Re: What happens inside a long covid clinic?

Dear Editor

As a patient with severe long covid and myalgic encephalomyelitis (M.E.), I was pleased to see the article ‘What happens in a long covid clinic?’ [1] raising awareness of the scale and impact of long covid and the importance of long covid clinics. According to a recent estimate by Altmann et al, 1 in 10 people who contract COVID-19 will be affected by long covid, whilst the oncoming impact of long covid on health systems, populations and economies will be “so large as to be unfathomable”.[2]

Around 2-14% of patients with long covid develop orthostatic tachycardia six to eight months after COVID infection and as many as 60% show some symptoms of POTS. [3] Yet there remain no agreed guidelines for POTS in long covid, making the early diagnosis and management of the condition in primary care challenging. NICE guidance on long covid only mentions POTS in passing with no information on management.[4] The approach outlined by Espinosa-Gonzalez and colleagues to diagnose and manage POTS in primary care could greatly improve function and health for people with POTS.[5]

While I commend the excellent NHS services highlighted in the feature [1], as a patient with severe long covid I would question how prevalent this integrated medically-led care model is across the country despite it being in the ‘The NHS plan for improving long covid services’.[6] Many patients I speak to in long covid support groups report long waits, only to then be offered basic wellbeing classes or rehabilitation without any active treatment for symptoms.

Access to clinics for the most severely affected is variable with not all services offering remote consultations or home visits. It is imperative that long covid clinics are medically led, inter-disciplinary and able to prescribe medications. Additionally, we need the same standard of care for patients with ME/CFS, who are still waiting for NICE guidance from 2021[7] to be implemented. A recent survey noted there remain significant gaps in provision for patients with ME/CFS.[8]

Previously young fit and healthy patients with severe long covid and ME are being left bed-bound without adequate diagnosis, support, care or treatment as there is no specialty or service that is set up to provide this. I went from climbing mountains and working on-call to unable to stand or feed myself in the space of 8 weeks with long covid – I am still severely affected a year later. Given the multi-system complexity of long covid and ME/CFS it is time for an interdisciplinary patient-centred service for post-viral illnesses that recognises the biological nature of the disease and the unique challenges patients with severe long covid and ME have with safely accessing services given their limited energy available, severe cognitive effects, physical immobility and range of complications across bodily systems.

The Department of Health and Social Care are currently seeking views on the interim delivery plan for ME/CFS care in an online consultation [9], which is relevant to both patient groups and professionals and could lay the groundwork for more comprehensive care of post-viral illnesses in the UK.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Alexis Gilbert BSc MBBS MPH FFPH

Source: MJ 2023;382:p1791 https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj.p1791/rr (Full text)

As a doctor with long covid, I feel abandoned by the NHS

NHS workers with long covid should be given adequate sick pay and the support to work if they can

The covid-19 pandemic has thrown a spotlight on the treatment of NHS staff and their perceived value to their employers. As a recent episode of the BBC’s Panorama programme showed, many NHS staff now find themselves abandoned and in a precarious financial position after being infected with covid-19—most likely at work. The episode, “Forgotten Heroes of the Covid Front Line,” interviewed NHS staff struggling with the ongoing health effects of covid-19 infection, uncovering the stories of people who, despite being too sick to work, are facing reduced sick pay or losing their jobs. For some staff, this has already happened.

An estimated two million people in the UK have long covid,1 including many thousands of NHS workers, so why do we hear so little about it? As a doctor in the NHS who is one of those affected, I’m disappointed by the collective silence and the lack of protections and support mechanisms in place. NHS workers had to put their health and lives on the line when the virus broke out, with only a weekly clap to bolster them. Yet the public’s support hid underlying questions about the inadequacy of the personal protective equipment given to frontline workers in the UK and troubling attitudes to the risks we’d expose these people to.

UK guidance told healthcare workers that flimsy plastic aprons and masks we could see through were enough to protect us when clearly they weren’t. NHS staff had no choice but to continue working and caring for patients, so we carried on. I will never forget the fear in the eyes of those I cared for, and the dawning reality of the virus we were facing as cases continued to climb and more people were admitted to hospital.

I was relatively young, fit, and healthy when the pandemic began. I didn’t take any medications or have a pre-existing illness. I had nothing to worry about, I was told. But I was worried and wanted to protect my family. After coming home from a shift in the community covid hub, I’d strip off in the front porch, put my clothes straight in the washing machine, and shower. Of course, now that we understand more about the transmission of covid-19, I know why this wasn’t enough. Within a few weeks of working during the first wave of the pandemic, I was sick and stuck in bed, my oxygen levels dropping whenever I stood or walked.

Initially, I carried on working, struggling to manage a few hours here and there. One key feature of everyone I know with long covid is that we “pushed through” the initial stages of our illness, believing that we could get better by carrying on and ignoring our bodies. As a doctor, the system I worked in and the martyr complex instilled by medical culture enabled that view. In medicine, being ill, being human, and looking after ourselves is still too often seen as a kind of failure or weakness.

Being a doctor was how I defined my life, but eventually I was unable to carry on working. Now I’m in constant pain. I struggle to sit, walk, or play with my children. Like thousands of other people, I face the stark reality of being left behind—thrown away because I am now disabled.

The contrast in the way that healthcare workers have been treated is stark: from being lauded as heroes when needed by the system and government to being abandoned if they can now no longer work in the way they once did. Where is the leadership from the top, insisting that we care for those who were harmed by covid while working?

NHS workers—from doctors to porters, cleaners to nurses—have held the service together with their goodwill for years. But the personal costs of this are often too great. Even before the pandemic, I frequently neglected my needs or personal life for work. I miscarried at work, and continued with my clinic, not even giving myself time for a brief cry in the toilet. I missed a friend’s funeral because they were not a “first degree relative.” The covid-19 pandemic, and the swell of recognition it prompted for the value of healthcare workers, should have helped us reset these priorities and provide more support for staff. Yet this opportunity hasn’t been taken up by the government or NHS employers and is typified in the response to staff with long covid.

Like many people with long covid, I struggle living in a world where covid-19 has been declared “over” even though I still have not recovered my former health and more people are falling ill all the time. NHS staff, especially those with long covid or other covid-19 sequelae, should be protected from further infections and not have to fear for our lives going to work nearly three years on. Research has shown that FFP3 masks reduce the risk of covid-19 infection2: those who wish to wear them should be given them and supported.

Staff with long covid still have a lot to contribute to the NHS, which is beset by workforce shortages, but they need compassion and understanding. Many workers with long covid are desperately trying to return to work, but they must be met with flexibility and support. Instead of setting rigid time frames, NHS trusts should work with us to use our skills. This will mean making reasonable adjustments where they can, such as offering reduced duties, shorter hours, or the opportunity to work from home where possible.

The NHS has needed to challenge the organisational attitude of “work first, person second” for a long time. It can make a start by providing workers with long covid with adequate sick pay or compensation and the support to work if they are able to. Many of these people are ill because they were trying to save other people’s lives, without looking after their own. To neglect them now because they can no longer provide the same level of productivity is shameful.

Source: BMJ 2023;380:p337 https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p337 (Full text)

Adult patients’ experiences of NHS specialist services for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS/ME): a qualitative study in England

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Few studies have explored patients' experiences of treatment for CFS/ME. This study aims to fill this gap by capturing the perspective of patients who have been treated by NHS specialist CFS/ME services in England.

METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted during the period June-September 2014 with 16 adults who were completing treatment at one of three outpatient NHS specialist CFS/ME services. Interviews were analysed thematically using constant comparison techniques, with particular attention paid to contrasting views.

RESULTS: Three themes were identified: 'Journey to specialist services'; 'Things that help or hinder treatment'; and 'Support systems'. Within these themes nine sub-themes were identified. A wide range of factors was evident in forming participants' experiences, including personal characteristics such as perseverance and optimism, and service factors such as flexibility and positive, supportive relationships with clinicians. Participants described how specialist services played a unique role, which was related to the contested nature of the condition. Many participants had experienced a lack of validation and medical and social support before attending a specialist service. Patients' experiences of life before referral, and the concerns that they expressed about being discharged, highlighted the hardship and obstacles which people living with CFS/ME continue to experience in our society.

CONCLUSIONS: The experiences of CFS/ME patients in our study showed that NHS specialist CFS/ME services played a vital role in patients' journeys towards an improved quality of life. This improvement came about through a process which included validation of patients' experiences, acceptance of change, practical advice and support, and therapeutic outcomes.

Source: Broughton J, Harris S, Beasant L, Crawley E, Collin SM. Adult patients' experiences of NHS specialist services for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS/ME): a qualitative study in England. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jun 2;17(1):384. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2337-6. https://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-017-2337-6  (Full article)

What is the current NHS service provision for patients severely affected by chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis? A national scoping exercise

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME), in its most severe clinical presentation, can result in patients becoming housebound and bedbound so unable to access most available specialist services. This presents particular clinical risks and treatment needs for which the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) advises specialist medical care and monitoring. The extent of National Health Service (NHS) specialist provision in England for severe CFS/ME is currently unknown.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the current NHS provision for patients with severe CFS/ME in England.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: All 49 English NHS specialist CFS/ME adult services in England, in 2013.

METHOD: Cross-sectional survey by email questionnaire.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence to NICE guidelines for severe CFS/ME.

RESULTS: All 49 services replied (100%). 33% (16/49) of specialist CFS/ME services provided no service for housebound patients. 55% (27/49) services did treat patients with severe CFS/ME and their interventions followed the NICE guidelines. The remaining services (12%, 6/49) offered occasional or minimal support where funding allowed. There was one NHS unit providing specialist inpatient CFS/ME provision in England.

CONCLUSIONS: Study findings highlight substantial variation in access to specialist care for patients with severe presentation of CFS/ME. Where treatment was provided, this appeared to comply with NICE recommendations for this patient group.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

 

Source: McDermott C, Al Haddabi A, Akagi H, Selby M, Cox D, Lewith G. What is the current NHS service provision for patients severely affected by chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis? A national scoping exercise. BMJ Open. 2014 Jul 1;4(6):e005083. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005083. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4078780/ (Full article)

 

Treatment outcome in adults with chronic fatigue syndrome: a prospective study in England based on the CFS/ME National Outcomes Database

Erratum in: QJM. 2013 Jun;106(6):567.

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is relatively common and disabling. Over 8000 patients attend adult services each year, yet little is known about the outcome of patients attending NHS services.

AIM: Investigate the outcome of patients with CFS and what factors predict outcome.

DESIGN: Longitudinal patient cohort.

METHODS: We used data from six CFS/ME (myalgic encephalomyelitis) specialist services to measure changes in fatigue (Chalder Fatigue Scale), physical function (SF-36), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and pain (visual analogue pain rating scale) between clinical assessment and 8-20 months of follow-up. We used multivariable linear regression to investigate baseline factors associated with outcomes at follow-up.

RESULTS: Baseline data obtained at clinical assessment were available for 1643 patients, of whom 834 (51%) had complete follow-up data. There were improvements in fatigue [mean difference from assessment to outcome: -6.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.4 to -6.2; P < 0.001]; physical function (4.4; 95% CI 3.0-5.8; P < 0.001), anxiety (-0.6; 95% CI -0.9 to -0.3; P < 0.001), depression (-1.6; 95% CI -1.9 to -1.4; P < 0.001) and pain (-5.3; 95% CI -7.0 to -3.6; P < 0.001). Worse fatigue, physical function and pain at clinical assessment predicted a worse outcome for fatigue at follow-up. Older age, increased pain and physical function at assessment were associated with poorer physical function at follow-up.

CONCLUSION: Patients who attend NHS specialist CFS/ME services can expect similar improvements in fatigue, anxiety and depression to participants receiving cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise therapy in a recent trial, but are likely to experience less improvement in physical function. Outcomes were predicted by fatigue, disability and pain at assessment.

Comment in: RE: ‘Treatment outcome in adults with chronic fatigue syndrome: a prospective study. [QJM. 2014]

 

Source: Crawley E, Collin SM, White PD, Rimes K, Sterne JA, May MT; CFS/ME National Outcomes Database. Treatment outcome in adults with chronic fatigue syndrome: a prospective study in England based on the CFS/ME National Outcomes Database. QJM. 2013 Jun;106(6):555-65. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/hct061. Epub 2013 Mar 28. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3665909/ (Full article)

 

Equity of access to specialist chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS/ME) services in England (2008-2010): a national survey and cross-sectional study

Abstract:

OBJECTIVES: Provision of National Health Service (NHS) specialist chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) services in England has been deemed patchy and inconsistent. Our objective was to explore variation in the provision of NHS specialist CFS/ME services and to investigate whether access is related to measures of deprivation and inequality.

DESIGN: Survey of all CFS/ME clinical teams in England, plus cross-sectional data from a subset of teams.

SETTING: Secondary care.

OUTCOME MEASURES: We used clinic activity data from CFS/ME clinical teams in England to describe provision of specialist CFS/ME services (referral, assessment and diagnosis rates per 1000 adults per year) during 2008-2011 according to Primary Care Trust (PCT) population estimates, and to investigate whether use of services was related to PCT-level measures of deprivation and inequality. We used postcode data from seven services to investigate variation in provision by deprivation.

RESULTS: Clinic activity data were obtained from 93.9% (46/49) of clinical teams in England which between them received referrals from 84.9% (129/152) of PCTs. 12 PCTs, covering a population of 2.08 million adults, provided no specialist CFS/ME service. There was a six-fold variation in referral and assessment rates between services which could not be explained by PCT-level measures of deprivation and inequality. The median assessment rate in 2010 was 0.25 (IQR 0.17, 0.35) per 1000 adults per year. 91.9% (IQR 76.5%, 100.0%) of adults assessed were diagnosed with CFS/ME. Postcode data from seven clinical teams showed that assessment rates were equal across deprivation quartiles for four teams but were 40-50% lower in the most deprived compared with the most affluent areas for three teams.

CONCLUSIONS: Two million adults in England do not have access to a specialist CFS/ME service. In some areas which do have a specialist service, access is inequitable. This inequity may worsen with the impending fragmentation of NHS commissioning across England.

 

Source: Collin SM, Sterne JA, Hollingworth W, May MT, Crawley E. Equity of access to specialist chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS/ME) services in England (2008-2010): a national survey and cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2012 Aug 16;2(4). pii: e001417. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001417. Print 2012. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3425898/ (Full article)

 

The Newcastle NHS Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Service: not all fatigue is the same

Abstract:

In England the Department of Health has funded specialist clinical services aimed at diagnosing and managing the symptoms of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). These services are not available to those who do not fulfil the diagnostic criteria for CFS. This service evaluation examined the proportion of those referred to a specialist CFS service fulfilling the Fukuda diagnostic criteria for CFS and the alternative fatigue-associated diagnoses. The CFS database was interrogated to include every patient referred to the Newcastle service from November 2008 to December 2009. All medical notes were reviewed and the diagnosis, sex and age recorded. Data were compared to a previous service evaluation (2005-07).

In 2008-09, 260 subjects were referred: 19 referrals per month (260/14), compared with 17 referrals per month in 2005-07 (375/24). The proportion of patients diagnosed with CFS increased significantly compared with 2007 (36% [20/56] vs 60% [157/260]; p < 0.0001). Of the 40% of patients subsequently found not to have CFS the most common diagnosis was fatigue associated with a chronic disease (47% of all alternative diagnoses); 20% had primary sleep disorders, 15% psychological/psychiatric illnesses and 4% a cardiovascular disorder. Thirteen per cent remained unexplained (5.2% of the total referrals).

This study found a significant increase in the proportion of patients referred to National Health Service (NHS) CFS services diagnosed with CFS. A large proportion of patients presenting with fatigue are not eligible for referral to the Department of Health specialist fatigue services, which represents an unmet need in terms of symptom management in current NHS services.

 

Source: Newton JL, Mabillard H, Scott A, Hoad A, Spickett G. The Newcastle NHS Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Service: not all fatigue is the same. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2010 Dec;40(4):304-7. doi: 10.4997/JRCPE.2010.404. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21132135

 

Chronic fatigue report delayed as row breaks out over content

The government’s long awaited report on the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome could be in jeopardy after four key members resigned from the working group.

The move throws doubt on the validity of the report, which was due to be published in the first week of January. As the BMJ went to press, the chief medical officer, Liam Donaldson, had postponed its launch on 4 January 2002.

A total of 10 people from the original working group have resigned for various reasons since it was set up in 1998. The most recent resignations were highlighted in a written question by the Countess of Mar to health minister Lord Hunt on 17 December.

Two psychiatrists, a public health doctor, and a nurse therapist have resigned, saying that the report plays down the psychological and social aspects of the condition and concentrates on a medical model. Two patients are understood to have also resigned recently.

The group was set up to consider how best the NHS could care for people with the syndrome, also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis or “ME.”

But with so little still known about what causes the syndrome, how to diagnose it, and how best to treat it, it is understood that the report fails to provide the straightforward answers doctors may have hoped for.

You can read the rest of this article here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1121974/

 

Source: Eaton L. Chronic fatigue report delayed as row breaks out over content. BMJ. 2002 Jan 5;324(7328):7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1121974/ (Full article)