Healthcare workers' attitudes towards working during pandemic influenza: A multi method study

Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) will be key players in any response to pandemic influenza, and will be in the front line of exposure to infection. Responding effectively to a pandemic relies on the majority of medical, nursing, laboratory and hotel services staff continuing to work normally. Planning assumes that during a pandemic normal healthcare service levels will be provided, although it anticipates that as caseloads increase only essential care will be provided. The ability of the NHS to provide expected service levels is entirely dependent upon HCWs continuing to work as normal. Methods/design: This study is designed as a two-phase multi-method study, incorporating focus groups and a questionnaire survey. In phase one, qualitative methods will be used to collect the views of a purposive sample of HCWs, to determine the range of factors associated with their responses to the prospect of working through pandemic influenza. In phase two, the findings from the focus groups, combined with the available literature, will be used to inform the design of a survey to determine the generalisability of these factors, enabling the estimation of the likely proportion of HCWs affected by each factor, and how likely it is that they would be willing and/or able to continue to work during an influenza pandemic. Discussion: There are potentially greater than normal health risks for some healthcare workers working during a pandemic, and these workers may be concerned about infecting family members/ friends. HCWs will be as liable as other workers to care for sick family members and friends. It is vital to have information about how motivated HCWs will be to continue to work during such a crisis, and what factors might influence their decision to work/not to work. Through the identification and subsequent management of these factors it may be possible to implement strategies that will alleviate the concerns and fears of HCWs and remove potential barriers to working

Colorectal cancer screening using the faecal occult blood test (FOBt): a survey of GP attitudes and practices in the UK

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the UK. Five-year survival rates are less than 50%, largely because of late diagnosis. Screening using faecal occult blood tests (FOBt) can detect bowel cancer at an earlier stage than symptomatic presentation, and has the potential to significantly decrease colorectal cancer mortality. However, uptake of screening is currently low, despite the introduction of the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (NHSBCSP), and it has been suggested that GP recommendations of screening can improve patient compliance. GP recommendation of CRC screening is argued to be affected by attitudes towards it, along with perceptions of its efficacy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This paper presents the findings of a cross-sectional postal survey of GPs in the UK which aimed to investigate GPs' attitudes in relation to colorectal cancer screening and the use of FOBt in routine practice. An 'attitude' score was calculated, and binary logistic regression used to evaluate the association of socio-demographic and general practice attributes with attitudes towards CRC screening and FOBt.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 3,191 GPs surveyed, 960 returned usable responses (response rate 30.7%). Positive attitudes were associated with personal experience of CRC screening and Asian or Asian British ethnicity. GPs from practices located in more deprived locations were also more likely to have positive attitudes towards FOBt and its recommendation to patients.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The success of population-based screening for CRC will largely be determined by GP attitudes and support, particularly with regard to FOBt. Previous research has implied that South Asian GPs are more likely to have negative attitudes towards FOBt screening, however, our research suggests that this is not a group requiring targeted interventions to increase their support for the NHSBCSP. Of the available CRC screening tests, GPs perceived FOBt to be the most appropriate for population-based screening.</p

Assessing whether COVID-19 patients will benefit from critical care, and an objective approach to capacity challenges during a pandemic: An Intensive Care Society clinical guideline

This national professional society guidance lays out operational and ethical principles for decision-making during a pandemic, in the immediate context of COVID-19 in the early 2020 surge iteration but with potential ongoing relevance. It identifies the different phases of a pandemic and the implications for capacity and mutual aid within a national healthcare system, and introduces a revised CRITCON-PANDEMIC framework for shared operational responsibilities and clinical decision-making. Usual legal and ethical frameworks should continue to apply while capacity and mutual aid are available (CRITCON-PANDEMIC levels 0-3); clinicians should focus on current clinical needs and should not treat patients differently because of anticipated future pressures. In conditions of resource limitation (CRITCON-PANDEMIC 4), a structured and equitable approach is necessary and an objective Decision Support Aid is proposed. In producing this guidance, we emphasise that all patients must be treated with respect and without discrimination, because everyone is of equal value. The guidance has been put together with input from patient and public groups and aims to provide standards that are fair to everyone. We acknowledge that COVID-19 is a new disease with a partial and evolving knowledge base, and aim to provide an objective clinical decision-making framework based on the best available information. It is recognised that a factual assessment of likely benefit may take into account age, frailty and comorbidities, but the guidance emphasises that every assessment must be individualised on a balanced, case by case, basis and may inform clinical judgement but not replace it. The effects of a comorbidity on someone's ability to benefit from critical care should be individually assessed. Measures of frailty should be used with care, and should not disadvantage those with stable disability