The clinically extremely vulnerable to COVID: identification and changes in healthcare while self-isolating (shielding) during the coronavirus pandemic.

In March 2020, the government of Scotland identified people deemed clinically extremely vulnerable to COVID due to their pre-existing health conditions. These people were advised to strictly self-isolate (shield) at the start of the pandemic, except for necessary healthcare. We examined who was identified as clinically extremely vulnerable, how their healthcare changed during isolation, and whether this process exacerbated healthcare inequalities. We linked those on the shielding register in NHS Grampian, a health authority in Scotland, to healthcare records from 2015-2020. We described the source of identification, demographics, and clinical history of the cohort. We measured changes in out-patient, in-patient, and emergency healthcare during isolation in the shielding population and compared to the general non-shielding population. The register included 16,092 people (3% of the population), clinically vulnerable primarily due to a respiratory disease, immunosuppression, or cancer. Among them, 42% were not identified by national healthcare record screening but added ad hoc, with these additions including more children and fewer economically-deprived. During isolation, all forms of healthcare use decreased (25%-46%), with larger decreases in scheduled care than in emergency care. However, people shielding had better maintained scheduled care compared to the non-shielding general population: out-patient visits decreased 35% vs 49%; in-patient visits decreased 46% vs 81%. Notably, there was substantial variation in whose scheduled care was maintained during isolation: younger people and those with cancer had significantly higher visit rates, but there was no difference between sexes or socioeconomic levels. Healthcare changed dramatically for the clinically extremely vulnerable population during the pandemic. The increased reliance on emergency care while isolating indicates that continuity of care for existing conditions was not optimal. However, compared to the general population, there was success in maintaining scheduled care, particularly in young people and those with cancer. We suggest that integrating demographic and primary care data would improve identification of the clinically vulnerable and could aid prioritising their care

Improving children and young people’s mental health services

Across the UK, the number of children and young people experiencing mental health problems is growing. Mental health services are expanding, but not fast enough to meet rising needs, leaving many children and young people with limited or no support. Too little is known about who receives care and crucially, who doesn’t. This briefing presents analysis from the Health Foundation’s Networked Data Lab (NDL) about children and young people’s mental health. The analysis from local teams across England, Scotland and Wales has highlighted three key areas for urgent investigation, to help ensure children and young people get the care they need. These are: rapid increases in mental health prescribing and support provided by GPs the prevalence of mental health problems among adolescent girls and young women stark socioeconomic inequalities across the UK. To inform national policy decisions and local service planning and delivery, the quality of data collection, analysis and the linkage of datasets across services and sectors need to be improved and used more effectively

The clinically extremely vulnerable to COVID: Identification and changes in healthcare while self-isolating (shielding) during the coronavirus pandemic.

Objective In March 2020, Scottish government identified people clinically extremely vulnerable to COVID due to pre-existing health conditions. These people were advised to strictly self-isolate (shield) at home. We examined who was identified as clinically extremely vulnerable, how their healthcare changed during isolation, and whether this process exacerbated healthcare inequalities. Approach We linked all individuals on the shielding register in NHS Grampian to their in-patient and out-patient healthcare records from 2015 through 2020. We analysed the method of patients’ identification as clinically extremely vulnerable (via an algorithmic NHS record scan or designated ad hoc by their care-providers). We measured out-patient, in-patient, and emergency healthcare attendances, and compared use rates between two 3-month periods before and during the first strict isolation period. We evaluated changes in care use between those shielding and the general non-shielding population, and differences between shielding sub-populations (by clinical reason for shielding, age, sex, and socio-economic deprivation). Results The shielding register included 16,092 people (3% of the population). 42% of people on the register were not identified by national healthcare record screening, including the majority of cancer and immunocompromised patients. People added to the register by their care-providers were more likely to be young and less economically-deprived. Shielders’ healthcare use decreased during isolation (rate compared to pre-isolation: 0.65 out-patient, 0.54 scheduled in-patient; 0.75 emergency in-patient; 0.71 A&E). However, people shielding had better maintained care than the non-shielding population (e.g. RR 2.9 for scheduled in-patient care). There were inequalities in whose scheduled care was maintained while shielding: younger people and those with cancer had significantly higher visit rates. However, there were no differences in care-preservation between men and women or between socioeconomic deprivation levels. Conclusions The reliance on emergency care while shielding indicates that, overall, continuity of care for existing conditions was not optimal. However, there was notable success in maintaining care for cancer. We suggest that integrating demographic and primary care data would improve identification of the clinically vulnerable and help equitably prioritise care

Changes in disability and their relationship with skin thickening, in diffuse and limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis: a retrospective cohort study

Objective: The burden of disability associated with systemic sclerosis (SSc) is being increasingly recognized. Our aim was to test the hypothesis that changes in functional ability over time differ between patients with limited (lcSSc) and diffuse cutaneous (dcSSc) subtypes, and that in dcSSc (but not lcSSc) these changes correlate with skin thickening. Method: This was a retrospective analysis of data collected prospectively between 2005 and 2016 at a single centre. Data recorded at annual review visits included modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Yearly rates of mRSS and HAQ-DI change were assessed by individual linear regressions, and those gradients were compared between disease groups (lcSSc/dcSSc) for each of early/late disease (less/greater than 5 years’ duration). Results: The study included 402 patients (110 dcSSc, 292 lcSSc), with mean length of follow-up of 5.5 years (sd 3.5). Mean baseline HAQ-DI was 1.4 in dcSSc and 1.2 in lcSSc. In dcSSc, increased mRSS was associated with worsening disability (ρ = 0.36, p = 0.004) during early but not late disease (ρ = 0.12, p = 0.331). In lcSSc, changes in mRSS were not associated with changes in disability for early (ρ = −0.15, p = 0.173) or late disease (ρ = 0.10, p = 0.137). Conclusion: These findings confirm high disability in patients with SSc. A relationship between HAQ-DI and mRSS (worsening mRSS associated with increasing disability) was found only in patients with early dcSSc, suggesting that in other patient subgroups other factors play the major role.</p

Assessing the impact of COVID-19 on the clinically extremely vulnerable population

By February 2021 more than 4 million people across the UK had been identified as clinically extremely vulnerable to COVID-19 and advised to shield.  Our briefing shows the scale of the challenge of ensuring that the most clinically vulnerable to COVID-19 are kept safe, and in providing high-quality health and social care during the pandemic. It also indicates that there are substantial unmet needs that should be prioritised to ensure that the mental and physical health of this group does not deteriorate further. In this briefing, we: present analysis from the Networked Data Lab on the impact the pandemic has had on the clinically extremely vulnerable population assess the mental health of people identified as clinically extremely vulnerable examine the data on access to care for clinically extremely vulnerable assess the limitations to the use of an algorithm-driven approach to identifying the clinically extremely vulnerable population which were exacerbated by poor availability of high-quality data