Project description:IntroductionThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has created unprecedented challenges on the healthcare system. The aim of this multi-centre study was to measure the impact of COVID-19 on IR services in the UK.Material and methodsRetrospective cross-sectional study of IR practice in six UK centres during the COVID-19 pandemic was carried out. All therapeutic IR procedures were identified using the respective hospital radiology information systems and COVID-19 status found on the hospital patient record systems. The total number of therapeutic IR procedures was recorded over two time periods, 25/03/2019-21/04/2019 (control group) and 30/03/2020-26/04/2020 (COVID-19 group). The data points collected were: procedure type, aerosol-generating nature, acute or elective case, modality used, in- or out-of-hours case and whether the procedure was done at the bedside (portable).ResultsA 31% decrease in overall number of IR procedures was observed during COVID-19 compared to the control group (1363 cases vs 942 cases); however, the acute work decreased by only 0.5%. An increase in out-of-hours work by 10% was observed. COVID-19 was suspected or laboratory proved in 9.9% of cases (n = 93), and 15% of total cases (n = 141) were classed as aerosol-generating procedures. A 66% rise in cholecystostomy was noted during COVID-19. Image-guided ablation, IVC filters, aortic stent grafting and visceral vascular stenting had the greatest % decreases in practice during COVID-19, with 91.7%, 83.3%, 80.8% and 80.2% decreases, respectively.ConclusionDuring the global pandemic, IR has continued to provide emergency and elective treatment highlighting the adaptability of IR in supporting other specialties.
Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to assess the impact of multiple COVID-19 waves on UK gynaecological-oncology services.MethodsAn online survey was distributed to all UK-British-Gynaecological-Cancer-Society members during three COVID-19 waves from 2020 to2022.ResultsIn total, 51 hospitals (including 32 cancer centres) responded to Survey 1, 42 hospitals (29 centres) to Survey 2, and 39 hospitals (30 centres) to Survey 3. During the first wave, urgent referrals reportedly fell by a median of 50% (IQR = 25-70%). In total, 49% hospitals reported reduced staffing, and the greatest was noted for trainee doctors, by a median of 40%. Theatre capacity was reduced by a median of 40%. A median of 30% of planned operations was postponed. Multidisciplinary meetings were completely virtual in 39% and mixed in 65% of the total. A median of 75% of outpatient consultations were remote. By the second wave, fewer hospitals reported staffing reductions, and there was a return to pre-pandemic urgent referrals and multidisciplinary workloads. Theatre capacity was reduced by a median of 10%, with 5% of operations postponed. The third wave demonstrated worsening staff reductions similar to Wave 1, primarily from sickness. Pre-pandemic levels of urgent referrals/workload continued, with little reduction in surgical capacity.ConclusionCOVID-19 led to a significant disruption of gynaecological-cancer care across the UK, including reduced staffing, urgent referrals, theatre capacity, and working practice changes. Whilst disruption eased and referrals/workloads returned to normal, significant staff shortages remained in 2022, highlighting persistent capacity constraints.
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has impacted children and young people experiencing child abuse and neglect. Child Protective Services (CPS) has played an important role in supporting children and families during the COVID-19 pandemic. Few studies to-date have evaluated the impact of the pandemic on CPS caseworkers and administrators in the United States.ObjectivesWe conducted interviews to explore CPS caseworkers' and administrators' experiences working and serving families during the pandemic.MethodsParticipants were U.S.-based CPS caseworkers and administrators. We conducted semi-structured virtual interviews with participants and used an inductive thematic analysis approach.ResultsWe conducted 37 interviews. Participants discussed how the COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way they conduct investigations and provide services to families in the CPS system. Several services were adapted to occur virtually, providing challenges and unique opportunities. Participants also described the personal barriers they faced during the pandemic, including working remotely, experiencing burnout, and challenges obtaining personal protective equipment. Finally, participants shared creative solutions they engaged in to support children and families during the COVID-19 pandemic, including expanding collaborations with other community-based organizations.DiscussionThis study suggests the important role that CPS has played during the pandemic and challenges individual CPS workers felt, in terms of both experiencing burnout and difficulty obtaining personalized protective equipment. Inclusion of the CPS system in emergency preparedness planning for future pandemics or natural disasters will ensure continuation of these vital services.
Project description:We aimed to investigate the management of urgent dental care, the perception of risk and workplace preparedness among dental staff in Norway during the COVID-19 pandemic. An electronic questionnaire regarding the strictest confinement period in Norway (13 March-17 April 2020) was distributed to dental staff. Among the 1237 respondents, 727 (59%) treated patients, of whom 170 (14%) worked in clinics designated to treat patients suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19. Out of them 88% (143) received training and 64% (103) simulation in additional infection prevention procedures, while 27 (24%) respondents reported deviation. In total, 1051 (85%) respondents perceived that dental staff had a high risk of being infected, 1039 (84%) that their workplace handled the current situation well, 767 (62%) that their workplace had adequate infection control equipment and 507 (41%) agreed that their workplace is well equipped to handle an escalation. Before an appointment, 1182 (96%) respondents always/often inquired per phone information if a patient experienced symptoms of COVID-19, and 1104 (89%) asked about a history of travel to affected areas. Twice as many patients on average per week were treated by phone than in a clinic. A lower proportion of dental staff in high incidence counties applied additional infection prevention measures compared to low and medium incidence counties. To conclude, urgent dental health care was managed relatively well in Norway. Additional training of the dental staff in adequate infection prevention and step-by-step procedures may be needed. These results may be used to improve the dental health service's response to future outbreaks.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organisation on 11 March 2020. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of COVID-19 on orthopaedic practice and training in the UK. METHODS:Surgeons throughout UK hospitals were asked to complete an electronic survey relating to orthopaedic practice and training in their hospital. The nationwide survey was conducted during the first peak of COVID-19 cases in the UK between 20 March 2020 and 20 April 2020. RESULTS:All 202 UK participants reported disruption to their daily practice. 91% reported all elective operating had been cancelled and trauma continued as normal in only 24% of cases. 70% reported disruption to trauma operating. Elective clinic capacity significantly reduced with no elective clinics running as normal. 55% reported their elective clinics completely cancelled, whilst 38% reported elective clinics running at a reduced capacity, with non-urgent appointments postponed. Only 9% of fracture clinics ran as normal, and 69% had a reduced service. 67% reported teaching and study leave cancelled. Significantly, 69% of participants felt the pandemic would result in a delay to completion of registrar training programmes. CONCLUSION:This is the first nationwide survey assessing the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 on UK orthopaedic practice and training, during the peak of the pandemic. It highlights the scale of the challenge ahead for the specialty, including during the recovery phase and post-recovery phase of the pandemic.
Project description:Objective To monitor hospital activity for presentation, diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular diseases during the COVID-19) pandemic to inform on indirect effects. Methods Retrospective serial cross-sectional study in nine UK hospitals using hospital activity data from 28 October 2019 (pre-COVID-19) to 10 May 2020 (pre-easing of lockdown) and for the same weeks during 2018–2019. We analysed aggregate data for selected cardiovascular diseases before and during the epidemic. We produced an online visualisation tool to enable near real-time monitoring of trends. Results Across nine hospitals, total admissions and emergency department (ED) attendances decreased after lockdown (23 March 2020) by 57.9% (57.1%–58.6%) and 52.9% (52.2%–53.5%), respectively, compared with the previous year. Activity for cardiac, cerebrovascular and other vascular conditions started to decline 1–2 weeks before lockdown and fell by 31%–88% after lockdown, with the greatest reductions observed for coronary artery bypass grafts, carotid endarterectomy, aortic aneurysm repair and peripheral arterial disease procedures. Compared with before the first UK COVID-19 (31 January 2020), activity declined across diseases and specialties between the first case and lockdown (total ED attendances relative reduction (RR) 0.94, 0.93–0.95; total hospital admissions RR 0.96, 0.95–0.97) and after lockdown (attendances RR 0.63, 0.62–0.64; admissions RR 0.59, 0.57–0.60). There was limited recovery towards usual levels of some activities from mid-April 2020. Conclusions Substantial reductions in total and cardiovascular activities are likely to contribute to a major burden of indirect effects of the pandemic, suggesting they should be monitored and mitigated urgently.
Project description:BackgroundThe indirect impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer outcomes is of increasing concern. However, the extent to which key treatment modalities have been affected is unclear. We aimed to assess the impact of the pandemic on radiotherapy activity in England.MethodsIn this population-based study, data relating to all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the English NHS, between Feb 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020, were extracted from the National Radiotherapy Dataset. Changes in mean weekly radiotherapy courses, attendances (reflecting fractions), and fractionation patterns following the start of the UK lockdown were compared with corresponding months in 2019 overall, for specific diagnoses, and across age groups. The significance of changes in radiotherapy activity during lockdown was examined using interrupted time-series (ITS) analysis.FindingsIn 2020, mean weekly radiotherapy courses fell by 19·9% in April, 6·2% in May, and 11·6% in June compared with corresponding months in 2019. A relatively greater fall was observed for attendances (29·1% in April, 31·4% in May, and 31·5% in June). These changes were significant on ITS analysis (p<0·0001). A greater reduction in treatment courses between 2019 and 2020 was seen for patients aged 70 years or older compared with those aged younger than 70 years (34·4% vs 7·3% in April). By diagnosis, the largest reduction from 2019 to 2020 in treatment courses was for prostate cancer (77·0% in April) and non-melanoma skin cancer (72·4% in April). Conversely, radiotherapy courses in April, 2020, compared with April, 2019, increased by 41·2% in oesophageal cancer, 64·2% in bladder cancer, and 36·3% in rectal cancer. Increased use of ultra-hypofractionated (26 Gy in five fractions) breast radiotherapy as a percentage of all courses (0·2% in April, 2019, to 60·6% in April, 2020; ITS p<0·0001) contributed to the substantial reduction in attendances.InterpretationRadiotherapy activity fell significantly, but use of hypofractionated regimens rapidly increased in the English NHS during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. An increase in treatments for some cancers suggests that radiotherapy compensated for reduced surgical activity. These data will assist health-care providers in understanding the indirect consequences of the pandemic and the role of radiotherapy services in minimising these consequences.FundingNone.
Project description:BackgroundIncreased psychological pressure on oral healthcare professionals (OHP) due to COVID-19 has been shown, yet little is known about the long-term psychological impacts. We aimed to study the psychological impact of COVID-19 and associated factors including perceived risk and preparedness and vaccination status among OHP in the first year after the lockdown period in Norway.MethodsA structured questionnaire sent electronically to dentists, dental hygienists and dental assistants inquired experiences and perceptions during the second year following the outbreak in Norway. The questionnaire comprised a COVID-19 fear scale and questions about risk perception, preparedness and vaccination status. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) were used to assess psychological impact, perception of risk and preparedness according to vaccination status of the respondents.ResultsThe majority of the 708 respondents were female (92.8%), had ten or more years of work experience (67.1%), and worked in public dental clinics (95.9%). Fears and concerns related to COVID-19 were common, 72.6% feared getting infected and 85.4% feared infecting others. Of the 642 respondents who agreed that their workplaces handled the situation well, 55.6% were fully vaccinated. Three factors were retrieved from EFA: Insecurity, Instability and Infection. SEM showed that females were more concerned with Infection, and respondents with long clinical experience were less likely to express fear about Instability. Fully vaccinated individuals felt more insecure about becoming infected, and those agreeing that their workplaces handled the current situation well were concerned with Insecurity.ConclusionsDespite widespread perception of adequate preparedness and high vaccine coverage, a considerable psychological impact and high levels of fear of COVID-19 were observed among the majority of OHP. Fully vaccinated individuals had a larger psychological burden than not fully vaccinated and those with unknown vaccination status. These findings can inform means and interventions to reduce negative impacts of fear in populations with a high psychological burden.
Project description:Between October 2020 and January 2021, we conducted three national surveys to track anaesthetic, surgical and critical care activity during the second COVID-19 pandemic wave in the UK. We surveyed all NHS hospitals where surgery is undertaken. Response rates, by round, were 64%, 56% and 51%. Despite important regional variations, the surveys showed increasing systemic pressure on anaesthetic and peri-operative services due to the need to support critical care pandemic demands. During Rounds 1 and 2, approximately one in eight anaesthetic staff were not available for anaesthetic work. Approximately one in five operating theatres were closed and activity fell in those that were open. Some mitigation was achieved by relocation of surgical activity to other locations. Approximately one-quarter of all surgical activity was lost, with paediatric and non-cancer surgery most impacted. During January 2021, the system was largely overwhelmed. Almost one-third of anaesthesia staff were unavailable, 42% of operating theatres were closed, national surgical activity reduced to less than half, including reduced cancer and emergency surgery. Redeployed anaesthesia staff increased the critical care workforce by 125%. Three-quarters of critical care units were so expanded that planned surgery could not be safely resumed. At all times, the greatest resource limitation was staff. Due to lower response rates from the most pressed regions and hospitals, these results may underestimate the true impact. These findings have important implications for understanding what has happened during the COVID-19 pandemic, planning recovery and building a system that will better respond to future waves or new epidemics.