No abstract

Background To calculate hospital surge capacity, achieved via hospital provision interventions implemented for the emergency treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and other patients through March to May 2020; to evaluate the conditions for admitting patients for elective surgery under varying admission levels of COVID-19 patients. Methods We analysed National Health Service (NHS) datasets and literature reviews to estimate hospital care capacity before the pandemic (pre-pandemic baseline) and to quantify the impact of interventions (cancellation of elective surgery, field hospitals, use of private hospitals, deployment of former medical staff and deployment of newly qualified medical staff) for treatment of adult COVID-19 patients, focusing on general and acute (G&A) and critical care (CC) beds, staff and ventilators. Results NHS England would not have had sufficient capacity to treat all COVID-19 and other patients in March and April 2020 without the hospital provision interventions, which alleviated significant shortfalls in CC nurses, CC and G&A beds and CC junior doctors. All elective surgery can be conducted at normal pre-pandemic levels provided the other interventions are sustained, but only if the daily number of COVID-19 patients occupying CC beds is not greater than 1550 in the whole of England. If the other interventions are not maintained, then elective surgery can only be conducted if the number of COVID-19 patients occupying CC beds is not greater than 320. However, there is greater national capacity to treat G&A patients: without interventions, it takes almost 10,000 G&A COVID-19 patients before any G&A elective patients would be unable to be accommodated. Conclusions Unless COVID-19 hospitalisations drop to low levels, there is a continued need to enhance critical care capacity in England with field hospitals, use of private hospitals or deployment of former and newly qualified medical staff to allow some or all elective surgery to take place.

No abstract

Background Progress towards viral hepatitis elimination goals relies on accurate estimates of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV)-infection prevalence. We compared existing sources of country-level estimates from 2013 to 2017 to investigate the extent and underlying drivers of differences between them. Methods The four commonly cited sources of global-prevalence estimates, i.e. the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Schweitzer et al., the World Health Organization (WHO) and the CDA Foundation, were compared by calculating pairwise differences between sets of estimates and assessing their within-country variation. Differences in underlying empirical data and modelling methods were investigated as contributors to differences in sub-Saharan African estimates. Results The four sets of estimates across all ages were comparable overall and agreed on the global distribution of HBV burden. The WHO and the CDA produced the most similar estimates, differing by a median of 0.8 percentage points. Larger discrepancies were seen in estimates of prevalence in children under 5 years of age and in sub-Saharan African countries, where the median pairwise differences were 2.7 percentage and 2.4 percentage points for all-age prevalence and in children, respectively. Recency and representativeness of included data, and different modelling assumptions of the age distribution of HBV burden, seemed to contribute to these differences. Conclusion Current prevalence estimates, particularly those from the WHO and the CDA based on more recent empirical data, provide a useful resource to assess the population-level burden of chronic HBV-infection. However, further seroprevalence data in young children are needed particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. This is a priority, as monitoring progress towards elimination depends on improved knowledge of prevalence in this age group.