ObjectivesTo quantitatively assess the early impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on in-person outpatient care utilisation worldwide, as well as across categories of services, types of care and medical specialties.DesignRapid review.MethodA search of MEDLINE and Embase was conducted to identify studies published from 1 January 2020 to 12 February 2021, which quantitatively reported the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the amount of outpatient care services delivered (in-person visits, diagnostic/screening procedures and treatments). There was no restriction on the type of medical care (emergency/primary/specialty care) or target population (adult/paediatric). All articles presenting primary data from studies reporting on outpatient care utilisation were included. Studies describing conditions requiring hospitalisation or limited to telehealth services were excluded.ResultsA total of 517 articles reporting 1011 outpatient care utilisation measures in 49 countries worldwide were eligible for inclusion. Of those, 93% focused on the first semester of 2020 (January to June). The reported results showed an almost universal decline in in-person outpatient care utilisation, with a 56% overall median relative decrease. Heterogeneity across countries was high, with median decreases ranging from 10% to 91%. Diagnostic and screening procedures (−63%), as well as in-person visits (−56%), were more affected than treatments (−36%). Emergency care showed a smaller relative decline (−49%) than primary (−60%) and specialty care (−58%).ConclusionsThe provision of in-person outpatient care services has been strongly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, but heterogeneously across countries. The long-term population health consequences of the disruption of outpatient care service delivery remain currently unknown and need to be studied.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021237366.

ICD-11 provides a promising new way to capture healthcare-related harm or injury. In this paper, we elaborate on the framework for describing healthcare-related events where there is a presumed causal link between an event and underlying healthcare-related factors. The three-part model for describing healthcare-related harm or injury in ICD-11 consists of (1) a healthcare-related activity that is the cause of injury or other harm (selected from Chapter 23 of ICD-11); (2) a mode or mechanism of injury or harm, related to the underlying cause (also from Chapter 23 of ICD-11); and (3) the harmful consequences of the event to the patient, selected from any of Chapters 1 through 22 of ICD-11 (most importantly, the injury or harm experienced by the patient). Concepts from these three elements are linked/clustered through postcoordination to reflect the three-part model in a single coded expression. ICD-11 contains many novel features, and the three-part model described here for healthcare-related adverse events is a notable example.

Objectives: To explore how perceived disease threat and trust in institutions relate to vaccination intent, perceived effectiveness of official recommendations, and to othering strategies.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of Swiss adults in July 2020. Outcome variables were vaccination intent, perceived effectiveness of official recommendations and othering strategies (labelling a given social group as responsible for the disease and distancing from it). Independent variables were perceived disease threat, trust in various institutions, perceived health-related measures, and sociodemographic variables. Linear and logistic regressions were performed.Results: The response rate was 20.2% (1518/7500). Perceived disease threat and trust in medical/scientific institutions were positively associated with vaccination intent and perceived effectiveness of official recommendations for coronavirus mitigation measures. Only disease threat was associated with a perception of effectiveness among othering strategies. Age and education levels were associated with vaccination intent.Conclusion: Reinforcing trust in medical/scientific institutions can help strengthen the perceived effectiveness of official recommendations and vaccination. It however does not prevent adherence to ineffective protecting measures such as othering strategies, where decreasing perceptions of epidemic threat appears to be more efficient.