In-pandemic development of an application ontology for COVID-19 surveillance in a primary care sentinel network

Background: Creating an ontology for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) surveillance should help ensure transparency and consistency. Ontologies formalise conceptualisations at either domain or application level. Application ontologies cross domains and are specified through testable use cases. Our use case was extension of the role of the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) to monitor the current pandemic and become an in-pandemic research platform. Objective: To develop an application ontology for COVID-19 which can be deployed across the various use case domains of the Oxford- RCGP RSC research and surveillance activities. Methods: We described our domain-specific use case. The actor was the RCGP RSC sentinel network; the system the course of the COVID-19 pandemic; the outcomes the spread and effect of mitigation measures. We used our established three-step method to develop the ontology, separating ontological concept development from code mapping and data extract validation. We developed a coding system–independent COVID-19 case identification algorithm. As there were no gold standard pandemic surveillance ontologies, we conducted a rapid Delphi consensus exercise through the International Medical Informatics Association (IMIA) Primary Health Care Informatics working group and extended networks. Results: Our use case domains included primary care, public health, virology, clinical research and clinical informatics. Our ontology supported: (1) Case identification, microbiological sampling and health outcomes at both an individual practice and national level; (2) Feedback through a dashboard; (3) A national observatory, (4) Regular updates for Public Health England, and (5) Transformation of the sentinel network to be a trial platform. We have identified a total of 8,627 people with a definite COVID-19 status, 4,240 with probable, and 59,147 people with possible COVID-19, within the RCGP RSC network (N=5,056,075). Conclusions: The underpinning structure of our ontological approach has coped with multiple clinical coding challenges. At a time when there is uncertainty about international comparisons, clarity about the basis on which case definitions and outcomes are made from routine data is essential

Improving the management of atrial fibrillation in general practice: Protocol for a mixed method study

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the commonest arrhythmias observed in general practice. The thromboembolic complications of AF include transient ischemic attack, stroke, and pulmonary embolism. Early recognition of AF can lead to early intervention with managing the risks of these complications. Objective: The primary aim of this study is to investigate if patients are managed in general practice according to current national guidelines. In addition, the study will evaluate the impact of direct oral anticoagulant use with respect to AF complications in a real-world dataset. The secondary aims of the study are to develop a dashboard that will allow monitoring the management of AF in general practice and evaluate the usability of the dashboard. Methods: The study was conducted in 2 phases. The initial phase was a quantitative analysis of routinely collected primary care data from the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Center (RCGP RSC) sentinel network database. AF cases from 2009 to 2019 were identified. The study investigated the impact of the use of anticoagulants on complications of AF over this time period. We used this dataset to examine how AF was managed in primary care during the last decade. The second phase involved development of an online dashboard for monitoring management of AF in general practice. We conducted a usability evaluation for the dashboard to identify usability issues and performed enhancements to improve usability. Results: We received funding for both phases in January 2019 and received approval from the RCGP RSC research committee in March 2019. We completed data extraction for phase 1 in May 2019 and completed analysis in December 2019. We completed building the AF dashboard in May 2019. We started recruiting participants for phase 1 in May 2019 and concluded data collection in July 2019. We completed data analysis for phase 2 in October 2019. The results are expected to be published in the second half of 2020. As of October 2020, the publications reporting the results are under review. Conclusions: Results of this study will provide an insight into the current trends in management of AF using real-world data from the Oxford RCGP RSC database. We anticipate that the outcomes of this study will be used to guide the development and implementation of an audit-based intervention tool to assist practitioners in identifying and managing AF in primary care

Integrating molecular point-of-care testing for influenza into primary care: a mixed-methods feasibility study

Background Molecular point-of-care testing (POCT) for influenza in primary care could influence clinical care and patient outcomes. Aim To assess the feasibility of incorporating influenza POCT into general practice in England. Design and setting A mixed-methods study conducted in six general practices that had not previously participated in respiratory virology sampling, which are part of the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre English sentinel surveillance network, from February 2019 to May 2019. Method A sociotechnical perspective was adopted using the Public Health England POCT implementation toolkit and business process modelling notation to inform qualitative analysis. Quantitative data were collected about the number of samples taken, their representativeness, and the virology results obtained, comparing them with the rest of the sentinel system over the same weeks. Results A total of 312 POCTs were performed; 276 were used for quantitative analysis, of which 60 were positive for influenza and 216 were negative. The average swabbing rate was 0.4 per 1000 population and swab positivity was between 16.7% (n = 14/84) and 41.4% (n = 12/29). Given a positive influenza POCT result, the odds ratio of receiving an antiviral was 14.1 (95% confidence intervals [CI] = 2.9 to 70.0, P&lt;0.001) and of receiving an antibiotic was 0.4 (95% CI = 0.2 to 0.8, P = 0.01), compared with patients with a negative result. Qualitative analysis showed that it was feasible for practices to implement POCT, but there is considerable variation in the processes used. Conclusion Testing for influenza using POCT is feasible in primary care and may improve antimicrobial use. However, further evidence from randomised trials of influenza POCT in general practice is needed.</p

Using Point of Care Testing to estimate influenza vaccine effectiveness in the English primary care sentinel surveillance network

Introduction Rapid Point of Care Testing (POCT) for influenza could be used to provide information on influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) as well as influencing clinical decision-making in primary care. Methods We undertook a test negative case control study to estimate the overall and age-specific (6 months-17 years, 18–64 years, ≥65 years old) IVE against medically attended POCT-confirmed influenza. The study took place over the winter of 2019–2020 and was nested within twelve general practices that are part of the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC), the English sentinel surveillance network. Results 648 POCT were conducted. 193 (29.7%) of those who were swabbed had received the seasonal influenza vaccine. The crude unadjusted overall IVE was 46.1% (95% CI: 13.9–66.3). After adjusting for confounders the overall IVE was 26.0% (95% CI: 0–65.5). In total 211 patients were prescribed an antimicrobial after swab testing. Given a positive influenza POCT result, the odds ratio (OR) of receiving an antiviral was 21.1 (95%CI: 2.4–182.2, p = &lt;0.01) and the OR of being prescribed an antibiotic was 0.6 (95%CI: 0.4–0.9, p = &lt;0.01). Discussion Using influenza POCT in a primary care sentinel surveillance network to estimate IVE is feasible and provides comparable results to published IVE estimates. A further advantage is that near patient testing of influenza is associated with improvements in appropriate antiviral and antibiotic use. Larger, randomised studies are needed in primary care to see if these trends are still present and to explore their impact on outcomes.</p

Using Point of Care Testing to estimate influenza vaccine effectiveness in the English primary care sentinel surveillance network.

IntroductionRapid Point of Care Testing (POCT) for influenza could be used to provide information on influenza vaccine effectiveness (IVE) as well as influencing clinical decision-making in primary care.MethodsWe undertook a test negative case control study to estimate the overall and age-specific (6 months-17 years, 18-64 years, ≥65 years old) IVE against medically attended POCT-confirmed influenza. The study took place over the winter of 2019-2020 and was nested within twelve general practices that are part of the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC), the English sentinel surveillance network.Results648 POCT were conducted. 193 (29.7%) of those who were swabbed had received the seasonal influenza vaccine. The crude unadjusted overall IVE was 46.1% (95% CI: 13.9-66.3). After adjusting for confounders the overall IVE was 26.0% (95% CI: 0-65.5). In total 211 patients were prescribed an antimicrobial after swab testing. Given a positive influenza POCT result, the odds ratio (OR) of receiving an antiviral was 21.1 (95%CI: 2.4-182.2, p = DiscussionUsing influenza POCT in a primary care sentinel surveillance network to estimate IVE is feasible and provides comparable results to published IVE estimates. A further advantage is that near patient testing of influenza is associated with improvements in appropriate antiviral and antibiotic use. Larger, randomised studies are needed in primary care to see if these trends are still present and to explore their impact on outcomes

Uptake and impact of vaccinating primary school children against influenza: Experiences in the fourth season of the live attenuated influenza vaccination programme, England, 2016/2017

BACKGROUND: In the 2016/2017 influenza season, England was in its fourth season of the roll‐out of a live‐attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) targeted at healthy children aged two to less than 17 years. For the first time, all healthy children aged 2 to 8 years were offered LAIV at national level in 2016/2017. Since the commencement of the programme in 2013/2014, a series of geographically discrete pilot areas have been in place where quadrivalent LAIV was also offered to all school age children. In 2016/2017, these were children aged 8 to 11 years, other than those targeted by the national programme. METHODS: We evaluated the overall and indirect impact of vaccinating primary school age children, on the population of England, by measuring vaccine uptake levels and comparing cumulative disease incidence through various influenza surveillance schemes, in targeted and non‐targeted age groups in pilot and non‐pilot areas in 2016/2017. RESULTS: Our findings indicate that cumulative primary care influenza‐like consultations, primary and secondary care swab positivity, influenza confirmed hospitalisations and emergency department attendances in pilot areas were overall lower than those observed in non‐pilot areas; however, significant differences were not always observed in both targeted and non‐targeted age groups. Excess mortality was higher in pilot areas compared with non‐pilot areas. CONCLUSIONS: These results are similar to earlier seasons of the programme indicating the importance and continuing support of vaccinating all primary school children with LAIV to reduce influenza related illness across the population, although further work is needed to understand the differences in excess mortality

COVID-19 Surveillance in a Primary Care Sentinel Network: In-Pandemic Development of an Application Ontology

Background: Creating an ontology for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) surveillance should help ensure transparency and consistency. Ontologies formalise conceptualisations at either domain or application level. Application ontologies cross domains and are specified through testable use cases. Our use case was extension of the role of the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) to monitor the current pandemic and become an in-pandemic research platform. Objective: To develop an application ontology for COVID-19 which can be deployed across the various use case domains of the Oxford- RCGP RSC research and surveillance activities. Methods: We described our domain-specific use case. The actor was the RCGP RSC sentinel network; the system the course of the COVID-19 pandemic; the outcomes the spread and effect of mitigation measures. We used our established three-step method to develop the ontology, separating ontological concept development from code mapping and data extract validation. We developed a coding system–independent COVID-19 case identification algorithm. As there were no gold standard pandemic surveillance ontologies, we conducted a rapid Delphi consensus exercise through the International Medical Informatics Association (IMIA) Primary Health Care Informatics working group and extended networks. Results: Our use case domains included primary care, public health, virology, clinical research and clinical informatics. Our ontology supported: (1) Case identification, microbiological sampling and health outcomes at both an individual practice and national level; (2) Feedback through a dashboard; (3) A national observatory, (4) Regular updates for Public Health England, and (5) Transformation of the sentinel network to be a trial platform. We have identified a total of 8,627 people with a definite COVID-19 status, 4,240 with probable, and 59,147 people with possible COVID-19, within the RCGP RSC network (N=5,056,075). Conclusions: The underpinning structure of our ontological approach has coped with multiple clinical coding challenges. At a time when there is uncertainty about international comparisons, clarity about the basis on which case definitions and outcomes are made from routine data is essential

Sociodemographic disparities in COVID-19 seroprevalence across England in the Oxford RCGP primary care sentinel network

Objectives To monitor changes in seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in populations over time and between different demographic groups. Methods A subset of practices in the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) sentinel network provided serum samples, collected when volunteer patients had routine blood tests. We tested these samples for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using Abbott (Chicago, USA), Roche (Basel, Switzerland) and/or Euroimmun (Luebeck, Germany) assays, and linked the results to the patients’ primary care computerised medical records. We report seropositivity by region and age group, and additionally examined the effects of gender, ethnicity, deprivation, rurality, shielding recommendation and smoking status. Results We estimated seropositivity from patients aged 18-100 years old, which ranged from 4.1% (95% CI 3.1–5.3%) to 8.9% (95% CI 7.8–10.2%) across the different assays and time periods. We found higher Euroimmun seropositivity in younger age groups, people of Black and Asian ethnicity (compared to white), major conurbations, and non-smokers. We did not observe any significant effect by region, gender, deprivation, or shielding recommendation. Conclusions Our results suggest that prior to the vaccination programme, most of the population remained unexposed to SARS-CoV-2