The UK government response to COVID-19 has been heavily criticised. We report witnesses’ perceptions of what has shaped UK policies and how these policies have been received by healthcare workers. Such studies are usually affected by hindsight. Here we deploy a novel prospective approach to capture real-time information. We are historians, social scientists and biomedical researchers who study how societies cope with infectious disease. In February 2020 we began regular semi-structured calls with prominent members of policy communities, and health care professionals, to elicit their roles in, and reactions to, the pandemic response. We report witnesses’ perceptions that personal protective equipment (PPE) stocks were too small, early warnings have not led to sufficiently rapid policy decisions, and a lack of transparency is sapping public trust. Significant successes include research mobilisation. The early experiences and reactions of our witnesses suggest important issues for investigation, notably a perception of delay in decision making.

Objective To identify the experiences and concerns of health workers (HWs), and how they changed, throughout the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Methods Longitudinal, qualitative study with HWs involved in patient management or delivery of care related to COVID-19 in general practice, emergency departments and hospitals. Participants were identified through snowballing. Semi-structured telephone or video interviews were conducted between February 2020 and February 2021, audio-recorded, summarised, and transcribed. Data were analysed longitudinally using framework and thematic analysis. Results We conducted 105 interviews with 14 participants and identified three phases corresponding with shifts in HWs’ experiences and concerns. (1) Emergency and mobilisation phase (late winter-spring 2020), with significant rapid shifts in responsibilities, required skills, and training, and challenges in patient care. (2) Consolidation and preparation phase (summer-autumn 2020), involving gradual return to usual care and responsibilities, sense of professional development and improvement in care, and focus on learning and preparing for future. (3) Exhaustion and survival phase (autumn 2020-winter 2021), entailing return of changes in responsibilities, focus on balancing COVID-19 and non-COVID care (until becoming overwhelmed with COVID-19 cases), and concerns about longer-term impacts of unceasing pressure on health services. Participants’ perceptions of COVID-19 risk and patient/public attitudes changed throughout the year, and tiredness and weariness turned into exhaustion. Conclusions Results showed a long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on UK HWs’ experiences and concerns related to changes in their roles, provision of care, and personal wellbeing. Despite mobilisation in the emergency phase, and trying to learn from this, HWs’ experiences seemed to be similar or worse in the second wave partly due to many COVID-19 cases. The findings highlight the importance of supporting HWs and strengthening system-level resilience (e.g., with resources, processes) to enable them to respond to current and future demands and emergencies.

Background Inequities in the provision of palliative care for people with cardiac disease have been well documented in the literature. Despite experiencing significant palliative care needs, those with cardiac disease are less likely to be referred to specialist palliative care services and more likely to die in a hospital when compared to those with cancer. The unpredictable trajectory of heart failure has been identified as a key barrier to providing palliative care with many people experiencing a long period of stability with appropriate medical treatment. However, as the disease progresses and cardiac function deteriorates, exacerbations of acute decompensation can lead to what is often perceived to be ‘sudden’ death. The aim of this study is to explore the impact of uncertainty on how death is remembered by bereaved family members of people with heart disease. Methods Thematic analysis of free text collected during a postal survey of bereaved family’s experiences of healthcare services in the last 3 months of life using the New Zealand version of the VOICES questionnaire was undertaken. Data was analysed using a three-dimensional conceptual framework of “scientific uncertainty”. Results Eight hundred and twenty-seven completed questionnaires were received of which 12.6% (n = 105) indicated that they had cared for someone at the end of life with cardiac disease. Experiences of uncertainty were found to have a significant impact upon bereaved family. Four key themes were identified; distrust in healthcare professionals, stories left incomplete, loss, regret and missed opportunity and disempowerment. Conclusions This study highlights the ongoing impact on bereaved family when uncertainty is not made explicit in conversations regarding end of life for people with heart disease. Timely and sensitive conversations regarding the uncertainty of when death may occur is an important factor in ensuring that bereaved family are not left with unresolved narratives. Reframing how we think and talk about uncertainty in end of life care is important, as clinicians’ uncertainties may not always reflect or match up with families’ uncertainties. Being explicit about our inability to be certain about the timing of death may thus lead to a more positive and complete experience for bereaved family.

Background As COVID-19 death rates have risen and health-care systems have experienced increased demand, national testing strategies have come under scrutiny. Utilising qualitative interview data from a larger COVID-19 study, this paper provides insights into influences on and the enactment of national COVID-19 testing strategies for health care workers (HCWs) in English NHS settings during wave one of the COVID-19 pandemic (March–August 2020). Through the findings we aim to inform learning about COVID-19 testing policies and practices; and to inform future pandemic diagnostic preparedness. Methods A remote qualitative, semi-structured longitudinal interview method was employed with a purposive snowball sample of senior scientific advisors to the UK Government on COVID-19, and HCWs employed in NHS primary and secondary health care settings in England. Twenty-four interviews from 13 participants were selected from the larger project dataset using a key term search, as not all of the transcripts contained references to testing. Framework analysis was informed by the non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability of patient-facing health and care technologies implementation framework (NASSS) and by normalisation process theory (NPT). Results Our account highlights tensions between the communication and implementation of national testing developments; scientific advisor and HCW perceptions about infectiousness; and uncertainties about the responsibility for testing and its implications at the local level. Conclusions Consideration must be given to the implications of mass NHS staff testing, including the accuracy of information communicated to HCWs; how HCWs interpret, manage, and act on testing guidance; and the influence these have on health care organisations and services.

No abstract

Background: With a rapidly changing evidence base, high-quality clinical management guidelines (CMGs) are key tools for aiding clinical decision making and increasing access to best available evidence-based care. A rapid review of COVID-19 CMGs found most lacked methodological rigour, overlooked at-risk populations, and varied in treatment recommendations. Furthermore, social science literature highlights the complexity of implementing guidelines in local contexts where they were not developed and the resulting potential to compound health inequities. This study aimed to evaluate access to, inclusivity of, and implementation of COVID-19 CMGs in different settings. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of clinicians worldwide was conducted from 15th June to 20th July 2020, to explore access to and implementation of COVID-19 CMGs, and treatment and supportive care recommendations provided. Data on accessibility, inclusivity, and implementation of CMGs were analysed by geographic location. Results: 76 clinicians from 27 countries responded: 82% from high-income countries, 17% from lower middle-income countries (LMICs). Most respondents reported access to COVID-19 CMGs and confidence in their implementation. However, many respondents, particularly from LMICs, reported barriers to implementation, including limited access to treatment and equipment. Only 20% of respondents reported having access to CMGs covering care for children, 25% for pregnant women, and 50% for older adults (>65 years). Identified themes were for CMGs to include recommendations for at-risk populations and settings, include supportive care guidance, and be updated as evidence emerges, and for clinicians to have training and access to recommended treatments to support implementation. Conclusion: Our findings highlight important gaps in COVID-19 CMG development and implementation challenges during a pandemic, particularly affecting at-risk populations and lower resourced settings. This study identifies an urgent need for an improved CMG development framework that is inclusive and adaptable to emerging evidence and considers contextual implementation support, to improve access to evidence-based care globally.

Objective: To examine the extent to which people who are trying to lose weight naturally self-regulate in response to self-weighing and to identify barriers to self-regulation. Design/Main Outcome Measures: Twenty-four participants, who were overweight and trying to lose weight, recorded their thoughts during daily weighing for eight weeks. Semi-structured follow-up interviews assessed participant experiences. Qualitative analysis identified steps of the selfregulation process and barriers to self-regulation. Exploratory regression analysis assessed the relationship between the self-regulation steps and weight loss. Results: On 90% of 498 occasions, participants compared their weight measurement to an expectation or goal, and on 58% they reflected on previous behaviour. Action planning only occurred on 20% of occasions, and specific action planning was rare (6%). Only specific action planning significantly predicted weight loss (À2.1 kg per 1 SD increase in the predictor, 95% CI ¼ À3.9, À0.3). Thematic analysis revealed that barriers to the interpretation of daily weight changes were difficulties in understanding day-today fluctuations, losing the overview of trends, forgetting to weigh, and forgetting previous measurements. Conclusion: Specific action planning can lead to weight loss, but is rare in a naturalistic setting. Barriers to self-regulation relate to the interpretation of weight changes.

In responding to the widespread impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, countries have proposed and implemented documentation policies that confer varying levels of freedoms or restrictions (e.g., ability to travel) based on individuals’ infection status or potential immunity. Most discussions around immunity- or infection-based documentation policies have focused on scientific plausibility, economic benefit, and challenges relating to ethics and equity. As COVID-19 vaccines are rolled out, attention has turned to confirmation of immunity and how documentation such as vaccine certificates or immunity passports can be implemented. However, the contextual inequities and local variabilities interacting with COVID-19 related documentation policies hinder a one-size-fits-all approach. In this Comment, we argue that social science perspectives can and should provide additional insight into these issues, through a diverse range of current and historical examples. This would enable policymakers and researchers to better understand and mitigate current and longer-term differential impacts of COVID-19 immunity-based documentation policies in different contexts. Furthermore, social science research methods can uniquely provide feedback to inform adjustments to policy implementation in real-time and help to document how these policy measures are felt differently across communities, populations, and countries, potentially for years to come. This Comment, updated as of 15 August 2021, combines precedents established in historical disease outbreaks and current experiences with COVID-19 immunity-based documentation policies to highlight valuable lessons and an acute need for further social science research which should inform effective and context-appropriate future public health policy and action.