A List of UK Health Workers Who Have Died from COVID-19

Made machine-readable by hand from data from the UK newspaper "The Guardian", in this article: "Doctors, nurses, porters, volunteers: the UK health workers who have died from Covid-19" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/16/doctors-nurses-porters-volunteers-the-uk-health-workers-who-have-died-from-covid-19

The Guardian is continuing to update the list day-by-day, as the COVID-19 pandemic continues. I do not plan to update this dataset, assuming, since the data collection biases are unknown, that nobody else will find it very interesting. I am not a copyright lawyer and do not know if this data is protected copyright, and if so, in which parts of the world.

Caveat: Creating this dataset from a newspaper article required a lot of hand work. I've done my best, but there may be mistakes.

Columns: Name age institution city: I have filled this in myself; I am ignorant of UK geography and there may well be mistakes date_of_death possible_ppe_issue: mostly blank, but I have filled in "yes" where the article mentions a person who had doubts about the adequacy of PPE (personal protective equipment) MED_SPEC: I have attempted to fill in a medical specialty from the values used on the Eurostat web site for Physicians by Medical Specialty" and "Nursing and caring professionals" tables. The idea is to be able to calculate a fraction of affected individuals by specialty.

The dataset consists of quantitative data derived mainly from international datasets (ILO, WHO), supplemented by data from national datasets and modelled data to complete missing values. It shows the statistical data we collated and used to calculate estimates of Covid-19 deaths among migrant health care workers and includes details on how missing information was imputed. It includes spreadsheet estimates for India, Nigeria, Mexico, and the UK for excess and reported Covid-19 deaths amongst foreign-born workers and for all workers in the human health and social work sector and in three specific health occupations: doctors, nurses, and midwives. For each group the spreadsheets provide a basic estimate and an age-sex standardised estimate.

Request I believe the above scheme needs to be put in place urgently. Can you please answer the following questions: 1. How many people have applied to you for Ill Health Retirement with Long Covid? 2. How many people have been rejected for Tier One and/or Tier Two levels of IHR when applying with Long Covid? 3. What evidence (listing guidance and research evidence) are being used to reject or confirm applications for IHR with Long Covid? Response Question 1 & 2 A copy of the information is attached. Question 3 Each Scheme Medical Adviser (SMA) is expected to adopt evidence-based practice in arriving at a decision. They do this by combining the following: Medical evidence provided in the Scheme member’s application, Further medical evidence that the SMA may have requested from the Scheme member’s treating healthcare professionals, Information that the employer may have provided in Part A of Form AW33E (e.g. demands of the work duties, any workplace adjustments tried, and the effectiveness of such adjustments), Information that the Scheme member may have provided in Part B of Form AW33E (for example, how long COVID affects them), Current medical literature on long COVID, And the SMA’s occupational health expertise. When assessing ill-health retirement applications from scheme members who have long COVID, the SMA might consult the following guidance and research evidence: • The Society of Occupational Medicine (SOM): ‘Long COVID and Return to Work – What Works?’ (https://www.som.org.uk/sites/som.org.uk/files/Long_COVID_and_Return_to_Work_What_Works_0.pdf) • The Faculty of Occupational Medicine (FOM): ‘Guidance for healthcare professionals on return to work for patients with post-COVID syndrome’ (https://www.fom.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/FOM-Guidance-post-COVID_healthcare-professionals.pdf) • Occupational and Environmental Medicine (academic journal of the FOM: https://oem.bmj.com) • Occupational Medicine (academic journal of the SOM: https://academic.oup.com/occmed?login=false) • Industrial Injuries Advisory Council publication: ‘COVID-19 and Occupational Impacts’ (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1119955/covid-19-and-occupational-impacts.pdf) • NICE: https://cks.nice.org.uk/topics/long-term-effects-of-coronavirus-long-covid • Nature. An example of a recent publication in this journal is Davis, H., McCorkell, L., Vogel, J. M., & Topol, E. J. (2023). Long covid: major findings, mechanisms and recommendations. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 21(3), 133-146. Full text available at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-022-00846-2 • British Medical Journal (BMJ) • Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) • The Lancet • New England Journal of Medicine In summary, the SMA is expected to adopt an individual approach to each case and use careful clinical judgement when applying the medical research literature and guidance to the specific medical circumstances of a Scheme member with long COVID. Data Queries If you have any queries regarding the data provided, or if you plan on publishing the data please contact foirequests@nhsbsa.nhs.uk ensuring you quote the above reference. This is important to ensure that the figures are not misunderstood or misrepresented. If you plan on producing a press or broadcast story based upon the data please contact communicationsteam@nhsbsa.nhs.uk This is important to ensure that the figures are not misunderstood or misrepresented.

This project investigated various routes of entry to the UK of labour migrants coming from a single source country. Additionally, face-to-face interviews were conducted with recruiters, experts and healthcare professionals involved in training and administration in the Philippines. A total of 73 transcripts were compiled, 19 from care home assistants/nurses, 19 from domestic workers, 18 from hospital nurses, 13 from Philippine fieldwork (including student nurses), 2 from UK based recruitment agencies, 1 from a migrant organisation and 1 from a UK care home. Data and literature on health worker emigration patterns were gathered from local research bodies. The mission of the Centre is to provide a strategic, integrated approach to understanding contemporary and future migration dynamics across sending areas and receiving contexts in the UK and EU. In 2003, Filipinos made up the largest and most visible group of internationally recruited nurses in the UK. Of roughly 13,000 overseas nationals registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) that year, around 5,600, or almost half, came from the Philippines. They also figured prominently in private care homes and in the provision of care in private households. While there are various nationalities contributing to the care workforce, this project narrowed its focus on care workers from the Philippines due to it being a sector that is heavily segmented by ‘race,’ nationality, as well as immigration status. Focusing on one nationality also allowed us to investigate various routes of entry in the UK of labour migrants coming from a single source country. Additionally, fieldwork was carried out in the Philippines between November and December 2004 in order to asses the effect of nursing and care work recruitment from the sending country perspective. A series of interviews were conducted with recruiters, academics, experts and healthcare professionals involved in training and administration. Data and literature on health worker emigration patterns were gathered from local research bodies. The following findings were observed: (1) Many care workers arrived in the UK via other countries, highlighting the wide scope of multinational recruitment agencies. (2) Filipino care workers arriving via Singapore and the Middle East tended to enter via student visas, but employers assigned them more work than their immigration status allowed (they worked 35-40 hours compared to the regulated 20 hours) (3) Nurses working in care homes experienced more difficulty applying for registration, and were in some cases discouraged by employers. (4) Regulatory conditions differ significantly between public and private care providers. Recruitment to private nursing homes is particularly unregulated. 73 face-to-face interviews were conducted and transcribed from 19 care home assistants/nurses, 19 domestic workers, 18 hospital nurses, 13 Philippine fieldwork (including student nurses), 2 UK based recruitment agencies, a migrant organisation and a UK care home. No sampling method was used, it was totally universe. Data and literature on health worker emigration patterns were gather from local research bodies.

Success.ai’s Healthcare Professionals Data for Healthcare & Hospital Executives in Europe provides a reliable and comprehensive dataset tailored for businesses aiming to connect with decision-makers in the European healthcare and hospital sectors. Covering healthcare executives, hospital administrators, and medical directors, this dataset offers verified contact details, professional insights, and leadership profiles.

With access to over 700 million verified global profiles and data from 70 million businesses, Success.ai ensures your outreach, market research, and partnership strategies are powered by accurate, continuously updated, and GDPR-compliant data. Backed by our Best Price Guarantee, this solution is indispensable for navigating and thriving in Europe’s healthcare industry.

Why Choose Success.ai’s Healthcare Professionals Data?

1. Verified Contact Data for Targeted Engagement

   • Access verified work emails, phone numbers, and LinkedIn profiles of healthcare executives, hospital administrators, and medical directors.
   • AI-driven validation ensures 99% accuracy, reducing data gaps and improving communication effectiveness.

2. Comprehensive Coverage of European Healthcare Professionals

   • Includes profiles of professionals from top hospitals, healthcare organizations, and medical institutions across Europe.
   • Gain insights into regional healthcare trends, operational challenges, and emerging technologies.

3. Continuously Updated Datasets

   • Real-time updates capture changes in leadership roles, organizational structures, and market dynamics.
   • Stay aligned with the fast-evolving healthcare landscape to identify emerging opportunities.

4. Ethical and Compliant

   • Fully adheres to GDPR, CCPA, and other global data privacy regulations, ensuring responsible and lawful data usage.

Data Highlights:

• 700M+ Verified Global Profiles: Connect with healthcare professionals and decision-makers in Europe’s hospital and healthcare sectors.
• 70M+ Business Profiles: Access detailed firmographic data, including hospital sizes, revenue ranges, and geographic footprints.
• Leadership Insights: Engage with CEOs, medical directors, and administrative leaders shaping healthcare strategies.
• Regional Healthcare Trends: Understand trends in digital healthcare adoption, operational efficiency, and patient care management.

Key Features of the Dataset:

1. Comprehensive Professional Profiles

   • Identify and connect with key players, including hospital executives, medical directors, and department heads in the healthcare industry.
   • Access data on professional histories, certifications, and areas of expertise for precise targeting.

2. Advanced Filters for Precision Campaigns

   • Filter professionals by hospital size, geographic location, or job function (administrative, medical, or operational).
   • Tailor campaigns to align with specific needs such as digital transformation, patient care solutions, or regulatory compliance.

3. Healthcare Industry Insights

   • Leverage data on operational trends, hospital management practices, and regional healthcare needs.
   • Refine product offerings and outreach strategies to address pressing challenges in the European healthcare market.

4. AI-Driven Enrichment

   • Profiles enriched with actionable data allow for personalized messaging, highlight unique value propositions, and improve engagement outcomes with healthcare professionals.

Strategic Use Cases:

1. Marketing and Outreach to Healthcare Executives

   • Promote healthcare IT solutions, medical devices, or operational efficiency tools to executives managing hospitals and clinics.
   • Use verified contact data for multi-channel outreach, including email, phone, and digital marketing.

2. Partnership Development and Collaboration

   • Build relationships with hospitals, healthcare providers, and medical institutions exploring strategic partnerships or new technology adoption.
   • Foster alliances that drive patient care improvements, cost savings, or operational efficiency.

3. Market Research and Competitive Analysis

   • Analyze trends in European healthcare to refine product development, marketing strategies, and engagement plans.
   • Benchmark against competitors to identify growth opportunities, underserved segments, and innovative solutions.

4. Recruitment and Workforce Solutions

   • Target HR professionals and hiring managers in healthcare institutions recruiting for administrative, medical, or operational roles.
   • Provide workforce optimization platforms, training solutions, or staffing services tailored to the healthcare sector.

Why Choose Success.ai?

1. Best Price Guarantee

   • Access premium-quality healthcare professional data at competitive prices, ensuring strong ROI for your marketing, sales, and strategic initiatives.

2. Seamless Integration
   ...

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Health Statistics offers the most comprehensive source of comparable statistics on health and health systems across OECD countries. It is an essential tool for health researchers and policy advisors in governments, the private sector and the academic community, to carry out comparative analyses and draw lessons from international comparisons of diverse health care systems. Within UKDS.Stat the data are presented in the following databases: Health status This datasets presents internationally comparable statistics on morbidity and mortality with variables such as life expectancy, causes of mortality, maternal and infant mortality, potential years of life lost, perceived health status, infant health, dental health, communicable diseases, cancer, injuries, absence from work due to illness. The annual data begins in 2000. Non-medical determinants of health This dataset examines the non-medical determinants of health by comparing food, alcohol, tobacco consumption and body weight amongst countries. The data are expressed in different measures such as calories, grammes, kilo, gender, population. The data begins in 1960. Healthcare resources This dataset includes comparative tables analyzing various health care resources such as total health and social employment, physicians by age, gender, categories, midwives, nurses, caring personnel, personal care workers, dentists, pharmacists, physiotherapists, hospital employment, graduates, remuneration of health professionals, hospitals, hospital beds, medical technology with their respective subsets. The statistics are expressed in different units of measure such as number of persons, salaried, self-employed, per population. The annual data begins in 1960. Healthcare utilisation This dataset includes statistics comparing different countries’ level of health care utilisation in terms of prevention, immunisation, screening, diagnostics exams, consultations, in-patient utilisation, average length of stay, diagnostic categories, acute care, in-patient care, discharge rates, transplants, dialyses, ICD-9-CM. The data is comparable with respect to units of measures such as days, percentages, population, number per capita, procedures, and available beds. Health Care Quality Indicators This dataset includes comparative tables analyzing various health care quality indicators such as cancer care, care for acute exacerbation of chronic conditions, care for chronic conditions and care for mental disorders. The annual data begins in 1995. Pharmaceutical market This dataset focuses on the pharmaceutical market comparing countries in terms of pharmaceutical consumption, drugs, pharmaceutical sales, pharmaceutical market, revenues, statistics. The annual data begins in 1960. Long-term care resources and utilisation This dataset provides statistics comparing long-term care resources and utilisation by country in terms of workers, beds in nursing and residential care facilities and care recipients. In this table data is expressed in different measures such as gender, age and population. The annual data begins in 1960. Health expenditure and financing This dataset compares countries in terms of their current and total expenditures on health by comparing how they allocate their budget with respect to different health care functions while looking at different financing agents and providers. The data covers the years starting from 1960 extending until 2010. The countries covered are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, and United States. Social protection This dataset introduces the different health care coverage systems such as the government/social health insurance and private health insurance. The statistics are expressed in percentage of the population covered or number of persons. The annual data begins in 1960. Demographic references This dataset provides statistics regarding general demographic references in terms of population, age structure, gender, but also in term of labour force. The annual data begins in 1960. Economic references This dataset presents main economic indicators such as GDP and Purchasing power parities (PPP) and compares countries in terms of those macroeconomic references as well as currency rates, average annual wages. The annual data begins in 1960. These data were first provided by the UK Data Service in November 2014.

I am writing to express my gratitude for providing the uptake data for the Healthy Start Scheme in Islington. Your assistance in this matter has been invaluable to our ongoing efforts. However, we have recently become aware of a data issue that has led to an overestimation of the eligible population. In light of this, I would like to request another Freedom of Information (FOI) request for the uptake data, specifically focusing on the date and time periods before and after the data issue was rectified. If possible, I kindly request access to the uptake data by ward for June 2023 (prior to the data issue) and March 2024 (after the data issue has been rectified). This information will greatly aid our analysis and decision-making processes moving forward. Response A copy of the information is attached. Notice – eligibility and uptake statistics Please note that, due to an issue with a data feed at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), the number of eligible beneficiaries reported between July 2023 and February 2024 was incorrect, which means that the calculated uptake percentage was overstated. This issue did not impact any NHS Healthy Start individual applicants, existing beneficiaries, or payments. Further details can be found at the below web links. https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2024-03-26/hcws389 https://www.healthystart.nhs.uk/healthcare-professionals/ In light of the above, we advise that the eligibility data for June 2023 to February 2024 should not be relied upon. We have supplied this as this is the information which was held when you submitted your request, and the FOIA requires disclosure of information even if it is inaccurate. We can advise that all of the data on the number of people in receipt of the benefit is correct, and the eligibility data for March 2024 is correct.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are known to be at increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2, although whether these risks are equal across all roles is uncertain. Here we report a retrospective analysis of a large real-world dataset obtained from 10 March to 6 July 2020 in an NHS Foundation Trust in England with 17,126 employees. 3,338 HCWs underwent symptomatic PCR testing (14.4% positive, 2.8% of all staff) and 11,103 HCWs underwent serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 IgG (8.4% positive, 5.5% of all staff). Seropositivity was lower than other hospital settings in England but higher than community estimates. Increased test positivity rates were observed in HCWs from BAME backgrounds and residents in areas of higher social deprivation. A multiple logistic regression model adjusting for ethnicity and social deprivation confirmed statistically significant increases in the odds of testing positive in certain occupational groups, most notably domestic services staff, nurses, and health-care assistants. PCR testing of symptomatic HCWs appeared to underestimate overall infection levels, probably due to asymptomatic seroconversion. Clinical outcomes were reassuring, with only a small minority of HCWs with COVID-19 requiring hospitalization (2.3%) or ICU management (0.7%) and with no deaths. Despite a relatively low level of HCW infection compared to other UK cohorts, there were nevertheless important differences in test positivity rates between occupational groups, robust to adjustment for demographic factors such as ethnic background and social deprivation. Quantitative and qualitative studies are needed to better understand the factors contributing to this risk. Robust informatics solutions for HCW exposure data are essential to inform occupational monitoring.

Notice – eligibility and uptake statistics Please note that, due to an issue with a data feed at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), the number of eligible beneficiaries reported between July 2023 and February 2024 was incorrect, which means that the calculated uptake percentage was overstated. This issue did not impact any NHS Healthy Start individual applicants, existing beneficiaries, or payments. Further details can be found at the below web links. https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2024-03-26/hcws389 https://www.healthystart.nhs.uk/healthcare-professionals/ In light of the above, we advise that the eligibility data for November 2023 to February 2024 should not be relied upon. We have supplied this as this is the information which was held when you submitted your request, and the FOIA requires disclosure of information even if it is inaccurate. We can advise that all of the data on the number of people in receipt of the benefit is correct, and the eligibility data for March 2024 is correct. We apologise for any inconvenience this has caused. The second web link shown above is a publication of NHS Healthy Start uptake data at local authority level, and it also provides more detail on interpreting the uptake data. Please ensure that you read this. Please note that this request and our response is published on our Freedom of Information disclosure log at: https://opendata.nhsbsa.net/dataset/foi-01857

Although there has been extensive research on pharmaceutical industry payments to healthcare professionals, healthcare organisations with key roles in health systems have received little attention. We seek to address this gap in research by examining drug company payments to general practice surgeries in England in 2015. We combine a publicly available payments database, the Disclosure UK, managed by the pharmaceutical industry with datasets covering key surgery characteristics and a database of unethical company marketing practices. We find that surgeries were an important target of company payments, receiving £2,726,017.77, equivalent to 6.53% of the value of payments to all healthcare organisations in England. Payments to surgeries were highly concentrated. The top 10 donors and the top 10 recipients amassed 87.93% and 13.62% of the value of payments, respectively. While some companies made fewer but higher value payments, others made more frequent low value payments. Surgeries with more patients, a greater proportion of elderly patients, and those in more deprived areas received more payments on average. However, the patterns of payments were similar across England’s regions. We also found that company networks – established by making payments to the same surgeries – were largely dominated by a single company, which was also by far the biggest donor. This company was the target of several investigations into the unethical marketing of a novel-type of anticoagulant increasingly prescribed by surgeries, suggesting that its payments might be connected to this drug’s marketing. Our research demonstrates that the comprehensiveness and quality of payment data disclosed via industry self-regulatory arrangements needs improvement. More interconnectivity between payment data and other datasets is needed to capture company marketing strategies systematically. Greater policy attention is necessary to the risk of financial dependency and conflicts of interests that might arise from payments to surgeries and to organisational conflicts of interests more broadly.

The General Pharmaceutical Services in England report shows information about community pharmacy contractors (community pharmacies) and appliance contractors in England, and the NHS services they provided It is a National Statistics publication and is the only national level dataset that shows this information. It may be of interest to members of the public, healthcare professionals, policy officials and other stakeholders.

The data provided in this publication comes from NHS Prescription Services, a division of NHS Business Services Authority, NHS England Local Area Teams and NHS Litigation Authority Family Health Services Appeal Unit. The data covers community pharmacy contractors and appliance contractors on the NHS England pharmaceutical list dispensing NHS prescriptions under the NHS (Pharmaceutical Services and Local Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations.

In order to request access to this data please complete the data request form.* * University of Bristol staff should use this form instead. The ASK feasibility trial: a randomised controlled feasibility trial and process evaluation of a complex multicomponent intervention to improve AccesS to living-donor Kidney transplantation This was a two-arm, parallel group, pragmatic, individually-randomised, controlled, feasibility trial, comparing usual care with a multicomponent intervention designed to increase access to living-donor kidney transplantation. The trial was based at two UK hospitals: a transplanting hospital and a non-transplanting referral hospital. The trial recruited 62 participants. A mixed-methods parallel process evaluation was undertaken. 21 individuals were interviewed, detailed below: - 4 trial non-participants, 4 patients allocated to the intervention, 3 patients allocated to usual care, 6 family members who received the intervention, 4 healthcare professionals involved in trial and intervention delivery. 19 interviewees provided consent for data sharing. Their anonymised interview transcripts are available. 2 interviewees did not consent to data sharing and their interview transcripts are not available. This dataset is part of a series: ASK feasibility trial documents: https://doi.org/10.5523/bris.1u5ooi0iqmb5c26zwim8l7e8rm The ASK feasibility trial: CONSORT documents: https://doi.org/10.5523/bris.2iq6jzfkl6e1x2j1qgfbd2kkbb The ASK feasibility trial: Wellcome Open Research CONSORT checklist: https://doi.org/10.5523/bris.1m3uhbdfdrykh27iij5xck41le The ASK feasibility trial quantitative data: https://doi.org/10.5523/bris.2b9vlo0wejnsh2nfoa6fka66cx

These data were collected as part of a four-year Wellcome Trust funded research project tracking the relation between waiting and care in general practice in a moment of overlapping crises for the NHS. A researcher at Birkbeck College set out to observe the forms that waiting could take across all areas of life and work in two Practices: one serving a densely populated urban area in Central East London, the other serving a large rural area in Devon. The transcripts comprise a series of recurring interviews with two general practitioners, and a collection of one-off interviews with other members of the general practice team including reception, managerial and administration workers. All the interviews were carried out between June 2020 and April 2021.Waiting, Staying and Enduring in General Practice was a 4-year research study (2018 – 2022) based on observations and interviews carried out over the course of 1 year in two NHS general practices in England. Its original aim was to study the relationship between care and time during long periods of ‘watchful waiting’ in general practice. The emphasis on achieving clinical outcomes by adhering to tightly controlled timeframes when providing access, advice and treatments was at odds with the temporalities of much of the healthcare falling within its remit (intractable, complicated, long term and medically unexplained health conditions often with no clear ‘outcomes’). Responding to the discrepancy, this research investigated what forms of care could issue from time in general practice in situations in which nothing appeared to improve or get better. Based on interviews with healthcare workers in clinical and non-clinical roles, observations of routine GP appointments, observations of Balint group meetings and personal testimonies of general practitioners made publicly available online, it explored this understudied area of everyday healthcare through a series of ethnographically derived cases. The study formed part of ‘Waiting Times’, a wider interdisciplinary research project funded by the Wellcome Trust [205400]. This wider project – which ran from 2017 to 2023 and included the work of artists, psychoanalysts, historians and literary scholars – was a collaboration between Exeter University and Birkbeck, University of London, to investigate the temporalities of waiting in healthcare by taking a multi-stranded approach to understanding its significance as a cultural and psychosocial concept, and as an embodied and historical experience. Through this research, we sought to produce a critical theory of temporal endurance that could help to explain why experiences of suspension and waiting are so difficult to tolerate in the present time, and what are the potentialities of waiting as a form of care [https://waitingtimes.exeter.ac.uk/]. There are fourteen interviews all carried out remotely by the same researcher through online video calls due to the social distancing requirements of the time. They took place over a period of thirteen months.They vary in length, and some are short, ending abruptly. This is because they take place during the working day at a time when general practices were understaffed and under pressure. A single opening prompt is used to guide the conversation towards areas of ongoing or longstanding clinical concern as a pretext for reflecting on relationships between time and care. All the interviews were recorded but to avoid recording copious amounts of patient data, they were not transcribed. Instead, summary notes were taken in the moment by the researcher and written up immediately afterwards. Videos were destroyed after the final notes were taken to comply with the terms set out in the consent form. Two general practitioners appear in eight of the interviews as part of a pre-agreed plan to track their clinical labour over time. The other participants include a Practice Manager, a receptionist, administrative workers, and a Balint group leader. Interview prompts are included in the transcript texts. A blank copy of the information and consent form is stored in the supporting documentation.

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.The Cancer Research UK Primary Care Cancer Survey was developed in 2013 to assess and track front-line UK primary care professionals' knowledge, behaviour and attitudes to prevention, early diagnosis, and screening of cancer. The survey has been conducted annually since 2013 (with the exception of 2018-2022, where it shifted to every two years). The survey includes GPs, Practice Nurses and Community Pharmacists. Recruitment was organised through external recruitment agencies who had pre-existing panels of healthcare professionals who were available to take part in research. Bespoke recruitment also took place to make sure target numbers were met in the Devolved Nations and across different health professional groups (e.g. Practice Nurses and Community Pharmacists). The survey typically aims to recruit between 1,000 - 1,2000 participants each year across the UK. The survey mainly consists of closed-ended questions but does include a handful of open-ended qualitative questions throughout.Only the data from surveys completed in 2018, 2020 and 2022 are available from the UK Data Service. Main Topics: The Primary Care Cancer Survey addresses the following topics:beliefs and attitudes around cancerknowledge and behaviour of cancer prevention, specifically smoking cessation and weight management.knowledge of potential cancer signs and symptomsknowledge of cancer screening programmes and behaviour around encouraging uptake to screening.confidence and knowledge of cancer referral tools, guidance, and pathways (e.g. clinical support tools, FIT, safety netting, referral guidance) Quota sample

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.The Cancer Research UK Primary Care Cancer Survey was developed in 2013 to assess and track front-line UK primary care professionals' knowledge, behaviour and attitudes to prevention, early diagnosis, and screening of cancer. The survey has been conducted annually since 2013 (with the exception of 2018-2022, where it shifted to every two years). The survey includes GPs, Practice Nurses and Community Pharmacists. Recruitment was organised through external recruitment agencies who had pre-existing panels of healthcare professionals who were available to take part in research. Bespoke recruitment also took place to make sure target numbers were met in the Devolved Nations and across different health professional groups (e.g. Practice Nurses and Community Pharmacists). The survey typically aims to recruit between 1,000 - 1,2000 participants each year across the UK. The survey mainly consists of closed-ended questions but does include a handful of open-ended qualitative questions throughout.Only the data from surveys completed in 2018, 2020 and 2022 are available from the UK Data Service. Main Topics: The Primary Care Cancer Survey addresses the following topics:beliefs and attitudes around cancerknowledge and behaviour of cancer prevention, specifically smoking cessation and weight management.knowledge of potential cancer signs and symptomsknowledge of cancer screening programmes and behaviour around encouraging uptake to screening.confidence and knowledge of cancer referral tools, guidance, and pathways (e.g. clinical support tools, FIT, safety netting, referral guidance) Quota sample

Integrated Community Case Management (iCCM) is a World Health Organization (WHO) approach in which community health workers deliver basic healthcare services in the community setting, including childhood pneumonia treatment.

The WHO pneumonia guidelines are sensitive but non-specific, in order to ensure that children with possible pneumonia receive antibiotic treatment. As a result, while the guidelines miss few children with pneumonia (high sensitivity), many children who do not have pneumonia incorrectly receive antibiotics (low specificity), resulting in antibiotic overuse.

The WHO guidelines do not include lung auscultation (listening to lung sounds) in their pneumonia definition for frontline healthcare workers, likely due to its high inter-observer variability, regardless of healthcare providers’ training level. Digital auscultation by electronic stethoscopes may help to overcome these limitations. Inclusion of lung auscultation in the current algorithm could enhance the specificity of the guidelines.

This study aims to improve the diagnostic accuracy of child pneumonia by using automated lung sound classification through digital auscultation.

The embedded PhD will use the study data to (i) assess the consistency of lung sounds recorded by primary health care workers from under-five children using a digital stethoscope against pre-defined quality thresholds and (ii) determine the reliability and performance of the interpretations of recorded lung sounds by the Smartscope analysis system compared to reference interpretations by a paediatric listening panel.

For further information, see associated media

https://www.ed.ac.uk/usher/respire/phd-studentships/salahuddin-ahmed

Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.The Cancer Research UK Primary Care Cancer Survey was developed in 2013 to assess and track front-line UK primary care professionals' knowledge, behaviour and attitudes to prevention, early diagnosis, and screening of cancer. The survey has been conducted annually since 2013 (with the exception of 2018-2022, where it shifted to every two years). The survey includes GPs, Practice Nurses and Community Pharmacists. Recruitment was organised through external recruitment agencies who had pre-existing panels of healthcare professionals who were available to take part in research. Bespoke recruitment also took place to make sure target numbers were met in the Devolved Nations and across different health professional groups (e.g. Practice Nurses and Community Pharmacists). The survey typically aims to recruit between 1,000 - 1,2000 participants each year across the UK. The survey mainly consists of closed-ended questions but does include a handful of open-ended qualitative questions throughout.Only the data from surveys completed in 2018, 2020 and 2022 are available from the UK Data Service. Main Topics: The Primary Care Cancer Survey addresses the following topics:beliefs and attitudes around cancerknowledge and behaviour of cancer prevention, specifically smoking cessation and weight management.knowledge of potential cancer signs and symptomsknowledge of cancer screening programmes and behaviour around encouraging uptake to screening.confidence and knowledge of cancer referral tools, guidance, and pathways (e.g. clinical support tools, FIT, safety netting, referral guidance) Quota sample

Large-scale study testing blood samples and swabs obtained from healthcare workers who work in a clinical setting to see if infection with COVID-19 protects them from future episodes of infection.

Background: To bridge significant mental health treatment gaps, it is essential that the healthcare workforce is able to detect and manage mental health conditions. We aim to synthesise evidence of effective educational and training interventions aimed at healthcare workers to increase their ability to detect and manage mental health conditions in South and South-East Asia.Methods: Systematic review of six electronic academic databases from January 2000 to August 2020 was performed. All primary research studies were eligible if conducted among healthcare workers in South and South-East Asia and reported education and training interventions to improve detection and management of mental health conditions. Quality of studies were assessed using Modified Cochrane Collaboration, ROBINS-I, and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tools and data synthesised by narrative synthesis. Results are reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. A review protocol was registered with the PROSPERO database (CRD42020203955).Findings: We included 48 of 3,654 screened articles. Thirty-six reported improvements in knowledge and skills in the detection and management of mental health conditions. Training was predominantly delivered to community and primary care health workers to identify and manage common mental health disorders. Commonly used training included the World Health Organization's mhGAP guidelines (n = 9) and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (n = 8) and were successfully tailored and delivered to healthcare workers. Digitally delivered training was found to be acceptable and effective. Only one study analysed cost effectiveness. Few targeted severe mental illnesses and upskilling mental health specialists or offered long-term follow-up or supervision. We found 21 studies were appraised as low/moderate and 19 as high/critical risk of bias.Interpretation: In low resource country settings, upskilling and capacity building of primary care and community healthcare workers can lead to better detection and management of people with mental health disorders and help reduce the treatment gap.Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42020203955.

Supplementary files for article "Understanding the lived experience of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and how this shapes views on home-based pulmonary rehabilitation in Delhi, India"Objectives: Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR) is a high-impact intervention for individuals with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) but access is limited in India. PR barriers include distance to travel, lack of service provision and lack of healthcare professionals to deliver PR, thus it is disproportionate to the immense burden of IPF in India. We explored the lived experiences of people living with IPF, family caregivers (CGs) and healthcare workers (HCWs) as well as their views towards home-based PR (HBPR) in Delhi, India.Methods: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with individuals with IPF (n = 20), CGs (n = 10) and HCWs (n = 10) was conducted. Data were analysed using codebook thematic analysis.Results: Three major themes were generated: (i) Health impact, which included pathophysiological changes, range of symptoms experienced, disease consequences and impact of comorbidities; (ii) Disease management, which described strategies to control the progression and overall management of IPF, such as medications and exercises; (iii) Mode of Pulmonary Rehabilitation, which described perceptions regarding HBPR, comparisons with centre-based programmes, and how HBPR may fit as part of a menu of PR delivery options.Conclusion: People living with IPF, family caregivers and healthcare workers were positive about the potential implementation of HBPR and suggested the development of a paper-based manual to facilitate HBPR over digital/online approaches. The content of HBPR should be sensitive to the additional impact of non-IPF health issues and challenges of reduced interactions with healthcare professionals.©The Author(s) CC BY 4.0