Follow us on twitter: @csjmagazine
NEWS
Health Foundation calls for Government to share evidence on track and trace app
The Health Foundation says that there must be greater transparency around the development of the NHS contact tracing app. The app is intended to help reduce the spread of COVID-19. However, the public are yet to see the results of pilots of the app which took place in August among residents of the Isle of Wight and Newham in London. The effectiveness of the app will be dependent on a majority of the public downloading it and changing their behaviour based on its advice, but the Health Foundation says that showing evidence that it is effective and ready for mass roll-out is key to building public confidence. As well as confirming the overall effectiveness of the app, the Health Foundation says the Government needs to demonstrate the technology won’t exacerbate existing health inequalities, leaving some people at greater risk of COVID-19 than others. The Foundation has previously warned of the potential negative impact of a ‘digital divide’ as those without access to the app will not receive the same level of benefit in terms of up-to-date information about their risk of infection from contact with others. The independent charity says this must be considered against a backdrop of growing inequality which has left certain groups at significantly increased risk from COVID-19. Newham, one of the two pilot sites, is one of the most ethnically diverse areas of the country, has a high population density and significant areas of deprivation. Piloting the app in Newham was an opportunity to understand how it works among different populations. But without publication of any findings from the pilot study, we do not know whether these major concerns have been addressed. Previously unreleased polling by Ipsos MORI on behalf of the Health Foundation – conducted between 17 and 29 July among
British adults, prior to the announcement that a redesigned smartphone app would be piloted and rolled out – reinforces concerns of a potential digital divide along the lines of ethnicity, occupation, educational level and age. For example, participants from a black and minority ethnic (BME) background, women, the youngest and oldest age groups, routine and skilled manual workers, and the unemployed, are found to have lower awareness of the Government plans to use a smartphone contact tracing app. The polling also shows that a higher
proportion of adults in professional, administrative and management roles say they are likely to download the app, use the app to report symptoms of Coronavirus or self-isolate for 14 days if the app suggests you have been in close contact with a person who has Coronavirus.
Those with GCSE or equivalent
qualifications or with no formal qualifications are less likely to say they would download the app. Younger people (18-24) are more likely to say they would download the app, use the app or self-isolate based on its advice, while the oldest age groups (65+) are the least likely to do so. The Health Foundation notes that the contact tracing
app will only be effective if it is successfully embedded as part of a wider test and trace system, which also faces considerable challenges. It is also vital that those who do not have access to the app are protected as a priority by the wider test and trace system, and that a more comprehensive strategy to tackle health inequalities is put in place. Josh Keith, a senior fellow at the Health
Foundation, said: “With a virus that is transmitted as quickly as COVID-19, the automated contact tracing that the app promises could prove invaluable in reducing its spread. “Also, the additional features of the app, such as booking a test, reporting symptoms or checking the risk level in postcode district could provide a helpful single source of COVID-19 related advice and support. “However, for any major, nation-wide public health intervention it is important the Government publishes evidence that it is effective. This is key for building confidence in the app as people want to know that it will benefit them and their communities. But any data on the pilots that took place in August have been notably absent, leaving major questions over the app’s effectiveness unanswered.”
Two thirds of doctors worry COVID has indirectly harmed patients
A survey of members of the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) has found that almost two thirds (60%) of doctors worry that patients in their care have suffered harm or complications following diagnosis or treatment delays during the pandemic. In addition, almost all doctors (94%) are concerned about the general indirect impact of COVID-19 on their patients. This is also compounded by the difficulty doctors are finding in accessing diagnostic testing for their patients. Only 29% of doctors report experiencing no delays in accessing
OCTOBER 2020
endoscopy testing (one of the main diagnostic tests used by doctors) for inpatients, decreasing to just 8% for outpatients. Only 5% of doctors feel that their organisations are fully prepared for a potential second wave of COVID-19 infection, and almost two thirds (64%) say they haven’t been involved in any discussions about preparations for a second wave of the virus. Professor Andrew Goddard, president of
the Royal College of Physicians, said: “Delays to treatment are so often a major issue for the NHS but as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic, it’s fair to say we’ve reached crisis point. Doctors are, understandably, gravely concerned that their patients’ health will have deteriorated to the point where they will need much more extensive treatment than previously, at a time when NHS resources are already incredibly depleted. “We also cannot underestimate the need to prepare for a second wave of COVID-19 infection, which threatens to compound the situation. Without careful and rigorous preparation, a second wave coupled with the winter flu season, could overwhelm the NHS.”
WWW.CLINICALSERVICESJOURNAL.COM l 7
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92
