Impact of first UK COVID-19 lockdown on hospital admissions: Interrupted time series study of 32 million people

Increased 30-day all-cause mortality associated with Gram-negative bloodstream infections in England during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mortality in patients hospitalised with Gram-negative bloodstream infections (GNBSIs).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study including cases of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella species and Pseudomonas aeruginosa in England (January 2015-December 2021) reported to UKHSA's Second Generation Surveillance System. The outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Multivariable logistic regression models were built, and adjusted Odds Ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals were reported.

RESULTS

Total E. coli, Klebsiella spp. and P. aeruginosa infections were 206,030, 53,819 and 21,129, respectively. Compared to the pre-pandemic period, odds of death during the pandemic (March 2020 onwards) in E. coli, Klebsiella spp. and P. aeruginosa infections with no COVID-19 infection within 28-days of onset were 1.13 (1.08-1.18), 1.15 (1.07-1.25) and 1.09 (0.97-1.22), while odds in GNBSIs with an associated COVID-19 infection were 2.45 (2.26-2.66), 2.96 (2.62-3.34) and 3.15 (2.61-3.80), respectively. Asian patients with an associated COVID-19 infection were more likely to die during the pandemic compared to White patients (E. coli: OR 1.28 (0.95-1.71); Klebsiella spp. OR 1.59 (1.20-2.11); P. aeruginosa: OR 2.02 (1.23-3.31)).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients suffering from a GNBSI had increased risk of death during the pandemic, with the risk higher in patients with an associated COVID-19 infection.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health-care use among patients with cancer in England, UK: a comprehensive phase-by-phase time-series analysis across attendance types for 38 cancers

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the widespread disruption of cancer health provision services across the entirety of the cancer care pathway in the UK, from screening to treatment. The potential long-term health implications, including increased mortality for individuals who missed diagnoses or appointments, are concerning. However, the precise impact of lockdown policies on national cancer health service provision across diagnostic groups is understudied. We aimed to systematically evaluate changes in patterns of attendance for groups of individuals diagnosed with cancer, including the changes in attendance volume and consultation rates, stratified by both time-based exposures and by patient-based exposures and to better understand the impact of such changes on cancer-specific mortality.

METHODS

In this retrospective, cross-sectional, phase-by-phase time-series analysis, by using primary care records linked to hospitals and the death registry from Jan 1, 1998, to June 17, 2021, we conducted descriptive analyses to quantify attendance changes for groups stratified by patient-based exposures (Index of Multiple Deprivation, ethnicity, age, comorbidity count, practice region, diagnosis time, and cancer subtype) across different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in England, UK. In this study, we defined the phases of the COVID-19 pandemic as: pre-pandemic period (Jan 1, 2018, to March 22, 2020), lockdown 1 (March 23 to June 21, 2020), minimal restrictions (June 22 to Sept 20, 2020), lockdown 2 (Sept 21, 2020, to Jan 3, 2021), lockdown 3 (Jan 4 to March 21, 2021), and lockdown restrictions lifted (March 22 to March 31, 2021). In the analyses we examined changes in both attendance volume and consultation rate. We further compared changes in attendance trends to cancer-specific mortality trends. Finally, we conducted an interrupted time-series analysis with the lockdown on March 23, 2020, as the intervention point using an autoregressive integrated moving average model.

FINDINGS

From 561 611 eligible individuals, 7 964 685 attendances were recorded. During the first lockdown, the median attendance volume decreased (-35·30% [IQR -36·10 to -34·25]) compared with the preceding pre-pandemic period, followed by a median change of 4·38% (2·66 to 5·15) during minimal restrictions. More drastic reductions in attendance volume were seen in the second (-48·71% [-49·54 to -48·26]) and third (-71·62% [-72·23 to -70·97]) lockdowns. These reductions were followed by a 4·48% (3·45 to 7·10) increase in attendance when lockdown restrictions were lifted. The median consultation rate change during the first lockdown was 31·32% (25·10 to 33·60), followed by a median change of -0·25% (-1·38 to 1·68) during minimal restrictions. The median consultation rate decreased in the second (-33·89% [-34·64 to -33·18]) and third (-4·98% [-5·71 to -4·00]) lockdowns, followed by a 416·16% increase (409·77 to 429·77) upon lifting of lockdown restrictions. Notably, across many weeks, a year-over-year decrease in weekly attendances corresponded with a year-over-year increase in cancer-specific mortality. Overall, the pandemic period revealed a statistically significant reduction in attendances for patients with cancer (lockdown 1 -24 070·19 attendances, p<0·0001; minimal restrictions -19 194·89 attendances, p<0·0001; lockdown 2 -31 311·28 attendances, p<0·0001; lockdown 3 -43 843·38 attendances, p<0·0001; and lockdown restrictions lifted -56 260·50 attendances, p<0·0001) compared with before the pandemic.

INTERPRETATION

The UK's COVID-19 pandemic lockdown affected cancer health service access negatively. Many groups of individuals with cancer had declines in attendance volume and consultation rate across the phases of the pandemic. A decrease in attendances might lead to delays in cancer diagnoses, treatment, and follow-up, putting such groups of individuals at higher risk of negative health outcomes, such as cancer-specific mortality. We discuss the factors potentially responsible for explaining changes in service provision trends and provide insight to help inform clinical follow-up for groups of individuals at risk, alongside potential future policy changes in the care of such patients.

FUNDING

Wellcome Trust, National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, National Institute for Health Research Great Ormond Street Hospital Biomedical Research Centre, Academy of Medical Sciences, and the University College London Overseas Research Scholarship.

A Metric of Societal Burden Based on Virus Succession to Determine Economic Losses and Health Benefits of China's Lockdown Policies: Model Development and Validation

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on the global health system and economic structure. Although the implementation of lockdown measures achieved notable success in curbing the spread of the pandemic, it concurrently incurred substantial socioeconomic costs.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to delineate an equilibrium between the economic losses and health benefits of lockdown measures, with the aim of identifying the optimal boundary conditions for implementing these measures at various pandemic phases.

METHODS

This study used a model to estimate the half-lives of the observed case fatality rates of different strains. It was based on global infection and death data collected by the World Health Organization and strain sequence time series data provided by Nextstrain. The connection between the health benefits and economic losses brought by lockdown measures was established through the calculation of disability-adjusted life years. Taking China's city lockdowns as an example, this study determined the cost-benefit boundary of various lockdown measures during the evolution of COVID-19.

RESULTS

The study reveals a direct proportionality between economic losses due to lockdowns and the observed case fatality rates of virus strains, a relationship that holds true irrespective of population size or per capita economic output. As SARS-CoV-2 strains evolve and population immunity shifts, there has been a notable decrease in the observed case fatality rate over time, exhibiting a half-life of roughly 8 months. This decline in fatality rates may offset the health benefits of maintaining unchanged lockdown measures, given that the resultant economic losses might exceed the health benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

The initial enforcement of lockdown in Wuhan led to significant health benefits. However, with the decline in the observed case fatality rate of the virus strains, the economic losses increasingly outweighed the health benefits. Consequently, it is essential to consistently refine and enhance lockdown strategies in accordance with the evolving fatality and infection rates of different virus strains, thereby optimizing outcomes in anticipation of future pandemics.

Trends in inequalities in avoidable hospitalisations across the COVID-19 pandemic: a cohort study of 23.5 million people in England

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether periods of disruption were associated with increased 'avoidable' hospital admissions and wider social inequalities in England.

DESIGN

Observational repeated cross-sectional study.

SETTING

England (January 2019 to March 2022).

PARTICIPANTS

With the approval of NHS England we used individual-level electronic health records from OpenSAFELY, which covered ~40% of general practices in England (mean monthly population size 23.5 million people).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

We estimated crude and directly age-standardised rates for potentially preventable unplanned hospital admissions: ambulatory care sensitive conditions and urgent emergency sensitive conditions. We considered how trends in these outcomes varied by three measures of social and spatial inequality: neighbourhood socioeconomic deprivation, ethnicity and geographical region.

RESULTS

There were large declines in avoidable hospitalisations during the first national lockdown (March to May 2020). Trends increased post-lockdown but never reached 2019 levels. The exception to these trends was for vaccine-preventable ambulatory care sensitive admissions which remained low throughout 2020-2021. While trends were consistent by each measure of inequality, absolute levels of inequalities narrowed across levels of neighbourhood socioeconomic deprivation, Asian ethnicity (compared with white ethnicity) and geographical region (especially in northern regions).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence that periods of healthcare disruption from the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in more avoidable hospitalisations. Falling avoidable hospital admissions has coincided with declining inequalities most strongly by level of deprivation, but also for Asian ethnic groups and northern regions of England.

The Incidence of Myasthenia Gravis in the Province of Ferrara, Italy, in the Period of 2008-2022: An Update on a 40-Year Observation and the Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Myasthenia gravis (MG) is the most common neuromuscular junction disorder. We evaluated the MG incidence rate in the province of Ferrara, Northern Italy, over two time frames (2008-2018 and 2019-2022, i.e., the COVID-19 pandemic) and considered early-onset (EOMG), late-onset (LOMG), and thymoma- and non-thymoma-associated MG. Moreover, in the second period, we assessed its possible relationship with SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination. We used a complete enumeration approach to estimate the MG incidence and its temporal trend. For the period of 2008-18, 106 new cases were identified (mean incidence rate 2.7/100,000 people). The highest rates were observed for the over-70 age group and in rural areas, with 17% of thymoma-associated MG. During the COVID-19 period, 29 new cases were identified (average incidence rate 2.1/100,000 people), showing a marked (though not statistically significant) decrease in the mean annual incidence compared to the previous period. Again, the highest rate was observed for the over-70 age group. The first period was in line with our previous observations for the period between 1985 and 2007, highlighting a rising incidence of LOMG and a marked decrease in EOMG. During the COVID-19 period, incidence rates were lower in the first years whereas, when the pandemic ended, the previous trend was confirmed.

The long-term psycho-social impact of the pandemic on people with intellectual disability and their carers

BACKGROUND

People with intellectual disabilities (PWID) are at six times higher risk of death due to COVID-19. To mitigate harm, as a high-risk group, significant social changes were imposed on PWID in the UK. Alongside these changes, the uncertainty of the pandemic influence, caused PWID and their carers to encounter significant stress. The evidence of the pandemic's psycho-social impact on PWID originates mainly from cross-sectional surveys conducted with professionals and carers. There is little research on the longitudinal psycho-social impact of the pandemic from PWID themselves.

AIMS

To examine the long-term psycho-social impact of the pandemic on PWID.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey, following STROBE guidance, of 17 Likert scale statements (12 to PWID and 5 to their carers) to ascertain the pandemic's psychosocial impact was conducted. Every other PWID open to a specialist Intellectual Disability service serving half a UK County (pop:500,000) was selected. The same survey was re-run with the same cohort a year later. Descriptive statistics, Mann-Whitney, Chi-square and unpaired-t tests were used to compare responses. Significance is taken at p < .05. Comments were analysed using Clarke and Braun's approach.

RESULTS

Of 250 PWID contacted, 100 (40%) responded in 2020 and 127 (51%) in 2021. 69% (2020) and 58% (2021) reported seeking medical support. Carers, (88%, 2020 and 90%, 2021) noticed emotional changes in PWID they cared for. 13% (2020) and 20% (2021) of PWID had their regular psychotropics increased. 21% (2020) and 24% (2021) had their pro re nata (PRN) medication adjusted. PWID or carers demonstrated no statistically significant variation in responses between themselves from 2020 to 2021. PWID were more likely to report being upset/distressed compared to their carers' perceptions of them in both years (p < .001). Four themes were identified.

CONCLUSION

This longitudinal study highlights the diverse psycho-social impact of the pandemic on PWID in the UK. The Pandemic's psycho-social impact has been significantly underestimated.

Eleven key measures for monitoring general practice clinical activity during COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study using 48 million adults' primary care records in England through OpenSAFELY

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on delivery of NHS care. We have developed the OpenSAFELY Service Restoration Observatory (SRO) to develop key measures of primary care activity and describe the trends in these measures throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

With the approval of NHS England, we developed an open source software framework for data management and analysis to describe trends and variation in clinical activity across primary care electronic health record (EHR) data on 48 million adults.We developed SNOMED-CT codelists for key measures of primary care clinical activity such as blood pressure monitoring and asthma reviews, selected by an expert clinical advisory group and conducted a population cohort-based study to describe trends and variation in these measures January 2019-December 2021, and pragmatically classified their level of recovery one year into the pandemic using the percentage change in the median practice level rate.

Results

We produced 11 measures reflective of clinical activity in general practice. A substantial drop in activity was observed in all measures at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. By April 2021, the median rate had recovered to within 15% of the median rate in April 2019 in six measures. The remaining measures showed a sustained drop, ranging from a 18.5% reduction in medication reviews to a 42.0% reduction in blood pressure monitoring. Three measures continued to show a sustained drop by December 2021.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a substantial change in primary care activity across the measures we developed, with recovery in most measures. We delivered an open source software framework to describe trends and variation in clinical activity across an unprecedented scale of primary care data. We will continue to expand the set of key measures to be routinely monitored using our publicly available NHS OpenSAFELY SRO dashboards with near real-time data.

Funding

This research used data assets made available as part of the Data and Connectivity National Core Study, led by Health Data Research UK in partnership with the Office for National Statistics and funded by UK Research and Innovation (grant ref MC_PC_20058).The OpenSAFELY Platform is supported by grants from the Wellcome Trust (222097/Z/20/Z); MRC (MR/V015757/1, MC_PC-20059, MR/W016729/1); NIHR (NIHR135559, COV-LT2-0073), and Health Data Research UK (HDRUK2021.000, 2021.0157).

Associations between self-reported healthcare disruption due to covid-19 and avoidable hospital admission: evidence from seven linked longitudinal studies for England

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether there is an association between people who experienced disrupted access to healthcare during the covid-19 pandemic and risk of an avoidable hospital admission.

DESIGN

Observational analysis using evidence from seven linked longitudinal cohort studies for England.

SETTING

Studies linked to electronic health records from NHS Digital from 1 March 2020 to 25 August 2022. Data were accessed using the UK Longitudinal Linkage Collaboration trusted research environment.

PARTICIPANTS

Individual level records for 29 276 people.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Avoidable hospital admissions defined as emergency hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive and emergency urgent care sensitive conditions.

RESULTS

9742 participants (weighted percentage 35%, adjusted for sample structure of longitudinal cohorts) self-reported some form of disrupted access to healthcare during the covid-19 pandemic. People with disrupted access were at increased risk of any (odds ratio 1.80, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.34), acute (2.01, 1.39 to 2.92), and chronic (1.80, 1.31 to 2.48) ambulatory care sensitive hospital admissions. For people who experienced disrupted access to appointments (eg, visiting their doctor or an outpatient department) and procedures (eg, surgery, cancer treatment), positive associations were found with measures of avoidable hospital admissions.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence from linked individual level data shows that people whose access to healthcare was disrupted were more likely to have a potentially preventable hospital admission. The findings highlight the need to increase healthcare investment to tackle the short and long term implications of the pandemic, and to protect treatments and procedures during future pandemics.

Ethnic differences in the indirect effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical monitoring and hospitalisations for non-COVID conditions in England: a population-based, observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted healthcare and may have impacted ethnic inequalities in healthcare. We aimed to describe the impact of pandemic-related disruption on ethnic differences in clinical monitoring and hospital admissions for non-COVID conditions in England.

Methods

In this population-based, observational cohort study we used primary care electronic health record data with linkage to hospital episode statistics data and mortality data within OpenSAFELY, a data analytics platform created, with approval of NHS England, to address urgent COVID-19 research questions. We included adults aged 18 years and over registered with a TPP practice between March 1, 2018, and April 30, 2022. We excluded those with missing age, sex, geographic region, or Index of Multiple Deprivation. We grouped ethnicity (exposure), into five categories: White, Asian, Black, Other, and Mixed. We used interrupted time-series regression to estimate ethnic differences in clinical monitoring frequency (blood pressure and Hba1c measurements, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma annual reviews) before and after March 23, 2020. We used multivariable Cox regression to quantify ethnic differences in hospitalisations related to diabetes, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and mental health before and after March 23, 2020.

Findings

Of 33,510,937 registered with a GP as of 1st January 2020, 19,064,019 were adults, alive and registered for at least 3 months, 3,010,751 met the exclusion criteria and 1,122,912 were missing ethnicity. This resulted in 14,930,356 adults with known ethnicity (92% of sample): 86.6% were White, 7.3% Asian, 2.6% Black, 1.4% Mixed ethnicity, and 2.2% Other ethnicities. Clinical monitoring did not return to pre-pandemic levels for any ethnic group. Ethnic differences were apparent pre-pandemic, except for diabetes monitoring, and remained unchanged, except for blood pressure monitoring in those with mental health conditions where differences narrowed during the pandemic. For those of Black ethnicity, there were seven additional admissions for diabetic ketoacidosis per month during the pandemic, and relative ethnic differences narrowed during the pandemic compared to the White ethnic group (Pre-pandemic hazard ratio (HR): 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41, 0.60, Pandemic HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.87). There was increased admissions for heart failure during the pandemic for all ethnic groups, though highest in those of White ethnicity (heart failure risk difference: 5.4). Relatively, ethnic differences narrowed for heart failure admission in those of Asian (Pre-pandemic HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.49, 1.64, Pandemic HR 1.24, 95% CI 1.19, 1.29) and Black ethnicity (Pre-pandemic HR 1.41, 95% CI: 1.30, 1.53, Pandemic HR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.09, 1.25) compared with White ethnicity. For other outcomes the pandemic had minimal impact on ethnic differences.

Interpretation

Our study suggests that ethnic differences in clinical monitoring and hospitalisations remained largely unchanged during the pandemic for most conditions. Key exceptions were hospitalisations for diabetic ketoacidosis and heart failure, which warrant further investigation to understand the causes.

Funding

LSHTM COVID-19 Response Grant (DONAT15912).

Health gains from home energy efficiency measures: The missing evidence in the UK net-zero policy debate

Objectives

This study examined the health gains from a programme of external wall insulation works to homes in south-west Scotland, and in particular the impact upon hospitalisations for respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. Furthermore, to consider how evidence on health outcomes could form part of the debate around actions to meet net-zero goals in the UK.

Study design

This was a two-part study. Part one involved before-and-after interviews with 229 recipient households. The second part comprised an observational study of hospital admissions in 184 postcode areas.

Methods

Across three years, interviews collected thermal comfort and self-reported health data(Sf-36) in the winter months prior to installation, and again in follow-up interviews the next winter. Standarised monthly data on non-elective admissions for each set of conditions were compared between the intervention postcodes and the wider health board area over a ten year period.

Results

Following receipt of wall insulation, inability to achieve thermal comfort in winter reduced by two-thirds. Improvements in thermal comfort were associated with gains in physical health scores. Relative standardised admissions fell in the treatment areas, remaining lower than the district-wide standardised rate for the majority of a five year period, this effect ending during the Covid-19 pandemic. The impact on admissions was greater for respiratory conditions than for cardiovascular conditions.

Conclusion

A weak policy commitment to energy efficiency could be strengthened with further evidence of the cost-savings and reduced hospital bed demand resulting from insulations works. The potential health gain may also encourage more home owners to participate.

Acute upper respiratory infections admissions in England and Wales

Acute respiratory infections block the bronchial and/or nasal systems' airways. These infections may present in a variety of ways, from minor symptoms like the common cold to more serious illnesses like pneumonia or lung collapse. Acute respiratory infections cause over 1.3 million infant deaths under the age of 5 each year throughout the world. Among all illnesses, respiratory infections make for 6% of the worldwide disease burden. We aimed to examine the admissions related to acute upper respiratory infections admissions in England and Wales for the period between April 1999 and April 2020. This was an ecological study using publicly available data extracted from the Hospital Episode Statistics database in England, and the Patient Episode Database for Wales for the period between April 1999 and April 2020. The acute upper respiratory infections-related hospital admissions were identified using the Tenth Revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 5th Edition (used by National Health Service [NHS] to classify diseases and other health conditions) (J00-J06). The total annual number of admissions for various reasons increased by 1.09-fold (from 92,442 in 1999 to 193,236 in 2020), expressing an increase in hospital admission rate of 82.5% (from 177.30 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 176.15-178.44] in 1999 to 323.57 [95%CI: 322.13-325.01] in 2020 per 100,000 persons, P < .01). The most common causes were acute tonsillitis and acute upper respiratory infections of multiple and unspecified sites, which accounted for 43.1% and 39.4%, respectively. Hospital admissions rate due to acute upper respiratory infections increased sharply during the study period. The rates of hospital admissions were higher among those in the age group below 15 and 75 years and above for the majority of respiratory infections, with a higher incidence in females.

Hospital admission and mortality rates for non-Covid diseases among residents of the long-term care facilities before and during the pandemic: a cohort study in two Italian regions

Aim

Long-term-care facility residents are a vulnerable population who experienced reduced healthcare access during the pandemic. This study aimed to assess the indirect impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, in terms of hospitalisation and mortality rates, among this population in two Italian Regions, Tuscany and Apulia, during 2020 in comparison with the pre-pandemic period.

Subject and methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study on people residing in long-term-care facilities from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2020 (baseline period: 1 January 2018-8 March 2020; pandemic period: and 9 March-31 December 2020). Hospitalisation rates were stratified by sex and major disease groups. Standardised weekly rates were estimated with a Poisson regression model. Only for Tuscany, mortality risk at 30 days after hospitalisation was calculated with the Kaplan-Meier estimator. Mortality risk ratios were calculated using Cox proportional regression models.

Results

Nineteen thousand two hundred and fifty individuals spent at least 7 days in a long-term-care facility during the study period. The overall mean non-Covid hospital admission rate per 100 000 residents/week was 144.1 and 116.2 during the baseline and pandemic periods, with a decrease to 99.7 and 77.3 during the first (March-May) and second lockdown (November-December). Hospitalisation rates decreased for all major disease groups. Thirty-day mortality risk ratios for non-Covid conditions increased during the pandemic period (1.2, 1.1 to 1.4) compared with baseline.

Conclusion

The pandemic resulted in worse non-COVID-related health outcomes for long-term-care facilities' residents. There is a need to prioritise these facilities in national pandemic preparedness plans and to ensure their full integration in national surveillance systems.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10389-023-01925-1.

A Global Review of the Impacts of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic on Radiology Practice, Finances, and Operations

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic ushered in rapid changes in healthcare, including radiology, globally. This review discusses the impact of the pandemic on various radiology departments globally. We analyze the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on the imaging volumes, finances, and clinical operations of radiology departments in 2020. Studies from health systems and outpatient imaging centers were analyzed, and the activity throughout 2020 was compared to the pre-pandemic activity, including activity during similar timeframes in 2019. Imaging volumes across modalities, including MRI and CT scans, were compared, as were the Relative Value Units (RVUs) for imaging finances. Furthermore, we compared clinical operations, including staffing and sanitation procedures. We found that imaging volumes in private practices and academic centers decreased globally. The decreases in volume could be attributed to delayed patient screenings, as well as the implementation of protocols, such as the deep cleaning of equipment between patients. Revenues from imaging also decreased globally, with many institutions noting a substantial decline in RVUs and revenue compared with pre-COVID-19 levels. Our analysis thus found significant changes in the volumes, finances, and operations of radiology departments due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ethnic inequalities in the impact of COVID-19 on primary care consultations: a time series analysis of 460,084 individuals with multimorbidity in South London

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic caused rapid changes in primary care delivery in the UK, with concerns that certain groups of the population may have faced increased barriers to access. This study assesses the impact of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic on primary care consultations for individuals with multimorbidity and identifies ethnic inequalities.

METHODS

A longitudinal study based on monthly data from primary care health records of 460,084 patients aged ≥18 years from 41 GP practices in South London, from February 2018 to March 2021. Descriptive analysis and interrupted time series (ITS) models were used to analyse the effect of the pandemic on primary care consultations for people with multimorbidity and to identify if the effect varied by ethnic groups and consultation type.

RESULTS

Individuals with multimorbidity experienced a smaller initial fall in trend at the start of the pandemic. Their primary care consultation rates remained stable (879 (95% CI 869-890) per 1000 patients in February to 882 (870-894) March 2020), compared with a 7% decline among people without multimorbidity (223 consultations (95% CI 221-226) to 208 (205-210)). The gap in consultations between the two groups reduced after July 2020. The effect among individuals with multimorbidity varied by ethnic group. Ethnic minority groups experienced a slightly larger fall at the start of the pandemic. Individuals of Black, Asian, and Other ethnic backgrounds also switched from face-to-face to telephone at a higher rate than other ethnic groups. The largest fall in face-to-face consultations was observed among people from Asian backgrounds (their consultation rates declined from 676 (659-693) in February to 348 (338-359) in April 2020), which may have disproportionately affected their quality of care.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected primary care utilisation in patients with multimorbidity. While there is evidence of a successful needs-based prioritisation of multimorbidity patients within primary care at the start of the pandemic, inequalities among ethnic minority groups were found. Strengthening disease management for these groups may be necessary to control widening inequalities in future health outcomes.

Investigating healthcare worker mobility and patient contacts within a UK hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

Insights into behaviours relevant to the transmission of infections are extremely valuable for epidemiological investigations. Healthcare worker (HCW) mobility and patient contacts within the hospital can contribute to nosocomial outbreaks, yet data on these behaviours are often limited.

METHODS

Using electronic medical records and door access logs from a London teaching hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic, we derive indicators for HCW mobility and patient contacts at an aggregate level. We assess the spatial-temporal variations in HCW behaviour and, to demonstrate the utility of these behavioural markers, investigate changes in the indirect connectivity of patients (resulting from shared contacts with HCWs) and spatial connectivity of floors (owing to the movements of HCWs).

RESULTS

Fluctuations in HCW mobility and patient contacts were identified during the pandemic, with the most prominent changes in behaviour on floors handling the majority of COVID-19 patients. The connectivity between floors was disrupted by the pandemic and, while this stabilised after the first wave, the interconnectivity of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 wards always featured. Daily rates of indirect contact between patients provided evidence for reactive staff cohorting in response to the number of COVID-19 patients in the hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

Routinely collected electronic records in the healthcare environment provide a means to rapidly assess and investigate behaviour change in the HCW population, and can support evidence based infection prevention and control activities. Integrating frameworks like ours into routine practice will empower decision makers and improve pandemic preparedness by providing tools to help curtail nosocomial outbreaks of communicable diseases.

Estimation of the impact of hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infections on length of stay in English hospitals using causal inference

BACKGROUND

From March 2020 through August 2021, 97,762 hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infections were detected in English hospitals. Resulting excess length of stay (LoS) created a potentially substantial health and economic burden for patients and the NHS, but we are currently unaware of any published studies estimating this excess.

METHODS

We implemented appropriate causal inference methods to determine the extent to which observed additional hospital stay is attributable to the infection rather than the characteristics of the patients. Hospital admissions records were linked to SARS-CoV-2 test data to establish the study population (7.5 million) of all non-COVID-19 admissions to English hospitals from 1st March 2020 to 31st August 2021 with a stay of at least two days. The excess LoS due to hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infection was estimated as the difference between the mean LoS observed and in the counterfactual where infections do not occur. We used inverse probability weighted Kaplan-Meier curves to estimate the mean survival time if all hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 infections were to be prevented, the weights being based on the daily probability of acquiring an infection. The analysis was carried out for four time periods, reflecting phases of the pandemic differing with respect to overall case numbers, testing policies, vaccine rollout and prevalence of variants.

RESULTS

The observed mean LoS of hospital-onset cases was higher than for non-COVID-19 hospital patients by 16, 20, 13 and 19 days over the four phases, respectively. However, when the causal inference approach was used to appropriately adjust for time to infection and confounding, the estimated mean excess LoS caused by hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 was: 2.0 [95% confidence interval 1.8-2.2] days (Mar-Jun 2020), 1.4 [1.2-1.6] days (Sep-Dec 2020); 0.9 [0.7-1.1] days (Jan-Apr 2021); 1.5 [1.1-1.9] days (May-Aug 2021).

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital-onset SARS-CoV-2 is associated with a small but notable excess LoS, equivalent to 130,000 bed days. The comparatively high LoS observed for hospital-onset COVID-19 patients is mostly explained by the timing of their infections relative to admission. Failing to account for confounding and time to infection leads to overestimates of additional length of stay and therefore overestimates costs of infections, leading to inaccurate evaluations of control strategies.

Deferral of Non-Emergency Cardiovascular Interventions Triggers Increased Cardiac Emergency Admissions-Analysis of the COVID-19 Related Lockdown

BACKGROUND

Data on the relation between non-emergency and emergency cardiac admission rates during the COVID-19 lockdown and post-lockdown period are sparse.

METHODS

Consecutive cardiac patients admitted to our tertiary heart center between 1 January and 30 June 2020 were included. The observation period of 6 months was analyzed in total and divided into three defined time periods: the pre-lockdown (1 January-19 March), lockdown (20 March-19 April), and post-lockdown (20 April-30 June) period. These were compared to the reference periods 2019 and 2022 using daily admission rates and incidence rate ratios (IRR).

RESULTS

Over the observation period from 1 January to 30 June, cardiac admissions (including non-emergency and emergency) were comparable between 2019, 2020, and 2022 (n = 2889, n = 2952, n = 2956; p = 0.845). However, when compared to the reference period 2019, non-emergency admissions decreased in 2020 (1364 vs. 1663; p = 0.02), while emergency admissions significantly increased (1588 vs. 1226; p < 0.001). Further analysis of the lockdown period revealed that non-emergency admissions dropped by 82% (IRR 0.18; 95%-CI 0.14-0.24; p < 0.001) and 42% fewer invasive cardiac interventions were performed (p < 0.001), whereas the post-lockdown period showed a 52% increase of emergency admissions (IRR 1.47; 95%-CI 1.31-1.65; p < 0.001) compared to 2019.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate a drastic surge of emergency cardiac admissions post-COVID-19 related lockdown suggesting that patients who did not keep their non-emergency appointment had to be admitted as an emergency later on.

Go To Travel campaign and the geographic spread of COVID-19 in Japan

Background

In 2020, the Japanese government implemented first of two Go To Travel campaigns to promote the tourism sector as well as eating and drinking establishments, especially in remote areas. The present study aimed to explore the relationship between enhanced travel and geographic propagation of COVID-19 across Japan, focusing on the second campaign with nationwide large-scale economic boost in 2020.

Methods

We carried out an interrupted time-series analysis to identify the possible cause-outcome relationship between the Go To Travel campaign and the spread of infection to nonurban areas in Japan. Specifically, we counted the number of prefectures that experienced a weekly incidence of three, five, and seven COVID-19 cases or more per 100,000 population, and we compared the rate of change before and after the campaign.

Results

Three threshold values and three different models identified an increasing number of prefectures above the threshold, indicating that the inter-prefectural spread intensified following the launch of the second Go To Travel campaign from October 1st, 2020. The simplest model that accounted for an increase in the rate of change only provided the best fit. We estimated that 0.24 (95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.34) additional prefectures newly exceeded five COVID-19 cases per 100,000 population per week during the second campaign.

Conclusions

The enhanced movement resulting from the Go To Travel campaign facilitated spatial spread of COVID-19 from urban to nonurban locations, where health-care capacity may have been limited.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-022-07799-0.