Use the links below to access our reports, or scroll down to use the search function to explore all of our publications including peer-reviewed papers and briefing papers.
Browse all publications
- Showing results for:
- Reset all filters
ReportRiley S, Walters C, Wang H, et al., 2020,
REACT-1 round 7 updated report: regional heterogeneity in changes in prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the second national COVID-19 lockdown in England, REACT-1 round 7 updated report: regional heterogeneity in changes in prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the second national COVID-19 lockdown in England, London, Publisher: Imperial College London
BackgroundEngland exited a four-week second national lockdown on 2nd December 2020 initiated in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior results showed that prevalence dropped during the first half of lockdown, with greater reductions in higher-prevalence northern regions.MethodsREACT-1 is a series of community surveys of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR swab-positivity in England, designed to monitor the spread of the epidemic and thus increase situational awareness. Round 7 of REACT-1 commenced swab-collection on 13th November 2020. A prior interim report included data from 13th to 24th November 2020 for 105,122 participants. Here, we report data for the entire round with swab results obtained up to 3rd December 2020.ResultsBetween 13th November and 3rd December (round 7) there were 1,299 positive swabs out of 168,181 giving a weighted prevalence of 0.94% (95% CI 0.87%, 1.01%) or 94 per 10,000 people infected in the community in England. This compares with a prevalence of 1.30% (1.21%, 1.39%) from 16th October to 2nd November 2020 (round 6), a decline of 28%. Prevalence during the latter half of round 7 was 0.91% (95% CI, 0.81%, 1.03%) compared with 0.96% (0.87%, 1.05%) in the first half. The national R number in round 7 was estimated at 0.96 (0.88, 1.03) with a decline in prevalence observed during the first half of this period no longer apparent during the second half at the end of lockdown. During round 7 there was a marked fall in prevalence in West Midlands, a levelling off in some regions and a rise in London. R numbers at regional level ranged from 0.60 (0.41, 0.80) in West Midlands up to 1.27 (1.04, 1.54) in London, where prevalence was highest in the east and south-east of the city. Nationally, between 13th November and 3rd December, the highest prevalence was in school-aged children especially at ages 13-17 years at 2.04% (1.69%, 2.46%), or approximately 1 in 50.ConclusionBetween the previous round and round 7 (during lockdown), there was a fall in prevalence of SARS-C
Journal articleOrlovic M, Callender T, Riley J, et al., 2020,
Place of death is an important outcome of end-of-life care. Many people do not have the opportunity to express their wishes and die in their preferred place of death. Advance care planning (ACP) involves discussion, decisions and documentation about how an individual contemplates their future death. Recording end-of-life preferences gives patients a sense of control over their future. Coordinate My Care (CMC) is London’s largest electronic palliative care register designed to provide effective ACP, with information being shared with urgent care providers. The aim of this study is to explore determinants of dying in hospital. Understanding advance plans and their outcomes can help in understanding the potential effects that implementation of electronic palliative care registers can have on the end-of-life care provided. Retrospective observational cohort analysis included 21,231 individuals aged 18 or older with a Coordinate My Care plan who had died between March 2011 and July 2019 with recorded place of death. Logistic regression was used to explore demographic and end-of-life preference factors associated with hospital deaths. 22% of individuals died in hospital and 73% have achieved preferred place of death. Demographic characteristics and end-of-life preferences have impact on dying in hospital, with the latter having the strongest influence. The likelihood of in-hospital death is substantially higher in patients without documented preferred place of death (OR = 1.43, 95% CI 1.26–1.62, p<0.001), in those who prefer to die in hospital (OR = 2.30, 95% CI 1.60–3.30, p<0.001) and who prefer to be cared in hospital (OR = 2.77, 95% CI 1.94–3.96, p<0.001). “Not for resuscitation” individuals (OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.37–0.50, p<0.001) and who preferred symptomatic treatment (OR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.33–0.40, p<0.001) had a lower likelihood of in-hospital death. Effective advance care planning is necessary for improve
Journal articleJoshi M, Ashrafian H, Khan S, et al., 2020,
Sepsis, The Lancet, Vol: 396, Pages: 1805-1805, ISSN: 0140-6736
Journal articleNeves AL, Lawrence-Jones A, Naar L, et al., 2020,
Journal articleGeeson C, Wei L, Franklin BD, 2020,
Journal articleSuwa Y, Joshi M, Poynter L, et al., 2020,
BackgroundObesity is a major health problem, demonstrated to double the risk of colorectal cancer. The benefits of robotic colorectal surgery in obese patients remain largely unknown. This meta‐analysis evaluated the clinical and pathological outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery in obese and non‐obese patients.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, Healthcare Management Information Consortium (HMIC) and Midwives Information and Resources Service (MIDIRS) databases were searched on 1 August 2018 with no language restriction. Meta‐analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Obese patients (BMI 30 kg/m2 or above) undergoing robotic colorectal cancer resections were compared with non‐obese patients. Included outcome measures were: operative outcomes (duration of surgery, conversion to laparotomy, blood loss), postoperative complications, hospital length of stay and pathological outcomes (number of retrieved lymph nodes, positive circumferential resection margins and length of distal margin in rectal surgery).ResultsA total of 131 full‐text articles were reviewed, of which 12 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. There were 3166 non‐obese and 1420 obese patients. A longer duration of surgery was documented in obese compared with non‐obese patients (weighted mean difference −21·99 (95 per cent c.i. −31·52 to −12·46) min; P < 0·001). Obese patients had a higher rate of conversion to laparotomy than non‐obese patients (odds ratio 1·99, 95 per cent c.i. 1·54 to 2·56; P < 0·001). Blood loss, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay and pathological outcomes were not significantly different in obese and non‐obese patients.ConclusionRobotic surgery in obese patients results in a significantly longer duration of surgery and higher conversion rates than in non‐obese patients. Further studies should focus on bette
Journal articleHarkanen M, Franklin BD, Murrells T, et al., 2020,
Journal articleSaracino A, Oude-Vrielink TJC, Menciassi A, et al., 2020,
Journal articleGrimes TC, Garfield S, Kelly D, et al., 2020,
Household medication safety practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: a descriptive qualitative study protocol, BMJ Open, Vol: 10, Pages: 1-6, ISSN: 2044-6055
Introduction Those who are staying at home and reducing contact with other people during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to be at greater risk of medication-related problems than the general population. This study aims to explore household medication practices by and for this population, identify practices that benefit or jeopardise medication safety and develop best practice guidance about household medication safety practices during a pandemic, grounded in individual experiences.Methods and analysis This is a descriptive qualitative study using semistructured interviews, by telephone or video call. People who have been advised to ‘cocoon’/‘shield’ and/or are aged 70 years or over and using at least one long-term medication, or their caregivers, will be eligible for inclusion. We will recruit 100 patient/carer participants: 50 from the UK and 50 from Ireland. Recruitment will be supported by our patient and public involvement (PPI) partners, personal networks and social media. Individual participant consent will be sought, and interviews audio/video recorded and/or detailed notes made. A constructivist interpretivist approach to data analysis will involve use of the constant comparative method to organise the data, along with inductive analysis. From this, we will iteratively develop best practice guidance about household medication safety practices during a pandemic from the patient’s/carer’s perspective.Ethics and dissemination This study has Trinity College Dublin, University of Limerick and University College London ethics approvals. We plan to disseminate our findings via presentations at relevant patient/public, professional, academic and scientific meetings, and for publication in peer-reviewed journals. We will create a list of helpful strategies that participants have reported and share this with participants, PPI partners and on social media.
Journal articleNeves AL, Freise L, Laranjo L, et al., 2020,
Impact of providing patients access to electronic health records on quality and safety of care: a systematic review and meta-analysis, BMJ Quality and Safety, Vol: 29, Pages: 1019-1032, ISSN: 2044-5415
Objective To evaluate the impact of sharing electronic health records (EHRs) with patients and map it across six domains of quality of care (ie, patient-centredness, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, equity and safety).Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, HMIC, Medline/PubMed and PsycINFO, from 1997 to 2017.Eligibility criteria Randomised trials focusing on adult subjects, testing an intervention consisting of sharing EHRs with patients, and with an outcome in one of the six domains of quality of care.Data analysis The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Title and abstract screening were performed by two pairs of investigators and assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. For each domain, a narrative synthesis of the results was performed, and significant differences in results between low risk and high/unclear risk of bias studies were tested (t-test, p<0.05). Continuous outcomes evaluated in four studies or more (glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP)) were pooled as weighted mean difference (WMD) using random effects meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses were performed for low risk of bias studies, and long-term interventions only (lasting more than 12 months).Results Twenty studies were included (17 387 participants). The domain most frequently assessed was effectiveness (n=14), and the least were timeliness and equity (n=0). Inconsistent results were found for patient-centredness outcomes (ie, satisfaction, activation, self-efficacy, empowerment or health literacy), with 54.5% of the studies (n=6) demonstrating a beneficial effect. Meta-analyses showed a beneficial effect in effectiveness by reducing absolute values of HbA1c (unit: %; WMD=−0.316; 95% CI −0.540 to −0.093, p=0.005, I2=0%), which remained significant in the sensitivity analyses for low risk of bias s
This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.