The first part of any pandemic response is to identify those who have the infection. It sounds obvious, I know. And I can't believe it actually has to be said. But such are the times we are in!
Isolation prevents the spread of infection and thus death and disability.
Treatment directly prevents death and disability - the actual threat posed by the virus. It is this 'threat' we are concerned with. Fail to identify and treat cases, more people die and the threat grows.
Treat the infection successfully and the actual 'risk' posed by the pandemic diminishes.
It is part of the reason for the WHO's first recommendations: 1. Triage all cases 2. Admit all cases to a healthcare setting.
4/9
South Korea did both...and did them well...
It is worth really examining the flow diagram:
▪️All symptomatic cases are admitted.
▪️And all 'at risk' asymptomatic cases are admitted.
▪️And if an asymptomatic person has a vulnerable person at home, they are admitted to a quarantine facility.
Note the 'at risk' category includes everyone over 50 yrs of age and ANY medical condition.
And while some cases are admitted to 'make-shift' quarantine facilities...they all get basic medical observations to detect deterioration early.
By taking this proactive clinical approach to Covid-19 (not the 'hands-off' approach of the US and UK), mortality and morbidity reduce. Less people die and less people end up with Long Covid.
But also, patients need much less intensive treatment!
It is how we manage 'normal' pneumonia. Identify it early, treat it early, and patients need only a few days on inpatient treatment, versus weeks if presentation is delayed. "Stay Home" neither saves patient nor the health service.
I loved Prof Sridhar's article, but I also felt a bit annoyed. The principles of pandemic management are so simple. Failing to follow them is moral and economic lunacy..., and either a colossal arrogance or searing indifference to the public.
We can do better!
End
RT pls.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
How complicit has NHS Leadership been in Johnson’s pandemic calamities? And have lessons been learned?
There is a long list of failures:
▪️Ageist policies
▪️Blanket Do Not Resuscitate orders
▪️Inadequate PPE
▪️Ethnic disparities on the frontline
▪️No Triage
▪️No clinical follow-up
▪️The ‘Stay Home’ messaging
▪️Ineffectual Contact and Trace
▪️Circumventing primary care
▪️Rationing of access to healthcare via ‘111’.
▪️Oxygen rationing
▪️Shrinking the NHS during a pandemic
And these failures, while still remediable, continue to place HCWs in unsafe and traumatic working conditions, and are still leading to unsafe care provision for the British public.
Where problems with care seem national, those of us actually delivering care can feel quite helpless to change it. Take the government’s pandemic policy...
We on the frontline are also victims, collateral damage, of ill-conceived healthcare policies.
But the GMC guidelines, while adding yet another responsibility on our shoulders, also provides the encouragement and compulsion to speak out.
“If you have reason to believe that patients are, or may be, at risk of death or serious harm for any reason, you should report your concern.. Do not delay doing so because you yourself are not in a position to put the matter right”
Firstly, you should use the same judgement as you did before the pandemic. Who would you normally contact if you are concerned about specific symptoms?
You may think you are saving healthcare resources, but waiting until you are worse neither helps you or the health service.
Secondly, if you test positive for COVID-19 and are either over 65 yrs old or have a condition that makes you clinically vulnerable you should contact your primary care provider (GP practice) to let them know you have Covid and request 'remote home monitoring'.
The NHS needs REFORMED.
Indeed, the NHS needs serious overhaul.
It is no longer providing world-class universal care [IMO].
It seems to not even be providing ‘value-for-money’ anymore.
But it is our money and our health, so we must have a say…
🧵1/n
RT pls.
The NHS once provided the most cost-effective healthcare of all developed nations. Indeed despite consistently spending the LOWEST percentage of GDP (national income) of similar nations (graph), up until the last couple of decades it still provided world-class outcomes.
In the 70s the UK had one of the lowest infant-mortality rates in the world. But by 2010 it looked like this (source BBC):
I fear we have not learned how to respond to a pandemic. Both clinical and public health responses in many nations have been chaotic, inconsistent and had disappointing results. So what would a decent response look like? Pls add your own… #Covid19
1. Early “circuit-breaker”.
Debate remains as to the justification for lockdowns. The argument being that lockdowns cause more damage to non-Covid problems than the lives saved from the virus. I think that depends on a few things:
a) Healthcare capacity
A new pathogen will lead to extra strain on health services. Unless the health systems in place had capacity prior to the pandemic, then the additional burden will impact all diseases. The UK is a good example of this. All cause mortality = +1400 per week.