12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Non-COVID-19 general practice and our response to the pandemic

      research-article
      1 , *
      BJGP Open
      Royal College of General Practitioners
      Family medicine, community care, infectious illness, primary health care

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Clinicians in family medicine look after the health of patients with different biopsychosocial problems. During the pandemic, I worry about the care of patients with multimorbidity and, specifically, the widespread cancellation of routine secondary care for many patients. Notably, some patients with cancer have their surgery and non-surgical therapy cancelled indefinitely, which potentially risks disease progression. 1 While treatment is meant to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, we know that the majority of healthcare resources are being diverted to fight the pandemic. 2 Routine outpatient clinics are cancelled and only urgent diagnostic clinics, such as those to detect suspected cancer, remain open. Myopic vision may very well miss the bigger picture of non-COVID-19 health care. Similar concerns have been voiced for tuberculosis services, where diagnostic and treatment services have been disrupted, 3 but could apply to communicable and non-communicable disease alike. While this may pose a challenge, there is an opportunity to focus on what matters to patients in primary care rather than low-impact tick-box bureaucracy and payment for performance (P4P) targets. 4 While our current focus is undoubtedly on the pandemic, we must plan for and imminently anticipate a further resource-depleted healthcare system as well as the impact of lack of routine non-communicable disease care, which is the mainstay of family medicine. In England, March marked the end of the ‘financial year’ for P4P or Quality and Outcomes Framework (QoF), so it is likely many chronic disease care checks were complete. As a global community, we will undoubtedly be struck by the consequences of socioeconomic turmoil, 5,6 such as worsening mental health conditions, homelessness, and poverty. Krist and colleagues 5 mention the need for rehabilitation for those who have had treatment for COVID-19, and anticipate worsening of existing long-term conditions. Those families who were unable to visit their unwell relatives in their final days with COVID-19 7 may suffer post-traumatic stress disorder and prolonged grief or bereavement disorders. Finally, many healthcare workers are likely to suffer psychological consequences such as grief from the death of colleagues, stress, fatigue, and burnout from demanding work conditions. This is a lot to take in; there are few guidelines to help prepare primary care for the consequences of a pandemic that is quite literally a ‘once in a generation’ catastrophe. We must support one another and create both physical and virtual space as well as time for healthcare workers to discuss their experiences. Given the inverse-care law, it would be sensible to prioritise chronic disease reviews for those that live in the most deprived locations of your practice catchment areas. 8 Parts of chronic disease reviews may be done remotely to decrease treatment burden. Rehabilitation and mental health problems will require support from other parts of healthcare systems, but this should not stop us pursuing innovative ways of support such as online interventions. We must be aware of the rise of domestic violence during the imposed restrictions of staying home. During the ‘lockdown’, French pharmacies use codewords to provide victims of domestic abuse a place of safety and perhaps we could similarly use different members of our communities to provide this in future. 9 The Health Select Committee 10 suggested that in some areas the number of referrals for suspected cancer had decreased by up to 75%, which potentially means later presentations of cancer and worse prognoses on lifting of pandemic restrictions. The biggest challenge of going into post-pandemic Britain will undoubtedly be socioeconomic. Primary care can provide a solution to some medical and psychological problems, but socioeconomic problems will require socioeconomic solutions. In February 2020, the Marmot report 11 showed that life expectancy had slowed down and that health inequalities between the richest and poorest members of British society had widened over the last decade. This coincided with cuts to public funding. This was the situation going into the pandemic, and the divide between the richest and poorest is likely to widen further post-pandemic. I propose two solutions. The first is bottom-up, through our communities, and we should hold onto the momentum of 750 000-strong British volunteer force raised during the pandemic which may represent early signs of renewed social cohesion. Before the pandemic, the establishment of the National Academy of Social Prescribing (NASP) heralded a new age of linking up members of society to improve their health and wellbeing by giving members of the public access to meaningful activities. Social prescribing could ensure that the marginalised members of our society are not forgotten. However, there is limited evidence from a systematic review 12 of the benefit of social prescribing due to differences in study methodology. The other way is top-down and will require political backing to adequately fund local authorities to help support housing for those who are the poorest in our society. The most deprived populations have the shortest life expectancy and longest time spent in disease compared to least deprived populations. Asking for government funding will prove difficult as the global economy shudders back into life after the pandemic. I hope that governments worldwide do not forget the importance of well-funded and well-resourced state-backed services, such as healthcare and community infrastructure, both inside and outside a pandemic.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Mitigating the wider health effects of covid-19 pandemic response

          Countries worldwide have implemented strict controls on movement in response to the covid-19 pandemic. The aim is to cut transmission by reducing close contact (box 1), but the measures have profound consequences. Several sectors are seeing steep reductions in business, and there has been panic buying in shops. Social, economic, and health consequences are inevitable. Box 1 Social distancing measures Advising the whole population to self-isolate at home if they or their family have symptoms Bans on social gatherings (including mass gatherings) Stopping flights and public transport Closure of “non-essential” workplaces (beyond the health and social care sector, utilities, and the food chain) with continued working from home for those that can Closure of schools, colleges, and universities Prohibition of all “non-essential” population movement Limiting contact for special populations (eg, care homes, prisons) The health benefits of social distancing measures are obvious, with a slower spread of infection reducing the risk that health services will be overwhelmed. But they may also prolong the pandemic and the restrictions adopted to mitigate it.1 Policy makers need to balance these considerations while paying attention to broader effects on health and health equity. Who is most at risk? Several groups may be particularly vulnerable to the effects of both the pandemic and the social distancing measures (box 2). Table 1 summarises several mechanisms through which the pandemic response is likely to affect health: economic effects, social isolation, family relationships, health related behaviours, disruption to essential services, disrupted education, transport and green space, social disorder, and psychosocial effects. Figure 1 shows the complexity of the pathways through which these effects may arise. Below we expand on the first three mechanisms, using Scotland as an example. The appendix on bmj.com provides further details of mechanisms, effects, and mitigation measures. Box 2 Groups at particular risk from responses to covid-19 Older people—highest direct risk of severe covid-19, more likely to live alone, less likely to use online communications, at risk of social isolation Young people—affected by disrupted education at critical time; in longer term most at risk of poor employment and associated health outcomes in economic downturn Women—more likely to be carers, likely to lose income if need to provide childcare during school closures, potential for increase in family violence for some People of East Asian ethnicity—may be at increased risk of discrimination and harassment because the pandemic is associated with China People with mental health problems—may be at greater risk from social isolation People who use substances or in recovery—risk of relapse or withdrawal People with a disability—affected by disrupted support services People with reduced communication abilities (eg, learning disabilities, limited literacy or English language ability)—may not receive key governmental communications Homeless people—may be unable to self-isolate or affected by disrupted support services People in criminal justice system—difficulty of isolation in prison setting, loss of contact with family Undocumented migrants—may have no access to or be reluctant to engage with health services Workers on precarious contracts or self-employed—high risk of adverse effects from loss of work and no income People on low income—effects will be particularly severe as they already have poorer health and are more likely to be in insecure work without financial reserves People in institutions (care homes, special needs facilities, prisons, migrant detention centres, cruise liners)—as these institutions may act as amplifiers Table 1 Health effects of social distancing measures and actions to mitigate them Mechanism Summary of effects Summary of mitigations Economic effects • Income losses for workers unable to work• Longer term increase in unemployment if businesses fail• Recession • Protect incomes at the level of the minimum income for healthy living• Provide food and other essential supplies• Reduce longer term unemployment• Prioritise inclusive and sustainable economic development during recovery Social isolation • Lack of social contact, particularly for people who live alone and have less access to digital connectivity• Difficulty accessing food and other supplies • Encourage and support other forms of social contact• Provide supplies• Provide clear communications• Restrict duration of isolation Family relationships • Home confinement may increase family violence and abuse• Potential exploitation of young people not in school • Offer support to vulnerable families• Ensure realistic expectations for home working and home schooling• Provide safety advice and support services for women at risk of domestic abuse Health related behaviours • Potential for increased substance use, increased online gambling, and a rise in unintended pregnancies• Reduction in physical activity as sports facilities closed and less utilitarian walking and cycling • Advice and support on substance use, gambling, contraception• Encourage daily physical activity Disruption to essential services • Direct effects on health and social care demand• Unwillingness to attend healthcare settings may affect care of other conditions• Loss of workforce may affect essential services • Robust business continuity planning• Prioritise essential services including healthcare, social care, emergency services, utilities, and the food chain• Guidance, online consultations, and outreach, for conditions other than covid-19• Attention to supply chains for non-covid medicines Disruption to education • Loss of education and skills, particularly for young people at critical transitions• Likely increase in educational inequalities from reliance on home schooling • Provide support for young people in critical transitions, and low income or at-risk children and young people who lack IT and good home study environments Traffic, transport, and green space • Reduced aviation and motorised traffic with reduced air pollution, noise, injuries, and carbon emissions in short term• Restricted public transport may reduce access for people without a car• Longer term reluctance to use public transport may increase use of private cars• Restricted access to green space, which has benefits for physical and mental health • Discourage unnecessary car journeys• Support active travel modes• Support safe access to green spaces• Post-pandemic support for public transport Social disorder • Potential for unrest if supplies run out or there is widespread discontent about the response• Harassment of people believed to be at risk of transmitting the virus • Mitigation of other effects will reduce risk of social disorder• Avoid stigmatising ill people or linking the pandemic to specific populations Psychosocial impacts • High level of public fear and anxiety• Community cohesion could increase as people respond collectively • Provide clear communications• Support community organisations responding to local needs Fig 1 Effects of social distancing measures on health Economic effects People may experience loss of income from social distancing in several ways. Although some people can work at home, many cannot, especially those in public facing roles in service industries, a group that already faces precarious employment and low income.2 Others may be affected by workplace closures, caused by government mandate, an infected co-worker, or loss of business. Yet more may be unable to work as school closures require them to provide childcare. In the UK, 3.5 million additional people are expected to need universal credit (which includes unemployment payments) as a result of the pandemic.3 The growth of the informal, gig economy in some countries has created a large group of people who are especially vulnerable as they do not get sick pay, are on zero hours contracts, or are self-employed.4 They can easily lose all their income, and even if this is only temporary they often lack the safety net of savings. An important risk is housing security, with loss of income causing rent or mortgage arrears or even homelessness. School closure will affect low income and single parent families especially severely because they need to meet an unexpected need for childcare and lose the benefit of free school meals. They may also face increased costs for heating their homes during the day. In some countries, welfare systems impose strict conditions on recipients that cannot be met by those in isolation. The link between income and health is well established and acts through several mechanisms.5 Income allows people to buy necessities for life, access health enhancing resources, avoid harmful exposures, and participate in normal activities of society. Low income also increases psychosocial stress. The minimum income for healthy living establishes a standard required to maintain health in different settings.6 Crucially, not everyone is equally likely to lose income. Women, young people, and those who are already poor will fare worst. To avoid widening health inequalities, social distancing must be accompanied by measures to safeguard the incomes of poor people. Future challenges The longer term effects may be substantial. If businesses fail, many employees will become unemployed. Those losing their jobs in middle age may never return to the workforce. Sectors that are especially vulnerable include hospitality, entertainment, transport, leisure, and sport. Unemployment has large negative effects on both physical and mental health,7 with a meta-analysis reporting a 76% increase in all-cause mortality in people followed for up to 10 years after becoming unemployed.8 The pandemic has already caused downgrading of economic forecasts, with many countries facing a recession. The health consequences of a recession are complex. Economic downturns have been associated with improvements in some health outcomes, especially traffic injuries, but worsening mental health, including increases in homicide and suicide.9 However, these harmful effects can be prevented by progressive social policies; it is the policy response to a recession, rather than the recession itself, that determines longer term population health.10 Throughout history, some people have viewed any crisis as an opportunity. Klein described how “disaster capitalists” take advantage of natural and human influenced disasters.11 There is clear potential for price gouging (profiteering through increased prices during supply or demand shocks) on essential goods. Once the pandemic recedes, there could be profound changes to the economy that may disadvantage less powerful populations, such as through privatisation of public sector services. However, there may also be opportunities for the economy to be rebuilt “better,” depending on public and political attitudes and power balance.12 Social isolation Advising or compelling people to self-isolate at home risks serious social and psychological harm. Quarantine of people exposed to an infectious disease is associated with negative psychological effects, including post-traumatic stress symptoms, which may be long lasting.13 The effects are exacerbated by prolonged isolation, fear of the infection, frustration, boredom, inadequate supplies and information, financial loss, and stigma. These effects are less when quarantine is voluntary and can be mitigated by ensuring clear rapid communication, keeping the duration short, providing food and other essential supplies, and protecting against financial loss.13 In Scotland, a third of the population lives alone and 40% of this group are of pensionable age.14 Older people are also less likely to use online communications, making them at particular risk of social isolation during social distancing. Social isolation is defined as pervasive lack of social contact or communication, participation in social activities, or a confidante. Long term, social isolation is associated with an increase in mortality of almost a third.15 Prolonged periods of social distancing could have similar effects. People who are socioeconomically disadvantaged or in poor physical or mental health are at higher risk.16 Online and telephone support needs to be provided for vulnerable groups, especially those living alone. Family relationships Social distancing measures will place many people in close proximity with family members all or most of the time, which may cause or exacerbate tensions. Concern has been raised about potential increases in family violence during restrictions in the UK.17 Risk factors for partner and child abuse include poverty, substance misuse in the home, and previous history of abuse.18 19 Around 60 000 domestic abuse incidents occur in Scotland every year, with young women most affected, 20 and over 2500 children are on the child protection register.21 It is important to maintain social work and community support for vulnerable families, including safety advice for women at risk of abuse. Domestic abuse advocates have called for enhanced support, including allocation of hotel rooms for women at risk.17 School closures may add to stress in families as parents try to home school children, often juggling this with home working. This burden may fall disproportionately on women. As well as academic learning, schools support development of social and other skills. Prolonged school closures could cause adverse effects on educational and social outcomes for young people in families that lack study space and access to home computing.22 Some children who are not at school may be at risk of online or other forms of exploitation—for example, by drug dealers—or of being recruited into gangs. Realistic expectations of home schooling, provision of food for those eligible for free school meals, and outreach support for the most vulnerable children will be needed during school closures. Many children will need extra support on return to school.22 Mitigating adverse effects In addition to the direct disease burden from covid-19, the pandemic response is already causing negative indirect effects such as those described above. These are borne disproportionately by people who already have fewer resources and poorer health. Prolonged or more restrictive social distancing measures could increase health inequalities in the short and long term. Our assessment is based on rapid scoping of potential impacts and a non-systematic review of diverse publications, so there is a high degree of uncertainty about the extent of some impacts. However, the range of health concerns identified, beyond those directly attributable to the virus itself, should be recognised in developing and implementing responses. The effects may also vary by context. In low and middle income countries without social safety nets, the effects on population health and health inequalities are likely to be worse than in richer countries, as is beginning to be seen in India.23 Actions must be targeted to support the most vulnerable people. The extraordinary measures in the UK to allow businesses to continue paying staff will help mitigate the harms for many workers. But it is important to consider people in precarious work who will not be covered by these measures, and to consider longer term support for those who continue to experience problems once the measures expire. A large multiagency response will be needed to deal with the wide range of needs we have identified. In the longer term, policy decisions made now will shape the future economy in ways that could either improve or damage sustainability, health, and health inequalities. These include decisions about which sectors to prioritise for support, whether to direct financial support to business or workers, and how to fund the costs. To protect population health it will be essential to avoid a further period of austerity and the associated reductions in social security and public service spending. Instead we must build a more sustainable and inclusive economy.10 Key messages Social distancing measures to control the spread of covid-19 are likely to have large effects on health and health inequalities These effects have numerous mechanisms, including economic, social, health related behaviours, and disruption to services and education People on low incomes are most vulnerable to the adverse effects Substantial mitigation measures are needed in the short and long term
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Health equity in England: the Marmot review 10 years on

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              COVID-19: global consequences for oncology

              As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic escalates and countries struggle to contain the virus, health-care systems are under increasing pressure. Emergency departments and intensive care units are nearing breaking point, and medical resources are being diverted to tackle the crisis. Moreover, conferences are being cancelled, and research trials are grinding to a halt. So what does COVID-19 mean for patients with cancer, their physicians, and the wider oncology discipline? Patients with cancer are a high-risk group in the COVID-19 pandemic. They are already vulnerable to infection because of their underlying illness and often immunosuppressed status, and are at increased risk of developing severe complications from the virus, including intensive care unit admission or even death. Moreover, for those who develop COVID-19, treatment of the disease will be prioritised, and further cancer therapy could be delayed, although such decisions must be made on a patient-by-patient basis and not based only on the early small reports published in the first few weeks of the pandemic. Media reports have described patients with cancer in quarantined cities being unable to travel to appointments or struggling to obtain essential medicines; the risk of interruptions in drug supply chains and consequent shortages will exacerbate this issue. Scheduled operations, some types of cancer treatment, and appointments are being cancelled or postponed to prioritise hospital beds and care for those who are seriously ill with COVID-19. In England, UK, despite the 2020 budget promising several billion pounds of extra NHS funding to help tackle the outbreak, when cases of COVID-19 peak in the coming weeks the NHS will undoubtedly be forced to delay non-urgent treatments and surgeries as resources and personnel are repurposed. Unfortunately, the effects of COVID-19 are not solely limited to the treatment of patients with cancer, but will also hit the wider oncology community, with inevitable consequences for research, education, and collaboration. University campuses in the worst hit countries have shut down, with many others expected to follow. Some of those affected, including the University of Bologna, Italy, have responded by digitising their teaching programmes, moving classes and exams online to alleviate the educational impact. However, such solutions cannot be used for practical laboratory work or field studies, and ongoing research projects are being jeopardised. Limited resources and capacity will force institutions to decide which clinical trials to prioritise and which to suspend. Many institutions, including the Dana Farber Cancer Institute (Boston, MA, USA) are restricting employees’ work-related travel, and others such as the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center (Seattle, WA, USA—one of the worst-affected US cities) are implementing mandatory work from home policies. However, not all centres in affected regions have similar policies, and such heterogeneity might create imbalances in patient cohorts in multicentre trials, potentially biasing eventual results. With some governments advising against or banning non-essential travel and large-scale events, at least eight major cancer meetings and conferences have been cancelled or postponed, with many more expected to follow. As a result, innumerable opportunities for discussion and collaboration will be lost, the latest research will not be presented, and patients will subsequently be affected by the delay in dissemination of information on the latest treatment to their doctors. Although some congresses are being reorganised to take place online, face-to-face meetings are a crucial aspect of team science and cannot be eliminated completely. Furthermore, societies and organisations postponing or cancelling meetings will probably face financial consequences that could have long-term effects on their ability to fund key activities in the future. The American Society of Clinical Oncology—which at the time of writing had not yet decided about their 2020 annual meeting—relied on a huge US$43 million in revenue from education and meeting registration fees in 2018. For smaller societies that rely on their annual meetings financially, cancellations could threaten their existence. With the situation constantly changing, all we can do for now is watch, wait, and adapt as best we can until the immediate and long-term effects of this pandemic fully materialise. Ultimately, the situation might lead to substantial changes in how research and medicine are practiced in the future, such as reduced international travel and increased remote networking and telemedicine. Until the COVID-19 pandemic is over, we can only hope that the consequences are not too devastating for patients and that the oncology community and beyond are able to weather this unprecedented storm. © 2020 CDC/Science Photo Library 2020 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BJGP Open
                BJGP Open
                bjgpoa
                bjgpoa
                BJGP Open
                Royal College of General Practitioners
                2398-3795
                June 2020
                20 May 2020
                20 May 2020
                : 4
                : 2
                : bjgpopen20X101095
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Honorary Research Fellow in Primary Care, and General Practitioner, Institute of Population Health Sciences, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry Blizard Institute , London, UK
                Author notes
                *For correspondence: Dipesh P Gopal, d.gopal@ 123456qmul.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1787-7963
                Article
                01095
                10.3399/bjgpopen20X101095
                7330204
                32430300
                5b8bb001-2e49-4efa-b341-673b5786c205
                Copyright © 2020, The Authors

                This article is Open Access: CC BY license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

                History
                : 17 April 2020
                : 27 April 2020
                Categories
                Practice & Policy

                family medicine,community care,infectious illness,primary health care

                Comments

                Comment on this article