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