Patient Safety Learning

Most operations have been cancelled at a hospital in a COVID-19 hotspot in south Wales after an outbreak of the virus involving more than 80 people. Hospital chiefs said transmission had taken place within the Royal Glamorgan hospital at Llantrisant and some wards where patients and staff had been infected were closed. The hospital, which is within Rhondda Cynon Taf, one of the areas under local lockdown restrictions, said it was trying to speed up the testing of patients and staff. In a statement, it said: “Significant temporary service restrictions will be put in place at Royal Glamorgan hospital from 2pm Wednesday 30 September as increased action is taken to contain a COVID-19 outbreak within the hospital. Teams have been working at pace to implement robust measures to manage the outbreak. However, additional cases linked to transmission within the hospital have been confirmed in recent days with the number of cases currently standing at 82." Andrew RT Davies, shadow health minister for the Welsh Conservatives, called on the Welsh government to explore using field hospitals and other health facilities to alleviate pressure on the Royal Glamorgan. He added: “This is very concerning, particularly as many of the additional cases are linked to transmission within the hospital, and so questions over processes and protocols must be asked.” Read full story Source: The Guardian, 30 September 2020

A frailty index is rationing treatment for older and disabled people who catch coronavirus, says Patience Owen. Patience has has a debilitating connective tissue disorder and, like thousands of others with rare conditions, is already in a minority within a minority, marginalised by our NHS, battling increasing disability day by day. Back in March, without consultation and days before the first lockdown, the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), a worldwide tool used to swiftly identify frailty in older patients to improve acute care, was adapted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). It asked NHS staff in England to score the frailty of Covid patients. Rather than aiming to improve care, it seems the CFS – a fitness-to-frailty sheet using scores from one to nine – was used to work out which patients should be denied acute care. Nice’s new guidelines advised NHS trusts to “sensitively discuss a possible ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ decision with all adults with capacity and an assessment suggestive of increased frailty”. "Checking the scale, I found I would score five, the 'mildly frail' category, and therefore should I get Covid I could be steered towards end-of-life care. Bluntly, if I catch the virus, the NHS may help me to die, not live," says Patience. By early April, there was a proliferation of illegal “do not resuscitate” (DNR) notices in care homes for people with learning disabilities, and for older people in care homes and in hospitals. Many acutely ill patients stayed at home with Covid symptoms in the belief that they risked being denied care in hospital. Following warnings by the healthcare regulator, the Care Quality Commission, and other medical bodies, that the blanket application of the notices must stop, and legal challenges by charities, exclusions were made to the NICE guidelines. These included “younger people, people with stable long-term disabilities, learning disabilities or autism”. Yet the guidelines remain in place, in spite of the fact that they appear to contravene the Human Rights Act (including the right to life, article 2, and the right to non-discrimination, article 14). A spokeswoman for NICE says it is “very aware of the concerns of some patient groups about access to critical care, and we understand how difficult this feels. Our COVID-19 rapid guideline on critical care was developed to support critical care teams in their management of patients during a very difficult period of intense pressure." “'Difficult' is a hollow word for the feeling of being selected to die," says Patience. "It’s difficult not to conclude that those with long-term conditions and disabilities, like myself, have become viewed as a sacrificial herd." Read full story Source: The Guardian, 29 September 2020

Experts say robust legal protections are needed to inspire public confidence. The UK government has set out plans to amend drug regulations in case it decides that COVID-19 vaccines should be used before they are licensed, in a bid to roll them out more quickly. In a consultation on the proposals that ran from 28 August to 18 September the Department of Health and Social Care for England explained that if a suitable vaccine emerged with strong evidence of safety, quality, and efficacy the government would seek to license it through the usual route but could supply it in the meantime. The document added, “A COVID-19 vaccine would only be authorised in this way if the UK’s licensing authority was satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the safety, quality, and efficacy of the vaccine. ‘Unlicensed’ does not mean ‘untested.” The consultation, and the timeframe in which it was conducted, prompted some people to post their concerns on social media. However, the Human Medicine Regulations 2012 already allow the licensing authority to temporarily authorise the supply of an unlicensed product in response to certain public health threats, including the suspected spread of pathogens. The proposed change would allow conditions to be attached “to ensure product safety, quality, and efficacy” The 2012 regulations also give healthcare professionals and manufacturers immunity from being sued in the civil courts for the use of some unlicensed products recommended by the licensing authority in response to a public health threat. The new regulations would extend the immunity to drug companies that have not manufactured the product but placed it on the market with the approval of the licensing authority, and they clarify the consequences for a breach of conditions imposed by the authority. Social media posts play into existing concerns that many people might not accept the vaccine, as surveys indicate. Lawyers have told the Department for Health and Social Care that to inspire public confidence it must provide redress for the few people who might experience adverse effects. Bozena Michalowska, a partner specialising in product liability at the law firm Leigh Day, said, “I do not believe that people will want to play Russian roulette with their health by taking a vaccine which they know nothing about, especially when they know that the risks they take are just taken by them and not a shared risk and they will not have sufficient protection should things go wrong.” Read full story Source: The BMJ, 28 September 2020

Covid survivor Tam McCue is one of the lucky ones. Earlier in the year he was in intensive care in the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley where he had been on a ventilator for nearly two weeks. At one point Mr McCue, who could barely speak, didn't think he would live. Fast forward five months and Mr McCue, of Barrhead, East Renfrewshire, is back from the brink. He became desperately ill but, thankfully, it only went as far as his lungs. With coronavirus some patients have have suffered multiple organ failure which also affected their heart, kidneys, brain and gut. Mr McCue describes his recovery as a "rollercoaster". He added: "It's a slow process. You think you can do things then the tiredness and fatigue sets in." He said: "It lies in the back of your mind. As years go on, how are you going to be? Is it going to get you again? It does play on you. It definitely does." As part of his recovery Mr McCue is attending the Ins:pire clinic online. It is normally a face-to-face rehabilitation clinic which involves multiple specialties, including pharmacists, physiotherapists and psychologists. Mr McCue is one of the first Covid survivors to take part in the five-week programme, which started earlier this month. Read full story Source: BBC Scotland News, 29 September 2020

Official data from mid-September shows that nearly 6,400 people had waited more than 100 days following a referral to cancer services. The leaked data reveals for the first time the length of the cancer waiting list in the wake of the first pandemic peak, during which much diagnostic and elective cancer care was paused. The list consists of those waiting for a test, the outcome of a test, or for treatment. NHS England and Improvement only publish waiting times for patients who have been treated – not the number still waiting – so this information has been secret. The data, obtained from official emails seen by HSJ, showed the total number of people on the cancer waiting list grew substantially, from 50,000 to around 58,000, between the start of August and the middle of September. Of the 6,400 people recorded to be waiting more than 104 days on 13 September, 472 had a “decision to treat classification”, meaning they have cancer and are awaiting treatment. NHS England has said reducing the cancer waiting list would be overseen by a national “taskforce”, which is being chaired by national director for cancer Peter Johnson. Experts have warned the delays already stored up in the system could cost tens of thousands of lives as patients go undiagnosed or have their diagnosis and treatment later than they otherwise would. HSJ asked NHS England if harm reviews had been carried out for those on the waiting list and whether it had discovered if those waiting longer than104 days had been harmed, but did not receive an answer. Read full story (paywalled) Source: HSJ, 29 September 2020

The NHS is facing a "triple whammy" of rising COVID-19 cases, a major backlog in treatment and reduced capacity due to infection-control measures, according to health bosses. The NHS Confederation report on the English NHS said more investment was desperately needed. The NHS bosses also called on ministers to be "honest and realistic" about waiting lists for treatment. It comes despite the government promising an extra £3bn this winter. That money - announced over the summer - was intended to help hospitals cope with the extra-infection control measures required and to pay for patients to be treated privately for routine treatment, such as knee and hip replacements. But hospitals are still performing only half the number of routine operations they normally would. Two million patients have already waited longer than 18 weeks for treatment, the highest number since records began, in 2007. And services in other areas, such as cancer care, are running at about three-quarters capacity. Of the more than 250 bosses who responded to the confederation's survey: fewer than one in 10 said the current level of funding allowed them to deliver safe and effective care nearly nine in 10 said a lack of funding would be a significant barrier to achieving waiting-time targets for everything from mental-health care to cancer treatment and routine operations. Read full story Source: BBC News, 29 September 2020

When Sarah found herself suffering sudden bouts of breathlessness in May, she took herself to hospital. But after her COVID-19 swab test came back negative, doctors said she was probably anxious, and sent her home. Despite this, Sarah’s symptoms continued to worsen. A week later, she was rushed to hospital in an ambulance. Paramedics told her that based on her clinic observations, she should be in a coma. Then came more surprising news: She had tested positive for coronavirus Sarah’s story – given to a patient safety charity under a pseudonym – is one that resonates with Dr Claudia Paoloni, president of the Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association. She detailed another case in which a patient tested negative twice: once when she was first admitted to hospital and once later in her hospital stay. She finally tested positive on her third test – by which time she was on a ventilator in intensive care. Paolini believes COVID-19 swab tests produce a troublingly high rate of false negative results, and the problem lies in the reliance on a single test. “To use as a one-off test in any capacity to exclude someone from having COVID-19 is a folly.” If you want to exclude someone from having the virus, Paoloni said, you must do multiple tests and collect multiple negative results. “If the test and tracing system is not working, which is the case here, transmission will continue unabated in the community.” The most recent data published by the Office for National Statistics says the test’s sensitivity - which it says can tell us how likely it is to return a false-negative result, may be somewhere between 85% and 98%. Dr Deenan Pillay, Professor of Virology at University College London and member of Independent Sage, a group of scientists providing transparent advice during the crisis, said a significant number of self-administered tests could be coming back negative for people who do in fact have the virus. “The single biggest reason why a swab from someone who has COVID-19 comes up as negative is the quality of the swab that is taken,” Dr Pillay said. “Swabbing your nose and throat in a way that will pick up the virus means really scraping down the side of the wall of the nose or back of the throat to get cells from the lining of the throat. That’s not a pleasant thing to do.” This is of course true for at-home testing, which relies on the patient or a family member to collect the swab. But it could be true at testing centres, too. Tom, a 29-year-old from London whose name has been changed for this story, said there were no medical staff on site when he visited a Covid testing centre in London. The only people he interacted with were staff from a third-party contractor paid to carry out testing. “The man simply handed me a test, read out the instructions to self-administer the test, and asked me to do it myself,” he said. Pillay agrees that testing methods are likely to have an impact on false negative results. “I have seen the documentation given out at testing centres and it is very confusing,” he said. “Centres often expect you to administer the test yourself or get someone else in your car to administer it for you, all of which creates difficulties.” Pillay believes the solution lies in having medically trained staff at testing centres. “The way the system is developed at the moment, outsourced to private companies like Deloitte and Lighthouse Labs, is just woeful,” he said. “The whole system is failing at the moment. And it’s happening just as the numbers of infections are starting to rise,” Dr Pillay said. Read full story Source: Huffpost, 27 September 2020