Persistent symptoms after Covid-19: qualitative study of 114 "long Covid" patients and draft quality principles for services.
Chronic Covid-19
Long Covid
Post-acute Covid-19
Qualitative study
Quality standards
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Dec 2020
20 Dec 2020
Historique:
received:
03
11
2020
accepted:
08
12
2020
entrez:
21
12
2020
pubmed:
22
12
2020
medline:
23
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Approximately 10% of patients with Covid-19 experience symptoms beyond 3-4 weeks. Patients call this "long Covid". We sought to document such patients' lived experience, including accessing and receiving healthcare and ideas for improving services. We held 55 individual interviews and 8 focus groups (n = 59) with people recruited from UK-based long Covid patient support groups, social media and snowballing. We restricted some focus groups to health professionals since they had already self-organised into online communities. Participants were invited to tell their stories and comment on others' stories. Data were audiotaped, transcribed, anonymised and coded using NVIVO. Analysis incorporated sociological theories of illness, healing, peer support, clinical relationships, access, and service redesign. Of 114 participants aged 27-73 years, 80 were female. Eighty-four were White British, 13 Asian, 8 White Other, 5 Black, and 4 mixed ethnicity. Thirty-two were doctors and 19 other health professionals. Thirty-one had attended hospital, of whom 8 had been admitted. Analysis revealed a confusing illness with many, varied and often relapsing-remitting symptoms and uncertain prognosis; a heavy sense of loss and stigma; difficulty accessing and navigating services; difficulty being taken seriously and achieving a diagnosis; disjointed and siloed care (including inability to access specialist services); variation in standards (e.g. inconsistent criteria for seeing, investigating and referring patients); variable quality of the therapeutic relationship (some participants felt well supported while others felt "fobbed off"); and possible critical events (e.g. deterioration after being unable to access services). Emotionally significant aspects of participants' experiences informed ideas for improving services. Suggested quality principles for a long Covid service include ensuring access to care, reducing burden of illness, taking clinical responsibility and providing continuity of care, multi-disciplinary rehabilitation, evidence-based investigation and management, and further development of the knowledge base and clinical services. NCT04435041.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Approximately 10% of patients with Covid-19 experience symptoms beyond 3-4 weeks. Patients call this "long Covid". We sought to document such patients' lived experience, including accessing and receiving healthcare and ideas for improving services.
METHODS
METHODS
We held 55 individual interviews and 8 focus groups (n = 59) with people recruited from UK-based long Covid patient support groups, social media and snowballing. We restricted some focus groups to health professionals since they had already self-organised into online communities. Participants were invited to tell their stories and comment on others' stories. Data were audiotaped, transcribed, anonymised and coded using NVIVO. Analysis incorporated sociological theories of illness, healing, peer support, clinical relationships, access, and service redesign.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 114 participants aged 27-73 years, 80 were female. Eighty-four were White British, 13 Asian, 8 White Other, 5 Black, and 4 mixed ethnicity. Thirty-two were doctors and 19 other health professionals. Thirty-one had attended hospital, of whom 8 had been admitted. Analysis revealed a confusing illness with many, varied and often relapsing-remitting symptoms and uncertain prognosis; a heavy sense of loss and stigma; difficulty accessing and navigating services; difficulty being taken seriously and achieving a diagnosis; disjointed and siloed care (including inability to access specialist services); variation in standards (e.g. inconsistent criteria for seeing, investigating and referring patients); variable quality of the therapeutic relationship (some participants felt well supported while others felt "fobbed off"); and possible critical events (e.g. deterioration after being unable to access services). Emotionally significant aspects of participants' experiences informed ideas for improving services.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Suggested quality principles for a long Covid service include ensuring access to care, reducing burden of illness, taking clinical responsibility and providing continuity of care, multi-disciplinary rehabilitation, evidence-based investigation and management, and further development of the knowledge base and clinical services.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
NCT04435041.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33342437
doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-06001-y
pii: 10.1186/s12913-020-06001-y
pmc: PMC7750006
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04435041']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1144Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : WT104830MA
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : National Institute for Health Research
ID : BRC-1215-20008
Organisme : Economic and Social Research Council
ID : ES/V010069/1
Références
BMJ. 2020 Aug 11;370:m3026
pubmed: 32784198
J Med Virol. 2020 Jul 30;:
pubmed: 32729939
BJGP Open. 2020 Dec 15;4(5):
pubmed: 33051223
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006 Jul 26;6:35
pubmed: 16872487
Eur Heart J. 2020 Sep 1;41(32):3038-3044
pubmed: 32882706
Respir Res. 2020 Jul 28;21(1):198
pubmed: 32723327
Qual Health Res. 2017 Jan;27(1):89-99
pubmed: 27956659
Lancet Public Health. 2020 Sep;5(9):e475-e483
pubmed: 32745512
Qual Saf Health Care. 2006 Oct;15(5):307-10
pubmed: 17074863
Nat Rev Immunol. 2020 Jun;20(6):363-374
pubmed: 32346093
Eur J Gen Pract. 2018 Dec;24(1):120-124
pubmed: 29202616
Lancet. 2020 Sep 5;396(10252):e24
pubmed: 32861312
Perspect Biol Med. 2006 Summer;49(3):393-406
pubmed: 16960309
Am J Emerg Med. 2020 Oct;38(10):2243.e5-2243.e6
pubmed: 32471783
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Jun 26;14:281
pubmed: 24969758
Heart Rhythm. 2020 Nov;17(11):1984-1990
pubmed: 32599178
J Clin Med. 2020 Sep 12;9(9):
pubmed: 32932582
JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Nov 1;5(11):1265-1273
pubmed: 32730619
JAMA. 2020 Aug 11;324(6):603-605
pubmed: 32644129
Sociol Health Illn. 2004 Jan;26(1):50-80
pubmed: 15027990
J Infect. 2020 Dec;81(6):e4-e6
pubmed: 32853602
Br J Sports Med. 2020 Aug;54(16):949-959
pubmed: 32475821
BMJ. 1999 Jan 2;318(7175):48-50
pubmed: 9872892
Int J Equity Health. 2013 Mar 11;12:18
pubmed: 23496984
BMJ. 2020 Sep 15;370:m3565
pubmed: 32933949
Thorax. 2020 Dec 3;:
pubmed: 33273026
ERJ Open Res. 2020 Oct 26;6(4):
pubmed: 33257910
JMIR Med Inform. 2018 Nov 29;6(4):e45
pubmed: 30497991
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Sep;8(9):885-894
pubmed: 32717210
Sociol Health Illn. 2009 Apr;31(3):441-55
pubmed: 19366430
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Jul 31;69(30):993-998
pubmed: 32730238