, more multimorbid, and more likely to have hospital-acquired COVID-19 than patients with no or minimal admissions. People in the minimal, recently high, and persistently high admissions groups had an increased risk of mortality and hospital readmission compared with those in the no admissions group. Compared with the no admissions group, mortality was highest in the recently high admissions group (post-hospital mortality HR 2·70 [95% CI 2·35-2·81]; p<0·0001) and the risk of readmission was highest in the persistently high admissions group (3·23 [2·89-3·61]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Long-term mortality and readmission rates for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were high; within 1 year, one in three patients had died and a third had been readmitted as an emergency. Patterns of hospital use before index admission were strongly predictive of mortality and readmission risk, independent of age, pre-existing comorbidities, and COVID-19 vaccination status. This increasingly precise identification of individuals at high risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19 will enable targeted support. FUNDING: Chief Scientist Office Scotland, UK National Institute for Health Research, and UK Research and Innovation.

Educational impact and recommendations from implementation of student-led clinical trial recruitment: a mixed-methods study.

Medical students have an essential role in medical research, yet often lack opportunities for involvement within randomised trials. This study aimed to understand the educational impact of clinical trial recruitment for medical students. Tracking wound infection with smartphone technology (TWIST) was a randomised controlled trial that included adult patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery across two university teaching hospitals. All recruiters underwent prerecruitment training based on 'Generating Student Recruiters for Randomised Trials' principles, and completed prerecruitment and postrecruitment surveys. Respondent agreement with statements were assessed using 5-point Likert scales (from 1 ('strongly disagree') to 5 ('strongly agree')). Quantitative data were analysed using paired t-tests to compare differences pre-involvement and post-involvement. Thematic content analysis was performed on free-text data to generate recommendations for future student research involvement. Of 492 patients recruited to TWIST between 26 July 2016 and 4 March 2020, 86.0% (n=423) were recruited by medical students. Following introduction of student co-investigators (n=31), the overall monthly recruitment rate tripled (4.8-15.7 patients). 96.8% of recruiters (n=30/31) completed both surveys, and all respondents reported significant improvement in clinical and academic competencies. Three higher-level thematic domains emerged from the qualitative analysis: (1) engagement, (2) preparation and (3) ongoing support. Student recruitment in clinical trials is feasible and accelerates recruitment to clinical trials. Students demonstrated novel clinical research competencies and increased their likelihood of future involvement. Adequate training, support and selection of suitable trials are essential for future student involvement in randomised trials.

The impact of preoperative oral nutrition supplementation on outcomes in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery for cancer in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Malnutrition is an independent predictor for postoperative complications in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We systematically reviewed evidence on the impact of preoperative oral nutrition supplementation (ONS) on patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery in LMICs. We searched EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, WHO Global Index Medicus, SciELO, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) databases from inception to March 21, 2022 for randomised controlled trials evaluating preoperative ONS in gastrointestinal cancer within LMICs. We evaluated the impact of ONS on all postoperative outcomes using random-effects meta-analysis. Seven studies reported on 891 patients (446 ONS group, 445 control group) undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer. Preoperative ONS reduced all cause postoperative surgical complications (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% CI 0.46-0.60, P < 0.001, I2 = 0%, n = 891), infection (0.52, 0.40-0.67, P = 0.008, I2 = 0%, n = 570) and all-cause mortality (0.35, 0.26-0.47, P = 0.014, I2 = 0%, n = 588). Despite heterogeneous populations and baseline rates, absolute risk ratio (ARR) was reduced for all cause (pooled effect -0.14, -0.22 to -0.06, P = 0.006; number needed to treat (NNT) 7) and infectious complications (-0.13, -0.22 to -0.06, P < 0.001; NNT 8). Preoperative nutrition in patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery in LMICs demonstrated consistently strong and robust treatment effects across measured outcomes. However additional higher quality research, with particular focus within African populations, are urgently required.

Implementation of corticosteroids in treatment of COVID-19 in the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK: prospective, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone was the first intervention proven to reduce mortality in patients with COVID-19 being treated in hospital. We aimed to evaluate the adoption of corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19 in the UK after the RECOVERY trial publication on June 16, 2020, and to identify discrepancies in care. METHODS: We did an audit of clinical implementation of corticosteroids in a prospective, observational, cohort study in 237 UK acute care hospitals between March 16, 2020, and April 14, 2021, restricted to patients aged 18 years or older with proven or high likelihood of COVID-19, who received supplementary oxygen. The primary outcome was administration of dexamethasone, prednisolone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN66726260. FINDINGS: Between June 17, 2020, and April 14, 2021, 47 795 (75·2%) of 63 525 of patients on supplementary oxygen received corticosteroids, higher among patients requiring critical care than in those who received ward care (11 185 [86·6%] of 12 909 vs 36 415 [72·4%] of 50 278). Patients 50 years or older were significantly less likely to receive corticosteroids than those younger than 50 years (adjusted odds ratio 0·79 [95% CI 0·70-0·89], p=0·0001, for 70-79 years; 0·52 [0·46-0·58], p<0·0001, for >80 years), independent of patient demographics and illness severity. 84 (54·2%) of 155 pregnant women received corticosteroids. Rates of corticosteroid administration increased from 27·5% in the week before June 16, 2020, to 75-80% in January, 2021. INTERPRETATION: Implementation of corticosteroids into clinical practice in the UK for patients with COVID-19 has been successful, but not universal. Patients older than 70 years, independent of illness severity, chronic neurological disease, and dementia, were less likely to receive corticosteroids than those who were younger, as were pregnant women. This could reflect appropriate clinical decision making, but the possibility of inequitable access to life-saving care should be considered. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research and UK Medical Research Council.

A Qualitative Exploration of Nutrition Screening, Assessment and Oral Support Used in Patients Undergoing Cancer Surgery in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Preoperative undernutrition is a prognostic indicator for postoperative mortality and morbidity. Evidence suggests that treating undernutrition can improve surgical outcomes. This study explored the provision of nutritional screening, assessment and support on surgical cancer wards in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This was a qualitative study and participants took part in one focus group or one individual interview. Data were analysed thematically. There were 34 participants from Ghana, India, the Philippines and Zambia: 24 healthcare professionals (HCPs) and 10 patients. Results showed that knowledge levels and enthusiasm were high in HCPs. Barriers to adequate nutritional support were a lack of provision of ward and kitchen equipment, food and sustainable nutritional supplements. There was variation across countries towards nutritional screening and assessment which seemed to be driven by resources. Many hospitals where resources were scarce focused on the care of individual patients in favour of an integrated systems approach to identify and manage undernutrition. In conclusion, there is scope to improve the efficiency of nutritional management of surgical cancer patients in LMICs through the integration of nutrition assessment and support into routine hospital policies and procedures, moving from case management undertaken by interested personnel to a system-based approach including the whole multidisciplinary team.

Prospective validation of the 4C prognostic models for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol.

PURPOSE: To prospectively validate two risk scores to predict mortality (4C Mortality) and in-hospital deterioration (4C Deterioration) among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. METHODS: Prospective observational cohort study of adults (age ≥18 years) with confirmed or highly suspected COVID-19 recruited into the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study in 306 hospitals across England, Scotland and Wales. Patients were recruited between 27 August 2020 and 17 February 2021, with at least 4 weeks follow-up before final data extraction. The main outcome measures were discrimination and calibration of models for in-hospital deterioration (defined as any requirement of ventilatory support or critical care, or death) and mortality, incorporating predefined subgroups. RESULTS: 76 588 participants were included, of whom 27 352 (37.4%) deteriorated and 12 581 (17.4%) died. Both the 4C Mortality (0.78 (0.77 to 0.78)) and 4C Deterioration scores (pooled C-statistic 0.76 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.77)) demonstrated consistent discrimination across all nine National Health Service regions, with similar performance metrics to the original validation cohorts. Calibration remained stable (4C Mortality: pooled slope 1.09, pooled calibration-in-the-large 0.12; 4C Deterioration: 1.00, -0.04), with no need for temporal recalibration during the second UK pandemic wave of hospital admissions. CONCLUSION: Both 4C risk stratification models demonstrate consistent performance to predict clinical deterioration and mortality in a large prospective second wave validation cohort of UK patients. Despite recent advances in the treatment and management of adults hospitalised with COVID-19, both scores can continue to inform clinical decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN66726260.

Genome-wide analysis identifies gallstone-susceptibility loci including genes regulating gastrointestinal motility.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified several risk loci for gallstone disease. As with most polygenic traits, it is likely that many genetic determinants are undiscovered. The aim of this study was to identify genetic variants that represent new targets for gallstone research and treatment. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We performed a GWAS of 28,627 gallstone cases and 348,373 controls in the UK Biobank, replicated findings in a Scottish cohort (1089 cases, 5228 controls), and conducted a GWA meta-analysis (43,639 cases, 506,798 controls) with the FinnGen cohort. We assessed pathway enrichment using gene-based then gene-set analysis and tissue expression of identified genes in Genotype-Tissue Expression project data. We constructed a polygenic risk score (PRS) and evaluated phenotypic traits associated with the score. Seventy-five risk loci were identified (p < 5 × 10-8 ), of which 46 were new. Pathway enrichment revealed associations with lipid homeostasis, glucuronidation, phospholipid metabolism, and gastrointestinal motility. Anoctamin 1 (ANO1) and transmembrane Protein 147 (TMEM147), both in novel, replicated loci, are expressed in the gallbladder and gastrointestinal tract. Both regulate gastrointestinal motility. The gallstone risk allele rs7599-A leads to suppression of hepatic TMEM147 expression, suggesting that the protein protects against gallstone formation. The highest decile of the PRS demonstrated a 6-fold increased odds of gallstones compared with the lowest decile. The PRS was strongly associated with increased body mass index, serum liver enzymes, and C-reactive protein concentrations, and decreased lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: This GWAS demonstrates the polygenic nature of gallstone risk and identifies 46 novel susceptibility loci. We implicate genes influencing gastrointestinal motility in the pathogenesis of gallstones.

Genome-Wide Association Study of NAFLD Using Electronic Health Records.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified several risk loci for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Previous studies have largely relied on small sample sizes and have assessed quantitative traits. We performed a case-control GWAS in the UK Biobank using recorded diagnosis of NAFLD based on diagnostic codes recommended in recent consensus guidelines. We performed a GWAS of 4,761 cases of NAFLD and 373,227 healthy controls without evidence of NAFLD. Sensitivity analyses were performed excluding other co-existing hepatic pathology, adjusting for body mass index (BMI) and adjusting for alcohol intake. A total of 9,723,654 variants were assessed by logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, genetic principal components, and genotyping batch. We performed a GWAS meta-analysis using available summary association statistics. Six risk loci were identified (P < 5*10-8 ) (apolipoprotein E [APOE], patatin-like phospholipase domain containing 3 [PNPLA3, transmembrane 6 superfamily member 2 [TM6SF2], glucokinase regulator [GCKR], mitochondrial amidoxime reducing component 1 [MARC1], and tribbles pseudokinase 1 [TRIB1]). All loci retained significance in sensitivity analyses without co-existent hepatic pathology and after adjustment for BMI. PNPLA3 and TM6SF2 remained significant after adjustment for alcohol (alcohol intake was known in only 158,388 individuals), with others demonstrating consistent direction and magnitude of effect. All six loci were significant on meta-analysis. Rs429358 (P = 2.17*10-11 ) is a missense variant within the APOE gene determining ϵ4 versus ϵ2/ϵ3 alleles. The ϵ4 allele of APOE offered protection against NAFLD (odds ratio for heterozygotes 0.84 [95% confidence interval 0.78-0.90] and homozygotes 0.64 [0.50-0.79]). Conclusion: This GWAS replicates six known NAFLD-susceptibility loci and confirms that the ϵ4 allele of APOE is associated with protection against NAFLD. The results are consistent with published GWAS using histological and radiological measures of NAFLD, confirming that NAFLD identified through diagnostic codes from consensus guidelines is a valid alternative to more invasive and costly approaches.

Remote diagnosis of surgical-site infection using a mobile digital intervention: a randomised controlled trial in emergency surgery patients.

Surgical site infections (SSI) cause substantial morbidity and pose a burden to acute healthcare services after surgery. We aimed to investigate whether a smartphone-delivered wound assessment tool can expedite diagnosis and treatment of SSI after emergency abdominal surgery. This single-blinded randomised control trial (NCT02704897) enroled adult emergency abdominal surgery patients in two tertiary care hospitals. Patients were randomised (1:1) to routine postoperative care or additional access to a smartphone-delivered wound assessment tool for 30-days postoperatively. Patient-reported SSI symptoms and wound photographs were requested on postoperative days 3, 7, and 15. The primary outcome was time-to-diagnosis of SSI (Centers for Disease Control definition). 492 patients were randomised (smartphone intervention: 223; routine care: 269). There was no significant difference in the 30-day SSI rate between trial arms: 21 (9.4%) in smartphone vs 20 (7.4%, p = 0.513) in routine care. Among the smartphone group, 32.3% (n = 72) did not utilise the tool. There was no significant difference in time-to-diagnosis of SSI for patients receiving the intervention (-2.5 days, 95% CI: -6.6-1.6, p = 0.225). However, patients in the smartphone group had 3.7-times higher odds of diagnosis within 7 postoperative days (95% CI: 1.02-13.51, p = 0.043). The smartphone group had significantly reduced community care attendance (OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.34-0.94, p = 0.030), similar hospital attendance (OR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.28-1.96, p = 0.577), and significantly better experiences in accessing care (OR: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.17-3.53, p = 0.013). Smartphone-delivered wound follow-up is feasible following emergency abdominal surgery. This can facilitate triage to the appropriate level of assessment required, allowing earlier postoperative diagnosis of SSI.

Characterisation of in-hospital complications associated with COVID-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK: a prospective, multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a multisystem disease and patients who survive might have in-hospital complications. These complications are likely to have important short-term and long-term consequences for patients, health-care utilisation, health-care system preparedness, and society amidst the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Our aim was to characterise the extent and effect of COVID-19 complications, particularly in those who survive, using the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK. METHODS: We did a prospective, multicentre cohort study in 302 UK health-care facilities. Adult patients aged 19 years or older, with confirmed or highly suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to COVID-19 were included in the study. The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of in-hospital complications, defined as organ-specific diagnoses occurring alone or in addition to any hallmarks of COVID-19 illness. We used multilevel logistic regression and survival models to explore associations between these outcomes and in-hospital complications, age, and pre-existing comorbidities. FINDINGS: Between Jan 17 and Aug 4, 2020, 80 388 patients were included in the study. Of the patients admitted to hospital for management of COVID-19, 49·7% (36 367 of 73 197) had at least one complication. The mean age of our cohort was 71·1 years (SD 18·7), with 56·0% (41 025 of 73 197) being male and 81·0% (59 289 of 73 197) having at least one comorbidity. Males and those aged older than 60 years were most likely to have a complication (aged ≥60 years: 54·5% [16 579 of 30 416] in males and 48·2% [11 707 of 24 288] in females; aged <60 years: 48·8% [5179 of 10 609] in males and 36·6% [2814 of 7689] in females). Renal (24·3%, 17 752 of 73 197), complex respiratory (18·4%, 13 486 of 73 197), and systemic (16·3%, 11 895 of 73 197) complications were the most frequent. Cardiovascular (12·3%, 8973 of 73 197), neurological (4·3%, 3115 of 73 197), and gastrointestinal or liver (0·8%, 7901 of 73 197) complications were also reported. INTERPRETATION: Complications and worse functional outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are high, even in young, previously healthy individuals. Acute complications are associated with reduced ability to self-care at discharge, with neurological complications being associated with the worst functional outcomes. COVID-19 complications are likely to cause a substantial strain on health and social care in the coming years. These data will help in the design and provision of services aimed at the post-hospitalisation care of patients with COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research and the UK Medical Research Council.

Development and validation of the ISARIC 4C Deterioration model for adults hospitalised with COVID-19: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic models to predict the risk of clinical deterioration in acute COVID-19 cases are urgently required to inform clinical management decisions. METHODS: We developed and validated a multivariable logistic regression model for in-hospital clinical deterioration (defined as any requirement of ventilatory support or critical care, or death) among consecutively hospitalised adults with highly suspected or confirmed COVID-19 who were prospectively recruited to the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium (ISARIC4C) study across 260 hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales. Candidate predictors that were specified a priori were considered for inclusion in the model on the basis of previous prognostic scores and emerging literature describing routinely measured biomarkers associated with COVID-19 prognosis. We used internal-external cross-validation to evaluate discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility across eight National Health Service (NHS) regions in the development cohort. We further validated the final model in held-out data from an additional NHS region (London). FINDINGS: 74 944 participants (recruited between Feb 6 and Aug 26, 2020) were included, of whom 31 924 (43·2%) of 73 948 with available outcomes met the composite clinical deterioration outcome. In internal-external cross-validation in the development cohort of 66 705 participants, the selected model (comprising 11 predictors routinely measured at the point of hospital admission) showed consistent discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility across all eight NHS regions. In held-out data from London (n=8239), the model showed a similarly consistent performance (C-statistic 0·77 [95% CI 0·76 to 0·78]; calibration-in-the-large 0·00 [-0·05 to 0·05]); calibration slope 0·96 [0·91 to 1·01]), and greater net benefit than any other reproducible prognostic model. INTERPRETATION: The 4C Deterioration model has strong potential for clinical utility and generalisability to predict clinical deterioration and inform decision making among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Department for International Development, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, EU Platform for European Preparedness Against (Re-)emerging Epidemics, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool, NIHR HPRU in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London.

Reliability and accuracy of an expert physical therapist as a reference standard for a manual therapy joint mobilization trial.

Objective: Previous studies on learning joint mobilization techniques have used expert practitioners as the reference standard as there is no current evidence on what ideal forces would be for effective mobilizations. However, none of these trials have documented the reliability or accuracy of the reference standard. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to report both the reliability and accuracy of an expert physical therapist (PT) acting as a reference standard for a manual therapy joint mobilization trial.Methods: A secondary analysis was performed using data from a published randomized, controlled, crossover study. The mobilization technique studied was the central posterior to anterior (PA) joint mobilization of the L3 vertebra. Reliability and accuracy data for the reference standard were collected over four time periods spanning 16 weeks.Results: Intrarater reliability of the expert PT for R1 and R2 joint forces was excellent (R1 Force ICC3,3 0.95, 95%CI 0.76-0.99 and R2 Force ICC3,3 0.90, 95%CI 0.49-0.99). Additionally, the expert PT was 92.3% accurate (mean % error±SD, 7.7 ± 5.5) when finding Grade III mean peak mobilization force and 85.1% accurate (mean % error±SD, 14.9 ± 8.3) when finding Grade IV mean peak mobilization force. Finally, correlations between actual applied forces and computed ideal forces were excellent (Pearson r 0.79-0.92, n = 24, P < 0.01 for all correlations).Discussion: The expert PT in this manual therapy joint mobilization trial showed excellent reliability and accuracy as the reference standard. The study supports the use of implementing quantitative feedback devices into the teaching of joint mobilization when a reliable and accurate reference standard has been identified.Level of Evidence: 2b.

Risk stratification of patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol: development and validation of the 4C Mortality Score.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a pragmatic risk score to predict mortality in patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study (performed by the ISARIC Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium-ISARIC-4C) in 260 hospitals across England, Scotland, and Wales. Model training was performed on a cohort of patients recruited between 6 February and 20 May 2020, with validation conducted on a second cohort of patients recruited after model development between 21 May and 29 June 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (age ≥18 years) admitted to hospital with covid-19 at least four weeks before final data extraction. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: In-hospital mortality. RESULTS: 35 463 patients were included in the derivation dataset (mortality rate 32.2%) and 22 361 in the validation dataset (mortality rate 30.1%). The final 4C Mortality Score included eight variables readily available at initial hospital assessment: age, sex, number of comorbidities, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, level of consciousness, urea level, and C reactive protein (score range 0-21 points). The 4C Score showed high discrimination for mortality (derivation cohort: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.79; validation cohort: 0.77, 0.76 to 0.77) with excellent calibration (validation: calibration-in-the-large=0, slope=1.0). Patients with a score of at least 15 (n=4158, 19%) had a 62% mortality (positive predictive value 62%) compared with 1% mortality for those with a score of 3 or less (n=1650, 7%; negative predictive value 99%). Discriminatory performance was higher than 15 pre-existing risk stratification scores (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve range 0.61-0.76), with scores developed in other covid-19 cohorts often performing poorly (range 0.63-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: An easy-to-use risk stratification score has been developed and validated based on commonly available parameters at hospital presentation. The 4C Mortality Score outperformed existing scores, showed utility to directly inform clinical decision making, and can be used to stratify patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 into different management groups. The score should be further validated to determine its applicability in other populations. STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN66726260.

Developing evidence-based guidance for assessment of suspected infections in care home residents.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to update and refine an algorithm, originally developed in Canada, to assist care home staff to manage residents with suspected infection in the United Kingdom care home setting. The infections of interest were urinary tract infections, respiratory tract infections and skin and soft tissue infection. METHOD: We used a multi-faceted process involving a literature review, consensus meeting [nominal group technique involving general practitioners (GPs) and specialists in geriatric medicine and clinical microbiology], focus groups (care home staff and resident family members) and interviews (GPs), alongside continual iterative internal review and analysis within the research team. RESULTS: Six publications were identified in the literature which met inclusion criteria. These were used to update the algorithm which was presented to a consensus meeting (four participants all with a medical background) which discussed and agreed to inclusion of signs and symptoms, and the algorithm format. Focus groups and interview participants could see the value in the algorithm, and staff often reported that it reflected their usual practice. There were also interesting contrasts between evidence and usual practice informed by experience. Through continual iterative review and analysis, the final algorithm was finally presented in a format which described management of the three infections in terms of initial assessment of the resident, observation of the resident and action by the care home staff. CONCLUSIONS: This study has resulted in an updated algorithm targeting key infections in care home residents which should be considered for implementation into everyday practice.

Multifaceted intervention to Reduce Antimicrobial Prescribing in Care Homes: a process evaluation of a UK-based non-randomised feasibility study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the facilitators and obstacles to the development and implementation of the Reduce Antimicrobial Prescribing in Care Homes intervention. DESIGN: We used a mixed-methods approach. We conducted focus groups with care home staff and relatives of residents, and interviews with general practitioners (GPs) and home managers, completed observational visits and collected demographic data, training attendance records and data on the use of a decision-making algorithm. We used normalisation process theory to inform topic guides and interpretation of the data. SETTING: Six care homes, three in Northern Ireland and three in the West Midlands, England. INTERVENTION: A decision-making algorithm for urinary tract, respiratory tract and skin and soft-tissue infections, plus small group interactive training for care home staff. RESULTS: We ran 21 training sessions across the six homes and trained 35/42 (83%) of nurses and 101/219 (46%) of all care staff. Care home staff reported using the decision-making algorithm 81 times. Postimplementation, staff reported being more knowledgeable about antimicrobial resistance but were unsure if the intervention would change how GPs prescribed antimicrobials. The pressures of everyday work in some homes meant that engagement was challenging at times. Staff felt that some of the symptoms included in decision-making algorithm, despite being evidence based, were not easy to detect in residents with dementia or urinary incontinence. Some staff did not use the decision-making algorithm, noting that their own knowledge of the resident was more important. CONCLUSION: We delivered a training package to a substantial number of key staff in care homes. A decision-making algorithm for common infections in care homes empowered staff but was challenging to operationalise at times. A future study should consider the findings from the process evaluation to help ensure the successful implementation on a larger scale.

Can a smartphone-delivered tool facilitate the assessment of surgical site infection and result in earlier treatment? Tracking wound infection with smartphone technology (TWIST): protocol for a randomised controlled trial in emergency surgery patients.

INTRODUCTION: National data suggest that surgical site infection (SSI) complicates 2%-10% of general surgery cases, although the patient-reported incidence is much higher. SSIs cause significant patient morbidity and represent a significant burden on acute healthcare services, in a cohort predominantly suitable for outpatient management. Over three-quarters of UK adults now own smartphones, which could be harnessed to improve access to care. We aim to investigate if a smartphone-delivered wound assessment tool results in earlier treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a randomised controlled trial aiming to recruit 500 patients across National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. All emergency abdominal surgery patients over the age of 16 who own smartphones will be considered eligible, with the exclusion of those with significant visual impairment. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio between standard postoperative care and the intervention - use of the smartphone tool in addition to standard postoperative care. The main outcome measure will be time-to-diagnosis of SSI with secondary outcome measures considering use of emergency department and general practitioner services and patient experience. Follow-up will be conducted by clinicians blinded to group allocation. Analysis of time-to-diagnosis will be by comparison of means using an independent two sample t-test. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is the first randomised controlled trial on the use of a smartphone-delivered wound assessment tool to facilitate the assessment of SSI and the impact on time-to-diagnosis. The intervention is being used in addition to standard postoperative care. The study design and protocol were reviewed and approved by Southeast Scotland Research and Ethics Committee (REC Ref: 16/SS/0072 24/05/2016). Study findings will be presented at academic conferences, published in peer-reviewed journals and are expected in 2020. A written lay summary will be available to study participants on request. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02704897; Pre-results.

Decision modeling in donation after circulatory death liver transplantation.

Donation after circulatory death (DCD) liver allografts are increasingly used for transplantation. However, the posttransplantation clinical and quality of life outcomes of DCD recipients are traditionally considered to be inferior compared with donation after brain death (DBD) allograft recipients. Decision making for such marginal organs can be difficult. This study investigated the optimal decision to accept or decline a DCD liver allograft for a patient based on their current health. A Markov decision process model was constructed to predict the 5-year clinical course of patients on the liver transplant waiting list. Clinical outcomes were determined from the UK transplant registry or appropriate literature. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were determined using the condition-specific short form of liver disease quality of life (SF-LDQoL) questionnaire. There were 293/374 (78.3%) eligible patients who completed the SF-LDQoL questionnaire. A total of 73 respondents (24.9%) were before transplant and 220 were after transplant (DBD recipient, 56.3%; DCD recipient, 8.5%; ischemic cholangiopathy patient, 2.4%; retransplant recipient, 7.9%). Predictive modeling indicated that QALYs gained at 5 years were significantly higher in DCD recipients (3.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.44-4.10) compared with those who remained on the waiting list for a DBD transplant with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores of 15-20 (3.36; 95% CI, 3.28-3.43), or >20 (3.07; 95% CI, 3.00-3.14). There was no significant advantage for individuals with MELD scores <15 (3.55; 95% CI, 3.47-3.63). In conclusion, this model predicts that patients on the UK liver transplant waiting list with MELD scores >15 should receive an offered DCD allograft based on the QALYs gained at 5 years. This analysis only accounts for donor-recipient risk pairings seen in current practice. The optimal decision for patients with MELD scores <15 remains unclear. However, a survival benefit was observed when a DCD organ was accepted. Liver Transplantation 23 594-603 2017 AASLD.

Individual surgeon mortality rates: can outliers be detected? A national utility analysis.

OBJECTIVES: There is controversy on the proposed benefits of publishing mortality rates for individual surgeons. In some procedures, analysis at the level of an individual surgeon may lack statistical power. The aim was to determine the likelihood that variation in surgeon performance will be detected using published outcome data. DESIGN: A national analysis surgeon-level mortality rates to calculate the level of power for the reported mortality rate across multiple surgical procedures. SETTING: The UK from 2010 to 2014. PARTICIPANTS: Surgeons who performed colon cancer resection, oesophagectomy or gastrectomy, elective aortic aneurysm repair, hip replacement, bariatric surgery or thyroidectomy. OUTCOMES: The likelihood of detecting an individual with a 30-day, 90-day or in-patient mortality rate of up to 5 times the national mean or median (as available). This was represented using a novel heat-map approach. RESULTS: Overall mortality rates for the procedures ranged from 0.07% to 4.5% and mean/median surgeon volume was between 23 and 75 cases. The national median case volume for colorectal (n=55) and upper gastrointestinal (n=23) cancer resections provides around 20% power to detect a mortality rate of 3 times the national median, while, for hip replacement, this is a rate 5 times the national average. At the mortality rates reported for thyroid (0.08%) and bariatric (0.07%) procedures, it is unlikely a surgeon would perform a sufficient number of procedures in his/her entire career to stand a good chance of detecting a mortality rate 5 times the national average. CONCLUSIONS: At present, surgeons with increased mortality rates are unlikely to be detected. Performance within an expected mortality rate range cannot be considered reliable evidence of acceptable performance. Alternative approaches should focus on commonly occurring meaningful outcome measures, with infrequent events analysed predominately at the hospital level.