Jeremy W Tankel1, David Ratcliffe2,3,4, Martin Smith2, Andrew Mullarkey5, Jennifer Pover5, Zoe Marsden5, Paula Bennett5, Darren Green2. 1. Salford Clinical Commissioning Group, Salford Civic Centre, Salford, M27 5AW, UK. jeremy.tankel@nhs.net. 2. Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Stott Lane, Salford, M6 8HD, UK. 3. North West Ambulance Service, Ladybridge Hall, Bolton, BL1 5DD, UK. 4. Greater Manchester Health and Social Care Partnership, 3 Piccadilly Place, Manchester, M1 3BN, UK. 5. Health Innovation Manchester, City Labs, Nelson Street, Manchester, M13 9NQ, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom included large scale changes to healthcare delivery, without fully understanding the potential for unexpected effects caused by these changes. The aim was "to ascertain the characteristics of patients, uncertainty over diagnosis, or features of the emergency response to the pandemic that could be modified to mitigate against future excess deaths". METHODS: Review of the entire pathway of care of patients whose death was registered in Salford during the 8 week period of the first wave (primary care, secondary care, 111 and 999 calls) in order to create a single record of healthcare prior to death. An expert panel judged avoidability of death against the National Mortality Case Record Review Programme scale. The panel identified themes using a structured judgement review format. RESULTS: There were 522 deaths including 197 in hospital, and 190 in care homes. 51% of patients were female, 81% Caucasian, age 79 ± 9 years. Dementia was present in 35%, COVID-19 was cause of death in 44%. Healthcare contact prior to death was most frequently with primary care (81% of patients). Forty-six patients (9%) had healthcare appointments cancelled (median 1 cancellation, range 1-9). Fewer than half of NHS 111 calls were answered during this period. 18% of deaths contained themes consistent with some degree of avoidability. In people aged ≥75 years who lived at home this was 53%, in care home residents 29% and in patients with learning disability 44% (n = 9). Common themes were; delays in patients presenting to care providers (10%), delays in testing (17%), avoidable exposure to COVID-19 (26%), delays in provider response (5%), and sub-optimal care (11%). For avoidability scores of 2 or 3 (indicating more than 50% chance of avoidability), 44% of cases had > 2 themes. CONCLUSIONS: The initial emergency response had unforeseen consequences resulting in late presentation, sub-optimal assessments, and delays in receiving care. Death in more vulnerable groups was more likely to display avoidability themes.
BACKGROUND: The response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom included large scale changes to healthcare delivery, without fully understanding the potential for unexpected effects caused by these changes. The aim was "to ascertain the characteristics of patients, uncertainty over diagnosis, or features of the emergency response to the pandemic that could be modified to mitigate against future excess deaths". METHODS: Review of the entire pathway of care of patients whose death was registered in Salford during the 8 week period of the first wave (primary care, secondary care, 111 and 999 calls) in order to create a single record of healthcare prior to death. An expert panel judged avoidability of death against the National Mortality Case Record Review Programme scale. The panel identified themes using a structured judgement review format. RESULTS: There were 522 deaths including 197 in hospital, and 190 in care homes. 51% of patients were female, 81% Caucasian, age 79 ± 9 years. Dementia was present in 35%, COVID-19 was cause of death in 44%. Healthcare contact prior to death was most frequently with primary care (81% of patients). Forty-six patients (9%) had healthcare appointments cancelled (median 1 cancellation, range 1-9). Fewer than half of NHS 111 calls were answered during this period. 18% of deaths contained themes consistent with some degree of avoidability. In people aged ≥75 years who lived at home this was 53%, in care home residents 29% and in patients with learning disability 44% (n = 9). Common themes were; delays in patients presenting to care providers (10%), delays in testing (17%), avoidable exposure to COVID-19 (26%), delays in provider response (5%), and sub-optimal care (11%). For avoidability scores of 2 or 3 (indicating more than 50% chance of avoidability), 44% of cases had > 2 themes. CONCLUSIONS: The initial emergency response had unforeseen consequences resulting in late presentation, sub-optimal assessments, and delays in receiving care. Death in more vulnerable groups was more likely to display avoidability themes.
Authors: Alison M Mudge; Prue McRae; Ruth E Hubbard; Nancye M Peel; Wen Kwang Lim; Adrian G Barnett; Sharon K Inouye Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Carl Marincowitz; Tony Stone; Madina Hasan; Richard Campbell; Peter A Bath; Janette Turner; Richard Pilbery; Benjamin David Thomas; Laura Sutton; Fiona Bell; Katie Biggs; Frank Hopfgartner; Suvodeep Mazumdar; Jennifer Petrie; Steve Goodacre Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Carl Marincowitz; Tony Stone; Peter Bath; Richard Campbell; Janette Kay Turner; Madina Hasan; Richard Pilbery; Benjamin David Thomas; Laura Sutton; Fiona Bell; Katie Biggs; Frank Hopfgartner; Suvodeep Mazumdar; Jennifer Petrie; Steve Goodacre Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2022-03-30 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Ana Espinosa-Gonzalez; Denys Prociuk; Francesca Fiorentino; Christian Ramtale; Ella Mi; Emma Mi; Ben Glampson; Ana Luisa Neves; Cecilia Okusi; Laiba Husain; Jack Macartney; Martina Brown; Ben Browne; Caroline Warren; Rachna Chowla; Jonty Heaversedge; Trisha Greenhalgh; Simon de Lusignan; Erik Mayer; Brendan C Delaney Journal: Lancet Digit Health Date: 2022-07-28