Recording COVID-19 consultations : review of symptoms, risk factors, and proposed SNOMED CT terms

Background There is an urgent need for epidemiological research in primary care to develop risk assessment processes for patients presenting with COVID-19, but lack of a standardised approach to data collection is a significant barrier to implementation. Aim To collate a list of relevant symptoms, assessment items, demographics, and lifestyle and health conditions associated with COVID-19, and match these data items with corresponding SNOMED CT clinical terms to support the development and implementation of consultation templates. Design & setting Published and preprint literature for systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and clinical guidelines describing the symptoms, assessment items, demographics, and/or lifestyle and health conditions associated with COVID-19 and its complications were reviewed. Corresponding clinical concepts from SNOMED CT, a widely used structured clinical vocabulary for electronic primary care health records, were identified. Method Guidelines and published and unpublished reviews (N = 61) were utilised to collate a list of relevant data items for COVID-19 consultations. The NHS Digital SNOMED CT Browser was used to identify concept and descriptive identifiers. Key implementation challenges were conceptualised through a Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) lens. Results In total, 32 symptoms, eight demographic and lifestyle features, 25 health conditions, and 20 assessment items relevant to COVID-19 were identified, with proposed corresponding SNOMED CT concepts. These data items can be adapted into a consultation template for COVID-19. Key implementation challenges include: 1) engaging with key stakeholders to achieve ’buy in’; and 2) ensuring any template is usable within practice settings. Conclusion Consultation templates for COVID-19 are needed to standardise data collection, facilitate research and learning, and potentially improve quality of care for COVID-19.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Understanding experiences of potential harm among MSM (cis and trans) using HIV self-testing in the SELPHI randomised controlled trial in England and Wales: a mixed-methods study

Background: The potential of HIV self-testing (HIVST) to cause harm is a concern hindering widespread implementation. The aim of this paper is to understand the relationship between HIVST and harm in SELPHI (An HIV Self-testing Public Health Intervention), the largest randomised trial of HIVST in a high-income country to date. Methods: 10 111 cis and trans men who have sex with men (MSM) recruited online (geolocation social/sexual networking apps, social media), aged 16+, reporting previous anal intercourse and resident in England or Wales were first randomised 60/40 to baseline HIVST (baseline testing, BT) or not (no baseline testing, nBT) (randomisation A). BT participants reporting negative baseline test, sexual risk at 3 months and interest in further HIVST were randomised to three-monthly HIVST (repeat testing, RT) or not (no repeat testing, nRT) (randomisation B). All received an exit survey collecting data on harms (to relationships, well-being, false results or being pressured/persuaded to test). Nine participants reporting harm were interviewed in-depth about their experiences in an exploratory substudy; qualitative data were analysed narratively. Results Baseline: predominantly cis MSM, 90% white, 88% gay, 47% university educated and 7% current/former pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) users. Final survey response rate was: nBT=26% (1056/4062), BT=45% (1674/3741), nRT=41% (471/1147), RT=50% (581/1161). Harms were rare and reported by 4% (n=138/3691) in exit surveys, with an additional two false positive results captured in other study surveys. 1% reported harm to relationships and to well-being in BT, nRT and RT combined. In all arms combined, being pressured or persuaded to test was reported by 1% (n=54/3678) and false positive results in 0.7% (n=34/4665). Qualitative analysis revealed harms arose from the kit itself (technological harms), the intervention (intervention harms) or from the social context of the participant (socially emergent harms). Intervention and socially emergent harms did not reduce HIVST acceptability, whereas technological harms did. Discussion: HIVST harms were rare but strategies to link individuals experiencing harms with psychosocial support should be considered for HIVST scale-up

Physical and mental health comorbidities of epilepsy:population-based cross-sectional analysis of 1.5 million people in Scotland

Purpose: To measure the prevalence of physical and mental health comorbidities in people with epilepsy in a large population cohort, and to examine the prevalence of depression accounting for other physical comorbidity. Methods: Population-based, cross-sectional descriptive epidemiology analysis of primary care electronic records for 1,510,742 people aged 14+ years, examining the prevalence of 39 comorbidities. Results: 12,720 people with epilepsy were identified (prevalence 8.4/1000 population, 95% CI 8.3–8.5). Physical and mental health comorbidity was more common with epilepsy (mean of an additional 1.02 physical conditions difference, 95% CI 0.99–1.06). 69.9% of people with epilepsy had one or more comorbid health conditions and 18.6% had four or more, compared to 46.9% and 9.0% of people without epilepsy. Depression was present in 16.3% of people with epilepsy compared to 9.5% of those without (adjusted OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.49–1.65). The prevalence of comorbid depression in epilepsy increased as the number of physical comorbidities increased (OR 5.82, 95% CI 4.90–6.91 for 4+ physical comorbidities vs none) and with increasing deprivation, similar to the patterns observed in other common physical conditions. Conclusion: People with epilepsy have higher rates of both physical and mental health comorbidity than people without even after adjustment for age, gender and levels of deprivation. Depression is more common than in the general population but the prevalence is similar to other physical health conditions, and is strongly associated with the total burden of physical conditions. This study highlights the complexity in caring for people with epilepsy

Understanding experiences of potential harm among MSM (cis and trans) using HIV self-testing in the SELPHI randomised controlled trial in England and Wales: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: The potential of HIV self-testing (HIVST) to cause harm is a concern hindering widespread implementation. The aim of this paper is to understand the relationship between HIVST and harm in SELPHI (An HIV Self-testing Public Health Intervention), the largest randomised trial of HIVST in a high-income country to date. METHODS: 10 111 cis and trans men who have sex with men (MSM) recruited online (geolocation social/sexual networking apps, social media), aged 16+, reporting previous anal intercourse and resident in England or Wales were first randomised 60/40 to baseline HIVST (baseline testing, BT) or not (no baseline testing, nBT) (randomisation A). BT participants reporting negative baseline test, sexual risk at 3 months and interest in further HIVST were randomised to three-monthly HIVST (repeat testing, RT) or not (no repeat testing, nRT) (randomisation B). All received an exit survey collecting data on harms (to relationships, well-being, false results or being pressured/persuaded to test). Nine participants reporting harm were interviewed in-depth about their experiences in an exploratory substudy; qualitative data were analysed narratively. RESULTS: Baseline: predominantly cis MSM, 90% white, 88% gay, 47% university educated and 7% current/former pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) users. Final survey response rate was: nBT=26% (1056/4062), BT=45% (1674/3741), nRT=41% (471/1147), RT=50% (581/1161).Harms were rare and reported by 4% (n=138/3691) in exit surveys, with an additional two false positive results captured in other study surveys. 1% reported harm to relationships and to well-being in BT, nRT and RT combined. In all arms combined, being pressured or persuaded to test was reported by 1% (n=54/3678) and false positive results in 0.7% (n=34/4665).Qualitative analysis revealed harms arose from the kit itself (technological harms), the intervention (intervention harms) or from the social context of the participant (socially emergent harms). Intervention and socially emergent harms did not reduce HIVST acceptability, whereas technological harms did. DISCUSSION: HIVST harms were rare but strategies to link individuals experiencing harms with psychosocial support should be considered for HIVST scale-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN20312003