Understanding Definitions and Reporting of Deaths Attributed to COVID-19 in the UK - Evidence from FOI Requests
Jefferson, T.; Dietrich, M.; Brassey, J.; Heneghan, C.
Show abstract
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.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Ethnic variation in outcome of people hospitalised with Covid-19 in Wales (UK): A rapid analysis of surveillance data using Onomap, a name-based ethnicity classification tool 92%
- Support and follow-up needs of patients discharged from Intensive Care after severe COVID-19: a mixed-methods study of the views of UK general practitioners and intensive care staff during the pandemic’s first wave 92%
- Lockdown and non-COVID-19 deaths: Cause-specific mortality during the first wave of the 2020 pandemic in Norway. A population-based register study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- LMIC-PRIEST: Derivation and validation of a clinical severity score for acutely ill adults with suspected COVID-19 in a middle-income setting 91%
- Patterns of rates of mortality in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink 91%
- Healthcare presentations with self-harm and the association with COVID-19: an e-cohort whole-population-based study using individual-level linked routine electronic health records in Wales, UK, 2016 - March 2021 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Age-Specific All-Cause Mortality Trends in the UK: Pre-Pandemic Increases and the Complex Impact of COVID-19 89%
- Learning about COVID-19 across borders: Public health information and adherence among international travellers to the UK 89%
- Dog-related deaths registered in England and Wales from 2001 to 2021 87%
Similar papers in this journal
- Preventable deaths involving opioids in England and Wales, 2013-2022: a systematic case series of coroners’ reports 90%
- Introduction to and spread of COVID-19 in care homes in Norfolk, UK 88%
- Social relationships and activities following elimination of SARS-CoV-2: a qualitative cross-sectional study 87%
Similar papers in this journal
- An observational study of survival outcomes of people referred for ‘fast-track’ end-of-life care funding in a District General Hospital; too little too late? 94%
- National statutory reporting: not even ticking the boxes? The quality of ‘Learning from Deaths’ reporting in Quality Accounts within the NHS in England 2017-2020 92%
- Interventions To Improve Patient Safety During The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review 88%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.