Barriers to healthcare access and experiences of stigma: Findings from a coproduced Long Covid case-finding study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Long Covid is often stigmatised, particularly in people who are disadvantaged within society. This may prevent them from seeking help and could lead to widening health inequalities. This coproduced study with a Community Advisory Board (CAB) of people with Long Covid aimed to understand healthcare and wider barriers and stigma experienced by people with probable Long Covid. METHODS: An active case finding approach was employed to find adults with probable, but not yet clinically diagnosed, Long Covid in two localities in London (Camden and Merton) and Derbyshire, England. Interviews explored the barriers to care and the stigma faced by participants and were analysed thematically. This study forms part of the STIMULATE-ICP Collaboration. FINDINGS: Twenty-three interviews were completed. Participants reported limited awareness of what Long Covid is and the available pathways to management. There was considerable self-doubt among participants, sometimes reinforced by interactions with healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants questioned their deservedness in seeking healthcare support for their symptoms. Hesitancy to engage with healthcare services was motivated by fear of needing more investigation and concerns regarding judgement about the ability to carry out caregiving responsibilities. It was also motivated by the complexity of the clinical presentation and fear of all symptoms being attributed to poor mental health. Participants also reported trying to avoid overburdening the health system. These difficulties were compounded by experiences of stigma and discrimination. The emerging themes reaffirmed a framework of epistemic injustice in relation to Long Covid, where creating, interpreting and conveying knowledge has varied credibility based on the teller's identity characteristics and/or the level of their interpretive resources. CONCLUSION: We have codeveloped recommendations based on the findings. These include early signposting to services, dedicating protected time to listening to people with Long Covid, providing a holistic approach in care pathways, and working to mitigate stigma. Regardless of the diagnosis, people experiencing new symptoms must be encouraged to seek timely medical help. Clear public health messaging is needed among communities already disadvantaged by epistemic injustice to raise awareness of Long Covid, and to share stories that encourage seeking care and to illustrate the adverse effects of stigma. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study was coproduced with a CAB made up of 23 members including HCPs, people with lived experience of Long Covid and other stakeholders.

Impact of Long COVID on productivity and informal caregiving.

BACKGROUND: Around 2 million people in the UK suffer from Long COVID (LC). Of concern is the disease impact on productivity and informal care burden. This study aimed to quantify and value productivity losses and informal care receipt in a sample of LC patients in the UK. METHODS: The target population comprised LC patients referred to LC specialist clinics. The questionnaires included a health economics questionnaire (HEQ) measuring productivity impacts, informal care receipt and service utilisation, EQ-5D-5L, C19-YRS LC condition-specific measure, and sociodemographic and COVID-19 history variables. Outcomes were changes from the incident infection resulting in LC to the month preceding the survey in paid work status/h, work income, work performance and informal care receipt. The human capital approach valued productivity losses; the proxy goods method valued caregiving hours. The values were extrapolated nationally using published prevalence data. Multilevel regressions, nested by region, estimated associations between the outcomes and patient characteristics. RESULTS: 366 patients responded to HEQ (mean LC duration 449.9 days). 51.7% reduced paid work hours relative to the pre-infection period. Mean monthly work income declined by 24.5%. The average aggregate value of productivity loss since incident infection was £10,929 (95% bootstrap confidence interval £8,844-£13,014) and £5.7 billion (£3.8-£7.6 billion) extrapolated nationally. The corresponding values for informal caregiving were £8,726 (£6,247-£11,204) and £4.8 billion (£2.6-£7.0 billion). Multivariate analyses found significant associations between each outcome and health utility and C19-YRS subscale scores. CONCLUSION: LC significantly impacts productivity losses and provision of informal care, exacerbated by high national prevalence of LC.

Digital home monitoring for capturing daily fluctuation of symptoms; a longitudinal repeated measures study: Long Covid Multi-disciplinary Consortium to Optimise Treatments and Services across the NHS (a LOCOMOTION study).

INTRODUCTION: A substantial proportion of COVID-19 survivors continue to have symptoms more than 3 months after infection, especially of those who required medical intervention. Lasting symptoms are wide-ranging, and presentation varies between individuals and fluctuates within an individual. Improved understanding of undulation in symptoms and triggers may improve efficacy of healthcare providers and enable individuals to better self-manage their Long Covid. We present a protocol where we aim to develop and examine the feasibility and usability of digital home monitoring for capturing daily fluctuation of symptoms in individuals with Long Covid and provide data to facilitate a personalised approach to the classification and management of Long Covid symptoms. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a longitudinal prospective cohort study of adults with Long Covid accessing 10 National Health Service (NHS) rehabilitation services in the UK. We aim to recruit 400 people from participating NHS sites. At referral to study, 6 weeks and 12 weeks, participants will complete demographic data (referral to study) and clinical outcome measures, including ecological momentary assessment (EMA) using personal mobile devices. EMA items are adapted from the COVID-19 Yorkshire Rehabilitation Scale items and include self-reported activities, symptoms and psychological factors. Passive activity data will be collected through wrist-worn sensors. We will use latent class growth models to identify trajectories of experience, potential phenotypes defined by co-occurrence of symptoms and inter-relationships between stressors, symptoms and participation in daily activities. We anticipate that n=300 participants provide 80% power to detect a 20% improvement in fatigue over 12 weeks in one class of patients relative to another. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Yorkshire & The Humber-Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (ref: 21/YH/0276). Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications and presented at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15022307.

Long Covid active case finding study protocol: A co-produced community-based pilot within the STIMULATE-ICP study (Symptoms, Trajectory, Inequalities and Management: Understanding Long-COVID to Address and Transform Existing Integrated Care Pathways).

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Long Covid is a significant public health concern with potentially negative implications for health inequalities. We know that those who are already socially disadvantaged in society are more exposed to COVID-19, experience the worst health outcomes and are more likely to suffer economically. We also know that these groups are more likely to experience stigma and have negative healthcare experiences even before the pandemic. However, little is known about disadvantaged groups' experiences of Long Covid, and preliminary evidence suggests they may be under-represented in those who access formal care. We will conduct a pilot study in a defined geographical area in London, United Kingdom to test the feasibility of a community-based approach of identifying Long Covid cases that have not been clinically diagnosed and have not been referred to Long Covid specialist services. We will explore the barriers to accessing recognition, care, and support, as well as experiences of stigma and perceived discrimination. METHODS: This protocol and study materials were co-produced with a Community Advisory Board (CAB) made up primarily of people living with Long Covid. Working with voluntary organisations, a study leaflet will be distributed in the local community to highlight Long Covid symptoms and invite those experiencing them to participate in the study if they are not formally diagnosed. Potential participants will be assessed according to the study's inclusion criteria and offered the opportunity to participate if they fit them. Awareness of Long Covid and associated symptoms, experiences of trying to access care, as well as stigma and discrimination will be explored through qualitative interviews with participants. Upon completion of the interviews, participants will be offered a referral to the local social prescribing team to receive support that is personalised to them potentially including, but not restricted to, liaising with their primary care provider and the regional Long Covid clinic.

Aortic stenosis and transcatheter aortic valve implantation in the elderly.

BACKGROUND: Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is a condition that commonly affects elderly Australians. Once symptomatic, severe AS has a poor prognosis if untreated. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a percutaneous procedure that is now the recommended treatment for elderly patients with severe AS who are suitable for intervention. OBJECTIVE: This article provides a contemporary review of the diagnosis and management of severe AS in the elderly. DISCUSSION: Management options for severe AS include TAVI, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), or medical/palliative therapy. In elderly adults, TAVI improves mortality, symptoms and quality of life compared with medical therapy, and is superior to SAVR. The decision regarding which management option is most appropriate for an individual patient is made using a collaborative multidisciplinary approach. General practitioners play key roles in providing information to risk stratify patients when considering intervention, caring for patients after the procedure and/or providing medical and palliative treatment for those deemed unsuitable for intervention.

Towards evidence-based and inclusive models of peer support for long covid: A hermeneutic systematic review.

Since the first wave of COVID-19 in March 2020 the number of people living with post-COVID syndrome has risen rapidly at global pace, however, questions still remain as to whether there is a hidden cohort of sufferers not accessing mainstream clinics. This group are likely to be constituted by already marginalised people at the sharp end of existing health inequalities and not accessing formal clinics. The challenge of supporting such patients includes the question of how best to organise and facilitate different forms of support. As such, we aim to examine whether peer support is a potential option for hidden or hardly reached populations of long COVID sufferers with a specific focus on the UK, though not exclusively. Through a systematic hermeneutic literature review of peer support in other conditions (57 papers), we evaluate the global potential of peer support for the ongoing needs of people living with long COVID. Through our analysis, we highlight three key peer support perspectives in healthcare reflecting particular theoretical perspectives, goals, and understandings of what is 'good health', we call these: biomedical (disease control/management), relational (intersubjective mutual support) and socio-political (advocacy, campaigning & social context). Additionally, we identify three broad models for delivering peer support: service-led, community-based and social media. Attention to power relations, social and cultural capital, and a co-design approach are key when developing peer support services for disadvantaged and underserved groups. Models from other long-term conditions suggest that peer support for long COVID can and should go beyond biomedical goals and harness the power of relational support and collective advocacy. This may be particularly important when seeking to reduce health inequalities and improve access for a potentially hidden cohort of sufferers.

Dedicated Next Day Discharge Post Minimalist TAVI: The Tasmanian Experience.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety, feasibility and independent predictors of next day discharge (NDD) in patients undergoing minimalist transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe aortic stenosis (AS) in a real-world Australian population. METHODS: This single centre study reviewed 135 consecutive patients who underwent minimalist transfemoral TAVI from June 2020 to February 2022. Baseline demographics, procedural characteristic and outcomes were obtained. All patients were assessed by the local protocol for NDD. Patients were then divided into two groups: those who achieved next day discharge (NDD) and those requiring >1 overnight hospital stay. Univariate, bivariate and stepwise multivariate logistic regression modelling was used to identify the predictors of successful next day discharge. RESULTS: The mean age of the cohort was 82.9±5.7 years with 62.3% patients male, the average STS score was 4.1±2.4. All 135 patients underwent a successful transfemoral TAVI procedure, with 131 (97%) receiving a balloon-expandable valve. Ninety-seven (97) (71.9%) patients achieved NDD. Thirty (30)-day outcomes were excellent with a 30-day mortality of 0.7%, transient ischaemic attack/cardiovascular accident (TIA/CVA) 1.5%, major vascular complication 1.5% and 11.4% need for permanent pacemaker (PPM). In patients not achieving NDD, the average length of stay (LOS) was 3.0 days. Baseline characteristics demonstrated pre-existing first degree atrioventricular (AV) block and right bundle branch block (RBBB) as statistically significant negative predictors of NDD on univariate analysis. Next day discharge was achievable in only 50% of patients who suffered any minor or major procedural complication (15/30). Stepwise multivariate logistic regression modelling demonstrated female gender (OR 3.094, 95% CI 1.141-8.391, p=0.026), smaller aortic valve area (AVA) (OR 48.265, 95% CI 2.269-102.6, p=0.013), the presence of diabetes mellitus (OR 0.594, 95% CI 0.356-0.991, p=0.046) and a longer procedure time (OR 0.960, 95% CI 0.935-0.986, p=0.002) as statistically significant negative predictors of NDD. In addition, there was no difference in 30-day readmission rates between the NDD and non-NDD cohort (7.2% vs 10.5%, p=0.386). CONCLUSION: Next day discharge is safe and feasible in almost three quarters of patients undergoing minimalist TAVI for severe AS in a predominantly balloon expandable valve cohort, with a very low rate of 30-day readmission. NDD provides advantages for hospital efficiency and improved cost-effectiveness. Female gender, smaller AVA, the presence of diabetes mellitus and a longer procedure time were independent negative predictors of successful NDD.

LOng COvid Multidisciplinary consortium Optimising Treatments and servIces acrOss the NHS (LOCOMOTION): protocol for a mixed-methods study in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Long COVID, a new condition whose origins and natural history are not yet fully established, currently affects 1.5 million people in the UK. Most do not have access to specialist long COVID services. We seek to optimise long COVID care both within and outside specialist clinics, including improving access, reducing inequalities, helping self-management and providing guidance and decision support for primary care. We aim to establish a 'gold standard' of care by systematically analysing current practices, iteratively improving pathways and systems of care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This mixed-methods, multisite study is informed by the principles of applied health services research, quality improvement, co-design, outcome measurement and learning health systems. It was developed in close partnership with patients (whose stated priorities are prompt clinical assessment; evidence-based advice and treatment and help with returning to work and other roles) and with front-line clinicians. Workstreams and tasks to optimise assessment, treatment and monitoring are based in three contrasting settings: workstream 1 (qualitative research, up to 100 participants), specialist management in 10 long COVID clinics across the UK, via a quality improvement collaborative, experience-based co-design and targeted efforts to reduce inequalities of access, return to work and peer support; workstream 2 (quantitative research, up to 5000 participants), patient self-management at home, technology-supported monitoring and validation of condition-specific outcome measures and workstream 3 (quantitative research, up to 5000 participants), generalist management in primary care, harnessing electronic record data to study population phenotypes and develop evidence-based decision support, referral pathways and analysis of costs. Study governance includes an active patient advisory group. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: LOng COvid Multidisciplinary consortium Optimising Treatments and servIces acrOss the NHS study is sponsored by the University of Leeds and approved by Yorkshire & The Humber-Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (ref: 21/YH/0276). Participants will provide informed consent. Dissemination plans include academic and lay publications, and partnerships with national and regional policymakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05057260, ISRCTN15022307.

Recommendations for the recognition, diagnosis, and management of long COVID: a Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of research into therapies and care pathways for long COVID, guidance based on 'emerging experience' is needed. AIM: To provide a rapid expert guide for GPs and long COVID clinical services. DESIGN AND SETTING: A Delphi study was conducted with a panel of primary and secondary care doctors. METHOD: Recommendations were generated relating to the investigation and management of long COVID. These were distributed online to a panel of UK doctors (any specialty) with an interest in, lived experience of, and/or experience treating long COVID. Over two rounds of Delphi testing, panellists indicated their agreement with each recommendation (using a five-point Likert scale) and provided comments. Recommendations eliciting a response of 'strongly agree', 'agree', or 'neither agree nor disagree' from 90% or more of responders were taken as showing consensus. RESULTS: Thirty-three clinicians representing 14 specialties reached consensus on 35 recommendations. Chiefly, GPs should consider long COVID in the presence of a wide range of presenting features (not limited to fatigue and breathlessness) and exclude differential diagnoses where appropriate. Detailed history and examination with baseline investigations should be conducted in primary care. Indications for further investigation and specific therapies (for myocarditis, postural tachycardia syndrome, mast cell disorder) include hypoxia/desaturation, chest pain, palpitations, and histamine-related symptoms. Rehabilitation should be individualised, with careful activity pacing (to avoid relapse) and multidisciplinary support. CONCLUSION: Long COVID clinics should operate as part of an integrated care system, with GPs playing a key role in the multidisciplinary team. Holistic care pathways, investigation of specific complications, management of potential symptom clusters, and tailored rehabilitation are needed.

Developing services for long COVID: lessons from a study of wounded healers.

Persistent symptoms lasting longer than 3 weeks are thought to affect 10-20% of patients following SARS-CoV-2 infection. No formal guidelines exist in the UK for treating patients with long COVID and services are sporadic and variable, although additional funding is promised for their development.In this study, narrative interviews and focus groups are used to explore the lived experience of 43 healthcare professionals with long COVID. These individuals see the healthcare system from both professional and patient perspectives, thus represent an important wealth of expertise to inform service design.We present a set of co-designed quality standards, highlighting equity and ease of access, minimal patient care burden, clinical responsibility, a multidisciplinary and evidence-based approach, and patient involvement; and we apply these to propose a potential care pathway model that could be adapted and translated to improve care of patients long COVID.

Persistent symptoms after Covid-19: qualitative study of 114 "long Covid" patients and draft quality principles for services.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 10% of patients with Covid-19 experience symptoms beyond 3-4 weeks. Patients call this "long Covid". We sought to document such patients' lived experience, including accessing and receiving healthcare and ideas for improving services. METHODS: We held 55 individual interviews and 8 focus groups (n = 59) with people recruited from UK-based long Covid patient support groups, social media and snowballing. We restricted some focus groups to health professionals since they had already self-organised into online communities. Participants were invited to tell their stories and comment on others' stories. Data were audiotaped, transcribed, anonymised and coded using NVIVO. Analysis incorporated sociological theories of illness, healing, peer support, clinical relationships, access, and service redesign. RESULTS: Of 114 participants aged 27-73 years, 80 were female. Eighty-four were White British, 13 Asian, 8 White Other, 5 Black, and 4 mixed ethnicity. Thirty-two were doctors and 19 other health professionals. Thirty-one had attended hospital, of whom 8 had been admitted. Analysis revealed a confusing illness with many, varied and often relapsing-remitting symptoms and uncertain prognosis; a heavy sense of loss and stigma; difficulty accessing and navigating services; difficulty being taken seriously and achieving a diagnosis; disjointed and siloed care (including inability to access specialist services); variation in standards (e.g. inconsistent criteria for seeing, investigating and referring patients); variable quality of the therapeutic relationship (some participants felt well supported while others felt "fobbed off"); and possible critical events (e.g. deterioration after being unable to access services). Emotionally significant aspects of participants' experiences informed ideas for improving services. CONCLUSION: Suggested quality principles for a long Covid service include ensuring access to care, reducing burden of illness, taking clinical responsibility and providing continuity of care, multi-disciplinary rehabilitation, evidence-based investigation and management, and further development of the knowledge base and clinical services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04435041.