RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Understanding Definitions and Reporting of Deaths Attributed to COVID-19 in the UK – Evidence from FOI Requests
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.04.28.22274344
DO 10.1101/2022.04.28.22274344
A1 Jefferson, Tom
A1 Dietrich, Madeleine
A1 Brassey, Jon
A1 Heneghan, Carl
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/04/29/2022.04.28.22274344.abstract
AB Death is a widely used outcome to assess the severity of pandemics. Accuracy in assigning the cause of death is of vital importance to define the impact of the agent, monitor its evolution, and compare its threat with those of other agents. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been widespread reporting of aggregate death data with little attention paid to the accuracy of the assignment of causation.We aimed to analyse public authorities’ understanding of the assignment of cause of deaths during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the UK by accessing Freedom of Information requests posed in three periods in 2020-21. By public authorities, we mean NHS Health Trusts, laboratories, and government agencies such as Public Health England and the Department of Health and Social Care. We searched WhatDoTheyKnow using the terms “covid and death”. We excluded those requests to bodies that cannot provide an answer (e.g. Councils) and those dealing with the effects of vaccines.We grouped questions into themes addressing the definitions and causes of death relevant to the pandemic. We looked at the responses to the questions of the definition of cause of death, the accuracy of the attribution, the role of other pre-existing pathologies and how these were reported and quantified.We found 800 requests from over 90 individuals. There was no consistency in the definition of cause of death or contributory cause of death across national bodies and in different bodies within the same nation. Nursing home providers, as well as medical practitioners, can assign a cause of death according to the Care Quality Commission. Post-mortem examinations were uncommon, the ONS did not incorporate their results in the summary of deaths by cause during the pandemic period. The meaning of the words “test” or “swab” was never clarified by any of the respondents. In care homes in England 1,304 out of 17,264 COVID-19 (7.6%, range 0% to 63%) mentioned COVID-19 in the absence of contributory or other factors in the death certificate, making it impossible to ascertain a chain of causality. The inconsistencies already noted hinder the ascertainment of the role of each factor leading to death and the quantification of the importance of infection. Some responses indicate that SARS-CoV-2 negative individuals or those whose death was not caused by COVID-19 were classified as “COVID-19 deaths”. We found 14 different ways of attributing the causes of death mentioned by respondents.The overall lack of consistency has confused the public and likely led to erroneous conclusions. We are unable to separate the effects on deaths of SARS-CoV-2 from those of human interventions. A coherent process based on consistent definitions across the devolved nations is required. Furthermore, to enhance the accuracy of causation in pandemics a subset of deaths should be verified using autopsies with full medical documentation.Competing Interest StatementTJ’s disclosure is available here: https://restoringtrials.org/competing-interests-tom-jefferson/. CH holds grant funding from the NIHR, the NIHR School of Primary Care Research, the NIHR BRC Oxford and the World Health Organization for a series of Living rapid reviews on the modes of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 reference WHO registration No2020/1077093. He has received financial remuneration from an asbestos case and legal advice on mesh and hormone pregnancy tests cases. He has received expenses and fees for his media work, including periodic payments from the BBC, The Spectator, and other media outlets. He receives expenses for teaching EBM and is also paid for his G.P. work in NHS out of hours and regularly goes into care homes. He has also received income from publishing a series of toolkit books and appraising treatment recommendations in non-NHS settings. He is the Director of CEBM and is an NIHR Senior Investigator. He is co-director of the Global Centre for Healthcare and Urbanization based at Kellogg College at Oxford. He is a scientific advisor to Collateral Global that funds this review. JB is a significant shareholder in the Trip Database search engine (www.tripdatabase.com) and an employee. He has previously received funding from institutions such as WHO, NIHR. Collateral Global funds MD.Funding StatementThis review received funding from Collateral Global.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.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 data included in the review are available via Google Docs. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MU7efHDkJETZgUYCn1lwnzRf9hn2baOC/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=100001257459010812550&rtpof=true&sd=true