Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background COVID-19 caused disruption to healthcare services globally, resulting in high numbers of hospital admissions and with those discharged often requiring ongoing support. Within the UK, post-discharge services typically developed organically and were shaped over time by local need, funding, and government guidance. Drawing on the Moments of Resilience framework, we explore the development of follow-up services for hospitalised patients by considering the links between resilience at different system levels over time. This study contributes to the resilient healthcare literature by providing empirical evidence of how diverse stakeholders developed and adapted services for patients following hospitalisation with COVID-19 and how action taken at one system level influenced another. Methods Qualitative research comprising comparative case studies based on interviews. Across three purposively selected case studies (two in England, one in Wales) a total of 33 semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinical staff, managers and commissioners who had been involved in developing and/or implementing post-hospitalisation follow-up services. The interviews were audio-recorded and professionally transcribed. Analysis was conducted with the aid of NVivo 12. Results Case studies demonstrated three distinct examples of how healthcare organisations developed and adapted their post-discharge care provision for patients, post-hospitalisation with COVID-19. Initially, the moral distress of witnessing the impact of COVID-19 on patients who were being discharged coupled with local demand gave clinical staff the impetus to take action. Clinical staff and managers worked closely to plan and deliver organisations’ responses. Funding availability and other contextual factors influenced situated and immediate responses and structural adaptations to the post-hospitalisation services. As the pandemic evolved, NHS England and the Welsh government provided funding and guidance for systemic adaptations to post-COVID assessment clinics. Over time, adaptations made at the situated, structural, and systemic levels influenced the resilience and sustainability of services. Conclusions This paper addresses understudied, yet inherently important, aspects of resilience in healthcare by exploring when and where resilience occurs across the healthcare system and how action taken at one system level influenced another. Comparison across the case studies showed that organisations responded in similar and different ways and on varying timescales to a disruption and national level strategies.

ObjectivesFatigue is a pervasive clinical symptom in coronaviruses and may continue beyond the acute phase, lasting for several months or years. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to incorporate the current evidence for postinfection fatigue among survivors of SARS-CoV-2 and investigate associated factors.MethodsEmbase, PsyINFO, Medline, CINAHL, CDSR, Open Grey, BioRxiv and MedRxiv were systematically searched from January 2019 to December 2021. Eligible records included all study designs in English. Outcomes were fatigue or vitality in adults with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 measured at >30 days post infection. Non-confirmed cases were excluded. JBI risk of bias was assessed by three reviewers. Random effects model was used for the pooled proportion with 95% CIs. A mixed effects meta-regression of 35 prospective articles calculated change in fatigue overtime. Subgroup analyses explored specific group characteristics of study methodology. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran’s Q and I2 statistic. Egger’s tests for publication bias.ResultsDatabase searches returned 14 262 records. Following deduplication and screening, 178 records were identified. 147 (n=48 466 participants) were included for the meta-analyses. Pooled prevalence was 41% (95% CI: 37% to 45%, k=147, I2=98%). Fatigue significantly reduced over time (−0.057, 95% CI: −107 to −0.008, k=35, I2=99.3%, p=0.05). A higher proportion of fatigue was found in studies using a valid scale (51%, 95% CI: 43% to 58%, k=36, I2=96.2%, p=0.004). No significant difference was found for fatigue by study design (p=0.272). Egger’s test indicated publication bias for all analyses except valid scales. Quality assessments indicated 4% at low risk of bias, 78% at moderate risk and 18% at high risk. Frequently reported associations were female gender, age, physical functioning, breathlessness and psychological distress.ConclusionThis study revealed that a significant proportion of survivors experienced fatigue following SARS-CoV-2 and their fatigue reduced overtime. Non-modifiable factors and psychological morbidity may contribute to ongoing fatigue and impede recovery.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020201247.

The global evidence on the risk of symptoms of Long Covid in general populations infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared to uninfected comparator/control populations remains unknown. We conducted a systematic literature search using multiple electronic databases from January 1, 2022, to August 1, 2024. Included studies had ≥100 people with confirmed or self-reported COVID-19 at ≥28 days following infection onset, and an uninfected comparator/control group. Results were summarised descriptively and meta-analyses were conducted to derive pooled risk ratio estimates. 50 studies totaling 14,661,595 people were included. In all populations combined, there was an increased risk of a wide range of 39 out of 40 symptoms in those infected with SARS‑CoV‑2 compared to uninfected controls. The symptoms with the highest pooled relative risks were loss of smell (RR 4.31; 95% CI 2.66, 6.99), loss of taste (RR 3.71; 95% CI 2.22, 7.26), poor concentration (RR 2.68; 95% CI 1.66, 4.33), impaired memory (RR 2.53; 95% CI 1.82, 3.52), and hair loss/alopecia (RR 2.38; 95% CI 1.69, 3.33). This evidence synthesis, of 50 controlled studies with a cumulative participant count exceeding 14 million people, highlights a significant risk of diverse long-term symptoms in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2, especially among those who were hospitalised. Estimating the risk of long COVID is challenging because many of its symptoms are associated with other conditions. Here, the authors conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that estimate long COVID risk while accounting for background symptoms using comparator control populations.

ObjectivesTo compare costs and health consequences and to assess the cost-effectiveness of using low-dose oral long-acting morphine in people with chronic breathlessness.DesignWithin-trial planned cost-consequences and cost-effectiveness analysis of data from a multisite, parallel-group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of low-dose, long-acting morphine.Setting11 hospital outpatients across the UK.ParticipantsConsenting adults with chronic breathlessness due to long-term cardiorespiratory conditions.Intervention5–10 mg two times a day oral long-acting morphine with a blinded laxative for 56 days.Primary outcome measuresMean and SD of healthcare resource use (HRU) by trial arm; mean differences and 95% CI of costs between trial arms.Secondary outcome measuresMean differences in 28- and 56-day quality-adjusted life years (QALYs based on EuroQol five-dimension five-level score), Short Form-six dimensional scores and ICEpop CAPability-Supportive Care Measure scores; cost-utility of long-acting morphine for chronic breathlessness.Results143 participants (75 morphine and 67 placebo) were randomised; 140 (90% power, males 66%, mean age 70.5 (SD 9.4)) formed the modified intention-to-treat population (participants receiving at least one dose of study medication). There were more inpatient and fewer outpatient services used by the morphine group versus the placebo. In the base-case analysis at 56 days, long-acting morphine was associated with similar mean per-patient costs and QALYs. There was an increase of £24 (95% CI −£395 to £552) and 0.002 (95% CI −0.004 to 0.008) QALYs. Hospitalisations were the main driver of cost differences. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £12 000/QALY, with a probability of cost-effectiveness of 54% at a £20 000 willingness-to-pay threshold. In the scenario analysis that excluded costs of adverse events considered unrelated to long-acting morphine by site investigators and researchers, the probability of cost-effectiveness increased to 73%.ConclusionOral morphine for chronic breathlessness is likely to be a cost-effective intervention provided adverse events are minimised, but the effect on outcome is small and cautious interpretation is warranted.Trial registration numberISRCTN87329095.

We evaluated the impacts of COVID‐19 on multi‐organ and metabolic function in patients following severe hospitalised infection compared to controls. Patients (n = 21) without previous diabetes, cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease were recruited 5–7 months post‐discharge alongside controls (n = 10) with similar age, sex and body mass. Perceived fatigue was estimated (Fatigue Severity Scale) and the following were conducted: oral glucose tolerance (OGTT) alongside whole‐body fuel oxidation, validated magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy during resting and supine controlled exercise, dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry, short physical performance battery (SPPB), intra‐muscular electromyography, quadriceps strength and fatigability, and daily step‐count. There was a greater insulin response (incremental area under the curve, median (inter‐quartile range)) during the OGTT in patients [18,289 (12,497–27,448) mIU/min/L] versus controls [8655 (7948–11,040) mIU/min/L], P < 0.001. Blood glucose response and fasting and post‐prandial fuel oxidation rates were not different. This greater insulin resistance was not explained by differences in systemic inflammation or whole‐body/regional adiposity, but step‐count (P = 0.07) and SPPB scores (P = 0.004) were lower in patients. Liver volume was 28% greater in patients than controls, and fat fraction adjusted liver T1, a measure of inflammation, was raised in patients. Patients displayed greater perceived fatigue scores, though leg muscle volume, strength, force‐loss, motor unit properties and post‐exercise muscle phosphocreatine resynthesis were comparable. Further, cardiac and cerebral architecture and function (at rest and on exercise) were not different. In this cross‐sectional study, individuals without known previous morbidity who survived severe COVID‐19 exhibited greater insulin resistance, pointing to a need for physical function intervention in recovery. What is the central question of the study? What are the post‐COVID‐19 symptoms and associated metabolic and physiological sequelae in patients who contracted acute severe infection compared to healthy control volunteers? What is the main finding and its importance? Patients 5–7 months after hospital discharge for acute severe COVID‐19 compared to healthy control volunteers had (i) an increased insulin response to an oral glucose challenge, without demonstrating different whole‐body fuel oxidation rates, and (ii) greater perception of fatigue and worse functional mobility, though no abnormalities in muscle, heart or brain structure and function were identified. This provides novel targets for rehabilitation strategies in individuals recovering after severe COVID‐19.

IntroductionPersonalised Exercise-Rehabilitation FOR people with Multiple long-term conditions (PERFORM) is a research programme that seeks to develop and evaluate a comprehensive exercise-based rehabilitation intervention designed for people with multimorbidity, the presence of multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs). This paper describes the protocol for a randomised trial to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the PERFORM intervention, study design and processes.Methods and analysisA multicentre, parallel two-group randomised trial with individual 2:1 allocation to the PERFORM exercise-based intervention plus usual care (intervention) or usual care alone (control). The primary outcome of this feasibility trial will be to assess whether prespecified progression criteria (recruitment, retention, intervention adherence) are met to progress to the full randomised trial. The trial will be conducted across three UK sites and 60 people with MLTCs, defined as two or more LTCs, with at least one having evidence of the beneficial effect of exercise. The PERFORM intervention comprises an 8-week (twice a week for 6 weeks and once a week for 2 weeks) supervised rehabilitation programme of personalised exercise training and self-management education delivered by trained healthcare professionals followed by two maintenance sessions. Trial participants will be recruited over a 4.5-month period, and outcomes assessed at baseline (prerandomisation) and 3 months postrandomisation and include health-related quality of life, psychological well-being, symptom burden, frailty, exercise capacity, physical activity, sleep, cognition and serious adverse events. A mixed-methods process evaluation will assess acceptability, feasibility and fidelity of intervention delivery and feasibility of trial processes. An economic evaluation will assess the feasibility of data collection and estimate the costs of the PERFORM intervention.Ethics and disseminationThe trial has been given favourable opinion by the West Midlands, Edgbaston Research Ethics Service (Ref: 23/WM/0057). Participants will be asked to give full, written consent to take part by trained researchers. Findings will be disseminated via journals, presentations and targeted communications to clinicians, commissioners, service users and patients and the public.Trial registration numberISRCTN68786622.Protocol version2.0 (16 May 2023).

ObjectivesPatient information sheets (PISs) and informed consent forms (ICFs) are essential tools to communicate and document informed consent for clinical trial participation. These documents need to be easily understandable, especially when used to take informed consent from acutely unwell patients. Health literacy guidance recommends written information should be at a level between reading ages 9–11. We aimed to assess the readability and complexity of PISs/ICFs used for clinical trials of acute therapies during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignRetrospective document analysis.SettingPISs/ICFs used in trials involving pharmaceutical interventions recruiting hospitalised patients with COVID-19 during the first year of the pandemic were sourced from hospitals across the UK.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPISs/ICFs were assessed for length, approximate reading time and subsection content. Readability and language complexity were assessed using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) (range 1–18; higher is more complex), Gunning-Fog (GFOG) (range 1–20; higher is more complex) and Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) (range 0–100; below 60 is ‘difficult’ for comprehension).Results13 documents were analysed with a median length of 5139 words (range 1559–7026), equating to a median reading time of 21.4 min (range 6.5–29.3 min) at 240 words per minute. Median FKGL was 9.8 (9.1–10.8), GFOG 11.8 (10.4–13) and FRES was 54.6 (47.0–58.3). All documents were classified as ‘difficult’ for comprehension and had a reading age of 14 years old or higher.ConclusionsAll PISs/ICFs analysed contained literary complexity beyond both recommendations and the reading level of many in the UK population. Researchers should seek to improve communications to improve trial volunteer comprehension and recruitment.

IntroductionSpirometry is a point-of-care lung function test that helps support the diagnosis and monitoring of chronic lung disease. The quality and interpretation accuracy of spirometry is variable in primary care. This study aims to evaluate whether artificial intelligence (AI) decision support software improves the performance of primary care clinicians in the interpretation of spirometry, against reference standard (expert interpretation).Methods and analysisA parallel, two-group, statistician-blinded, randomised controlled trial of primary care clinicians in the UK, who refer for, or interpret, spirometry. People with specialist training in respiratory medicine to consultant level were excluded. A minimum target of 228 primary care clinician participants will be randomised with a 1:1 allocation to assess fifty de-identified, real-world patient spirometry sessions through an online platform either with (intervention group) or without (control group) AI decision support software report. Outcomes will cover primary care clinicians’ spirometry interpretation performance including measures of technical quality assessment, spirometry pattern recognition and diagnostic prediction, compared with reference standard. Clinicians’ self-rated confidence in spirometry interpretation will also be evaluated. The primary outcome is the proportion of the 50 spirometry sessions where the participant’s preferred diagnosis matches the reference diagnosis. Unpaired t-tests and analysis of covariance will be used to estimate the difference in primary outcome between intervention and control groups.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been reviewed and given favourable opinion by Health Research Authority Wales (reference: 22/HRA/5023). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, presented at relevant national and international conferences, disseminated through social media, patient and public routes and directly shared with stakeholders.Trial registration number NCT05933694.

BackgroundThere is a need to reduce delays to diagnosis for chronic breathlessness to improve patient outcomes.ObjectiveTo conduct a mixed-methods feasibility study of a larger cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) investigating a structured symptom-based diagnostic approach versus usual care for chronic breathlessness in primary care.Methods10 general practitioner practices were cluster randomised to a structured diagnostic approach for chronic breathlessness including early parallel investigations (intervention) or usual care. Adults over 40 years old at participating practices were eligible if presenting with chronic breathlessness without an existing explanatory diagnosis. The primary feasibility outcomes were participant recruitment and retention rate at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included number of investigations at 3 months, and investigations, diagnoses and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 1 year. Semistructured interviews were completed with patients and clinicians, and analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsRecruitment rate was 32% (48/150): 65% female, mean (SD) age 66 (11) years, body mass index 31.2 kg/m2 (6.5), median (IQR) Medical Research Council dyspnoea 2 (2–3). Retention rate was 85% (41/48). At 3 months, the intervention group had a median (IQR) of 8 (7–9) investigations compared with 5 (3–6) investigations with usual care. 11/25 (44%) patients in the intervention group had coded diagnosis for breathlessness at 12 months compared with 6/23 (26%) with usual care. Potential improvements in symptom burden and quality of life were observed in the intervention group above usual care.ConclusionsA cRCT investigating a symptom-based diagnostic approach for chronic breathlessness is feasible in primary care showing potential for timely investigations and diagnoses, with PROMs potentially indicating patient-level benefit. A further refined fully powered cRCT with health economic analysis is needed.

IntroductionChronic breathlessness is a common and debilitating symptom, associated with high healthcare use and reduced quality of life. Challenges and delays in diagnosis for people with chronic breathlessness frequently occur, leading to delayed access to therapies. The overarching hypothesis is a symptom-based approach to diagnosis in primary care would lead to earlier diagnosis, and therefore earlier treatment and improved longer-term outcomes including health-related quality of life. This study aims to establish the feasibility of a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a structured diagnostic pathway for breathlessness in primary care.Methods and analysisTen general practitioner (GP) practices across Leicester and Leicestershire will be cluster randomised to either a structured diagnostic pathway (intervention) or usual care. The structured diagnostic pathway includes a panel of investigations within 1 month. Usual care will proceed with patient care as per normal practice. Eligibility criteria include patients presenting with chronic breathlessness for the first time, who are over 40 years old and without a pre-existing diagnosis for their symptoms. An electronic template triggered at the point of consultation with the GP will aid opportunistic recruitment in primary care. The primary outcome for this feasibility study is recruitment rate. Secondary outcome measures, including time to diagnosis, will be collected to help inform outcomes for the future trial and to assess the impact of an earlier diagnosis. These will include symptoms, health-related quality of life, exercise capacity, measures of frailty, physical activity and healthcare utilisation. The study will include nested qualitative interviews with patients and healthcare staff to understand the feasibility outcomes, explore what is ‘usual care’ and the study experience.Ethics and disseminationThe Research Ethics Committee Nottingham 1 has provided ethical approval for this research study (REC Reference: 19/EM/0201). Results from the study will be disseminated by presentations at relevant meetings and conferences including British Thoracic Society and Primary Care Respiratory Society, as well as by peer-reviewed publications and through patient presentations and newsletters to patients, where available.Trial registration numberISRCTN14483247.