Public health and English local government: historical perspectives on the impact of 'returning home'.

This article uses history to stimulate reflection on the present opportunities and challenges for public health practice in English local government. Its motivation is the paradox that despite Department of Health policy-makers' allusions to 'a long and proud history' and 'returning public health home' there has been no serious discussion of that past local government experience and what we might learn from it. The article begins with a short resumé of the achievements of Victorian public health in its municipal location, and then considers the extensive responsibilities that it developed for environmental, preventive and health services by the mid-twentieth century. The main section discusses the early NHS, explaining why historians see the era as one of decline for the speciality of public health, leading to the reform of 1974, which saw the removal from local government and the abolition of the Medical Officer of Health role. Our discussion focuses on challenges faced before 1974 which raise organizational and political issues relevant to local councils today as they embed new public health teams. These include the themes of leadership, funding, integrated service delivery, communication and above all the need for a coherent vision and rationale for public health action in local authorities

Household tenure and its associations with multiple long-term conditions amongst working age adults: a cross-sectional analysis using primary care and local government data linked at individual and household levels.

Objectives We quantified associations between household tenure – whether someone privately or socially rents their property, or owner occupies – and prevalence of multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs) amongst working age adults. We also assessed whether the success of data linkages conducted to enable this study introduced potential selection biases. Approach This cross-sectional study used the 2019/20 wave of an innovative dataset linking health and local government data at individual and household levels for residents of an East London borough. To assess potential biases, we calculated standardised differences in variables for matched and unmatched primary care records. Our primary outcome was basic MLTCs, defined as two or more long-term conditions from a list of 38. Two further definitions of MLTCs were operationalised. Multilevel logistic regression was used to explore associations for working age adults (16-64 years, inclusive). Interaction terms were used to evaluate potential interactions between tenure and other household factors. Results Standardised differences in selected health variables for matched and unmatched primary care records were <0.2, indicating selection biases were not introduced due to data linkage success. For participants with successfully linked records, prevalence of basic MLTCs was 18.0%. After adjusting for various sociodemographic, health and socioeconomic variables, odds of basic MLTCs were 36% higher for working age social housing tenants (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.30-1.42) and 19% lower for private renters (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.77-0.84) when compared to owner-occupiers. These results were largely consistent across different definitions of MLTCs. Other household-level variables - household benefits receipt, occupancy, and household type – were important modifying factors, with associations between tenure and MLTCs greater for individuals in single adult households and households in receipt of benefits. Conclusion This study demonstrates that primary care and local government data can be linked without introducing selection biases in key health variables and analysed to reveal important insights. We found evidence that household tenure is associated with MLTCs prevalence, emphasising the importance of understanding and addressing household-level social determinants of health

Health systems facilitators and barriers to the integration of HIV and chronic disease services: a systematic review.

Integration of services for patients with more than one diagnosed condition has intuitive appeal but it has been argued that the empirical evidence to support it is limited. We report the findings of a systematic review that sought to identify health system factors, extrinsic to the integration process, which either facilitated or hindered the integration of services for two common disorders, HIV and chronic non-communicable diseases. Findings were initially extracted and organized around a health system framework, followed by a thematic cross-cutting analysis and validation steps. Of the 150 articles included, 67% (n = 102) were from high-income countries. The articles explored integration with services for one or several chronic disorders, the most studied being alcohol or substance use disorders (47.7%), and mental health issues (29.5%). Four cross-cutting themes related to the health system were identified. The first and most common theme was the requirement for effective collaboration and coordination: formal and informal productive relationships throughout the system between providers and within teams, and between staff and patients. The second was the need for adequate and appropriately skilled and incentivized health workers-with the right expertise, training and operational support for the programme. The third was the need for supportive institutional structures and dedicated resources. The fourth was leadership in terms of political will, effective managerial oversight and organizational culture, indicating that actual implementation is as important as programme design. A fifth theme, outside the health system, but underpinning all aspects of the system operation, was that placing the patient at the centre of service delivery and responding holistically to their diverse needs. This was an important facilitator of integration. These findings confirm that integration processes in service delivery depend substantially for their success on characteristics of the health systems in which they are embedded

Household and area-level social determinants of multimorbidity: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: No clear synthesis of evidence examining household and area-level social determinants of multimorbidity exists. This study aimed to systematically review the existing literature on associations between household and area-level social determinants of health (SDoH) and multimorbidity prevalence or incidence in the general population. METHODS: Six databases (MedLine, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL Plus and Scopus) were searched. The search was limited to peer-reviewed studies conducted in high-income countries and published in English between 2010 and 2019. A second reviewer screened all titles with abstracts and a subset of full texts. Study quality was assessed and protocol pre-registered (CRD42019135281). RESULTS: 41 studies spanning North America, Europe and Australasia were included. Household income and area-level deprivation were the most explored with fairly consistent findings. The odds of multimorbidity were up to 4.4 times higher for participants with the lowest level of income compared with the highest level. Those living in the most deprived areas had the highest prevalence or incidence of multimorbidity (pooled OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.42). Associations between deprivation and multimorbidity differed by age and multimorbidity type. Findings from the few studies investigating household tenure, household composition and area-level rurality were mixed and contradictory; homeownership and rurality were associated with increased and decreased multimorbidity, while living alone was found to be associated with a higher risk of multimorbidity and not associated. CONCLUSION: Improving our understanding of broader social determinants of multimorbidity-particularly at the household level-could help inform strategies to tackle multimorbidity

Barriers and facilitators of use of analytics for strategic health and care decision-making: a qualitative study of senior health and care leaders' perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the barriers and facilitators that senior leaders' experience when using knowledge generated from the analysis of administrative health or care records ('analytics') to inform strategic health and care decision-making. SETTING: One London-based sustainability and transformation partnership (STP) in England, as it was on the cusp of forming an integrated care system (ICS). PARTICIPANTS: 20 senior leaders, including health and social care commissioners, public health leads and health providers. Participants were eligible for inclusion if they were a senior leader of a constituent organisation of the STP and involved in using analytics to make decisions for their own organisations or health and care systems. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews conducted between January 2020 and March 2020 and analysed using the framework method to generate common themes. RESULTS: Organisational fragmentation hindered use of analytics by creating siloed data systems, barriers to data sharing and different organisational priorities. Where trusted and collaborative relationships existed between leaders and analysts, organisational barriers were circumvented and access to and support for analytics facilitated. Trusted and collaborative relationships between individual leaders of different organisations also aided cross-organisational priority setting, which was a key facilitator of strategic health and care decision-making and use of analytics. Data linked across health and care settings were viewed as an enabler of use of analytics for decision-making, while concerns around data quality often stopped analytics use as a part of decision-making, with participants relying more so on expert opinion or intuition. CONCLUSIONS: The UK Governments' 2021 White Paper set out aspirations for data to transform care. While necessary, policy changes to facilitate data sharing across organisations will be insufficient to realise this aim. Better integration of organisations with aligned priorities could support and sustain cross-organisational relationships between leaders and analysts, and leaders of different organisations, to facilitate use of analytics in decision-making

Integrating cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, and diabetes with HIV services: a systematic review.

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including cardiovascular diseases (CVD), hypertension and diabetes together with HIV infection are among the major public health concerns worldwide. Health services for HIV and NCDs require health systems that provide for people's chronic care needs, which present an opportunity to coordinate efforts and create synergies between programs to benefit people living with HIV and/or AIDS and NCDs. This review included studies that reported service integration for HIV and/or AIDS with coronary heart diseases, chronic CVD, cerebrovascular diseases (stroke), hypertension or diabetes. We searched multiple databases from inception until October 2015. Articles were screened independently by two reviewers and assessed for risk of bias. 11,057 records were identified with 7,616 after duplicate removal. After screening titles and abstracts, 14 papers addressing 17 distinct interventions met the inclusion criteria. We categorized integration models by diseases (HIV with diabetes, HIV with hypertension and diabetes, HIV with CVD and finally HIV with hypertension and CVD and diabetes). Models also looked at integration from micro (patient focused integration) to macro (system level integrations). Most reported integration of hypertension and diabetes with HIV and AIDS services and described multidisciplinary collaboration, shared protocols, and incorporating screening activities into community campaigns. Integration took place exclusively at the meso-level, with no micro- or macro-level integrations described. Most were descriptive studies, with one cohort study reporting evaluative outcomes. Several innovative initiatives were identified and studies showed that CVD and HIV service integration is feasible. Integration should build on existing protocols and use the community as a locus for advocacy and health services, while promoting multidisciplinary teams, including greater involvement of pharmacists. There is a need for robust and well-designed studies at all levels - particularly macro-level studies, research looking at long-term outcomes of integration, and research in a more diverse range of countries

Expert Statement:Pneumothorax Associated with One-Way Valve Therapy for Emphysema: 2020 Update

For selected patients with advanced emphysema, bronchoscopic lung volume reduction with one-way valves can lead to clinically relevant improvements of airflow obstruction, hyperinflation, exercise capacity, and quality of life. The most common complication of this procedure is pneumothorax with a prevalence of up to +/- 34% of the treated patients. Patients who develop a pneumothorax also experience meaningful clinical benefits once the pneumothorax is resolved. Timely resolution of a post-valve treatment pneumothorax requires skilled and adequate pneumothorax management. This expert panel statement is an updated recommendation of the 2014 statement developed to help guide pneumothorax management after valve placement. Additionally, mechanisms for pneumothorax development, risk assessment, prevention of pneumothorax, and outcomes after pneumothorax are addressed. This recommendation is based on a combination of the current scientific literature and expert opinion, which was obtained through a modified Delphi method

Interventions and approaches to integrating HIV and mental health services: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The frequency in which HIV and AIDS and mental health problems co-exist, and the complex bi-directional relationship between them, highlights the need for effective care models combining services for HIV and mental health. Here, we present a systematic review that synthesizes the literature on interventions and approaches integrating these services. METHODS: This review was part of a larger systematic review on integration of services for HIV and non-communicable diseases. Eligible studies included those that described or evaluated an intervention or approach aimed at integrating HIV and mental health care. We searched multiple databases from inception until October 2015, independently screened articles identified for inclusion, conducted data extraction, and assessed evaluative papers for risk of bias. RESULTS: Forty-five articles were eligible for this review. We identified three models of integration at the meso and micro levels: single-facility integration, multi-facility integration, and integrated care coordinated by a non-physician case manager. Single-site integration enhances multidisciplinary coordination and reduces access barriers for patients. However, the practicality and cost-effectiveness of providing a full continuum of specialized care on-site for patients with complex needs is arguable. Integration based on a collaborative network of specialized agencies may serve those with multiple co-morbidities but fragmented and poorly coordinated care can pose barriers. Integrated care coordinated by a single case manager can enable continuity of care for patients but requires appropriate training and support for case managers. Involving patients as key actors in facilitating integration within their own treatment plan is a promising approach. CONCLUSION: This review identified much diversity in integration models combining HIV and mental health services, which are shown to have potential in yielding positive patient and service delivery outcomes when implemented within appropriate contexts. Our review revealed a lack of research in low- and middle- income countries, and was limited to most studies being descriptive. Overall, studies that seek to evaluate and compare integration models in terms of long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness are needed, particularly at the health system level and in regions with high HIV and AIDS burden

Multiorgan MRI findings after hospitalisation with COVID-19 in the UK (C-MORE): a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study

Introduction: The multiorgan impact of moderate to severe coronavirus infections in the post-acute phase is still poorly understood. We aimed to evaluate the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities after hospitalisation with COVID-19, evaluate their determinants, and explore associations with patient-related outcome measures. Methods: In a prospective, UK-wide, multicentre MRI follow-up study (C-MORE), adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital following COVID-19 who were included in Tier 2 of the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) and contemporary controls with no evidence of previous COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody negative) underwent multiorgan MRI (lungs, heart, brain, liver, and kidneys) with quantitative and qualitative assessment of images and clinical adjudication when relevant. Individuals with end-stage renal failure or contraindications to MRI were excluded. Participants also underwent detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical tests. The primary outcome was the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities (two or more organs) relative to controls, with further adjustments for potential confounders. The C-MORE study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510025. Findings: Of 2710 participants in Tier 2 of PHOSP-COVID, 531 were recruited across 13 UK-wide C-MORE sites. After exclusions, 259 C-MORE patients (mean age 57 years [SD 12]; 158 [61%] male and 101 [39%] female) who were discharged from hospital with PCR-confirmed or clinically diagnosed COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and Nov 1, 2021, and 52 non-COVID-19 controls from the community (mean age 49 years [SD 14]; 30 [58%] male and 22 [42%] female) were included in the analysis. Patients were assessed at a median of 5·0 months (IQR 4·2–6·3) after hospital discharge. Compared with non-COVID-19 controls, patients were older, living with more obesity, and had more comorbidities. Multiorgan abnormalities on MRI were more frequent in patients than in controls (157 [61%] of 259 vs 14 [27%] of 52; p&lt;0·0001) and independently associated with COVID-19 status (odds ratio [OR] 2·9 [95% CI 1·5–5·8]; padjusted=0·0023) after adjusting for relevant confounders. Compared with controls, patients were more likely to have MRI evidence of lung abnormalities (p=0·0001; parenchymal abnormalities), brain abnormalities (p&lt;0·0001; more white matter hyperintensities and regional brain volume reduction), and kidney abnormalities (p=0·014; lower medullary T1 and loss of corticomedullary differentiation), whereas cardiac and liver MRI abnormalities were similar between patients and controls. Patients with multiorgan abnormalities were older (difference in mean age 7 years [95% CI 4–10]; mean age of 59·8 years [SD 11·7] with multiorgan abnormalities vs mean age of 52·8 years [11·9] without multiorgan abnormalities; p&lt;0·0001), more likely to have three or more comorbidities (OR 2·47 [1·32–4·82]; padjusted=0·0059), and more likely to have a more severe acute infection (acute CRP &gt;5mg/L, OR 3·55 [1·23–11·88]; padjusted=0·025) than those without multiorgan abnormalities. Presence of lung MRI abnormalities was associated with a two-fold higher risk of chest tightness, and multiorgan MRI abnormalities were associated with severe and very severe persistent physical and mental health impairment (PHOSP-COVID symptom clusters) after hospitalisation. Interpretation: After hospitalisation for COVID-19, people are at risk of multiorgan abnormalities in the medium term. Our findings emphasise the need for proactive multidisciplinary care pathways, with the potential for imaging to guide surveillance frequency and therapeutic stratification