Do Non-COVID-19 Patients' Behaviour Towards Emergency Changed During the COVID-19 Outbreak? A Severity-Based Approach.

Objective: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) declined. The main goal of this study was to compare and describe the non-COVID-19 patient's disease severity presentation during the pandemic with its pre-pandemic severity. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study. We selected two samples of visits: one during the first COVID-19 wave of 2020 (pandemic period, PP) and the other during the same months of 2019 (control period, CP). The primary endpoints were the comparison of severity and distribution of the Emergency Severity Index (ESI). Secondary endpoints were comparisons of specific patient characteristics (age, sex, length of the symptoms before the visits, spontaneous visits or not, return home or not). Results: The mean ESI of the visits during the PP (3.19) was statistically significantly lower (P = 0.001) than it was in the CP (3.43). These changes were more pronounced during the months of March (3.03 versus 3.33, P = 0.037) and April (2.96 versus 3.48, P < 0.001). The change in ESI was mainly due to an increase in the proportion of visits by patients with an ESI score of 3 (42% versus 28%, P < 0.001). There were no differences in the characteristics of patients except a decline in patients whose symptoms had a duration of more than 30 days (2% during PP versus 4% during CP, P = 0.03). Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic caused a change in the pattern of non-COVID-19 visits, with proportionally more severe presentations based on the ESI. To our knowledge, this is the first description of changes in behaviour in ED visits by specifically non-COVID-19 patients.

Understanding junior doctors' experiences of teaching on the acute take: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: New medical graduates are significantly unprepared to manage acutely unwell patients due to limited first-hand clinical exposure in the undergraduate curriculum. Supporting undergraduate learning in the acute setting can be challenging for junior doctors when balancing teaching and clinical responsibilities. Our aim was to explore junior doctors' first-hand experiences of supporting undergraduate education in the acute admissions environment(take). METHODS: Fourteen junior doctors in one teaching hospital in South West England took part in semi-structured focus groups (4-6 participants in each) which were audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Junior doctors described their educational role as comprising: teaching, demonstrating, coaching, and supervising. They perceived the acute take as a highly variable, unpredictable setting that offered a broad scope for learning. Tensions between doctors' clinical and educational roles were described, influenced by internal and external factors. Clinical work was prioritised over teaching and participants lacked confidence in supervisory and clinical skills. Doctors felt pressured to meet students' expectations and lacked understanding of their educational needs. Senior colleagues were highly influential in establishing an educational culture and were often a source of pressure to deliver timely clinical care. Organisations were perceived not to value teaching due to the lack of provision of dedicated teaching time and prioritisation of limited resources towards patient care. Participants managed tensions by attempting to formally separate roles, demoting students to passive observers, and they sought greater continuity in placements to better understand students' abilities and expectations. CONCLUSIONS: Educational opportunities for undergraduate students on the acute take are varied and highly valuable. This study provides insight into the provision of workplace education and its challenges from junior doctors' perspectives. We highlight areas for improvement of relevance to educational providers.

Can an ethics officer role reduce delays in research ethics approval? A mixed-method evaluation of an improvement project.

OBJECTIVE: Frustration continues to be directed at delays in gaining approvals for undertaking health research in the UK. We aimed to evaluate the impact of an ethics officer intervention on rates of favourable opinions (approval) and provisional opinions (requiring revision and resubmission) and on the time taken to reach a final opinion by research ethics committees (RECs), to characterise how the role operated in practice, and to investigate applicants' views. DESIGN: Mixed-method study involving (i) a 2-group, non-randomised before-and-after intervention study of RECs assigned an ethics officer and a matched comparator group; (ii) a process evaluation involving a survey of applicants and documentary analysis. PARTICIPANTS: 6 RECs and 3 associated ethics officers; 18 comparator RECs; REC applicants. RESULTS: Rates of provisional and favourable opinions between ethics officer and comparator RECs did not show a statistically significant effect of the intervention (logistic regression, p=0.26 for favourable opinions and p=0.31 for provisional opinions). Mean time to reach a decision showed a non-significant reduction (ANOVA, p=0.22) from 33.3 to 32.0 days in the ethics officer RECs compared with the comparator RECs (32.6 to 32.9 days). The survey (30% response rate) indicated applicant satisfaction and also suggested that ethics officer support might be more useful before submission. Ethics officers were successful in identifying many issues with applications, but the intervention did not function exactly as designed: in 31% of applicants, no contact between the applicants and the ethics officer took place before REC review. LIMITATIONS: This study was a non-randomised comparison cohort study. Some data were missing. CONCLUSIONS: An ethics officer intervention, as designed and implemented in this study, did not increase the proportion of applications to RECs that were approved on first review and did not reduce the time to a committee decision.

Patients' adherence-related beliefs about methotrexate: a qualitative study of the role of written patient information.

OBJECTIVES: Methotrexate is effective in treating inflammatory arthritis, but both underadherence and overadherence can put patients at risk. Patients may fail to adhere due to practicalities including the unusual weekly dosing regimen, but medication beliefs also play a role. This study explored how both beliefs about necessity and concerns about methotrexate become established in patients with inflammatory arthritis and how patients use information in managing their beliefs and concerns. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews were conducted with patients taking oral methotrexate for inflammatory arthritis. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. SETTING: Participants were recruited from a single Trust in the East Midlands. PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen patients (4 male, 11 female) with inflammatory arthritis. RESULTS: Methotrexate was commonly prescribed at the time of diagnosis; at this point, experience of illness was influential for beliefs about medication necessity. Following prescription, patients absorbed information from written and verbal sources which reinforced beliefs about necessity but also raised concerns, including fear of side effects. Over time, beliefs were modified on the basis of personal experience, particularly of medication effectiveness and side effects. Some patients described tensions and dissonance in their beliefs and experiences of methotrexate, which put them at risk of non-adherence. Patients used information-seeking and information-avoidance as strategies to resolve these tensions. The available information did little to help suppress dissonance and sometimes exacerbated it. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' experiences of coming to terms with taking methotrexate are complex, and their experiences of dissonance are particularly problematic. Experiences might be improved by supporting patients to assess necessity (particularly in the presence of side effects) and by providing information to moderate unnecessary concerns. Improving recording and sharing of monitoring results may be one way to meet these needs.