Showing papers by "General Medical Council published in 2021"

Ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy in United Kingdom healthcare workers: Results from the UK-REACH prospective nationwide cohort study.

Abstract: Background In most countries, healthcare workers (HCWs) represent a priority group for vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) due to their elevated risk of COVID-19 and potential contribution to nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Concerns have been raised that HCWs from ethnic minority groups are more likely to be vaccine hesitant (defined by the World Health Organisation as refusing or delaying a vaccination) than those of White ethnicity, but there are limited data on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy and its predictors in UK HCWs. Methods Nationwide prospective cohort study and qualitative study in a multi-ethnic cohort of clinical and non-clinical UK HCWs. We analysed ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy adjusting for demographics, vaccine trust, and perceived risk of COVID-19. We explored reasons for hesitancy in qualitative data using a framework analysis. Findings 11,584 HCWs were included in the cohort analysis. 23% (2704) reported vaccine hesitancy. Compared to White British HCWs (21.3% hesitant), HCWs from Black Caribbean (54.2%), Mixed White and Black Caribbean (38.1%), Black African (34.4%), Chinese (33.1%), Pakistani (30.4%), and White Other (28.7%) ethnic groups were significantly more likely to be hesitant. In adjusted analysis, Black Caribbean (aOR 3.37, 95% CI 2.11 - 5.37), Black African (aOR 2.05, 95% CI 1.49 - 2.82), White Other ethnic groups (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.19 - 1.84) were significantly more likely to be hesitant. Other independent predictors of hesitancy were younger age, female sex, higher score on a COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs scale, lower trust in employer, lack of influenza vaccine uptake in the previous season, previous COVID-19, and pregnancy. Qualitative data from 99 participants identified the following contributors to hesitancy: lack of trust in government and employers, safety concerns due to the speed of vaccine development, lack of ethnic diversity in vaccine studies, and confusing and conflicting information. Participants felt uptake in ethnic minority communities might be improved through inclusive communication, involving HCWs in the vaccine rollout, and promoting vaccination through trusted networks. Interpretation Despite increased risk of COVID-19, HCWs from some ethnic minority groups are more likely to be vaccine hesitant than their White British colleagues. Strategies to build trust and dispel myths surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine in these communities are urgently required. Emphasis should be placed on the safety and benefit of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in pregnancy and in those with previous COVID-19. Public health communications should be inclusive, non-stigmatising and utilise trusted networks. Funding UKRI-MRC and NIHR.

The United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH): protocol for a prospective longitudinal cohort study of healthcare and ancillary workers in UK healthcare settings.

Abstract: Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality and devastated economies globally. Among groups at increased risk are healthcare workers (HCWs) and ethnic minority groups. Emerging evidence suggests that HCWs from ethnic minority groups are at increased risk of adverse COVID-19-related outcomes. To date, there has been no large-scale analysis of these risks in UK HCWs or ancillary workers in healthcare settings, stratified by ethnicity or occupation, and adjusted for confounders. This paper reports the protocol for a prospective longitudinal questionnaire study of UK HCWs, as part of the UK-REACH programme (The United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers). Methods and analysis A baseline questionnaire will be administered to a national cohort of UK HCWs and ancillary workers in healthcare settings, and those registered with UK healthcare regulators, with follow-up questionnaires administered at 4 and 8 months. With consent, questionnaire data will be linked to health records with 25-year follow-up. Univariate associations between ethnicity and clinical COVID-19 outcomes, physical and mental health, and key confounders/explanatory variables will be tested. Multivariable analyses will test for associations between ethnicity and key outcomes adjusted for the confounder/explanatory variables. We will model changes over time by ethnic group, facilitating understanding of absolute and relative risks in different ethnic groups, and generalisability of findings. Ethics and dissemination The study is approved by Health Research Authority (reference 20/HRA/4718), and carries minimal risk. We aim to manage the small risk of participant distress about questions on sensitive topics by clearly participant information that the questionnaire covers sensitive topics and there is no obligation to answer these or any other questions, and by providing support organisation links. Results will be disseminated with reports to Government and papers submitted to pre-print servers and peer reviewed journals. Trial registration number ISRCTN11811602; Pre-results.

Ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy in United Kingdom healthcare workers: Results from the UK-REACH prospective nationwide cohort study

Abstract: Background In most countries, healthcare workers (HCWs) represent a priority group for vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) due to their elevated risk of COVID-19 and potential contribution to nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Concerns have been raised that HCWs from ethnic minority groups are more likely to be vaccine hesitant (defined by the World Health Organisation as refusing or delaying a vaccination) than those of White ethnicity, but there are limited data on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy and its predictors in UK HCWs. Methods Nationwide prospective cohort study and qualitative study in a multi-ethnic cohort of clinical and non-clinical UK HCWs. We analysed ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 vaccine hesitancy adjusting for demographics, vaccine trust, and perceived risk of COVID-19. We explored reasons for hesitancy in qualitative data using a framework analysis. Findings 11,584 HCWs were included in the cohort analysis. 23% (2704) reported vaccine hesitancy. Compared to White British HCWs (21.3% hesitant), HCWs from Black Caribbean (54.2%), Mixed White and Black Caribbean (38.1%), Black African (34.4%), Chinese (33.1%), Pakistani (30.4%), and White Other (28.7%) ethnic groups were significantly more likely to be hesitant. In adjusted analysis, Black Caribbean (aOR 3.37, 95% CI 2.11 - 5.37), Black African (aOR 2.05, 95% CI 1.49 - 2.82), White Other ethnic groups (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.19 - 1.84) were significantly more likely to be hesitant. Other independent predictors of hesitancy were younger age, female sex, higher score on a COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs scale, lower trust in employer, lack of influenza vaccine uptake in the previous season, previous COVID-19, and pregnancy. Qualitative data from 99 participants identified the following contributors to hesitancy: lack of trust in government and employers, safety concerns due to the speed of vaccine development, lack of ethnic diversity in vaccine studies, and confusing and conflicting information. Participants felt uptake in ethnic minority communities might be improved through inclusive communication, involving HCWs in the vaccine rollout, and promoting vaccination through trusted networks. Interpretation Despite increased risk of COVID-19, HCWs from some ethnic minority groups are more likely to be vaccine hesitant than their White British colleagues. Strategies to build trust and dispel myths surrounding the COVID-19 vaccine in these communities are urgently required. Public health communications should be inclusive, non-stigmatising and utilise trusted networks. Funding MRC-UK Research and Innovation (MR/V027549/1), the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and NIHR Biomedical Research Centres and NIHR Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands.

Access to personal protective equipment in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom: results from a nationwide cohort study (UK-REACH)

Abstract: ObjectivesTo determine the prevalence and predictors of self-reported access to appropriate personal protective equipment (aPPE) for healthcare workers (HCWs) in the United Kingdom (UK) during the first UK national COVID-19 lockdown (March 2020) and at the time of questionnaire response (December 2020 - February 2021). DesignTwo cross sectional analyses using data from a questionnaire-based cohort study. SettingNationwide questionnaire from 4th December 2020 to 28th February 2021. ParticipantsA representative sample of HCWs or ancillary workers in a UK healthcare setting aged 16 or over, registered with one of seven main UK healthcare regulatory bodies. Main outcome measureBinary measure of self-reported aPPE (access all of the time vs access most of the time or less frequently) at two timepoints: the first national lockdown in the UK (primary analysis) and at the time of questionnaire response (secondary analysis). Results10,508 HCWs were included in the primary analysis, and 12,252 in the secondary analysis. 3702 (35.2%) of HCWs reported aPPE at all times in the primary analysis; 6806 (83.9%) reported aPPE at all times in the secondary analysis. After adjustment (for age, sex, ethnicity, migration status, occupation, aerosol generating procedure exposure, work sector, work region, working hours, night shift frequency and trust in employing organisation), older HCWs (per decade increase in age: aOR 1.2, 95% CI 1.16-1.26, p<0.001) and those working in Intensive Care Units (1.61, 1.38 - 1.89, p<0.001) were more likely to report aPPE at all times. Those from Asian ethnic groups compared to White (0.77, 0.67-0.89, p<0.001), those in allied health professional (AHPs) and dental roles (vs those in medical roles; AHPs: 0.77, 0.68 - 0.87, p<0.001; dental: 0.63, 0.49-0.81, p<0.001), and those who saw a higher number of COVID-19 patients compared to those who saw none ([≥]21 patients 0.74, 0.61-0.90, p=0.003) were less likely to report aPPE at all times in the primary analysis. aPPE at all times was also not uniform across UK regions (reported access being better in South West and North East England than London). Those who trusted their employing organisation to deal with concerns about unsafe clinical practice, compared to those who did not, were twice as likely to report aPPE at all times (2.18, 1.97-2.40, p<0.001). With the exception of occupation, these factors were also significantly associated with aPPE at all times in the secondary analysis. ConclusionsWe found that only a third of HCWs in the UK reported aPPE at all times during the period of the first lockdown and that aPPE had improved later in the pandemic. We also identified key sociodemographic and occupational determinants of aPPE during the first UK lockdown, the majority of which have persisted since lockdown was eased. These findings have important public health implications for HCWs, particularly as cases of infection and long-COVID continue to rise in the UK. Trial registrationISRCTN 11811602 What is already known on this topicAccess to personal protective equipment (PPE) is crucial to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) from infection. Limited data exist concerning the prevalence of, and factors relating to, PPE access for HCWs in the United Kingdom (UK) during the COVID-19 pandemic. What this study addsOnly a third of HCWs reported having access to appropriate PPE all of the time during the first UK national lockdown. Older HCWs, those working in Intensive Care Units and those who trusted their employing organisation to deal with concerns about unsafe clinical practice, were more likely to report access to adequate PPE. Those from Asian ethnic groups (compared to White ethnic groups) and those who saw a high number of COVID-19 were less likely to report access to adequate PPE. Our findings have important implications for the mental and physical health of HCWs working during the pandemic in the UK.

'Test, test, test' even after death: persistence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in postmortem nasopharyngeal swabs

Abstract: Over 57 00 deaths have been attributed to COVID-19 in the UK.1–3 It is feared that the true figure is higher as there were over 16 000 ‘excess’ deaths between March and June 2020 in which COVID-19 was not a certified cause.1 4–6 Non-COVID causes, possibly related to the lockdown, would have accounted for some of this difference. However, the lack of community testing and challenges of performing autopsies7 mean that many COVID-19 deaths remain undetected. Missed infections represent lost opportunities on many levels. Incomplete mortality data underestimate the burden of disease, particularly in high-risk groups who may not seek medical care. Unrecognised COVID-19 deaths have serious public health implications and impede …

The United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH): Protocol for a prospective longitudinal cohort study of healthcare and ancillary workers in UK healthcare settings

Abstract: Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality, and has devastated economies in many countries. Amongst the groups identified as being at increased risk from COVID-19 are healthcare workers (HCWs) and ethnic minority groups. Emerging evidence suggests HCWs from ethnic minority groups are at increased risk of adverse COVID-19-related physical and mental health outcomes. To date there has been no large-scale analysis of these risks in UK healthcare workers or ancillary workers in healthcare settings, stratified by ethnicity or occupation type, and adjusted for potential confounders. This paper reports the protocol for a prospective longitudinal questionnaire study of UK HCWs, as part of the UK-REACH programme (The United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers). Methods and analysis A baseline questionnaire with follow-up questionnaires at 4 and 8 months will be administered to a national cohort of UK healthcare workers and ancillary workers in healthcare settings, and those registered with UK healthcare regulators. With consent, data will be linked to health records, and participants followed up for 25 years. Univariate associations between ethnicity and primary outcome measures (clinical COVID-19 outcomes, and physical and mental health) and key confounders/explanatory variables will be tested, followed by multivariable analyses to test for associations between ethnicity and key outcomes adjusted for the confounder/explanatory variables, with interactions included as appropriate. Using follow-up data, multilevel models will be used to model changes over time by ethnic group, facilitating understanding of absolute and relative risks in different ethnic groups, and generalisability of findings. Ethics and dissemination The study is approved by Health Research Authority (reference 20/HRA/4718), and carries minimal risk to participants. We aim to manage the small risk of participant distress due to being asked questions on sensitive topics by clearly indicating on the participant information sheet that the questionnaire covers sensitive topics and that participants are under no obligation to answer these, or indeed any other, questions, and by providing links to support organisations. Results will be disseminated with reports to Government and papers uploaded to pre-print servers and submitted to peer reviewed journals. Registration details Trial ID: ISRCTN11811602 STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY National, UK-wide, study, aiming to capture variety of healthcare worker job roles including ancillary workers in healthcare settings. Longitudinal study including three waves of questionnaire data collection, and linkage to administrative data over 25 years, with consent. Unique support from all major UK healthcare worker regulators, relevant healthcare worker organisations, and a Professional Expert Panel to increase participant uptake and the validity of findings. Potential for self-selection bias and low response rates, and the use of electronic invitations and online data collection makes it harder to reach ancillary workers without regular access to work email addresses.

Impact of changing medical workforce demographics in renal medicine over 7 years: Analysis of GMC national trainee survey data

Abstract: Increasing numbers of doctors in training are taking career breaks, with burnout cited as a potential cause. This study analysed General Medical Council (GMC) national training survey data (renal medicine) to understand the impacts of changing workforce demographics on trainee outcomes and wellbeing. Increasing proportions of female, Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME), and international medical graduates are entering the workforce. Specialty exam pass rates have fallen and are lower for BAME and international medical graduates in renal medicine. Time to complete higher specialty training has increased for female trainees. Self-reported burnout rates for renal trainees were higher than other medical specialties and highest for male BAME trainees. Burnout was only partially mitigated by less-than-full-time working, but had no impact on progression, sick-leave or time out of training. It is important to recognise changes to the workforce and proactively plan to effectively support a more diverse group of trainees, to enable them to succeed and reduce differential attainment.

Reforming medical education: we must retain innovative training solutions developed in response to covid-19.

Abstract: We agree that new graduates must be prepared for the everyday realities of postgraduate training.1 In recent years, we’ve been thinking differently about the balance between training, assessment,2 and service pressures. The pandemic has accelerated innovative training solutions and we must retain these positive changes. The foundation interim year 1 intervention to boost our pandemic workforce seems to …

Predictors of ophthalmology career success (POCS) study.

Abstract: Objective Ophthalmology is the busiest outpatient specialty with demand predicted to rise over 40% in the next 20 years. A significant increase in the number of trainee ophthalmologists is required to fill currently vacant consultant posts and meet the UK's workforce demands by 2038. Our aim was to understand what determines success in ophthalmology training, in order to inform future ophthalmologists, refine recruitment and facilitate workforce planning. Methods and Analysis This was a retrospective longitudinal cohort study using routinely collected data available from UK Medical Education Database (UKMED) (https://www.ukmed.ac.uk/). Data were analysed on 1350 candidates who had applied for ophthalmology specialty training (OST) between 2012 and 2018, as well as 495 candidates who had attempted Fellow of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists (FRCOphth) Part 1 between 2013 and 2018. Participants who had not obtained their primary medical qualification from the UK medical schools were excluded. Primary outcome measures included gaining a place on the OST programme and passing the FRCOphth Part 1 examination on first attempt. Results Higher education performance measure decile scores at medical school are strongly predictive in securing an OST post and passing the part 1 examination first time (p<0.001). Candidates who attempt FRCOphth Part 1 prior to their ST1 application are more likely to get a place on OST on first attempt. Socioeconomic factors, gender and ethnicity do not influence success in OST entry. Male trainees are more likely to pass FRCOphth Part 1 on their first attempt. Conclusion This study is the first quantitative assessment of the factors that determine success in OST recruitment and ophthalmology postgraduate examinations in the UK. Similar studies should be undertaken in all other medical and surgical specialties to understand what factors predict success.