ObjectivesWe sought to evaluate whether socioeconomic status influences outcome after first-time transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).MethodThis is a single-centre study carried out in Swansea, South West Wales, UK between 5 November 2009 and 10 June 2018. Data included age, gender, domiciliary postal code, comorbidities, complications post-TAVI, length of stay, follow-up time and survival status. The Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation, 2014 was used to stratify cases by level of social deprivation according to domiciliary postal codes.ResultsStudy population was 387 patients of whom 213 (54.8%) were men with mean age ±SD of 82.8±8.3 years. Patients, who were less deprived (296 (76.4%)), were more likely to be older (83.5±7.9 vs 80.4±9.3, p<0.05) and to be married (83.2% vs 69.7%, p<0.05). Conversely, ‘more deprived’ patients (91 (23.6%)) were more likely to have a longer stay in hospital as compared with patients in the ‘less deprived group’ (29.6±32.7 days vs 21.3±21.1 days, p<0.05). However, 30-day, 1-year and 3-year survival/mortality rates were similar across all socioeconomic levels.ConclusionsThis is the first study in which social deprivation has been investigated as a risk factor for mortality in a high-risk group of patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI. Residing in a ‘more deprived’ area in South West Wales is not associated with adverse outcome following TAVI but patients who are ‘more deprived’ tend to stay longer in hospital compared with patients who are ‘less deprived’.

IntroductionShielding aimed to protect those predicted to be at highest risk from COVID-19 and was uniquely implemented in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinically extremely vulnerable people identified through algorithms and screening of routine National Health Service (NHS) data were individually and strongly advised to stay at home and strictly self-isolate even from others in their household. This study will generate a logic model of the intervention and evaluate the effects and costs of shielding to inform policy development and delivery during future pandemics.Methods and analysisThis is a quasiexperimental study undertaken in Wales where records for people who were identified for shielding were already anonymously linked into integrated data systems for public health decision-making. We will: interview policy-makers to understand rationale for shielding advice to inform analysis and interpretation of results; use anonymised individual-level data to select people identified for shielding advice in March 2020 and a matched cohort, from routine electronic health data sources, to compare outcomes; survey a stratified random sample of each group about activities and quality of life at 12 months; use routine and newly collected blood data to assess immunity; interview people who were identified for shielding and their carers and NHS staff who delivered healthcare during shielding, to explore compliance and experiences; collect healthcare resource use data to calculate implementation costs and cost–consequences. Our team includes people who were shielding, who used their experience to help design and deliver this study.Ethics and disseminationThe study has received approval from the Newcastle North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee (IRAS 295050). We will disseminate results directly to UK government policy-makers, publish in peer-reviewed journals, present at scientific and policy conferences and share accessible summaries of results online and through public and patient networks.

No abstract

ObjectivesTo determine whether clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) children or children living with a CEV person in Wales were at greater risk of presenting with anxiety or depression in primary or secondary care during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with children in the general population and to compare patterns of anxiety and depression during the pandemic (23 March 2020–31 January 2021, referred to as 2020/2021) and before the pandemic (23 March 2019–31 January 2020, referred to as 2019/2020), between CEV children and the general population.DesignPopulation-based cross-sectional cohort study using anonymised, linked, routinely collected health and administrative data held in the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank. CEV individuals were identified using the COVID-19 shielded patient list.SettingPrimary and secondary healthcare settings covering 80% of the population of Wales.ParticipantsChildren aged 2–17 in Wales: CEV (3769); living with a CEV person (20 033); or neither (415 009).Primary outcome measureFirst record of anxiety or depression in primary or secondary healthcare in 2019/2020 and 2020/2021, identified using Read and International Classification of Diseases V.10 codes.ResultsA Cox regression model adjusted for demographics and history of anxiety or depression revealed that only CEV children were at greater risk of presenting with anxiety or depression during the pandemic compared with the general population (HR=2.27, 95% CI=1.94 to 2.66, p<0.001). Compared with the general population, the risk among CEV children was higher in 2020/2021 (risk ratio 3.04) compared with 2019/2020 (risk ratio 1.90). In 2020/2021, the period prevalence of anxiety or depression increased slightly among CEV children, but declined among the general population.ConclusionsDifferences in the period prevalence of recorded anxiety or depression in healthcare between CEV children and the general population were largely driven by a reduction in presentations to healthcare services by children in the general population during the pandemic.

Population health surveys are used to record person-reported outcome measures for chronic health conditions and provide a useful source of data when evaluating potential disease burdens. The reliability of survey-based prevalence estimates for chronic diseases is unclear nonetheless. This study applied methodological triangulation to validate prevalence of selected chronic conditions (angina, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and asthma) using data for a combined cohort of 11,323 adults from the 2013 and 2014 sweeps of the Welsh Health Survey (WHS). This approach utilised consented survey data linked to primary and secondary care electronic health record (EHR) data within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank.  Validation of self-reported chronic conditions using data linkage and clinical codes is demonstrated with varied success. Point prevalence based on survey data was shown to be slightly under-reported for all four conditions when compared with clinical data. Case identification for separate cardiovascular conditions was problematic without use of specific medication codes for each condition, but was more straightforward for asthma, where there was an extensive list of medications available. Whilst the results provide external validity for the WHS as an instrument for assessing disease burdens for chronic conditions, they also indicate that comparable prevalence estimates can be produced using clinical data if a condition-specific set of clinical codes are available.