Dataset Information

Response of UK interventional radiologists to the COVID-19 pandemic - survey findings.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented effect upon the National Health Service (NHS). Like other specialties, Interventional Radiology (IR) rapidly adapted to the evolving situation. Members of BSIR were surveyed to obtain a snapshot of the experiences of UK IRs in response to COVID-19. An electronic survey was compiled using Google Forms, approved by the BSIR Council Officers and distributed to BSIR members by email on 18 ^th April 2020. A total of 228 responses were received. The survey was open for a 14-day period and the data analysed in Microsoft Excel 365. The response rate was 29% (228/800).

Results

Two thirds of respondents work in a Tertiary unit and 33% deliver IR in a District Hospital. 84% have a day-case facility. After the COVID-19 crisis, 81% of respondents were able to maintain 24-7 On-call service. 59% of respondents had been required change their day to day practice to allow the on-call service to continue. 55% of respondents were involved in providing a central line service. Of those questioned, 91% continued to offer endovascular services, 98% genitourinary and 92% hepatobiliary services, although a degree of service reduction was described. 38% have provided IR trainees with additional training material during this pandemic.

Conclusions

This survey has confirmed that the responses of UK IR departments to the COVID-19 crisis have ensured vital on-call and urgent services have continued, including ongoing availability of most IR sub-specialties. Availability of a day case facility has possibly influenced the positive response.

SUBMITTER: Rostampour S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7317887 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundServices for patients with kidney disease underwent radical adaptations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We undertook an online national survey of UK kidney centres to understand the nature, range, and degree of variation in these changes and to explore factors contributing to differing practice.MethodsThe survey was designed by a multidisciplinary team of kidney professionals, service users and researchers. It enquired about centre services and staffing, including psychosocial provision, and changes to these in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Links to the survey were sent to all 68 UK kidney centres and remained active from December 2021 to April 2022, and a revised version to nurses in late 2022 for additional data. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Content analysis on free-text responses identified common themes.ResultsAnalysable responses were received from 41 out of the 68 UK centres (60%), with partial data from an additional 7 (11%). Adaptations were system-wide and affected all aspects of service provision. Some changes were almost universal such as virtual consultations for outpatient appointments, with significant variation in others. Outpatient activity varied from fully maintained to suspended. Many centres reduced peritoneal dialysis access provision but in some this was increased. Centres considered that changes to transplant surgical services and for patients with advanced CKD approaching end-stage kidney disease had the greatest impact on patients. Few centres implemented adjustments aimed at vulnerable and underrepresented groups, including the frail elderly, people with language and communication needs, and those with mental health needs. Communication issues were attributed to rapid evolution of the pandemic, changing planning guidance and lack of resources. Staffing shortages, involving all staff groups particularly nurses, mainly due to COVID-19 infection and redeployment, were compounded by deficiencies in staffing establishments and high vacancy levels. Centres cited three main lessons influencing future service delivery, the need for service redesign, improvements in communication, and better support for staff.ConclusionKidney centre responses to the pandemic involved adaptations across the whole service. Though some changes were almost universal, there was wide variation in other areas. Exploring the role of centre characteristics may help planning for potential future severe service disruptions.

Project description:Background: Lower socioeconomic groups and disadvantaged populations across the world suffer disproportionately from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study aimed to examine the impact of health- and social-inequality-related factors on well-being in order to further distinguish each of their effects during the pandemic. Methods: A nationally-representative sample of 5077 UK respondents aged 18 years or older was recruited through an online survey panel during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their subjective well-being was measured using the 11-point Cantril Ladder of Life Scale. The impact of inequality-related health and social factors (pre-existing medical conditions, household size and occupation), as well as COVID-19-related risk factors (symptoms, confirmed infections, and social distancing behaviours) on well-being were analysed using multiple linear regression models. The associations between the COVID-19-related risk factors and well-being according to the respondents' household size and occupation were modelled in order to test the differences by their socioeconomic profile. Results: We identified inverted V-shaped associations between household size and subjective well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to single-person households, respondents from households of two to four persons showed better well-being (β = 0.57; CI (0.44, 0.72)), whereas living in crowded households of five persons or more was associated with decreased well-being (β = -0.48; CI (-0.71, -0.25)). Furthermore, lower-skilled occupations (elementary occupations: β = -0.31; CI (-0.58, -0.03); logistics and transport services: β = -0.37; CI (-0.74, -0.01)) and chronic medical conditions (cardiometabolic or respiratory diseases: β = -0.25; CI (-0.41, -0.1); and mental health conditions: β = -1.12; CI (-1.28, -0.96)) were factors associated with reduced well-being during the pandemic. Interactions between a positive COVID-19 diagnosis, symptoms, and crowded households were identified (β = -0.95; CI (-1.76, -0.14) and β = -4.74; CI (-9.87, -1.61), respectively). Conclusions: In a national sample, the levels of general subjective well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns were disproportionately distributed across different groups within society. Preventive policies should explicitly focus on reaching lower socioeconomic groups; more emphasis should be placed on the coordination of multisectoral support in order to tackle existing health and social inequalities.