RESUMEN
AimsWith a social media analysis of the discourse surrounding the prevalence of Long COVID in children and young people (CYP), this study aims to explore healthcare workers perceptions concerning Long COVID in CYP in the UK between January 2021 and January 2022. This will allow to contribute to the emerging knowledge on Long COVID and identify critical areas and future directions for researchers and policymakers. DesignA mixed methods approach with a discourse, keywords, sentiment, and image analysis, using Pulsar and Infranodus. SettingA discussion of the experience of Long COVID in CYP in the UK shared on Twitter between 1 January 2021 and 31 January 2022. ParticipantsA sample of health workers with Twitter accounts whose bio has them identifying themselves as HCWs. ResultsWe obtained 2588 tweets. HCW were responsive to announcements issued by authorities regarding the management of COVID-19 in the UK. The most frequent feelings were negative. The main themes were uncertainty about the future, policies and regulations, managing and addressing COVID-19 and Long COVID in CYP, vaccination, using Twitter to share scientific literature and management strategies, and clinical and personal experiences. ConclusionsThe perceptions described on Twitter by HCW concerning the presence of Long COVID in CYP appear to be a relevant and timely issue and responsive to the declarations and guidelines issued by health authorities over time. We recommend further support and training strategies for health workers and school staff regarding the manifestations and treatment of Long COVID in CYP. Strengths and limitations of this study- Our online analysis of Long COVID contributes towards an emerging understanding of reported experiential, emotional and practical dimensions of Long COVID in CYP specifically, as well as questions of vaccine hesitancy in CYP with Long COVID. - We identify key policy areas that need considered attention and focus, such as: a) the provision of psychosocial support with access to quality mental health resources to alleviate the impact that Long COVID can have on the mental health of CYP; and b) the development of clear Long COVID pandemic recovery policies that are informed from a health equity perspective and how this affects CYP living with Long COVID. - This is one of few studies to collect healthcare workers perceptions regarding Long COVID in CYP in the UK, using information from Twitter. - This study is limited to the perception of those who identified as healthcare workers via their online biographies, and so is not representative of the general UK or the global population.
RESUMEN
BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on the fractures of healthcare systems around the world, particularly in relation to the healthcare workforce. Frontline staff have been exposed to unprecedented strain and delivering care during the pandemic has impacted their safety, mental health and wellbeing. Rapid Research methods and big qualitative data offered a unique opportunity to gain insight into perceptions and experiences during this time. ObjectiveThe aim of this paper was to explore the experiences of Health Care Workers (HCWs) delivering care in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic to understand their wellbeing needs, experiences and strategies used to maintain wellbeing at individual and organizational levels. MethodsWe analysed 94 telephone interviews with HCWs and 2000 tweets about HCWs mental health during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic applying Collaborative and Digital Analysis of Big Qualitative Data in Time Sensitive Contexts (LISTEN). ResultsResults fell under six themes: redeployment, clinical work, and sense of duty; wellbeing support and HCWs coping strategies; negative mental health effects; organisational support; social network and support; and public and government support. Redeployment generated anxiety mainly due to limited prior training and risk assessments, and the barriers of adapting to a new working environment while wearing PPE. HCWs struggled to access wellbeing support due to time constraints. In terms of ill mental health, mentions of feelings of trauma, PTSD and anxiety were prominent. HCWs mental health was particularly affected by the copious amount of bad news on media and at home and the fear of infecting their loved ones. ConclusionsThese findings demonstrate a need for open conversations, where staff wellbeing needs and the strategies they adopted can be shared and encouraged, rather than implementing solely top-down psychological interventions. At the macro level, findings also highlighted the impact on HCWs wellbeing of public and government support, as well as the need for ensuring protection through PPE, testing, and/or vaccines for frontline workers.
RESUMEN
BackgroundThe adoption of remote methods of care has been accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, but concerns exist relating to the potential impact on health disparities. This evaluation explores the implementation of COVID-19 remote home monitoring services across England, focussing on patients experiences and engagement with the service. MethodsThe study was a rapid, multi-site, mixed methods evaluation. Data were collected between January and June 2021. We conducted qualitative interviews with staff service leads, and patients and carers receiving the service. We conducted quantitative surveys with staff delivering the service, and patients and carers receiving the service across 28 sites in England, UK. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis and quantitative data were analysed using univariate and multivariate methods. FindingsMany sites designed their service to be inclusive to the needs of their local population. Strategies included widening eligibility criteria, prioritising vulnerable groups, and creating referral pathways. Many sites also adapted their services according to patient needs, including providing information in different languages or more accessible formats, offering translation services, offering non-digital options, or providing face-to-face assessments. Despite these adaptions, disparities were reported across patient groups (e.g. age, health status, ethnicity, level of education) in their experience of and engagement with the service. InterpretationServices must determine how best to design and implement remote monitoring services to be of value to all populations. National guidance should play a role in supporting services to best serve the needs of their populations, and patients and staff must play an active role in service design. FundingThis is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Services & Delivery Research programme (RSET Project no. 16/138/17; BRACE Project no. 16/138/31) and NHSEI. NJF is an NIHR Senior Investigator. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSEvidence shows COVID-19 has a disproportionate impact on certain population groups, such as ethnic minority groups, older adults and those with comorbidities. The rapid adoption and spread of remote home monitoring services in England must be accompanied by evaluations at a local level to monitor the impact on health disparities in local populations. Added value of this studyThis rapid mixed methods evaluation of COVID-19 home monitoring services adopted across 28 sites in England aimed to increase understanding of how services have been designed and delivered to address local population needs to increase accessibility to the service and facilitate engagement with the service. We add to the literature by identifying a range of local service adaptations which aim to increase reach and facilitate patient engagement, and consider their potential impact on health disparities. We found strategies included prioritising vulnerable groups, creating referral pathways, offering translation services, offering non-digital options, or providing face-to-face assessments. Despite efforts to adapt services to meet local needs, disparities across patient groups in their experience of, and engagement with, the service (related to age, health status, ethnicity, and level of education) were reported. Implications of the available evidenceAt both a national and local level, and particularly given the increasing use of remote home monitoring schemes, lessening health disparities must be a primary focus in the design and delivery of remote monitoring models for COVID-19 and other conditions. Future research should focus on how best to design and evaluate remote monitoring services, for a range of conditions, especially for patients residing in areas where significant health disparities persist, as well as addressing the effectiveness of any strategies on specific population groups.
RESUMEN
BackgroundThere was a national roll out of COVID Virtual Wards (CVW) during Englands second COVID-19 wave (Autumn 2020 - Spring 2021). These services used remote pulse oximetry monitoring for COVID-19 patients following discharge from hospital. A key aim was to enable rapid detection of patient deterioration. It was anticipated that the services would support early discharge and avoid readmissions, reducing pressure on beds. This study is an evaluation of the impact of the CVW services on hospital activity. MethodsUsing retrospective patient-level hospital admissions data, we built multivariate models to analyse the relationship between the implementation of CVW services and hospital activity outcomes: length of COVID-19 related stays and subsequent COVID-19 readmissions within 28 days. We used data from more than 98% of recorded COVID-19 hospital stays in England, where the patient was discharged alive between mid-August 2020 and late February 2021. FindingsWe found a longer length of stay for COVID-19 patients discharged from hospitals where a CVW was available, when compared to patients discharged from hospitals where there was no CVW (adjusted IRR 1{middle dot}05, 95% CI 1{middle dot}01 to 1{middle dot}09). We found no evidence of a relationship between the availability of CVW and subsequent rates of readmission for COVID-19 (adjusted OR 0{middle dot}95, 95% CI 0{middle dot}89 to 1{middle dot}02). InterpretationWe found no evidence of early discharges or reduced readmissions associated with the roll out of COVID Virtual Wards across England. Our analysis made pragmatic use of national-scale hospital data, but it is possible that a lack of specific data (for example, on which patients were enrolled) may have meant that true impacts, especially at a local level, were not ultimately discernible. FundingThis is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Services & Delivery Research programme and NHSEI. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSPost-hospital virtual wards have been found to have a positive impact on patient outcomes when focussed on patients with specific diseases, for example those with heart disease. There has been less evidence of impact for more heterogenous groups of patients. While these services have been rolled out at scale in England, there has been little evidence thus far that post-hospital virtual wards (using pulse oximetry monitoring) have helped to reduce the length of stay of hospitalised COVID-19 patients, or rates of subsequent readmissions for COVID-19. Added value of this studyThis national-scale study provides evidence that the rollout of post-hospital discharge virtual ward services for COVID-19 patients in England did not reduce lengths of stay in hospital, or rates of readmission. Implications of all the available evidenceWhile there is currently an absence of evidence of positive impacts for COVID-19 patients discharged to a virtual ward, our study emphasises the need for quality data to be collected as part of future service implementation.
RESUMEN
IntroductionRemote home monitoring models were implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic to shorten hospital length of stay, reduce unnecessary hospital admission, readmission and infection, and appropriately escalate care. Within these models, patients are asked to take and record readings and escalate care if advised. There is limited evidence on how patients and carers experience these services. This study aimed to evaluate patient experiences of, and engagement with, remote home monitoring models for COVID-19. MethodsA rapid mixed-methods study in England. We conducted a cross-sectional survey and interviews with patients and carers. Interview findings were summarised using rapid assessment procedures sheets and grouping data into themes (using thematic analysis). Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics. ResultsWe received 1069 surveys (18% response rate) and conducted interviews with patients (n=59) and carers (n=3). Care relied on support from staff members, and family/friends. Patients and carers reported positive experiences and felt that the service and human contact reassured them and was easy to engage with. Yet, some patients and carers identified problems with engagement. Engagement was influenced by: patient factors such as health and knowledge, support from family/friends and staff, availability and ease-of-use of informational and material resources (e.g. equipment), and service factors. ConclusionRemote home monitoring models place responsibility on patients to self-manage symptoms in partnership with staff; yet many patients required support and preferred human contact (especially for identifying problems). Caring burden and experiences of those living alone, and barriers to engagement should be considered when designing and implementing remote home monitoring services. Patient or public contributionFor this evaluation, members of the study team met with service user and public members of the BRACE PPI group and Health and Care Panel and patient representatives from RSET in a series of workshops. These workshops informed study design, data collection tools, data interpretation and to discuss study dissemination for Phase 2. For example, patient facing documents, such as the consent form, topic guides, patient survey and patient information sheet were reviewed by this group. Additionally, PPI members helped to pilot patient surveys and interview guides with the research team. We also asked some members of the public to pilot the patient survey. Members of the PPI group were given the opportunity to comment on the manuscript. One PPI member commented on the manuscript and the manuscript was amended accordingly.
RESUMEN
BackgroundRemote home monitoring of people testing positive for COVID-19 using pulse oximetry was implemented across England during the Winter of 2020/21 to identify falling blood oxygen saturation levels at an early stage. This was hypothesised to enable earlier hospital admission, reduce the need for intensive care and improve survival. This study is an evaluation of the clinical effectiveness of the pre-hospital monitoring programme, COVID oximetry @home (CO@h). MethodsWe analysed relationships at a geographical area level between the extent to which people aged 65 or over were enrolled onto the programme and outcomes over the period between November 2020 to February 2021 FindingsFor every 10% increase in coverage of the programme, mortality was reduced by 2% (95% confidence interval: -4% to 1%), admissions increased by 3% (-1% to 7%), in-hospital mortality fell by 3% (-8% to 3%) and lengths of stay increased by 1{middle dot}8% (-1{middle dot}2% to 4{middle dot}9%). None of these results are statistically significant. InterpretationThere are several possible explanations for our findings. One is that the CO@h did not have the hypothesised impact. Another is that the low rates of enrolment and incomplete data in many areas reduced the chances of detecting any impact that may have existed. Also, CO@h has been implemented in many different ways across the country and these may have had varying levels of effect. FundingThis is independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research, Health Services & Delivery Research programme (RSET Project no. 16/138/17; BRACE Project no. 16/138/31) and NHSEI. NJF is an NIHR Senior Investigator. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care. Research in ContextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSExisting evidence before this study and the search strategy used to obtain this evidence has been published previously by the authors in a systematic review. Previous quantitative studies have assessed remote oximetry monitoring services for COVID-19 patients mostly at individual sites and focussed on their safety. However, their effectiveness has been little studied. This may reflect the challenges of identifying reliable counterfactuals during a rapidly evolving pandemic. Added value of this studyThis study is part of a wider mixed methods evaluation that followed the rapid implementation of remote monitoring across the English NHS during the Winter of 2020/21. It adds to the evidence of the effectiveness of such programmes at a national level. Implications of the available evidenceThere is some existing evidence that remote monitoring of COVID-19 patients can be locally effective although we have not been able to replicate such findings at a wider level. Missing data and lower coverage of the service than expected may have influenced our results, and the effectiveness of some local programmes could have been lost among the analysis of national data. Future implementation requires better data collection strategies which could be focussed within fewer local areas, and effective learning from areas that have achieved better population coverage.
RESUMEN
AimsTo determine how the learning about protective factors from previous pandemics were implemented and the impact of this on nurses experience. BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic led to systemic change within healthcare settings and demands placed on frontline nurses has been overwhelming. Lessons learned from previous pandemics indicate that clear communication and strong visible leadership can mitigate the impact stressful events may have on nurses. Conversely, a lack of clear leadership and regulatory protocols in times of crisis can lead to an increase in psychological distress for nurses. DesignSecondary analysis of semi-structured interview transcripts. MethodsSecondary data analysis was conducted on data collected during a hospital-wide evaluation of barriers and facilitators to changes implemented to support the surge of COVID-19 related admissions in wave one of the pandemic. Participants represented three-levels of leadership: whole trust (n=17), division (n=7), ward/department-level (n=8), and individual nurses (n=16). Data were collected through semi-structured video interviews between May and July 2020. Interviews were analysed using Framework analysis. ResultsKey changes that were implemented in wave one reported at whole trust level included: a new acute staffing level, redeploying nurses, increasing the visibility of nursing leadership, new staff wellbeing initiatives, new roles created to support families and various training initiatives. Two main themes emerged from the interviews at division, ward/department and individual nurse level: impact of leadership, and impact on the delivery of nursing care. ConclusionsLeadership through a crisis is essential for the protective effect of nurses emotional wellbeing. While nursing leadership was made more visible during wave one of the pandemic and processes were in place to increase communication, system-level challenges resulting in negative experiences existed. By identifying these challenges, it has been possible to overcome them during wave two by employing different leadership styles, to support nurse wellbeing
RESUMEN
BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the delivery of elective surgery in the UK. The majority of planned surgery was cancelled or postponed in March 2020 for the duration of the first wave of the pandemic. We investigated the experiences of staff responsible for delivering rapid changes to surgical services during the first wave of the pandemic in the UK, with the aim of developing lessons for future major systems change. MethodsUsing a rapid qualitative study design, we conducted 25 interviews with frontline surgical staff during the first wave of the pandemic. We also carried out a policy review of the guidance developed for those delivering surgical services in pandemic conditions. We used framework analysis to organise and interpret findings. ResultsStaff discussed positive and negative experiences of rapid service organisation. Clinician-led decision making, the flexibility of individual staff and teams, and the opportunity to innovate service design were all seen as positive contributors to success in service adaptation. The negative aspects of rapid change were inconsistent guidance from national government and medical bodies, top-down decisions about when to cancel and restart surgery, the challenges of delivering emergency surgical care safely and the complexity of prioritising surgical cases when services re-started. ConclusionSuccess in the rapid reorganisation of elective surgical services can be attributed to the flexibility and adaptability of staff. However, there was an absence of involvement of staff in wider system-level pandemic decision-making and competing guidance from national bodies. Involving staff in decisions about the organisation and delivery of major systems change is essential for the sustainability of change processes.
RESUMEN
ObjectivesTo explore healthcare workers (HCWs) perceptions and attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccination programme in the UK, including their expectations, concerns and views on whether to promote vaccination to others. To understand the key factors shaping HCWs attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination in the UK. DesignThis study was designed as a rapid qualitative appraisal integrating data from a review of UK policies and guidance on COVID-19 vaccination with data from in-depth semi-structured telephone interviews with frontline HCWs in the UK. Data were analysed using framework analysis. ParticipantsInterviews were carried out with a purposive sample of HCWs from two large London-based hospital Trusts (n=24) and 24 government policies and guidelines on the vaccination programme were reviewed. ResultsThe level of uncertainty about the vaccines long-term safety and efficacy against mutant strains made it difficult for HCWs to balance the benefits against the risks of vaccination. HCWs felt that government decisions on vaccine rollout had not been supported by evidence-based science and this impacted their level of trust and confidence in the programme. The spread of misinformation online also impacted HCWs attitudes towards vaccination, particularly among junior level and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) HCWs. Most HCWs felt encouraged to promote vaccination to their patients and the majority said they would advocate vaccination or engage in conversations about vaccination with others when relevant. ConclusionIn order to improve HCWs trust and confidence in the UKs COVID-19 vaccination programme, there needs to be clarity about what is known and not known about the vaccines and transparency around the evidence-base supporting government decisions on vaccine rollout. Effort is also needed to dispel the spread of vaccine-related misinformation online and to address specific concerns, particularly among BAME and junior level HCWs. Strengths and limitations of this studyO_LIThis is the first qualitative study to understand the factors influencing healthcare workers (HCWs) attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination in the UK C_LIO_LIThis study integrated interview and policy data and captured HCWs perceptions and attitudes in real-time as the vaccination programme was being rolled out in the UK C_LIO_LIOur interview study sample was limited in its representation of junior level HCWs and areas of the UK C_LIO_LIThis research may have been impacted by selection bias as those with stronger views on vaccination may have been more likely to participate in the study C_LI
RESUMEN
BackgroundA rapid influx of patients to intensive care and infection control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic required the rapid development of innovative redeployment and training strategies. MethodsWe conducted a systematic search of 9 databases including key terms related to intensive care AND training AND redeployment AND healthcare workers. Analysis consisted of a narrative synthesis of quantitative study outputs, and a framework-based thematic analysis of qualitative study outputs and grey literature. These results were then combined applying an interpretative synthesis. ResultsTwenty papers were analysed. These took place primarily in the UK (N=8, 40%) and USA (N=5, 25%). Themes included in the results are Redeployment: Implementation strategies and learnings; Redeployed staff experience and strategies to address their needs; Redeployed staff learning needs; Training formats offered and training evaluations; and Future redeployment and training concerns. Some of the redeployment implementation and training strategies documented in this review are: Skills-based redeployment, buddy support systems, and agreeing on locally-specific principles, rather than strict procedures. ConclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic presented unique challenges to deliver training promptly while following infection control recommendations and develop flexible redeployment strategies. This study synthesises original approaches to tackle these challenges which are relevant to inform the development of targeted and adaptative training and redeployment plans.
RESUMEN
BackgroundThere is a paucity of evidence for the implementation of remote home monitoring for COVID-19 infection. The aims of this study were to identify the key characteristics of remote home monitoring models for COVID-19 infection, explore the experiences of staff implementing these models, understand the use of data for monitoring progress against outcomes, and document variability in staffing and resource allocation. MethodsThis was a multi-site mixed methods study that combined qualitative and quantitative approaches to analyse the implementation and impact of remote home monitoring models during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (July to September 2020) in England. The study combined interviews (n=22) with staff delivering these models across eight sites in England with the collection and analysis of data on staffing models and resource allocation. FindingsThe models varied in relation to the healthcare settings and mechanisms used for patient triage, monitoring and escalation. Implementation was embedded in existing staff workloads and budgets. Good communication within clinical teams, culturally-appropriate information for patients/carers and the combination of multiple approaches for patient monitoring (app and paper-based) were considered facilitators in implementation. The mean cost per monitored patient varied from {pound}400 to {pound}553, depending on the model. InterpretationIt is necessary to provide the means for evaluating the effectiveness of these models, for example, by establishing comparator data. Future research should also focus on the sustainability of the models and patient experience (considering the extent to which some of the models exacerbate existing inequalities in access to care). FundingThe study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research-NIHR (Health Services and Delivery Research, 16/138/17 - Rapid Service Evaluation Research Team; or The Birmingham, RAND and Cambridge Evaluation (BRACE) Centre Team (HSDR16/138/31).
RESUMEN
ObjectivesTo report frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) experiences with personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. To understand HCWs fears and concerns surrounding PPE, their experiences following its guidance and how these affected their perceived ability to deliver care during the COVID-19 pandemic. MethodsA rapid qualitative appraisal study combining three sources of data: semi-structured in-depth telephone interviews with frontline HCWs (n=46), media reports (n=39 newspaper articles and 145,000 social media posts) and government PPE policies (n=25). HCWs interviewed were from secondary care, primary care and specialist community clinics. Media and policy data were from across the UK. ResultsA major concern was running out of PPE, putting HCWs and patients at risk of infection. Following national-level guidance was often not feasible when there were shortages, leading to re-use and improvisation of PPE. Frequently changing guidelines generated confusion and distrust. PPE was reserved for high-risk secondary care settings and this translated into HCWs outside these settings feeling inadequately protected. Participants were concerned about inequitable access to PPE for community, lower seniority, female and ethnic minority HCWs. Participants continued delivering care despite the physical discomfort, practical problems and communication barriers associated with PPE use. ConclusionThis study found that frontline HCWs persisted in caring for their patients despite multiple challenges including inappropriate provision of PPE, inadequate training and inconsistent guidance. In order to effectively care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, frontline HCWs need appropriate provision of PPE, training in its use, as well as comprehensive and consistent guidance. These needs must be addressed in order to protect the health and well-being of the most valuable healthcare resource in the COVID-19 pandemic: our HCWs. O_TEXTBOXWhat is already known?- PPE is an important component of infection prevention and control to protect HCWs delivering care on the frontline of an infectious disease outbreak. - Frontline HCWs have reported challenges delivering care in PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic. - Research understanding how HCWs responded to these challenges are lacking. What are the new findings?- HCWs faced multiple challenges delivering care including inadequate provision of PPE, inconsistent guidance and lack of training in its use. - HCWs persisted delivering care despite the negative physical effects, practical problems, lack of protected time for breaks and communication barriers associated with wearing PPE. - In the face of training, guidance and procurement gaps, HCWs improvised by developing their own informal communication channels to share information, they trained each other and bought their own PPE. - HCWs reported inequalities accessing PPE based on the healthcare sector, gender, level of seniority and ethnicity. What do the new findings imply?- To feel safe and confident caring for patients, frontline HCWs need to be provided with appropriate size, quality and level of PPE, as well as training in its use. - PPE guidance should be consistent, clearly communicated, and reflect the most up-to-date evidence-base for the safest level of PPE. - Regular breaks for staff working in full PPE should be prioritised even in contexts of understaffing and PPE shortages as these are key aspects of well-being. C_TEXTBOX
RESUMEN
ObjectivesThe aim of this review was to analyse the implementation and impact of remote home monitoring models (virtual wards) during COVID-19, identifying their main components, processes of implementation, target patient populations, impact on outcomes, costs and lessons learnt. DesignA rapid systematic review to capture an evolving evidence base. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. SettingThe review included models led by primary and secondary care across seven countries. Participants27 articles were included in the review. Main outcome measuresImpact of remote home monitoring on virtual length of stay, escalation, emergency department attendance/reattendance, admission/readmission and mortality. ResultsThe aim of the models was to maintain patients safe in the right setting. Most models were led by secondary care and confirmation of COVID-19 was not required (in most cases). Monitoring was carried via online platforms, paper-based systems with telephone calls or (less frequently) through wearable sensors. Models based on phone calls were considered more inclusive. Patient/carer training was identified as a determining factor of success. We could not reach substantive conclusions regarding patient safety and the identification of early deterioration due to lack of standardised reporting and missing data. Economic analysis was not reported for most of the models and did not go beyond reporting resources used and the amount spent per patient monitored. ConclusionsFuture research should focus on staff and patient experiences of care and inequalities in patients access to care. Attention needs to be paid to the cost-effectiveness of the models and their sustainability, evaluation of their impact on patient outcomes by using comparators, and the use of risk-stratification tools. Protocol registrationThe review protocol was published on PROSPERO (CRD: 42020202888). RESEARCH IN CONTEXTO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSRemote home monitoring models for other conditions have been studied, but their adaptation to monitor COVID-19 patients and the analysis of their implementation constitute gaps in research. Added value of this studyThe review covers a wide range of remote home monitoring models (pre-hospital as well as step-down wards) implemented in primary and secondary care sectors in eight countries and focuses on their implementation and impact on outcomes (including costs). Implications of all the available evidenceThe review provides a rapid overview of an emerging evidence base that can be used to inform changes in policy and practice regarding the home monitoring of patients during COVID-19. Attention needs to be paid to the cost-effectiveness of the models and their sustainability, evaluation of their impact on patient outcomes by using comparators, and the use of risk-stratification tools.
RESUMEN
BackgroundSubstantial evidence has highlighted the importance of considering healthcare workers (HCW) mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic, and several organisations have issued guidelines with recommendations. However, the definition of wellbeing and the evidence-base behind such guidelines remains unclear. ObjectivesAssessing the applicability of wellbeing guidelines in practice; identifying unaddressed HCWs needs; and providing recommendations for supporting frontline staff during the current and future pandemics. Methods and DesignThis paper discusses the findings of a qualitative study based on interviews with frontline healthcare staff in the UK and examines them in relation to a rapid review of wellbeing guidelines developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Results14 guidelines were included in the rapid review and 33 interviews with HCWs were conducted in the qualitative study. As a whole, the guidelines placed greater emphasis on wellbeing at an individual level, while HCWs placed greater emphasis on structural conditions at work, such as understaffing and the invaluable support of the community. This in turn had implications for the focus of wellbeing intervention strategies; staff reported an increased availability of formal mental health support, however, understaffing or clashing schedules prevented them from participating in these activities. ConclusionHCWs expressed wellbeing needs which align with social-ecological conceptualisations of wellbeing related to quality of life. This approach to wellbeing has been highlighted in literature about HCWs support in previous health emergencies, yet it has not been monitored during this pandemic. Wellbeing guidelines should explore staffs needs and contextual characteristics affecting the implementation of recommendations.
