Post COVID-19 syndrome among 5248 healthcare workers in England: longitudinal findings from NHS CHECK.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to examine post COVID-19 syndrome (PCS) among healthcare workers (HCWs) in England and explore risk factors for the condition. METHODS: Data were collected by National Health Service (NHS) CHECK, a longitudinal study exploring HCWs' mental and physical well-being during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. NHS CHECK collected data at four timepoints: the baseline survey between April 2020 and January 2021, and then three follow-up surveys at approximately 6, 12 and 32 months post baseline. PCS data were collected at 12 and 32 months, while risk factor data were from baseline. HCWs were asked what COVID-19 symptoms they experienced and for how long and were classified as having PCS if they had any symptom for ≥12 weeks. Multilevel regressions were used to examine risk factors for PCS. RESULTS: This study included 5248 HCWs. While 33.6% (n=1730) reported prolonged COVID-19 symptoms consistent with PCS, only 7.4% (n=385) reported a formal diagnosis of PCS. Fatigue, difficult concentrating, insomnia and anxiety or depression were the most common PCS symptoms. Baseline risk factors for reporting PCS included screening for common mental disorders, direct contact with COVID-19 patients, pre-existing respiratory illnesses, female sex and older age. CONCLUSIONS: While a third of HCWs reported prolonged COVID-19 symptoms consistent with PCS, a smaller percentage reported a formal diagnosis of the condition. We replicate findings that direct contact with COVID-19 patients, older age, female sex, pre-existing respiratory illness and symptoms of common mental disorders are associated with increased risk of PCS.

Long COVID among healthcare workers: a narrative review of definitions, prevalence, symptoms, risk factors and impacts.

INTRODUCTION: Long COVID (LC) occurs when people experience symptoms for weeks, months or even years after a COVID-19 infection. This review looks at research exploring the LC definitions, prevalence, symptoms, risk factors, and associated impacts in research on healthcare workers (HCWs). DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched five electronic databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, PsycInfo and PubMed) and compiled a narrative literature review based on 56 relevant studies. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: LC is prevalent among HCWs who become infected by COVID-19. Many of the most frequent symptoms associated with LC in the general population are also reported among HCWs. Some risk factors for LC are also similar to those in the general population, such as female sex, older age, and having a pre-existing respiratory illness. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: The mechanism(s) responsible for LC remains unknown. A variety of terms, timeframes and symptoms are used to define LC, creating difficulties in comparing results across studies. Much of the research is cross-sectional and fails to explore the impacts that prolonged symptoms have on HCWs' personal and professional lives. GROWING POINTS: The need to support HCWs with LC is clear. Identifying the mechanism(s) responsible for LC is a key priority, as this will inform treatments. AREAS FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Future research should move towards a standard definition for LC. Greater attention should be paid to longitudinal and qualitative studies, which could give insights into prognosis, lived experience and work participation. Finally, studies evaluating treatments suitable for people with LC are timely.

"I suppose we've all been on a bit of a journey": a qualitative study on providers' lived experiences with liberalised abortion care in the Republic of Ireland.

The aim of this study was to explore service providers' lived experiences with abortion care in the Republic of Ireland following liberalisation in 2018 via public referendum. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews conducted between February 2020 and March 2021. Thirteen interviews were completed with providers who were directly involved in caring for patients accessing liberalised abortion care in the Republic of Ireland. The sample includes six general practitioners, three midwives, two obstetricians, and two nurses. Interpretative phenomenological analysis identified five super-ordinate themes in the providers' lived experiences: (1) public reactions to liberalised abortion care; (2) lessons from the service implementation; (3) getting involved in abortion care; (4) moments of moral doubt; and (5) remaining committed to the provision of care. Following liberalisation, providers recalled isolated experiences with anti-abortion sentiments, particularly from those who continue to oppose abortion care. They believed that implementation has been mostly successful in delivering a safe, robust, and accessible service in general practice, though identified ongoing challenges in Irish hospitals. Personally, the providers supported access to care and began providing because they perceived a duty to facilitate access to care. Many, however, reported occasional moral doubts about their work. Despite these, none had considered leaving abortion care and all were proud of their work. They said that patients' stories were a constant reminder about the importance of safe abortion care. Further work is required to ensure that abortion is fully integrated and normalised and that all providers and patients have access to supports.

Development and Validation of a Clinical Risk Score to Predict Hospitalization Within 30 Days of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Diagnosis.

INTRODUCTION: Early identification of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who are at risk for hospitalization may help to mitigate disease burden by allowing healthcare systems to conduct sufficient resource and logistical planning in the event of case surges. We sought to develop and validate a clinical risk score that uses readily accessible information at testing to predict individualized 30-day hospitalization risk following COVID-19 diagnosis. METHODS: We assembled a retrospective cohort of U.S. Veterans Health Administration patients (age ≥ 18 years) diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. We screened patient characteristics using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator logistic regression and constructed the risk score using characteristics identified as most predictive for hospitalization. Patients diagnosed before November 1, 2020, comprised the development cohort, while those diagnosed on or after November 1, 2020, comprised the validation cohort. We assessed risk score discrimination by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve and calibration using the Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL) goodness-of-fit test. This study was approved by the Veteran's Institutional Review Board of Northern New England at the White River Junction Veterans Affairs Medical Center (Reference no.:1473972-1). RESULTS: The development and validation cohorts comprised 11,473 and 12,970 patients, of whom 4,465 (38.9%) and 3,669 (28.3%) were hospitalized, respectively. The independent predictors for hospitalization included in the risk score were increasing age, male sex, non-white race, Hispanic ethnicity, homelessness, nursing home/long-term care residence, unemployed or retired status, fever, fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, cough, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Model discrimination and calibration was good for the development (AUROC = 0.80; HL P-value = .05) and validation (AUROC = 0.80; HL P-value = .31) cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The prediction tool developed in this study demonstrated that it could identify patients with COVID-19 who are at risk for hospitalization. This could potentially inform clinicians and policymakers of patients who may benefit most from early treatment interventions and help healthcare systems anticipate capacity surges.

Experiences and outcomes of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller women in pregnancy: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities are subjected to a specific form of racism fuelled by deep-seated prejudice and stereotypes. These groups have historically been the victims of school segregation, forced assimilation policies, hate speech and hate crimes.Persecution and displacement have resulted in high rates of unemployment, reduced access to education and poorer health in general, which places these groups at significantly increased risk of poverty. In pregnancy, they are at increased risk of adverse obstetric outcomes. There is a gap in the literature surrounding the experiences and outcomes of pregnant women within this group. A scoping review was chosen as the appropriate methodology to identify what is known about the experiences and outcomes of pregnant women in these communities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Levac et al guideline on conducting a scoping review will be followed. This six-step approach includes identification of the research question, identification of relevant studies, selection of studies, charting of data, summary of results and consultation with experiential experts. A comprehensive search of the following electronic databases from 1980 to 2021 will be conducted: CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science. Relevant grey literature and reference lists will also be searched. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) tool will be used. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was not required for this protocol as all literature within this scoping review are publicly available. To facilitate dissemination of findings, the research team will present the findings to key stakeholders working with Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities.

Women's experience of pregnancy and birth during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed how maternity care services are provided worldwide. To contain the virus, many providers reduced the number of face-to-face visits for women. In addition, partner attendance was prohibited in many circumstances to protect staff, and other service users, from potential infection. AIMS: To explore women's experience of pregnancy and birth in the Republic of Ireland during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A qualitative study with 14 women was conducted using a grounded theory approach. Data were collected between April and July 2020, and in-depth interviews were conducted either in pregnancy or in the first 12 weeks after the birth. RESULTS: Six categories emerged: loss of normality, navigating "new" maternity care systems, partners as bystanders, balancing information, uncertainty, and unexpected benefits of pregnancy during the pandemic. While benefits were reported (working from home and additional time spent with partners during the "fourth trimester"), in general, the themes were of increased anxiety and uncertainty. CONCLUSION: The pandemic caused additional anxiety for pregnant women. This was exacerbated by uncertainty about the effects of COVID-19 on pregnancy and unclear messaging about restrictions. More interactive and personalized communication is required to support women to cope with uncertainty during a pandemic. The birth partner plays an important role as an advocate for women and excluding them from pregnancy care caused additional anxiety for pregnant women. Containment strategies for a pandemic should be developed with this in mind, to view the family as a unit rather than the woman in isolation.

Exploring providers' experience of stigma following the introduction of more liberal abortion care in the Republic of Ireland.

OBJECTIVE: To explore if abortion care providers in the Republic of Ireland experience abortion-related stigma. STUDY DESIGN: The survey was distributed to abortion care providers working in community and hospital units nationwide. We measured stigma using the 35-item version of the Abortion Providers Stigma Scale (APSS). We also collected data on demography, professional involvement in providing abortion care, and risk of burnout (measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory). RESULTS: Of the 309 providers invited to take part, 156 (50.5%) completed the survey between January to May 2020. The sample reported a mean score of 70.9 on the total scale of the APSS. This was comparable with the scores of providers in a Massachusetts-based study but was lower than a sample of providers from across the USA. Linear regression analyses found that the Irish hospital-based obstetricians (b = 10.51, 95% CI 3.16-17.86) and midwives/nurses (b = 10.88, 95% CI 2.3-19.47) reported higher stigma than their colleagues working in general practice. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing the scores of the current sample to published studies highlight the factors that may drive stigma in the Irish context. The Irish providers reported fewer issues in disclosing their abortion work than providers in the USA, which may be explained as they also reported fewer experiences of judgment and discrimination. They did, however, report higher levels of social isolation. Additionally, the findings suggest that providing surgical and/or later-gestation abortion care and providing within the hospital environment may present additional challenges for staff which increase level of stigma. IMPLICATIONS: Despite widespread support for the expansion of the abortion care services, providers in Ireland still experience stigma related to this work. Our findings suggest that Irish providers, particularly those working in hospitals, may benefit from supports to reduce abortion-related isolation and challenges posed by collegial interactions or later-gestation care.

A comparison of radiographic leg-length and offset discrepancies between 2 intraoperative measurement techniques in anterior total hip arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Anterior total hip arthroplasty (THA) allows the use of intraoperative fluoroscopy to assess leg-length and offset discrepancies. Two techniques to accomplish this are the transverse rod method and the radiographic overlay method. The aim of this study was to determine if they are equally effective options for minimizing postoperative radiologic discrepancies. METHODS: We completed a retrospective cohort study comparing 106 anterior THAs from 1 surgeon using the transverse rod technique to 94 anterior THAs from another surgeon using the radiograph overlay technique. Radiographic leg-length discrepancy (LLD) and offset discrepancy (OD) were measured independently on postoperative radiographs. Parametric, nonparametric, and categorical statistical tests were used to compare LLD and OD between groups. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The mean LLD of 4.8 mm in the radiograph overlay group was not significantly different from the 4.4 mm mean discrepancy in the transverse rod group (P = .424), and the rates of LLD < 5 mm and LLD < 10 mm were not significantly different (P = .772, P = .179). The mean OD of 5.1 mm in the radiograph overlay group was not significantly different from the 4.8 mm mean discrepancy in the transverse rod group (P = .668), and there was no significant difference in the rates of OD < 5 mm and OD < 10 mm (P = .488, P = .878). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference between the measured LLD and OD by the 2 surgeons, suggesting that the techniques are equally effective options.

Are Barbed Sutures Associated With 90-day Reoperation Rates After Primary TKA?

BACKGROUND: Studies have suggested that barbed sutures for wound closure in TKAs are an acceptable alternative to standard methods. However others have observed a higher risk of wound-related complications with barbed sutures. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do 90-day TKA reoperation rates differ between patients undergoing a barbed suture arthrotomy closure compared with a traditional interrupted closure? (2) Do the 90-day reoperation rates of wound-related, deep infection, and arthrotomy failure complications differ between barbed suture and traditional closures? METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a longitudinally maintained institutional primary TKA database was conducted on all TKAs performed between April 2011 and September 2015. We compared 884 primary TKAs, where the arthrotomy was closed with a barbed suture, with 1598 primary TKAs closed with the standard interrupted suture. After barbed sutures were introduced at our institution in 2012, the majority of surgeons gradually switched to barbed suture closures, with many using them exclusively by the end of the data collection period. We confirmed in-person followups and available data past 90 days for 97.4% (1556 of 1598) of the knees in patients with standard sutures and 94.8% (838 of 884) of the knees in patients with barbed sutures. Our primary endpoint was all-cause 90-day reoperation; our secondary endpoints considered: wound-related reoperation, as defined by previous studies; deep infection per Musculoskeletal Infection Society guidelines; and arthrotomy failure, defined intraoperatively as an opening or dehiscence through the previous arthrotomy closure. T tests and chi-square analyses were used to determine differences between the suture cohorts, and bivariate logistic regression was used to determine associations with our 90-day reoperation outcomes. RESULTS: With the numbers available, there was no association between suture type and 90-day all-cause reoperation (odds ratio [OR], 1.70; 95% CI, 0.82-3.53; p = 0.156). Suture type was not associated with wound-related reoperation (OR, 2.73; 95% CI, 0.97-7.69; p = 0.058). A 0.6% (five of 884) arthrotomy failure rate was observed in the barbed cohort while no (0 of 1598) arthrotomy failures were noted in the traditional group (p = 0.003). Deep infections were rare in both groups (two of 884 barbed sutures, 0 of 1598 standard sutures) and could not be compared. CONCLUSIONS: Although we saw no difference in overall and wound-related 90-day reoperation rates by suture type with the numbers available, we observed a higher frequency in our secondary question of arthrotomy failures when barbed sutures are used for arthrotomy closure during TKA. Given the widespread use of this closure technique, our preliminary pilot results warrant further investigation in larger multicenter cohorts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Analyses of Pretherapy Peripheral Immunoscore and Response to Vaccine Therapy.

Tumor immunoscore analyses, especially for primary colorectal cancer and melanoma lesions, provide valuable prognostic information. Metastatic lesions of many carcinoma types, however, are often not easily accessible. We hypothesized that immune cells in peripheral blood may differ among individual patients with metastatic disease, which, in turn, may influence their response to immunotherapy. We thus analyzed immune cell subsets within peripheral blood mononuclear cells to determine if a "peripheral immunoscore" could have any prognostic significance for patients before receiving immunotherapy. Patients with metastatic breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive docetaxel ± PANVAC vaccine. In another trial, prostate cancer patients with metastatic bone lesions were randomly assigned to receive a bone-seeking radionuclide ± PROSTVAC vaccine. Predefined analyses of "classic" immune cell types (CD4, CD8, natural killer cells, regulatory T cells, myeloid-derived suppressor cells, and ratios) revealed no differences in progression-free survival (PFS) for either arm in both trials. Predefined analyses of refined immune cell subsets for which a biologic function had been previously reported also showed no significant prognostic value in PFS for patients receiving either docetaxel or radionuclide alone; however, in patients receiving these agents in combination with vaccine, the peripheral immunoscore of refined subsets revealed statistically significant differences in PFS (P < 0.001) for breast cancer patients receiving docetaxel plus vaccine, and in prostate cancer patients receiving radionuclide plus vaccine (P = 0.004). Larger randomized studies will be required to validate these findings. These studies, however, provide the rationale for the evaluation of refined immune cell subsets to help determine which patients may benefit most from immunotherapy. Cancer Immunol Res; 4(9); 755-65. ©2016 AACR.