Jump to content

Search the hub

Showing results for tags 'Transmission'.


More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Start to type the tag you want to use, then select from the list.

  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • All
    • Commissioning, service provision and innovation in health and care
    • Coronavirus (COVID-19)
    • Culture
    • Improving patient safety
    • Investigations, risk management and legal issues
    • Leadership for patient safety
    • Organisations linked to patient safety (UK and beyond)
    • Patient engagement
    • Patient safety in health and care
    • Patient Safety Learning
    • Professionalising patient safety
    • Research, data and insight
    • Miscellaneous

Categories

  • Commissioning, service provision and innovation in health and care
    • Commissioning and funding patient safety
    • Digital health and care service provision
    • Health records and plans
    • Innovation programmes in health and care
    • Climate change/sustainability
  • Coronavirus (COVID-19)
    • Blogs
    • Data, research and statistics
    • Frontline insights during the pandemic
    • Good practice and useful resources
    • Guidance
    • Mental health
    • Exit strategies
    • Patient recovery
    • Questions around Government governance
  • Culture
    • Bullying and fear
    • Good practice
    • Occupational health and safety
    • Safety culture programmes
    • Second victim
    • Speak Up Guardians
    • Staff safety
    • Whistle blowing
  • Improving patient safety
    • Clinical governance and audits
    • Design for safety
    • Disasters averted/near misses
    • Equipment and facilities
    • Error traps
    • Health inequalities
    • Human factors (improving human performance in care delivery)
    • Improving systems of care
    • Implementation of improvements
    • International development and humanitarian
    • Patient Safety Alerts
    • Safety stories
    • Stories from the front line
    • Workforce and resources
  • Investigations, risk management and legal issues
    • Investigations and complaints
    • Risk management and legal issues
  • Leadership for patient safety
    • Business case for patient safety
    • Boards
    • Clinical leadership
    • Exec teams
    • Inquiries
    • International reports
    • National/Governmental
    • Patient Safety Commissioner
    • Quality and safety reports
    • Techniques
    • Other
  • Organisations linked to patient safety (UK and beyond)
    • Government and ALB direction and guidance
    • International patient safety
    • Regulators and their regulations
  • Patient engagement
    • Consent and privacy
    • Harmed care patient pathways/post-incident pathways
    • How to engage for patient safety
    • Keeping patients safe
    • Patient-centred care
    • Patient Safety Partners
    • Patient stories
  • Patient safety in health and care
    • Care settings
    • Conditions
    • Diagnosis
    • High risk areas
    • Learning disabilities
    • Medication
    • Mental health
    • Men's health
    • Patient management
    • Social care
    • Transitions of care
    • Women's health
  • Patient Safety Learning
    • Patient Safety Learning campaigns
    • Patient Safety Learning documents
    • Patient Safety Standards
    • 2-minute Tuesdays
    • Patient Safety Learning Annual Conference 2019
    • Patient Safety Learning Annual Conference 2018
    • Patient Safety Learning Awards 2019
    • Patient Safety Learning Interviews
    • Patient Safety Learning webinars
  • Professionalising patient safety
    • Accreditation for patient safety
    • Competency framework
    • Medical students
    • Patient safety standards
    • Training & education
  • Research, data and insight
    • Data and insight
    • Research
  • Miscellaneous

News

  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start
    End

Last updated

  • Start
    End

Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


First name


Last name


Country


About me


Organisation


Role

Found 134 results
  1. Content Article
    Dr Barry Jones, Chair of CATA/CAPA and lead for BAPEN, gives an update on CATA's ongoing campaign to achieve meaningful changes to the current IPC guidelines for healthcare and beyond. The COVID-19 Airborne Transmission Alliance (CATA) continues to campaign for meaningful changes to four-nation Infection Prevention Control (IPC) guidance to reflect evidence heard in Module 3 of the UK Covid-19 public inquiry. In our closing statement for Module 3, we included a demand for an interim recommendation from the inquiry in support of our position, supported by a number of other core participant groups. To this end, we wrote with the BMA, Long Covid and bereaved family groups to Baroness Hallett, Chair of the inquiry, to explain why an interim statement is so important, especially as we now know that the definitive module 3 report will not be published until spring 2026. We have received a strong rebuttal from the inquiry stating that there will be no interim statement this year. CATA felt that the inquiry’s letter required a response questioning some of the reasoning but this led to an immediate further rebuttal. The inquiry will therefore not consider our request. Meanwhile, IPC guidance continues to be predicated on a droplet paradigm of transmission with surgical masks for almost all clinical interactions except those deemed to be aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) – none of which is based on current scientific evidence. You can see the three letters attached.
  2. Content Article
    An update attached on the COVID-19 Airborne Transmission Alliance (CATA) involvement in the UK Covid-19 Public Inquiry and their plans for the future.
  3. Content Article
    Most hospitals have stopped testing all patients for Covid-19 when they are admitted and no longer require masking. Ten hospitals in the Mass General Brigham hospital system ended both these precautions simultaneously in May 2023 but restarted masking for health care workers in January 2024 during a winter respiratory viral surge. This study in JAMA Network Open looked at the association of these changes with the relative incidence of hospital-onset Covid-19, influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). The study showed that stopping universal masking and Covid-19 testing was associated with a significant increase in hospital-onset respiratory viral infections relative to community infections. Restarting the masking of health care workers was associated with a significant decrease.
  4. Content Article
    In this interview, David Osborn, chartered occupational safety and health practitioner and member of the Covid-19 Airborne Transmission Alliance (CATA), speaks to Lotty Tizzard, Digital Content Manager at Patient Safety Learning, about how CATA was established during the pandemic to advocate for adequate respiratory protection for NHS employees.  David explains how CATA advocated for the government and heath service to recognise that Covid-19 is passed on by aerosol transmission (through microscopic particles in the air). He also outlines why surgical masks do not adequately protect people against catching airborne viruses and describes how inadequate respiratory protective equipment (RPE) contributed to thousands of NHS staff catching Covid-19 at work. As a result, many healthcare workers died and a large number still live with the ongoing symptoms of Long Covid. David describes CATA's involvement as a Core Participant in the Covid-19 Inquiry and outlines what he hopes will be done to ensure the UK is better prepared for future pandemics. Patient Safety Learning is also a member of CATA. Clarification David wishes to clarify a point raised in the interview: "When talking about the “IPC Cell” I said that they 'didn’t produce minutes'. In fact, notes or minutes were taken at all IPC Cell meetings. The point I was making is that they were not published ('produced' in the sense of being released into the public domain), when the minutes of most other groups such as SAGE and NERVTAG were published. The few IPC Cell minutes that have trickled into the public domain have mostly been as a result of Freedom of Information requests by a colleague and a few that I have managed to obtain myself. In some cases, public authorities have taken around 18 months to disclose documents, and it has required the intervention of the Information Commissioner's Office. I anticipate that more minutes will be disclosed for public scrutiny as time goes on." You can read more about CATA and the Covid-19 Inquiry in David's blogs and presentations on the hub: Respiratory protective equipment: An unequal solution for healthcare workers? A blog by David Osborn Healthcare workers with Long Covid: Group litigation – a blog from David Osborn Covid-19 : A risk assessment too far? A blog by David Osborn CATA and the UK Covid-19 Public Inquiry: Presentation from David Osborn Join the conversation Were you working in health and social care during the pandemic? We'd like to hear about your experience of health and safety at work. Were you provided with adequate PPE to carry out your job safely? Did you catch Covid-19 while at work? You can join the conversation by commenting below (you'll need to sign up first) or get in touch with us directly by emailing [email protected]
  5. Content Article
    My last blog, "Forgotten heroes" – the sequel, built upon a very moving BBC Panorama programme Forgotten heroes of the Covid front line. The BBC documentary told the sad story of healthcare workers (HCWs) who had bravely and knowingly put themselves in harm's way to care for their patients during the darkest days of the pandemic. Many lost their lives, while many more were rendered so severely injured by the disease (Long Covid) that they were (and remain) unable to work and have been unceremoniously sacked by their NHS Health Trusts/Boards. The way that an organisation manages its activities is known as 'governance'. Good governance will lead to high standards of ethics, morality, care and compassion for the people who work within it and those who may be affected by its acts and omissions. Hence, when applied to a whole country, it is known as 'Government', its departments and agencies. In this blog, I propose a possible hypothetical scenario that may have led to the tragic situation revealed by the BBC documentary. I hope this will lead you to consider the standards of 'governance' that apply to the 'duty of care' which a Government owes to its HCWs during a pandemic and what, morally and ethically, should be done to support those "forgotten heroes" if the Government’s governance should be found to be severely lacking. But is the scenario I am asking you to imagine hypothetical or is it real? I shall leave that to your judgement – and that of the Covid-19 Public Inquiry.  The hypothetical scenario In the wake of the SARS outbreak (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) in 2003, an enlightened Chief Scientific Advisor set a plan in motion to prepare the country for a major pandemic. All epidemiologists worth their salt knew that this was inevitable and would happen one day. Thoughts began to turn towards how HCWs should be protected while caring for infected patients. After all, if large numbers of them became infected then who would look after the rest of us? The health service would most likely be overwhelmed and the country would be thrown into chaos and civil disorder. So a laboratory run by scientists from the country’s foremost health and safety regulatory body undertook some research to discover how well the standard surgical masks (‘medical masks’) would fare in a pandemic. The results were unambiguous – “badly”! The scientists found live viruses behind every surgical mask tested, including fluid resistant surgical masks (FRSMs), when presented with an artificially generated sneeze or cough. The scientists were quite clear in recommending that HCWs should wear respiratory protective equipment (RPE) in order to be properly protected against inhalation of harmful (pathogenic) viruses in the event of a pandemic. There are several types of RPE, the disposable respirator known as FFP3 (filtering facepiece) and some other reusable types as well, which give good protection. Not long afterwards, the 'Swine flu' pandemic raced across the world. This triggered the Government to invest in a massive stockpile of RPE. As the years rolled by, this equipment reached its expiry date but, instead of renewing them, stickers were over the expiry dates extending their life after what were called ‘stringent tests’. One has to question how ‘stringent’, when it is known that some of the materials from which they are made degrade over time and this impairs their efficiency. Tests (even ‘stringent’ ones) can only show how a mask performs at the time of the test and not predict how it will perform in a few years’ time. Manufacturers assign an ‘expiry date’ for a very good reason – when used beyond that date they may fail in such a way that the wearer is unwittingly inhaling the hazardous airborne materials, such as dusts or virus-laden aerosols from which they thought they were being protected. Or, also dangerous, bits of the degrading mask may be inhaled by the wearer presenting a choking hazard. Around that same time. some of the health department’s experts that concluded that SARS coronaviruses were transmitted by droplets and the airborne route via aerosols and tiny particles known as 'droplet nuclei'. They recommended that RPE such as FFP3 respirators should be used when providing routine care to infectious patients. The years passed by and the stockpile came up for review again. Experts from the Government’s health department met to decide what to do. After all, there would be a significant cost to the country in renewing the stockpile, most of which was well out of date. The experts came up with a bright idea –- why not implement a process called 'stock rotation' where PPE would be withdrawn from the stockpile in good time before its expiry date and sent for use in the NHS, replacing it with new PPE. One might question why this simple process wasn't thought of back when the stockpile was first established – after all, it is a fairly commonplace practice in warehousing perishable goods with a shelf-life. This group was fortunate in that it included one of the experts who had authored the above-mentioned paper. Curiously though, they decided that all general ward, community, ambulance and social care staff would only be equipped with FRSMs who they considered need not be protected with proper RPE. Perhaps their attention had wandered away from SARS and were focused on other respiratory diseases like flu (notwithstanding the massive loss of life these caused during the last century). Roll forward a few more years and a SARS pandemic starts to spread out from a place called Wuhan in China with a virus that was 80% similar to its predecessor from 2003, which had been proven to spread by airborne/aerosol transmission.. The new disease was classified as an airborne HCID (high consequence infectious disease) for which the country’s health and safety rules required that HCWs be equipped with RPE (not surgical masks). The Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO) announces to the world that the disease was airborne (although apparently ‘not in a military sense’ which is a little difficult to understand). A senior medical officer tells a committee of politicians that the disease approaching the country had a very strong force of transmission and is airborne. Then the pandemic arrived in the country, after having wreaked havoc with health services elsewhere in Europe. However, what the pandemic planners did not seem to have taken into account was that the health and safety rules associated with HCIDs required that RPE must be worn by healthcare workers when caring for infectious patients and now the stockpile of respirators was far too low. With not enough respirators to go round, what on earth was to be done? A Government Committee met to consider this dilemma. Two of the experts were present who had authored the paper mentioned above which had explicitly stated that RPE should be worn for SARS coronaviruses, and one of these experts had made the fateful recommendations about the PPE stockpile. This must have all been terribly embarrassing. Anyway they came up with a pragmatic answer to the problem. Solution: Declassify the disease so it isn’t an HCID any more. Done with a phone call to the right person and a quick confirmatory letter back from them. The disease was no longer ‘high consequence’ (just two days after a global pandemic had been declared by the WHO and the worldwide death toll was on a sharp upward trajectory). But oh dear! There is still a problem. Regardless of any HCID rules, the country’s health and safety laws say that if a hazard is airborne then RPE is required (which, as we know, does not include these paper surgical masks). The emergency pandemic legislation brought in by the country’s government had not repealed, revoked or suspended any of the health and safety laws and so they were still in force. This, being 'criminal law' was something that people could be jailed for breaching. Solution: Despite existing evidence that SARS coronaviruses (and other respiratory infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis) are transmissible via the airborne route, the health department pronounces that the virus causing the current pandemic is actually no longer airborne. They say that it is only transmissible via droplets that quickly fall to the ground or onto surfaces. They say that they will only cause infection if they land on someone’s mouth, nose or eyes or a person touches those surfaces and then touches their mouth, nose or eyes. So the country’s response strategy centres around keeping people 2 metres apart and handwashing. The airborne route is largely ignored except for some HCWs who don’t believe them and buy their own RPE – only to be instructed by the hospital authorities to take them off (on pain of disciplinary) and put on surgical masks instead. After all, if they wore these respirators it might scare the patients. But there is yet another problem. When any pathogenic viruses are ‘on the loose’ then the country’s health and safety law says that approved PPE must be worn to protect the wearer if no other, more effective risk control measures can be implemented. For administering close-quarter care to infectious patients no other risk control measures are practical other than PPE. The problem is that surgical masks are not approved 'PPE'. They are designated as ‘medical devices’ which are intended to protect the patient from drops of mucus or saliva that may come out of a HCW’s nose or mouth and may infect the patient. Furthermore the European standard for surgical masks says that they are not intended for protection of the wearer. Solution: We’ll call surgical masks 'PPE' anyway – after all the middle 'P' (protective) has a nice ring to it and should lead HCWs to believe they’re being protected (despite the underlying risk that they may be lulled into a false security and actually become more vulnerable as a result). The health and safety regulator appears somewhat concerned by this turn of events and makes representations to the other Government departments and the NHS that they should refer to RPE (such as FFP3s) as 'respirators' not 'masks' in order to ensure that the distinction is properly understood. However, this is ignored and FFP3s continue to be referred to as 'masks. So you now have 'FFP3 masks' and 'surgical masks'. After all, one mask sounds much the same as another doesn’t it? After all, if you were to refer to one as a 'respirator' (which sounds much better and more efficient) and the other as a 'mask' (which doesn’t) then workers might begin to question why they are not being given the best protection. Furthermore, all politicians, media and just about everyone else in the country started referring to surgical masks as PPE despite the fact that they are not. When concerns are raised with the safety regulator about this, their response is that, whilst they agree surgical masks are not PPE, the term PPE has now entered common parlance and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse this. And so the myth that surgical masks are personal protective equipment persists to this day. A few days after the ‘downgrade’ from RPE to surgical masks, with the first wave now really taking hold, a doctor in Accident and Emergency at one hospital describes their situation to a politician as carnage and chaos. They were distraught as they didn’t have any proper PPE and needed FFP3s. The doctor felt as though they were being thrown to the wolves. They thought it likely that some of them were going to die as a result. Of course, sadly, that doctor was not wrong. Many did die. Many, many more became very ill with very serious and long-lasting health effects. But where, one might ask, is that regulatory body that is supposed to ensure that workers are kept healthy, safe and properly protected against the hazards they’re working with? Well, they say that decisions about respirators and masks in healthcare sector have nothing whatsoever to do with them. They say that it is the country’s health department and the public health people who issue the guidance about mask-wearing in the healthcare sector. It is they who are responsible for these decisions. Then another problem arises. Oh dear, don't health and safety laws just keep getting in the way when you’re trying to manage a pandemic! For instance, there’s one which says that when a worker contracts a serious disease through their work (or dies of it), then it must be reported to that health and safety regulator as 'occupational exposure'. However, it wouldn’t be good for morale amongst healthcare workers if the true impact the disease was having upon them became widely known. Neither would it be good for those people in the health department who had been responsible (and accountable) for decisions they made about the stockpile the instruction they had given to downgrade from respirators to surgical masks. Solution: Discourage such reporting – ideally stop it altogether! Perhaps, when employers do make such reports, the safety regulator should reject them on the grounds that the healthcare workers probably didn’t catch their disease from the infectious patients they were working with (coughing their germs into the air around them) but more likely ‘out in the community’. So these unfortunate healthcare workers have no official record made of their 'occupational exposure' to the disease and any such suggestion is vigorously denied by their employers. This has the potential to severely hamper those workers when, after a year of sick pay, they are unceremoniously sacked and may need evidence that their disablement was caused through their work. Well, that brings us to the end of our hypothetical scenario. What do you think? Truth or fiction? Related reading: Since the publication of this blog, A Byline Times' investigative journalist has delved deeper into the story and his findings, published here, provide more detail.
  6. News Article
    The NHS has been urged to rethink safety for thousands of frontline staff after new research suggested that Covid patients’ coughing is putting them at far greater risk of catching the virus than previously thought. The study found that coughing generated at least 10 times more infectious “aerosol” particles than speaking or breathing – which could explain why so many NHS staff have fallen ill during the pandemic. The research has led to fresh demands that anyone caring for someone with Covid-19, or suspected Covid-19, should be provided with the most protective equipment – including FFP3 respirator masks – and that hospital ventilation should be improved. Health workers are up to four times more likely to contract coronavirus than the general population, with infection rates among those on general hospital wards approximately double those of intensive care unit (ICU) staff – who do have access to the most protective PPE. Read full story Source: The Guardian, 3 January 2021
  7. News Article
    People who recover from coronavirus have a similar level of protection against future infection as those who receive a Covid vaccine – at least for the first five months, research suggests. A Public Health England (PHE) study of more than 20,000 healthcare workers found that immunity acquired from an earlier Covid infection provided 83% protection against reinfection for at least 20 weeks. The findings show that while people are unlikely to become reinfected soon after their first infection, it is possible to catch the virus again and potentially spread it to others. “Overall I think this is good news,” said Prof Susan Hopkins, a senior medical adviser to PHE. “It allows people to feel that prior infection will protect them from future infections, but at the same time it is not complete protection, and therefore they still need to be careful when they are out and about.” Read full story Source: The Guardian, 14 January 2021 Public Health England press release
  8. News Article
    Deaths from COVID-19 in England in the first half of 2021 could exceed those seen in the whole of 2020 unless the vaccination programme is vastly increased and a national lockdown implemented—with educational settings closed for at least a month—researchers have warned. In a preprint released on 24 December, researchers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine used modelling to compare the effects of varying COVID-19 restrictions on the virus spread, hospital and intensive care admissions, and deaths from 15 December 2020 to 30 June 2021. The model took account of the new variant spreading rapidly in southern England, which it estimated to be 56% more transmissible than non-variant COVID-19. The study, which has yet to be peer reviewed, said that control measures similar to the November national lockdown would be “unlikely to reduce the effective reproduction number to less than 1, unless primary schools, secondary schools, and universities are also closed.” It added that it would be necessary to “greatly accelerate vaccine rollout to have an appreciable impact in suppressing the resulting disease burden.” Read full story Source: BMJ, 29 December 2020
  9. News Article
    The number of COVID-19 infections likely to have been acquired in hospital are rising again for the first time in three weeks and their proportion of all cases has reached record levels for the second wave, HSJ can reveal. NHS England data covering the week to 6 December (the latest available) shows 1,787 COVID-19 cases were acquired in-hospital – a rise of almost 14% on the week before. The number of hospital-acquired, or “nosocomial”, infections had been falling since the week to 15 November, when 1,794 were recorded. This week, hospital acquired covid infections amounted to 21% of the 8,337 new cases which were recorded in hospitals – the highest proportion in the second wave. On 6 December alone, 24% of infections had probably been acquired in hospital rather than the community. Read full story (paywalled) Source: HSJ, 11 December 2020
  10. News Article
    Health inspectors in England have been moving between care homes with high levels of COVID-19 infection without being tested, raising fears they have put more residents at risk of catching the virus, leaks to the Guardian have revealed. In recent weeks all care home inspections carried out in the north of England have been of infected homes, including a facility where 38 of the 41 people receiving care and 30 staff – almost half of the workers – had tested positive, internal documents from the Care Quality Commission (CQC) show. Over the last two months inspectors have been checking infection control procedures and care standards in up to 600 care homes, many of which were dealing with outbreaks of COVID-19, but the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has yet to provide testing. The CQC said on Friday it was expecting to start testing inspectors “in the coming weeks”. Weekly Covid deaths in care homes have been rising. In the week to 20 November, 398 people were notified to the CQC as having died from Covid, up from 138 a month earlier. The death toll remains lower than at the peak of the pandemic, when more than 2,500 people were dying a week in late April. The situation has sparked “very real anxieties about contracting the disease” and spreading it between infected homes, the leaked memos reveal. One inspector described work to his managers as like “going into the eye of the storm”. Read full story Source: The Guardian, 27 November 2020
  11. News Article
    Lifting lockdown must be handled better this time round to avoid a surge in Covid that could overwhelm the NHS, doctors say. The British Medical Association has published a blueprint for how it thinks England should proceed with any easing. It includes replacing the "rule of six" with a two-households restriction to reduce social mixing and banning travel between different local lockdown tiers. Government has yet to say if or exactly how England will exit on 2 December. It will decide next week, based on whether cases have fallen enough and how much strain hospitals are under. Read full story Source: BBC News, 18 November 2020
  12. News Article
    Coronavirus cases in the US will spike after Thanksgiving, further stressing health care systems and prompting new restrictions, an emergency physician said Saturday, as states continued to report soaring numbers of new cases, hospitalizations and deaths. Dr. James Phillips, chief of disaster medicine at George Washington University Hospital, told CNN's Erica Hill he is "terrified" about what's going to happen this holiday season. "We're going to see an unprecedented surge of cases following Thanksgiving this year, and if people don't learn from Thanksgiving, we're going to see it after Christmas as well," Phillips said. Already, grim indicators offer a glimpse of what's to come. A little more than a week after the US first topped 100,000 daily infections, it reported a record of more than 184,000 new cases Friday. Hospitalisations also hit a new high – for the fourth consecutive day – with more than 68,500 COVID-19 patients nationwide, according to the COVID Tracking Project. And the country's daily death toll has topped 1,300 at least three times this week. "Things are going to get much, much worse," said Dr. Leana Wen, a CNN medical analyst and former Baltimore Health Commissioner. She expressed concern over the impact on the already-strained health care system when the new cases added in recent days are reflected in hospitalisations. Read full story Source: CNN, 15 November 2020
  13. News Article
    People in Liverpool will be offered regular COVID-19 tests under the first trial of whole city testing in England. Everyone living or working in the city will be offered tests, whether or not they have symptoms, with follow-up tests every two weeks or so. Some will get new tests giving results within an hour which, if successful, could be rolled out to "millions" by Christmas, the government says. Liverpool has one of the highest rates of coronavirus deaths in England. The latest figures show the city recorded 1,754 cases in the week up to 30 October. The average area in England had 153. The pilot aims to limit spread of the virus by identifying as many infected people as possible, and taking action to break chains of transmission. It is thought around four-fifths of people who are infected with coronavirus show no symptoms. Read full story Source: BBC News, 3 November 2020
  14. News Article
    NHS staff and their families accounted for one in six patients in hospital with Covid, due in part to inadequate personal protective equipment (PPE), new research suggests. A study of hospitals from March to June revealed that healthcare workers in patient-facing roles were around three times more likely to be hospitalised with the virus than the general population. Writing in the BMJ, the study's authors called for an urgent focus on how COVID-19 spreads around hospitals to prevent a similar toll in future waves of the pandemic. They also call for hospitals to consider re-deploying staff with vulnerable family members away from high-risk zones. Read full story Source: The Telegraph, 29 October 2020
  15. News Article
    Hospital hotspots for COVID-19 have been highlighted in a new report by safety investigators. The report by the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch (HSIB) makes a series of observations to help the health service reduce the spread of coronavirus in healthcare settings. Hospital hotspots for COVID-19 included the central nurses’ stations and areas where computers and medical notes were shared, the HSIB found. The investigation was initiated after a Sage report in May which found that 20% of hospital patients were reporting symptoms of Covid-19 seven days following admission – suggesting that their infection may have been acquired in hospital. In response to the report, NHS England and NHS Improvement confirmed they would publish nosocomial – another term for hospital acquired infections – transmission rates from trusts, the HSIB said. Read full story Source: Express and Star, 28 October 2020
  16. News Article
    Almost half of hospital patients have been discharged without receiving the results of their coronavirus test – including some patients who were sent to care homes, new research from Healthwatch and British Cross has revealed. Independent national patient body Healthwatch England said it had learned many patients were discharged from hospitals between March and August this year without proper assessments with many vulnerable people sent home without medication, equipment or the care they needed. At the start of the pandemic thousands of patients were discharged to care homes as NHS England instructed hospitals to free up 15,000 beds ahead of the first wave of coronavirus. Approximately 25,000 patients were sent to care homes with some not tested, sparking fears this helped seed care homes with the virus. There have been around 16,000 care home deaths linked to COVID-19. According to a survey of almost 600 discharged patients and interviews with 60 NHS staff, Healthwatch England said it had found serious flaws with the way hospitals had followed NHS England’s instructions. Read full story Source: The Independent, 24 October 2020
  17. News Article
    Levels of protective antibodies in people wane "quite rapidly" after coronavirus infection, say researchers. Antibodies are a key part of our immune defences and stop the virus from getting inside the body's cells. The Imperial College London team found the number of people testing positive for antibodies has fallen by 26% between June and September. They say immunity appears to be fading and there is a risk of catching the virus multiple times. More than 350,000 people in England have taken an antibody test as part of the REACT-2 study so far. In the first round of testing, at the end of June and the beginning of July, about 60 in 1,000 people had detectable antibodies. But in the latest set of tests, in September, only 44 per 1,000 people were positive. "Immunity is waning quite rapidly, we're only three months after our first [round of tests] and we're already showing a 26% decline in antibodies," said Prof Helen Ward, one of the researchers. The fall was greater in those over 65, compared with younger age groups, and in those without symptoms compared with those with full-blown COVID-19. The number of healthcare workers with antibodies remained relatively high, which the researchers suggest may be due to regular exposure to the virus. There have been very few confirmed cases of people getting Covid twice. However, the researchers warn this may be due to immunity only just starting to fade since the peak infection rates of March and April. The hope is the second infection will be milder than the first, even if immunity does decline, as the body should have an "immune memory" of the first encounter and know how to fight back. The researchers say their findings do not scupper hopes of a vaccine, which may prove more effective than a real infection. One of the researchers, Prof Graham Cooke, said: "The big picture is after the first wave, the great majority of the country didn't have evidence of protective immunity. The need for a vaccine is still very large, the data doesn't change that." Read full story Source: BBC News, 27 October 2020
  18. News Article
    Women aged 50-60 are at greatest risk of developing “long Covid”, analysis suggests. Older age and experiencing five or more symptoms within the first week of illness were also associated with a heightened risk of lasting health problems. The study, led by Dr Claire Steves and Prof Tim Spector at King’s College London, analysed data from 4,182 COVID Symptom Study app users who had been consistently logging their health and had tested positive for the virus. In general, women were twice as likely to suffer from Covid symptoms that lasted longer than a month, compared with men – but only until around the age of 60, when their risk level became more similar. Covid vaccine tracker: when will a cor Increasing age was also associated with a heightened risk of long Covid, with about 22% of people aged over 70 suffering for four weeks or more, compared with 10% of people aged between 18 and 49. For women in the 50-60 age bracket, these two risk factors appeared to combine: They were eight times more likely to experience lasting symptoms of Covid-19 compared with 18- to 30-year-olds. However, the greatest difference between men and women was seen among those aged between 40 and 50, where women’s risk of developing long Covid was double that of men’s. “This is a similar pattern to what you see in autoimmune diseases,” said Spector. “Things like rheumatoid arthritis, thyroid disease and lupus are two to three times more common in women until just before menopause, and then it becomes more similar.” His guess is that gender differences in the way the immune system responds to coronavirus may account for this difference." Read full story Source: The Guardian, 21 September 2020
  19. News Article
    Ministers have denied care home inspectors access to weekly testing for coronavirus – despite fears they could contribute to the spread of COVID-19 as cases rise across the country, The Independent can reveal. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) was told by the Department of Health and Social Care last month it could not have access to regular testing for inspection teams as the watchdog prepares for 500 inspections of care homes during the next six weeks. Officials said the teams, who are assessing care conditions for the vulnerable and elderly, did not get close enough to people to present a risk. During the first wave of the virus, after Public Health England initially said there was no risk to care homes, an estimated 16,000 residents died from the virus. At the height of the crisis up to 25,000 NHS patients were discharged to care homes by the NHS, with many not having been tested for the virus. Labour MP Barbara Keeley said: “The refusal of the Department of Health and Social Care to treat CQC inspectors in the same way as other staff going into care homes puts lives at risk.” Read full story Source: The Independent, 20 October 2020
  20. News Article
    Senior doctors specialising in infectious diseases have written an open letter expressing "concern" about the rapid increase in COVID-19 cases in Northern Ireland. The letter is signed by 13 medics from hospitals across Northern Ireland. It calls for the public to stick to government guidance on reducing social interactions and also warns against "stigmatising people and areas with high levels of infection." The letter reads: "We need to support people who test positive. This pandemic requires us to work together to bring it under control urgently. We need to reduce the potential for transmission to protect our health service, and we need to fix our test and trace system to try and gain better control of this virus in our community." On Monday, 616 new cases of COVID-19 were identified in Northern Ireland, bringing the total during the pandemic to 14,690. The number of deaths recorded by the Department of Health remains at 584. Among those who have signed the letter are Dr Claire Donnelly, a consultant physician who specialises in infectious diseases; consultant virologist Dr Conall McCaughey and consultant paediatrician Dr Sharon Christie. Entitled an "appeal to people to adhere to Covid public health guidance", the letter lays bare the stark reality of the infections rates. The letter adds: "Worryingly the number of cases is increasing rapidly in many areas over the last week, indicating that we have widespread community transmission in many parts of Northern Ireland." Read full story Source: BBC News, 6 October 2020
  21. News Article
    From the moment coronavirus reached UK shores, public health advice stressed the importance of washing hands and deep-cleaning surfaces to reduce the risk of becoming infected. The advice was informed by mountains of research into the transmission of other respiratory viruses: it was the best scientists could do with such a new pathogen. But as the pandemic spread and data rolled in, some scientists began to question whether the focus on hand hygiene was as crucial as it seemed. The issue has resurfaced after Monica Gandhi, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, told the US science magazine Nautilus that the easiest way to catch the virus was through droplets and aerosols sprayed from an infected person’s mouth or nose. “It’s not through surfaces,” she said. “We now know the root of the spread is not from touching surfaces and touching your eye. It’s from being close to someone spewing virus from their nose and mouth, without in most cases knowing they are doing so.” Gandhi’s is not a lone voice. Her comments follow a prominent paper in the Lancet from Emanuel Goldman, a professor of microbiology at Rutgers University in New Jersey. He was sceptical about the relevance of scientific studies that showed the virus could survive on surfaces for days at a time. “In my opinion,” he wrote, “the chance of transmission through inanimate surfaces is very small, and only in instances where an infected person coughs or sneezes on the surface, and someone else touches that surface soon after the cough or sneeze.” He defined soon as within one to two hours. Dr Julian Tang, an honorary associate professor of respiratory sciences at the University of Leicester, thinks hand washing should stay but agrees the risk from contaminated surfaces has been overplayed. He points to documents from the UK government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) that estimate hand washing can reduce acute respiratory infections by only 16%. Meanwhile, he adds, the World Health Organization has warned about surfaces being a likely route of transmission while conceding there are no reports demonstrating infection this way. Tang believes that a preoccupation with contaminated surfaces distracted countries from taking airborne transmission seriously and played down the necessity of wearing masks. “What we’ve always said is that the virus transmits by all routes. There might be some transmission by hand and fomites and we’re not opposed to hand washing, but the emphasis is wrong,” he told the Guardian. Read full story Source: 5 October 2020
  22. News Article
    A technical glitch that meant nearly 16,000 cases of coronavirus went unreported has delayed efforts to trace contacts of people who tested positive. Public Health England (PHE) said 15,841 cases between 25 September and 2 October were left out of the UK daily case figures. They were then added in to reach Saturday's figure of 12,872 new cases and Sunday's 22,961 figure. PHE said all those who tested positive had been informed. But it means others in close contact with them were not. The issue has been resolved, PHE said, with outstanding cases passed on to tracers by 01:00 BST on Saturday. The technical issue also means that the daily case totals reported on the government's coronavirus dashboard over the past week have been lower than the true number. Read full story Source: BBC News, 5 October 2020
  23. News Article
    Covid infection rates among doctors, nurses, and other hospital and care home staff have risen more than fivefold over the past month in London, scientists have discovered. The figures – provided by the Francis Crick Institute – have triggered considerable concern among scientists, who fear similar increases may be occurring in other regions of the UK. Increasing numbers of infected healthcare workers raise fears that the spread of COVID-19 into wards and care homes – which triggered tens of thousands of deaths last spring – could be repeated unless urgent action is taken. “It is very, very worrying,” said Professor Charles Swanton, who helped set up the institute’s Pipeline testing service. “Keeping hospitals and care homes free of the virus is crucial but these figures suggest we are heading in the wrong direction.” The Francis Crick Institute – one of Britain’s leading biomedical research centres – decided in March to use its array of powerful laboratory devices to set up a Covid testing service for hospital and care home staff in central and north London. Many other UK academic institutions offered to start similar services but were discouraged by the Department of Health and Social Care which said it wanted to centralise testing operations. Read full story Source: The Guardian, 3 October 2020
  24. News Article
    A London hospital hit by a COVID-19 outbreak that required 70 staff to self-isolate has been ordered to take stringent measures to control infection. Hillingdon Hospital NHS Foundation Trust declared a COVID-19 outbreak in July and revealed that 70 staff members, some of whom had tested positive, were self-isolating. Ambulances were forced to divert patients to other emergency departments. An investigation later found that a nurse who had COVID-19 unwittingly infected 16 others during a training session on 30 June, described by one doctor as a “super spreading event.” The Care Quality Commission (CQC), which carried out an unannounced inspection on 4-5 August, has used its urgent enforcement powers to place conditions on the trust’s registration to protect patients and staff. Nigel Acheson, the CQC’s deputy chief inspector of hospitals, said, “We found a number of concerns relating to infection control and this is why we have taken action to ensure the safety of patients, staff and visitors." “We have imposed urgent conditions upon the trust’s registration and expect the trust to focus on making the required improvements as a matter of priority. We will return to inspect and ensure that action has been taken and that improvements have been made and are being sustained.” The trust has been told it must ensure that staff and patients observe social distancing, must place personal protective equipment (PPE) in easily accessible places, and must make sure that staff wear PPE before going into high risk areas. Read full story Source: BMJ, 9 September 2020
  25. News Article
    A leading health expert has suggested ministers have “lost control of the virus”, after the UK recorded it’s largest 24-hour spike in COVID-19 cases since 23 May. Government figures showed there have been a further 2,988 lab-confirmed cases of coronavirus in the UK as of 9am on Sunday. This brings the total number of confirmed cases in the UK to 347,152. Sunday's figure is the highest since May 22 when 3,287 cases were recorded, and is also the first 24-hour period when cases passed 2,000 since the end of May. The tally was an increase on Saturday's figures of 1,813 new cases. Prof Gabriel Scally, a member of the Independent Sage group and a former NHS regional director of public health for the south-west, warned that government ministers had “lost control of the virus”. “It’s no longer small outbreaks they can stamp on,” he told The Guardian. “It’s become endemic in our poorest communities and this is the result. Shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth called upon the government to respond to the sharp spike. He added that it was “a stark reminder that there is no room for complacency in tackling the spread of the virus”. “This increase, combined with the ongoing testing fiasco where ill people are told to drive for miles for tests, and the poor performance of the contact tracing system, needs an explanation from ministers,” he said on Sunday. Read full story Source: The Independent, 7 September 2020
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.