RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 The clinically extremely vulnerable to COVID: Identification and changes in healthcare while self-isolating (shielding) during the coronavirus pandemic
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.09.09.21263026
DO 10.1101/2021.09.09.21263026
A1 Butler, Jessica E.
A1 Nath, Mintu
A1 Blana, Dimitra
A1 Ball, William P.
A1 Beech, Nicola
A1 Black, Corri
A1 Osler, Graham
A1 Peytrignet, Sebastien
A1 Wilde, Katie
A1 Wozniak, Artur
A1 Sawhney, Simon
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/13/2021.09.09.21263026.abstract
AB Background In March 2020, the government of Scotland identified people deemed clinically extremely vulnerable to COVID due to their pre-existing health conditions. These people were advised to strictly self-isolate (shield) at the start of the pandemic, except for necessary healthcare. We examined who was identified as clinically extremely vulnerable, how their healthcare changed during isolation, and whether this process exacerbated healthcare inequalities.Methods We linked those on the shielding register in NHS Grampian, a health authority in Scotland, to healthcare records from 2015-2020. We described the source of identification, demographics, and clinical history of the cohort. We measured changes in out-patient, in-patient, and emergency healthcare during isolation in the shielding population and compared to the general non-shielding population.Results The register included 16,092 people (3% of the population), clinically vulnerable primarily due to a respiratory disease, immunosuppression, or cancer. Among them, 42% were not identified by national healthcare record screening but added ad hoc, with these additions including more children and fewer economically-deprived.During isolation, all forms of healthcare use decreased (25%-46%), with larger decreases in scheduled care than in emergency care. However, people shielding had better maintained scheduled care compared to the non-shielding general population: out-patient visits decreased 35% vs 49%; in-patient visits decreased 46% vs 81%. Notably, there was substantial variation in whose scheduled care was maintained during isolation: younger people and those with cancer had significantly higher visit rates, but there was no difference between sexes or socioeconomic levels.Conclusions Healthcare changed dramatically for the clinically extremely vulnerable population during the pandemic. The increased reliance on emergency care while isolating indicates that continuity of care for existing conditions was not optimal. However, compared to the general population, there was success in maintaining scheduled care, particularly in young people and those with cancer. We suggest that integrating demographic and primary care data would improve identification of the clinically vulnerable and could aid prioritising their care.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was funded by the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office via the Rapid Research in COVID-19 Programme and by the Health Foundation Networked Data Lab Programme.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This project was approved by the North Node Privacy Advisory Committee (NNPAC) (project ID: 6-081-20). NNPAC provides researchers with streamlined access to NHS Grampian data for research purposes, and committee approval incorporates approvals from: project sponsor, ethics panel, the Caldicott Guardian, and NHS R&D.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll analysis was carried out in the Grampian Data Safe Haven (project ID: DaSH412) on pseudonomysed individual-level data. Per UK General Data Protection Regulation, only aggregate data can be released from the Grampian Data Safe Haven for publication, but all individual-level data has been archived and can be accessed by application to the Grampian Data Safe Haven (email dash{at}abdn.ac.uk).