Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Approximately 10% of patients with Covid-19 experience symptoms beyond 3–4 weeks. Patients call this “long Covid”. We sought to document such patients’ lived experience, including accessing and receiving healthcare and ideas for improving services. Methods We held 55 individual interviews and 8 focus groups ( n  = 59) with people recruited from UK-based long Covid patient support groups, social media and snowballing. We restricted some focus groups to health professionals since they had already self-organised into online communities. Participants were invited to tell their stories and comment on others’ stories. Data were audiotaped, transcribed, anonymised and coded using NVIVO. Analysis incorporated sociological theories of illness, healing, peer support, clinical relationships, access, and service redesign. Results Of 114 participants aged 27–73 years, 80 were female. Eighty-four were White British, 13 Asian, 8 White Other, 5 Black, and 4 mixed ethnicity. Thirty-two were doctors and 19 other health professionals. Thirty-one had attended hospital, of whom 8 had been admitted. Analysis revealed a confusing illness with many, varied and often relapsing-remitting symptoms and uncertain prognosis; a heavy sense of loss and stigma; difficulty accessing and navigating services; difficulty being taken seriously and achieving a diagnosis; disjointed and siloed care (including inability to access specialist services); variation in standards (e.g. inconsistent criteria for seeing, investigating and referring patients); variable quality of the therapeutic relationship (some participants felt well supported while others felt “fobbed off”); and possible critical events (e.g. deterioration after being unable to access services). Emotionally significant aspects of participants’ experiences informed ideas for improving services. Conclusion Suggested quality principles for a long Covid service include ensuring access to care, reducing burden of illness, taking clinical responsibility and providing continuity of care, multi-disciplinary rehabilitation, evidence-based investigation and management, and further development of the knowledge base and clinical services. Trial registration NCT04435041.

BackgroundAround 2 million people in the UK suffer from Long COVID (LC). Of concern is the disease impact on productivity and informal care burden. This study aimed to quantify and value productivity losses and informal care receipt in a sample of LC patients in the UK.MethodsThe target population comprised LC patients referred to LC specialist clinics. The questionnaires included a health economics questionnaire (HEQ) measuring productivity impacts, informal care receipt and service utilisation, EQ-5D-5L, C19-YRS LC condition-specific measure, and sociodemographic and COVID-19 history variables. Outcomes were changes from the incident infection resulting in LC to the month preceding the survey in paid work status/h, work income, work performance and informal care receipt. The human capital approach valued productivity losses; the proxy goods method valued caregiving hours. The values were extrapolated nationally using published prevalence data. Multilevel regressions, nested by region, estimated associations between the outcomes and patient characteristics.Results366 patients responded to HEQ (mean LC duration 449.9 days). 51.7% reduced paid work hours relative to the pre-infection period. Mean monthly work income declined by 24.5%. The average aggregate value of productivity loss since incident infection was £10,929 (95% bootstrap confidence interval £8,844-£13,014) and £5.7 billion (£3.8-£7.6 billion) extrapolated nationally. The corresponding values for informal caregiving were £8,726 (£6,247-£11,204) and £4.8 billion (£2.6-£7.0 billion). Multivariate analyses found significant associations between each outcome and health utility and C19-YRS subscale scores.ConclusionLC significantly impacts productivity losses and provision of informal care, exacerbated by high national prevalence of LC.

Background Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is a condition that commonly affects elderly Australians. Once symptomatic, severe AS has a poor prognosis if untreated. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a percutaneous procedure that is now the recommended treatment for elderly patients with severe AS who are suitable for intervention. Objective This article provides a contemporary review of the diagnosis and management of severe AS in the elderly. Discussion Management options for severe AS include TAVI, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), or medical/palliative therapy. In elderly adults, TAVI improves mortality, symptoms and quality of life compared with medical therapy, and is superior to SAVR. The decision regarding which management option is most appropriate for an individual patient is made using a collaborative multidisciplinary approach. General practitioners play key roles in providing information to risk stratify patients when considering intervention, caring for patients after the procedure and/or providing medical and palliative treatment for those deemed unsuitable for intervention.

Background and Aim Long Covid is often stigmatised, particularly in people who are disadvantaged within society. This may prevent them from seeking help and could lead to widening health inequalities. This coproduced study with a Community Advisory Board (CAB) of people with Long Covid aimed to understand healthcare and wider barriers and stigma experienced by people with probable Long Covid. Methods An active case finding approach was employed to find adults with probable, but not yet clinically diagnosed, Long Covid in two localities in London (Camden and Merton) and Derbyshire, England. Interviews explored the barriers to care and the stigma faced by participants and were analysed thematically. This study forms part of the STIMULATE‐ICP Collaboration. Findings Twenty‐three interviews were completed. Participants reported limited awareness of what Long Covid is and the available pathways to management. There was considerable self‐doubt among participants, sometimes reinforced by interactions with healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants questioned their deservedness in seeking healthcare support for their symptoms. Hesitancy to engage with healthcare services was motivated by fear of needing more investigation and concerns regarding judgement about the ability to carry out caregiving responsibilities. It was also motivated by the complexity of the clinical presentation and fear of all symptoms being attributed to poor mental health. Participants also reported trying to avoid overburdening the health system. These difficulties were compounded by experiences of stigma and discrimination. The emerging themes reaffirmed a framework of epistemic injustice in relation to Long Covid, where creating, interpreting and conveying knowledge has varied credibility based on the teller's identity characteristics and/or the level of their interpretive resources. Conclusion We have codeveloped recommendations based on the findings. These include early signposting to services, dedicating protected time to listening to people with Long Covid, providing a holistic approach in care pathways, and working to mitigate stigma. Regardless of the diagnosis, people experiencing new symptoms must be encouraged to seek timely medical help. Clear public health messaging is needed among communities already disadvantaged by epistemic injustice to raise awareness of Long Covid, and to share stories that encourage seeking care and to illustrate the adverse effects of stigma. Patient or Public Contribution This study was coproduced with a CAB made up of 23 members including HCPs, people with lived experience of Long Covid and other stakeholders.

IntroductionLong COVID, a new condition whose origins and natural history are not yet fully established, currently affects 1.5 million people in the UK. Most do not have access to specialist long COVID services. We seek to optimise long COVID care both within and outside specialist clinics, including improving access, reducing inequalities, helping self-management and providing guidance and decision support for primary care. We aim to establish a ‘gold standard’ of care by systematically analysing current practices, iteratively improving pathways and systems of care.Methods and analysisThis mixed-methods, multisite study is informed by the principles of applied health services research, quality improvement, co-design, outcome measurement and learning health systems. It was developed in close partnership with patients (whose stated priorities are prompt clinical assessment; evidence-based advice and treatment and help with returning to work and other roles) and with front-line clinicians. Workstreams and tasks to optimise assessment, treatment and monitoring are based in three contrasting settings: workstream 1 (qualitative research, up to 100 participants), specialist management in 10 long COVID clinics across the UK, via a quality improvement collaborative, experience-based co-design and targeted efforts to reduce inequalities of access, return to work and peer support; workstream 2 (quantitative research, up to 5000 participants), patient self-management at home, technology-supported monitoring and validation of condition-specific outcome measures and workstream 3 (quantitative research, up to 5000 participants), generalist management in primary care, harnessing electronic record data to study population phenotypes and develop evidence-based decision support, referral pathways and analysis of costs. Study governance includes an active patient advisory group.Ethics and disseminationLOng COvid Multidisciplinary consortium Optimising Treatments and servIces acrOss the NHS study is sponsored by the University of Leeds and approved by Yorkshire & The Humber—Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (ref: 21/YH/0276). Participants will provide informed consent. Dissemination plans include academic and lay publications, and partnerships with national and regional policymakers.Trial registration number NCT05057260, ISRCTN15022307.

Long Covid is a significant public health concern with potentially negative implications for health inequalities. We know that those who are already socially disadvantaged in society are more exposed to COVID-19, experience the worst health outcomes and are more likely to suffer economically. We also know that these groups are more likely to experience stigma and have negative healthcare experiences even before the pandemic. However, little is known about disadvantaged groups' experiences of Long Covid, and preliminary evidence suggests they may be under-represented in those who access formal care. We will conduct a pilot study in a defined geographical area in London, United Kingdom to test the feasibility of a community-based approach of identifying Long Covid cases that have not been clinically diagnosed and have not been referred to Long Covid specialist services. We will explore the barriers to accessing recognition, care, and support, as well as experiences of stigma and perceived discrimination. This protocol and study materials were co-produced with a Community Advisory Board (CAB) made up primarily of people living with Long Covid. Working with voluntary organisations, a study leaflet will be distributed in the local community to highlight Long Covid symptoms and invite those experiencing them to participate in the study if they are not formally diagnosed. Potential participants will be assessed according to the study's inclusion criteria and offered the opportunity to participate if they fit them. Awareness of Long Covid and associated symptoms, experiences of trying to access care, as well as stigma and discrimination will be explored through qualitative interviews with participants. Upon completion of the interviews, participants will be offered a referral to the local social prescribing team to receive support that is personalised to them potentially including, but not restricted to, liaising with their primary care provider and the regional Long Covid clinic.

IntroductionA substantial proportion of COVID-19 survivors continue to have symptoms more than 3 months after infection, especially of those who required medical intervention. Lasting symptoms are wide-ranging, and presentation varies between individuals and fluctuates within an individual. Improved understanding of undulation in symptoms and triggers may improve efficacy of healthcare providers and enable individuals to better self-manage their Long Covid. We present a protocol where we aim to develop and examine the feasibility and usability of digital home monitoring for capturing daily fluctuation of symptoms in individuals with Long Covid and provide data to facilitate a personalised approach to the classification and management of Long Covid symptoms.Methods and analysisThis study is a longitudinal prospective cohort study of adults with Long Covid accessing 10 National Health Service (NHS) rehabilitation services in the UK. We aim to recruit 400 people from participating NHS sites. At referral to study, 6 weeks and 12 weeks, participants will complete demographic data (referral to study) and clinical outcome measures, including ecological momentary assessment (EMA) using personal mobile devices. EMA items are adapted from the COVID-19 Yorkshire Rehabilitation Scale items and include self-reported activities, symptoms and psychological factors. Passive activity data will be collected through wrist-worn sensors. We will use latent class growth models to identify trajectories of experience, potential phenotypes defined by co-occurrence of symptoms and inter-relationships between stressors, symptoms and participation in daily activities. We anticipate that n=300 participants provide 80% power to detect a 20% improvement in fatigue over 12 weeks in one class of patients relative to another.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the Yorkshire & The Humber—Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (ref: 21/YH/0276). Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications and presented at conferences.Trial registration numberISRCTN15022307.

The NHS must reconfigure services to manage enduring multimorbidity following covid-19

Since May, 2020,1 increasing attention has been given to the experiences of people with COVID-19 whose symptoms persist for 4 or more weeks. According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), an estimated 186 000 people (95% CI 153 000–221 000) in private households in England currently have COVID-19 symptoms 5–12 weeks or longer after acute infection.2 The ONS estimate that one in five people have symptoms that persist after 5 weeks, and one in ten have symptoms for 12 weeks or longer after acute COVID-19 infection.2 Research on long COVID is growing, including into the underlying pathology, consequences, and sequelae, as well as rehabilitation for patients. [...]the guideline does not sufficiently describe what is known about the underlying pathology and the natural history of long COVID. [...]in developing the guideline we believe a more thorough participative and open process was needed to consider and determine appropriate terminology by involving a broad range of experts, including people with lived experience.

Persistent symptoms lasting longer than 3 weeks are thought to affect 10–20% of patients following SARS-CoV-2 infection. No formal guidelines exist in the UK for treating patients with long COVID and services are sporadic and variable, although additional funding is promised for their development. In this study, narrative interviews and focus groups are used to explore the lived experience of 43 healthcare professionals with long COVID. These individuals see the healthcare system from both professional and patient perspectives, thus represent an important wealth of expertise to inform service design. We present a set of co-designed quality standards, highlighting equity and ease of access, minimal patient care burden, clinical responsibility, a multidisciplinary and evidence-based approach, and patient involvement; and we apply these to propose a potential care pathway model that could be adapted and translated to improve care of patients long COVID.