Lessons from the pandemic on the value of research infrastructure

[Castellón Field Hospital: comprehensive analysis of its use during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.]

OBJECTIVE

Field hospitals, also known as alternative care sites, have been an important healthcare reinforcement during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic worldwide. In the Valencian Community, three of these hospitals were opened, one for each province. Our study aimed to make a comprehensive analysis of this resource in Castellon.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study was carried out with an analytical and statistical component of 3 aspects: infrastructure, satisfaction and clinical data from COVID-positive hospitalized patients. The sources of information were primary, institutional for the infrastructure and personal for the satisfaction surveys and clinical data.

RESULTS

A set of 6x3 metres polyvalent tents was chosen, which joined formed a single-floor area of about 3.500 m2. Although hospital opened for approximately a year and a half with multiple uses, most in relation to the COVID pandemic (vaccination center, emergency room observation, hospital assistance, warehouse...), reception of positive patients for the virus began during the third wave of the pandemic, remaining active for eleven days. A total of thirty-one patients with a mean age of 56 years were admitted. 41.9% did not have any comorbidity and 54.8% needed treatment with oxygen therapy. Furthermore, the length of stay was three days, finding a significant relationship between this one, the oxygen flow required during admission and the age. Satisfaction was measured by a survey of seventeen questions where an average satisfaction of 8.33/10.

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of the few studies in the literature in which a field hospital is analyzed from such different points of view. After this analysis, it is concluded that it is an extraordinary and temporary resource whose use is useful without reflecting an increase of morbidity/mortality among our patients and with a very favorable subjective assessment.

Resilience in keeping the balance between demand and capacity in the COVID-19 pandemic, a case study at a Swedish middle-sized hospital

BACKGROUND

In pandemics, it is critical to find a balance between healthcare demand, and capacity, taking into consideration the demands of the patients affected by the pandemic, as well as other patients (in elective or emergency care). The purpose of this paper is to suggest conceptual models for the capacity requirements at the emergency department, the inpatient care, and intensive care unit as well as a model for building staff capacity in pandemics.

METHODS

This paper is based on a qualitative single case study at a middle-sized hospital in Sweden. The primary data are collected from 27 interviewees and inductively analyzed.

RESULTS

The interviewees described a large difference between the immediate catastrophe scenario described in the emergency plan (which they had trained for), and the reality during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic had a much slower onset and lasted longer compared to, for example, an accident, and the healthcare demand fluctuated with the societal infection. The emergency department and inpatient care could create surge capacity by reducing elective care. Lower inflow of other emergency patients also helped to create surge capacity. The number of intensive care beds increased by 350% at the case hospital. At the same time, the capacity of the employees decreased due to infection, exhaustion, and fear. The study contributes to knowledge of conceptional models and key factors affecting the balance between demand and capacity.

CONCLUSION

The framework suggests conceptual models for balancing surge capacity during a pandemic Health care practitioners need to provide assumptions of the key factors to find the balance between the demand and capacity corresponding to the reality and maintain the delivery of high-quality healthcare services.

Applying Situational Leadership to Redeployment Duties During COVID-19: Lessons Learned

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In March 2020, the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused many disruptions to usual operations and demands in excess of normal capacity at NYU Langone Hospital Long Island and NYU Long Island School of Medicine. Significant increases in volume of critically ill patients necessitated hospital administrators to redeploy faculty physicians and other staff to support other areas as a way of exercising option value. This commentary describes our experiences as 2 medical school deans and teaching professors where we recently applied the model of situational leadership during our redeployment as unit clerks on newly-created COVID patient care units at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in our local area. Our experience yielded personal feelings of accomplishment and allowed us to exercise nonlinear thinking, which we believe contributed to greater staff operational efficiency, using principles of situational leadership during these hospital redeployment initiatives.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Situational leadership is an effective management model for hospital academic leaders who are not routinely in clinical operations to initiate in emergency conditions when unprecedented working scenarios and feelings of staff uncertainty are occurring, while option value is being exercised with faculty/staff redeployment. Our experience led to increased self-actualization. We provide recommendations to health care administrators on how to better prepare for future faculty/staff redeployments in the hospital.

Saving millions of lives but some resources squandered: emerging lessons from health research system pandemic achievements and challenges

During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, astonishingly rapid research averted millions of deaths worldwide through new vaccines and repurposed and new drugs. Evidence use informed life-saving national policies including non-pharmaceutical interventions. Simultaneously, there was unprecedented waste, with many underpowered trials on the same drugs. We identified lessons from COVID-19 research responses by applying WHO's framework for research systems. It has four functions-governance, securing finance, capacity-building, and production and use of research-and nine components. Two linked questions focused the analysis. First, to what extent have achievements in knowledge production and evidence use built on existing structures and capacity in national health research systems? Second, did the features of such systems mitigate waste? We collated evidence on seven countries, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, to identify examples of achievements and challenges.We used the data to develop lessons for each framework component. Research coordination, prioritization and expedited ethics approval contributed to rapid identification of new therapies, including dexamethasone in the United Kingdom and Brazil. Accelerated vaccines depended on extensive funding, especially through the Operation Warp Speed initiative in the United States, and new platforms created through long-term biomedical research capacity in the United Kingdom and, for messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines, in Canada, Germany and the United States. Research capacity embedded in the United Kingdom's healthcare system resulted in trial acceleration and waste avoidance. Faster publication of research saved lives, but raised challenges. Public/private collaborations made major contributions to vastly accelerating new products, available worldwide, though unequally. Effective developments of living (i.e. regularly updated) reviews and guidelines, especially in Australia and Canada, extended existing expertise in meeting users' needs. Despite complexities, effective national policy responses (less evident in Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United States) also saved lives by drawing on health research system features, including collaboration among politicians, civil servants and researchers; good communications; and willingness to use evidence. Comprehensive health research strategies contributed to success in research production in the United Kingdom and in evidence use by political leadership in New Zealand. In addition to waste, challenges included equity issues, public involvement and non-COVID research. We developed recommendations, but advocate studies of further countries.

Pandemic preparedness and responsiveness of research review committees: lessons from review of COVID-19 protocols at KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme in Kenya

Background: The scale of the COVID-19 pandemic and novelty of SARS-CoV-2 presented unprecedented challenges in the review of COVID-19 protocols. We investigated how research at the KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme (KWTRP) was reviewed, including by institutional and national level committees.

Methods: A document review and in-depth interviews with researchers, regulators and research reviewers were conducted. Documents reviewed included research logs of all protocols submitted between April-1-2020 and March-31-2021, feedback letters from review committees for 10 new COVID-19 protocols (n=42), and minutes from 35 COVID-19 research review meetings. Fifteen in-depth interviews were conducted with respondents purposively selected because of their experience of developing or reviewing COVID-19 protocols at the institution level (n=9 researchers, engagement officers and regulators) or their experience in reviewing proposals at a national-level (n=6 committee members). Data were managed and analyzed using MS Excel and NVivo12.

Results: Between April-1-2020 and March-31-2021, 30 COVID-19-related submissions by KWTRP researchers were approved. Changes to the review system included strengthening the online system for protocol submission and review, recruiting more reviewers, and trialing a joint review process where one protocol was submitted to multiple review committees simultaneously . The turnaround time from submission to national approval/rejection over this period was faster than pre-pandemic, but slower than the national committee’s target. COVID-19-specific ethics questions centred on: virtual informed consent and data collection; COVID-19 prevention, screening and testing procedures; and the challenges of study design and community engagement during the pandemic.

Conclusions: The unprecedented challenges of the pandemic and added bureaucratic requirements created a more complex review process and delayed final approval of research protocols. The feasibility of conducting joint review of research during public health emergencies in Kenya needs further investigation. Consideration of the unique COVID-19 ethics issues raised in this paper might aid expedience in current and future reviews.

Pandemic preparedness and responsiveness of research review committees: lessons from review of COVID-19 protocols at KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme in Kenya

Background: The scale of the COVID-19 pandemic and novelty of SARS-CoV-2 presented unprecedented challenges in the review of COVID-19 protocols. We investigated how research at the KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme (KWTRP) was reviewed, including by institutional and national level committees. Methods: A document review and in-depth interviews with researchers, regulators and research reviewers were conducted. Documents reviewed included research logs of all protocols submitted between April-1-2020 and March-31-2021, feedback letters from review committees for 10 new COVID-19 protocols (n=42), and minutes from 35 COVID-19 research review meetings. Fifteen in-depth interviews were conducted with respondents purposively selected because of their experience of developing or reviewing COVID-19 protocols at the institution level (n=9 researchers, engagement officers and regulators) or their experience in reviewing proposals at a national-level (n=6 committee members). Data were managed and analyzed using MS Excel and NVivo12. Results: Between April-1-2020 and March-31-2021, 30 COVID-19-related submissions by KWTRP researchers were approved. Changes to the review system included strengthening the online system for protocol submission and review, recruiting more reviewers, and trialing a joint review process where one protocol was submitted to multiple review committees simultaneously . The turnaround time from submission to national approval/rejection over this period was faster than pre-pandemic, but slower than the national committee's target. COVID-19-specific ethics questions centred on: virtual informed consent and data collection; COVID-19 prevention, screening and testing procedures; and the challenges of study design and community engagement during the pandemic. Conclusions: The unprecedented challenges of the pandemic and added bureaucratic requirements created a more complex review process and delayed final approval of research protocols. The feasibility of conducting joint review of research during public health emergencies in Kenya needs further investigation. Consideration of the unique COVID-19 ethics issues raised in this paper might aid expedience in current and future reviews.

The organization and impacts of clinical research delivery workforce redeployment during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative case study of one research-intensive acute hospital trust

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has tested healthcare and research systems around the world, forcing the large-scale reorganization of hospitals, research infrastructure and resources. The United Kingdom has been singled out for the speed and scale of its research response. The efficiency of the United Kingdom's research mobilization was in large part predicated on the pre-existing embeddedness of the clinical research system within the National Health Service (NHS), a public, free-at-point-of-delivery healthcare system. In this paper we discuss the redeployment of the clinical research workforce to support the pandemic clinical services, detailing the process of organizing this redeployment, as well as the impacts redeployment has had on both staff and research delivery at one research-intensive acute NHS trust in London.

METHODS

A social science case study of one large research-active NHS trust drawing on data from an online questionnaire; participant observation of key research planning meetings; semi-structured interviews with staff involved in research; and document analysis of emails and official national and trust communications.

RESULTS

We found that at our case-study hospital trust, the research workforce was a resource that was effectively redeployed as part of the pandemic response. Research delivery workers were redeployed to clinical roles, to COVID-related research and to work maintaining the research system during the redeployment itself. Redeployed research workers faced some difficulties with technology and communication, but many had a positive experience and saw the redeployment as a significant and valuable moment in their career.

CONCLUSIONS

This study explicates the role of the research delivery workforce for the United Kingdom's COVID response. Redeployed research workers facilitated the emergency response by delivering significant amounts of patient care. The public also benefited from having a well-developed research infrastructure in place that was able to flexibly respond to a novel virus. Many research workers feel that the NHS should provide more support for this distinctive workforce.

Rapid research response to the COVID-19 pandemic: perspectives from a National Institute for Health Biomedical Research Centre

With over 5 million COVID-19 deaths at the time of writing, the response of research leaders was and is critical to developing treatments to control the global pandemic. As clinical research leaders urgently repurposed existing research programmes and resources towards the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an opportunity to reflect on practices observed in Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) settings. BRCs are partnerships between leading National Health Service organizations and universities in England conducting translational research for patient benefit funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). Oxford BRC-supported researchers have led the rapid set-up of numerous COVID-19 research studies at record speed with global impact. However, the specific contribution of BRCs to the COVID-19 pandemic in the literature is sparse. Firstly, we reflect on the strategic work of clinical research leaders, creating resilient NIHR research infrastructure to facilitate rapid COVID-19 research. Secondly, we discuss how COVID-19 rapid research exemplars supported by Oxford BRC illustrate “capacity”, “readiness” and “capability” at an organizational and individual level to respond to the global pandemic. Rapid response research in turbulent environments requires strategic organizational leadership to create resilient infrastructure and resources. The rapid research exemplars from the Oxford BRC illustrate capability and capacity at an organizational and individual level in a dynamic environment to respond during the COVID-19 public health challenge. This response was underpinned by swift adaptation and repurposing of existing research resources and expertise by the Oxford BRC to deliver rapid research to address different aspects of COVID-19.

Impacts of COVID-19 on clinical research in the UK: A multi-method qualitative case study

Background

Clinical research has been central to the global response to COVID-19, and the United Kingdom (UK), with its research system embedded within the National Health Service (NHS), has been singled out globally for the scale and speed of its COVID-19 research response. This paper explores the impacts of COVID-19 on clinical research in an NHS Trust and how the embedded research system was adapted and repurposed to support the COVID-19 response.

Methods and findings

Using a multi-method qualitative case study of a research-intensive NHS Trust in London UK, we collected data through a questionnaire (n = 170) and semi-structured interviews (n = 24) with research staff working in four areas: research governance; research leadership; research delivery; and patient and public involvement. We also observed key NHS Trust research prioritisation meetings (40 hours) and PPI activity (4.5 hours) and analysed documents produced by the Trust and national organisation relating to COVID-19 research. Data were analysed for a descriptive account of the Trust’s COVID-19 research response and research staff’s experiences. Data were then analysed thematically. Our analysis identifies three core themes: centralisation; pace of work; and new (temporary) work practices. By centralising research prioritisation at both national and Trust levels, halting non-COVID-19 research and redeploying research staff, an increased pace in the setup and delivery of COVID-19-related research was possible. National and Trust-level responses also led to widescale changes in working practices by adapting protocols and developing local processes to maintain and deliver research. These were effective practical solutions borne out of necessity and point to how the research system was able to adapt to the requirements of the pandemic.

Conclusion

The Trust and national COVID-19 response entailed a rapid large-scale reorganisation of research staff, research infrastructures and research priorities. The Trust’s local processes that enabled them to enact national policy prioritising COVID-19 research worked well, especially in managing finite resources, and also demonstrate the importance and adaptability of the research workforce. Such findings are useful as we consider how to adapt our healthcare delivery and research practices both at the national and global level for the future. However, as the pandemic continues, research leaders and policymakers must also take into account the short and long term impact of COVID-19 prioritisation on non-COVID-19 health research and the toll of the emergency response on research staff.

Fundamental challenges in assessing the impact of research infrastructure

Clinical research infrastructure is one of the unsung heroes of the scientific response to the current COVID-19 pandemic. The extensive, long-term funding into research support structures, skilled people, and technology allowed the United Kingdom research response to move off the starting blocks at pace by utilizing pre-existing platforms. The increasing focus from funders on evaluating the outcomes and impact of research infrastructure investment requires both a reframing and progression of the current models in order to address the contribution of the underlying support infrastructure. The majority of current evaluation/outcome models focus on a "pipeline" approach using a methodology which follows the traditional research funding route with the addition of quantitative metrics. These models fail to embrace the complexity caused by the interplay of previous investment, the coalescing of project outputs from different funders, the underlying infrastructure investment, and the parallel development across different parts of the system. Research infrastructure is the underpinning foundation of a project-driven research system and requires long-term, sustained funding and capital investment to maintain scientific and technological expertise. Therefore, the short-term focus on quantitative metrics that are easy to collect and interpret and that can be assessed in a roughly 5-year funding cycle needs to be addressed. The significant level of investment in research infrastructure necessitates investment to develop bespoke methodologies that develop fit-for-purpose, longer-term/continual approach(es) to evaluation. Real-world research should reflect real-world evaluation and allow for the accrual of a narrative of value indicators that build a picture of the contribution of infrastructure to research outcomes. The linear approach is not fit for purpose, the research endeavour is a complex, twisted road, and the evaluation approach needs to embrace this complexity through the development of realist approaches and the rapidly evolving data ecosystem. This paper sets out methodological challenges and considers the need to develop bespoke methodological approaches to allow a richer assessment of impact, contribution, attribution, and evaluation of research infrastructure. This paper is the beginning of a conversation that invites the community to "take up the mantle" and tackle the complexity of real-world research translation and evaluation.