Back

A mixed-methods analysis of the implementation of a new community long-COVID service during the 2020 pandemic: learning from practice.

Williams, S. L.; Beadle, E. L.; Wiliams, P.; Master, H.; Casarin, A. L.

2024-10-29 primary care research
10.1101/2024.10.25.24316101 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionThe rapidly increasing prevalence of long-COVID (LC), the multisystem complexity of the condition and high patient symptom burden, necessitated an immediate need to develop new clinics for assessment and management. This article reports on the rapid implementation of a reactive and responsive LC care pathway. We mapped patients journey through this pathway, identifying the services that were activated according to prevalent symptoms, and assessed the barriers and facilitators to its implementation and delivery, from the perspective of health care professionals (HCPs) and LC patients using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). MethodsMixed methods study, including retrospective quantitative cross-sectional analysis of patient data and semi-structured qualitative interviews. One hundred and sixteen patients who attended long-COVID clinic in Hertfordshire, UK, in the first 5 months of its existence, consented for their data to be analysed for the quantitative study. Six HCPs and five patients participated in semi-structured interviews. ResultsPatients were referred into the service an average of 5.75 months post initial COVID-19 infection. 82% of patients required onward referral to other HCPs, most commonly pulmonary rehabilitation, chronic fatigue specialists, and the specialist COVID-19 Rehab general practitioner embedded within the service. Patients reported having rehabilitation needs, moderate depression and anxiety, and difficulties performing usual activities of daily living at point of care. The TDF domains most relevant to the implementation of the LC pathway were beliefs about capabilities, environmental context and resources, knowledge, and reinforcement. DiscussionOur study provides novel insight into the development of a reactive multidisciplinary care pathway. Key drivers for successful implementation of LC services were identified, such as leadership, multidisciplinary teamwork, transferable skills, and knowledge exchange. Barriers to rapid set up of the service included funding constraints and the rapid evolution of an emergency context.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
25.8%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 25%
6.8%
3
ERJ Open Research
44 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.3%
4
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
5
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
50% of probability mass above
6
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.8%
7
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.7%
8
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
9
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.7%
10
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.6%
11
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.6%
12
Palliative Medicine
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
13
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
14
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
15
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
16
Journal of Sleep Research
31 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.5%
17
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
18
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.3%
19
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
20
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.2%
21
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
18 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
22
CMAJ Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
23
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
24
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
25
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
26
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
27
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
28
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%