Blog posts

Digital Kiosks in Emergency Departments: Can They Enhance Efficiency and Patient Care?

Emergency departments (EDs) are often the first point of contact for patients requiring urgent medical attention. With increasing patient volumes and limited resources, EDs face challenges in maintaining efficiency and ensuring timely care. A recent systematic review published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research by our research group explores the role of digital check-in and triage kiosks in addressing these challenges.

Key Findings from the Systematic Review

The review analysed five studies conducted between 2019 and 2022 across Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, encompassing a total of 47,778 patients and 310,249 ED visits. These studies varied in design, including cross-sectional analyses, pilot studies, retrospective analyses, and randomised controlled trials,

  1. Efficiency Improvements
    Digital kiosks have been associated with reduced patient wait times and improved patient flow within EDs. By streamlining the check-in and triage processes, these kiosks can expedite patient assessment and allocation to appropriate care pathways.
  2. Patient Safety and Accuracy
    The studies reviewed indicated that digital kiosks can accurately capture patient information and symptoms, aiding in effective triage decisions. However, the accuracy is contingent upon the design of the kiosk interface and the algorithms used for symptom assessment.
  3. Patient Satisfaction
    Patient responses to digital kiosks were generally positive, with many appreciating the privacy and autonomy provided during the check-in process. Nonetheless, some patients expressed a preference for human interaction, highlighting the need for a balanced approach.

Considerations for Implementation

While digital kiosks offer promising benefits, their successful integration into ED workflows requires careful planning:

  • Accessibility: Ensuring that kiosks are user-friendly for patients of all ages, languages, and technological proficiencies is crucial.
  • Integration with Existing Systems: Kiosks should seamlessly integrate with electronic health records and other hospital information systems to maintain continuity of care.
  • Staff Training: ED staff should be trained to assist patients with kiosk use and to interpret the data collected effectively.
  • Continuous Evaluation: Ongoing assessment of kiosk performance and patient outcomes is necessary to identify areas for improvement.

Conclusion

Digital check-in and triage kiosks present a valuable tool for enhancing efficiency and patient care in emergency departments. While they are not a panacea, when thoughtfully implemented, they can alleviate some of the pressures faced by EDs and contribute to improved patient experiences.

For a more detailed exploration of this topic, refer to our full article in the Journal of Medical Internet Research: Safety and Efficacy of Digital Check-in and Triage Kiosks in Emergency Departments: Systematic Review.

Barriers to Dementia Care Services in Europe: Key Insights and Ways Forward

Dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, is a significant public health challenge in Europe, with nearly 14 million people currently affected. Despite available healthcare and social care services, utilisation of these services by people living with dementia remains suboptimal due to various barriers. Our recent systematic review published in BMC Geriatrics provides critical insights into these challenges, highlighting barriers across informational, organisational, cultural, stigma-related, financial, and logistical domains.

Informational and Educational Barriers

A lack of awareness and insufficient knowledge among caregivers and healthcare professionals stands out as a key barrier. Inadequate dissemination of dementia-related information contributes to difficulties in planning and accessing appropriate care. Enhancing educational resources and improving health literacy among caregivers and healthcare workers are essential for overcoming these challenges.

Organisational Barriers

Fragmented services and poor coordination among healthcare providers frequently hinder effective dementia care. Issues such as inconsistent care strategies, unclear roles, and insufficient resources exacerbate the difficulties faced by families and professionals alike. The Covid-19 pandemic has further intensified these problems, highlighting the urgency for integrated, person-centred care systems.

Cultural and Stigma-related Challenges

Societal stigma and cultural misunderstandings significantly impact dementia care, deterring individuals from seeking necessary help. Cultural sensitivity, improved community education, and targeted interventions can mitigate stigma-related issues, promoting better acceptance and utilization of dementia services.

Financial and Logistical Challenges

The economic burden of dementia care often strains family resources, compounded by complex administrative procedures and insufficient public funding. Additionally, logistical issues, including long waiting lists, transportation problems, and limited service availability, particularly in rural areas, create further barriers.

Policy Recommendations

To address these challenges, tailored, context-specific policies and integrated care pathways are necessary. European initiatives, such as Alzheimer Europe’s Strategic Plan and the Glasgow Declaration, underline the importance of inclusive strategies and active involvement of people with dementia in policy-making processes.

By addressing these identified barriers through coordinated actions, Europe can improve access to dementia care, enhancing the quality of life for individuals living with dementia and also for their caregivers.

The Covid-19 pandemic five years on

As we reach the fifth anniversary of the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, this moment provides an opportunity for reflection on the many challenges faced by healthcare workers like me during the early days of the pandemic. At that time, the SARS-CoV-2 virus was a largely unknown entity. Clinical guidelines were still under development and personal protective equipment (PPE) was scarce. For those on the NHS frontline, the experience was marked by a mix of anxiety, urgency, and dedication to the patients we were trained to serve.

Unfamiliar Territory 

In the initial stages, Covid-19 was a “novel” infection. There was a scarcity of data on the illness, and the disease was manifesting in ways that were not entirely well understood. As primary care physicians, we were suddenly thrust into the realm of the unknown, treating patients with undifferentiated respiratory illnesses that did not yet have well-defined and evidence-based treatment protocols.

The Personal Risk Factor 

One of the most daunting aspects of those early days was the awareness of personal risk. It became apparent that healthcare workers were at a significantly higher risk of contracting the disease through their exposure to infected individuals. One thing struck me and others very profoundly was the pattern among the first NHS staff who died due to Covid-19. Many of them were like me: male, over 50, and from ethnic minority groups. This resemblance was not just a statistical observation; it was a stark reminder of my own clinical vulnerability and that of many of my colleagues.

Ethical Duty vs. Personal Safety 

Yet, despite these risks, we had patients to treat. Faced with an ethical duty to provide care, healthcare workers had to weigh this against the risks to their own health. It was an emotionally and ethically complex position to be in. While the fear and anxiety were real, they had to be balanced against our professional obligations to our patients and the NHS. It was a test of not just our medical skills but also our commitment to the Hippocratic Oath.

The Importance of Resilience 

The job had to be done, and so we donned our PPE, took the necessary precautions, and went to work. This resilience is a testament to the dedication of healthcare workers globally who stood firm in their commitment despite the many unknowns in early 2020. The role of healthcare providers in those critical moments was instrumental in broadening our understanding of the virus, which subsequently guided future public health responses, medical treatments and vaccination.

Ongoing Challenges 

The situation has evolved and we now know much more about Covid-19. We now also have vaccines that reduce the risk of serious illness, hospitalisation and death. Yet the lessons of those early days continue to resonate. Healthcare providers still face risks, both physical and emotional, particularly as new variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus emerge. The Covid-19 story is not over, particularly for those people who suffer recurrent infections or with Long Covid but the experiences of the past provide a foundation upon which we build our ongoing responses.

The broader implications of healthcare workers’ experiences during the Covid-19 pandemic extend far beyond individual resilience and sacrifice. These experiences have exposed critical vulnerabilities in global health systems, highlighting the urgent need for better preparedness, clearer communication strategies and equitable access to protective resources. Furthermore, the pandemic underscored profound health inequalities, notably the increased risks faced by poorer people, ethnic minority groups and the elderly. Recognising these inequalities provides an impetus for policy makers and healthcare leaders to implement structural changes, fostering a more robust, responsive, and inclusive approach to future public health emergencies.

Conclusions 

As we navigate the ongoing challenges posed by Covid-19, reflecting on where we began and the progress we have made since early 2020 is essential. The evidence presented in the Covid-19 Inquiry serves as a timely reminder of healthcare workers’ immense bravery, resilience, and sacrifice globally. While anxiety was palpable, commitment to patient care remained unwavering. Looking ahead, it’s vital we learn from these experiences, investing in preparedness, communication, and systems that protect both patients and those who care for them, ensuring we’re better equipped for future health crises.

Medical Journals Should Use the Term “Public Health and Social Measures”

The COVID-19 pandemic brought many terms into the spotlight, one of which was “non-pharmaceutical interventions” (NPIs). Used widely in academic papers, public health guidelines, and media reports, NPIs became a catch-all phrase for measures like contact tracing, quarantine, and hand hygiene; essentially anything that wasn’t a drug or vaccine. However, BMJ Editor Kamran Abbasi and I argue in our editorial it is time to end the use of this term in favour of “public health and social measures.” Here’s why this shift matters.

The Problem with Defining by Negation

The term “non-pharmaceutical interventions” defines these strategies by what they aren’t rather than what they are. This framing is inherently limiting. Imagine calling surgery a “non-drug intervention”—it sounds absurd because surgery stands on its own as a complex, evidence-based practice. Similarly, public health measures like sanitation or hand hygiene aren’t just stopgaps until a drug or vaccine becomes available. They are powerful tools with scientific grounding, often critical in the early stages of a health crisis and remain valuable even after pharmaceutical options emerge. By labelling them as “non-pharmaceutical,” we risk undervaluing their role and complexity.

A Misleading Hierarchy

The NPI label also subtly suggests that these interventions are second-rate compared to drugs or vaccines. This perception can lead to serious consequences: underfunding, limited evaluation and a reluctance to fully integrate them into health strategies. Yet, history shows that measures like clean water systems or contact tracing can have major impacts of public health; sometimes more effective than any medication. The implied inferiority of NPIs feeds into a biomedical bias, prioritising technological fixes over holistic approaches that address behaviour, culture, and social determinants like poverty or housing.

Missing the Social Dimension

Another flaw in the term “non-pharmaceutical” is its failure to reflect the social and behavioural core of these measures. Hand-washing campaigns do not succeed through science alone. They depend on people’s willingness to adapt, shaped by trust, norms, and socioeconomic context. Calling them “non-pharmaceutical” strips away this human element, reducing them to technical fixes rather than collective efforts. This oversight can widen health inequities, as solutions that ignore social factors often fall short for vulnerable populations.

Clarity for the Public

Communication is critical in a health crisis, and “non-pharmaceutical interventions” may not mean much to the average person. It is jargon that obscures rather than enlightens. In contrast, “public health and social measures” is straightforward. It signals that these actions protect communities and require shared effort. When people understand what is at stake and why it matters, they are more likely to follow the advice they have been given.

A Call for Change

We propose “public health and social measures” as a term that captures the full scope of these interventions; their diversity, their evidence base and their reliance on social dynamics. It aligns with the World Health Organization’s recommendations and encourages a broader view of health, one that integrates biology with environment and society. The BMJ is aiming to lead by example, committing to this terminology across its content. We urge other journals, reviewers, and health professionals to follow this example.

Why It Matters Now

As we face ongoing and future health challenges – such as pandemics, climate-related crises or an increase in chronic diseases – this shift is not just semantic. It is about ensuring these measures get the research, funding and respect they deserve. By reframing them as “public health and social measures,” we elevate their status, improve public understanding, and foster interdisciplinary solutions that address public health challenges effectively.

Missed Appointments: An Opportunity to Address Patient Safety

Our recent article in the Journal of Patient Safety discusses the topic of missed appointments in healthcare. Missed appointments are often seen as an administrative inconvenience in healthcare; wasting appointments that could have gone to other patients. However, missed appointments are also a critical patient safety concern that can delay necessary interventions, worsen health outcomes, and erode trust between patients and clinicians. Instead of viewing them as patient noncompliance, we must shift our perspective to understand the underlying barriers that prevent people from attending their scheduled appointments.

Understanding the Root Causes of Missed Appointments

Patients miss appointments for a variety of reasons, many of which are outside their control. Socioeconomic challenges, work obligations, caregiving responsibilities, mental health issues, transportation difficulties, and previous negative experiences with the healthcare system all contribute to non-attendance. Disadvantaged populations – such as poorer individuals, ethnic minorities, the elderly and rural communities – face even greater hurdles in accessing healthcare. When these challenges are ignored, healthcare systems risk isolating the very patients who need support the most.

The Consequences of Missed Appointments

The impact of missed appointments extends beyond inconvenience. They disrupt continuity of care, leading to delayed diagnoses and potentially preventable complications. Patients with chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension, or mental health conditions, face particularly severe consequences when they miss follow-ups. Additionally, when healthcare providers interpret missed appointments as a lack of commitment, punitive measures – such as discharging patients from services – can further alienate vulnerable individuals and create barriers to essential care.

Beyond direct clinical risks, there is also the issue of trust. Patients who feel unheard, rushed, or judged during healthcare interactions may disengage from the system altogether, leading to long-term avoidance of care. This breakdown in trust is a significant patient safety issue, as it discourages individuals from seeking timely medical attention.

A Patient-Centred Approach to Reducing Missed Appointments

Addressing missed appointments requires a fundamental shift in approach. Instead of punitive policies, healthcare providers should focus on identifying and removing barriers to attendance. Some key strategies include:

  • Understanding Social Determinants of Health: Recognising that financial constraints, transportation issues, and job inflexibility impact appointment attendance. Partnering with community organisations to provide support services – such as transportation assistance or mobile health clinics – can help overcome these barriers.
  • Creating a Compassionate Healthcare Environment: Patients are more likely to attend appointments when they feel valued and respected. Clinicians should take time to listen, address concerns, and ensure that healthcare settings are welcoming and inclusive.
  • Flexible Scheduling Options: Evening and weekend appointments can accommodate patients with demanding work schedules or caregiving responsibilities.
  • Leveraging Technology: Telemedicine offers an alternative for patients who struggle to attend in-person visits. AI-driven predictive analytics can also help identify individuals at high risk of missing appointments, allowing for targeted interventions such as personalized reminders or proactive outreach.

Turning Missed Appointments into Opportunities for Improvement

Rather than viewing missed appointments solely as a problem to be fixed, healthcare systems should treat them as a diagnostic tool—an indicator of broader systemic issues. By shifting the focus to patient safety and proactive intervention, healthcare providers can transform these challenges into opportunities to improve engagement, build trust, and ensure that every patient receives the care they need when they need it. A patient-centred, safety-focused approach to missed appointments benefits everyone. It leads to better health outcomes, strengthens patient-provider relationships, and ultimately creates a more equitable and accessible healthcare system for all.

The Role of Virtual Consultations in People with Type 2 Diabetes

Living with Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) can feel like a full-time job. Regular check-ups, monitoring blood sugar levels, adjusting medications, and managing lifestyle changes all demand time and effort. For the 460 million people worldwide dealing with diabetes (a number projected to climb to 700 million by 2045), finding convenient and effective healthcare solutions is more critical than ever. Enter virtual consultations (VC); a modern approach to healthcare delivery that is transforming how people with T2D manage their condition. Our recent systematic review and meta-analysis published in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology sheds light on just how powerful this tool can be. Let’s examine the benefits of virtual consultations for people with T2D and why they’re becoming more important in the care of people with long-term conditions like T2D.

Convenience Without Compromise: Effectiveness Matches In-Person Care

One of the key findings from the review is that virtual consultations are just as effective as traditional face-to-face visits when it comes to managing T2D. The meta-analysis, which included 15 studies and over 821,000 participants, showed no significant difference in HbA1c reduction (a key marker of blood sugar control in people with T2D) between virtual and in-person care. Whether it’s monitoring blood pressure, lipid profiles, or glycaemic levels, VCs hold their own. This means you can get appropriate care from the comfort of your home without sacrificing results. For busy people juggling work, family, or mobility challenges, this is very positive news – good quality care no longer always requires a trip to the clinic.

Saving Time and Money: Efficiency at Its Best

Time is money, and virtual consultations save both. The review highlighted how VCs cut down on the need for frequent in-person visits, reducing travel time and costs. One study found that treatment costs dropped by an average of $135 per patient with VCs—a significant saving for both individuals and healthcare systems. Another showed that while face-to-face care often required visits every one to two weeks, virtual care patients needed only one or two appointments over four months. VCs make diabetes management more efficient, freeing up time for what matters most.

Care When You Need It: Timeliness That Counts

When it comes to long-term conditions like T2D, timely adjustments to treatment can make all the difference. Virtual consultations have a role here as well. The review noted that the average time to an initial visit dropped from 106 days to just 46 days after implementing VCs. Faster access to healthcare providers means quicker feedback, medication adjustments, and support, helping keep your condition in check. Patients also reported shorter wait times and more flexible scheduling, making it easier to fit care into busy lives.

A Personal Touch: Boosting Patient Satisfaction

You might think remote care feels impersonal, but the data says otherwise. The review found high levels of patient satisfaction with VCs, with 83% of participants in one study rating them as helpful and convenient. Another 76% felt that tools like FaceTime made their care more interactive and engaging. Patients especially appreciated the flexibility of VCs during the Covid-19 pandemic, and many expressed a desire to stick with virtual care long-term. It’s not just about convenience. It is also about feeling heard and supported in a way that fits your lifestyle.

Bridging Gaps: Improved Access for Some

For people in rural areas or those with mobility issues, getting to a clinic can be a hurdle. Virtual consultations break down those barriers. The review pointed out that VCs can increase access to care, particularly for rural patients or those who struggle with transportation. One study even noted higher rates of preventive measures – like statin prescriptions – with VCs, suggesting that remote care can enhance certain aspects of diabetes management. While there is still work to be done to ensure everyone benefits equally (more on that later), VCs are a step toward making healthcare more accessible.

A Few Caveats: Safety and Equity Challenges

No solution is perfect, and the review flagged some areas to watch. Safety-wise, VCs can not fully replace physical examinations – such as checking for foot ulcers or neuropathy – which could miss some issues if VCs are not paired with in-person visits. On the equity front, younger, patients tend to thrive with VCs, showing greater HbA1c improvements and higher satisfaction. Older adults or those with lower digital literacy, however, faced challenges like technical difficulties or lower comfort with the technology, leading to less impressive outcomes. The digital divide is real, but it’s not insurmountable. But policies to boost digital literacy and access are essential.

Conclusions

Virtual consultations aren’t just a stopgap. They are a viable, long-term option for managing people with Type 2 Diabetes. They match in-person care in effectiveness, save time and money, deliver timely support, and keep patients happy. While there is room to improve safety and ensure everyone can benefit, the potential is clear. As the review suggests, integrating VCs into routine care, paired with efforts to bridge the digital divide, could improve how we support people with T2D to manage their condition.

The Hidden Cost of Cheaper NHS Contracts: Losing Community Trust

NHS budgets are under considerable pressure. It is therefore unsurprising that many NHS Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) In England will aim to prioritise price in contract awards, But this approach is a significant threat to community-centred healthcare. While competitive tendering is a legally required, an excessive focus on costs in awarding NHS contracts risks overshadowing key factors such as established community trust, local expertise, and the long-term impact on continuity of care. This shift towards cheaper, often external, commercial providers threatens to cut the links between communities and their local health services. The argument that competitive tendering is solely about legal compliance, and not cost, is undermined by the very nature of such tendering, which by design encourages the lowest bid. This approach risks eroding the social fabric of local healthcare provision, where established relationships and understanding of specific community needs are essential.

Established local healthcare organisations – such as general practices and GP Federations – deeply rooted within their regions – possess an invaluable understanding of the intricate web of local health needs, existing healthcare networks, and the importance of continuity of care. This knowledge, developed over many years, allows these local healthcare providers to deliver care that is not only clinically effective but also culturally sensitive and responsive to the unique circumstances of the populations they serve. Distant, commercially driven firms, regardless of their operational efficiency, are unlikely to have this nuanced understanding. The potential exclusion of these local providers, who have built strong relationships with the populations they serve, could disrupt established care pathways, diminish the social value inherent in community-based healthcare, and ultimately lead to a fragmentation of services that undermines a holistic approach to patient care.

It is essential that ICBs adopt a more balanced and holistic approach to commissioning; one that transcends the narrow focus just on financial efficiency. This approach must recognise and value the long-term impact on community well-being, the preservation of essential local expertise, and the safeguarding of established relationships between healthcare providers and patients. A wider definition of ‘value’ needs to be adopted, one that includes social value, rather than simply financial cost. A system that truly prioritises patient outcomes and community health must consider the benefits of local knowledge and continuity of care, thereby ensuring that commissioning decisions are guided by a commitment to the long-term health and well-being of the communities they serve.

Why Indirect Costs on Research Grants are Essential for Universities

In recent days, there has been discussion about the “overheads” or “indirect” costs that universities add on to the cost of research projects. This has been driven by a decision by the US government to reduce the indirect costs of research on grants awarded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) from the current 60% to 15%. Comments from people such as Elon Musk has suggested these costs are wasteful and can therefore be easily cut from research grants. In this blog, I make the case for retaining a fair amount of indirect costs on research grants.

Without the indirect costs that universities receive on government research grants, universities would struggle to provide the essential support and infrastructure required for high-quality research to take place. While direct research costs (such as staff salaries, laboratory equipment, travel and consumables) are essential, they are only part of the funding needed. Research relies heavily on a wide array of indirect resources that ensure long-term sustainability, efficiency, and the proper functioning of universities.

Indirect costs include funding for essential services, such as maintaining research facilities and buildings, providing IT infrastructure and support, managing financial systems, and ensuring compliance through administrative and monitoring processes. Without adequate funding to cover these areas, research projects would be more difficult to complete successfully.

To address this challenge and ensure that universities receive adequate funding beyond direct project expenses, the UK government introduced the Full Economic Costs model. The Full Economic Costs model is designed to fairly and transparently allocate funding that covers the full range of costs associated with research activities.

Under this system, universities are able to recover a more realistic portion of the actual costs incurred in hosting and conducting research, helping to bridge the gap between the direct funding provided by grants and the true expenses they face. This model recognises that indirect costs, although not always visible at the project level, are vital to the successful completion and long-term sustainability of research projects.

The issue of indirect cost recovery is not unique to the UK. In the United States, for example, universities receive indirect cost reimbursements through a negotiated rate with federal agencies, but this system now also faces scrutiny over transparency and fairness. Comparisons like these highlight the importance of continually refining models such as the Full Economic Costs model to ensure they remain fair value for governments, taxpayers and universities.

The successful delivery of research projects relies on more than just securing grants for individual projects. It requires a support system that includes well-maintained buildings and other facilities, appropriate technology, efficient administrative processes, and skilled personnel; all of which are sustained by indirect funding.

Predicting COVID-19 Hospital Bed Occupancy: A Pragmatic Approach for Effective Healthcare Planning

Effective management of hospital resources was a critical component of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. With fluctuating waves of infection and emerging virus variants, accurately predicting the demand for hospital beds has proven to be a complex but essential task. Our recent study, led by Derryn Lovett and published in BMJ Health Care Informatics, evaluates a pragmatic approach to forecasting COVID-19-positive hospital bed occupancy using simple, accessible methods.

Why Predicting Bed Occupancy Matters

During the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare systems around the world faced unprecedented challenges, with surges in demand for acute care beds due to severe cases of the virus. The ability to predict future bed occupancy is vital for several reasons:

  1. Resource allocation: Effective forecasting helps healthcare leaders plan staffing, equipment needs, and additional capacity.
  2. Crisis management: Accurate predictions enable health systems to anticipate surges and manage overflow by opening additional care facilities when needed.
  3. Cost efficiency: Reducing over- or under-preparation minimizes waste of resources and ensures that patients receive timely care.

However, many prediction models require complex statistical knowledge, making them difficult to deploy at local or regional levels. This study sought to evaluate a simpler, more pragmatic model suitable for use by typical health system teams.

The Study: A Pragmatic Approach

The research focused on North West London (NWL) during two major COVID-19 waves, driven by the Delta variant in summer 2021 and the Omicron variant in winter 2021-2022. The model used observational data from community testing, vaccination records, and hospital admissions, with linear regression as the primary tool for prediction.

Key Data Sources:

  • COVID-19-positive test results from NWL’s Whole Systems Integrated Care (WSIC) dataset
  • Vaccination status by age group
  • Daily hospital bed occupancy reports

Model Design:

The team developed two models:

  1. Simple linear regression model: This model used the number of COVID-19 cases among unvaccinated individuals as the main predictor.
  2. Multivariable model: This model incorporated additional variables, such as age bands, recognizing that older populations are more likely to be hospitalized.

Both models accounted for a lag period between positive cases in the community and hospital admissions, allowing for predictions of bed occupancy several days in advance.

Results and Performance

The models were evaluated using mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), a measure of prediction accuracy.

Key Findings:

  • Accuracy before the Omicron wave: The multivariable model performed well, with a MAPE of 10.8% during the Delta-driven wave from July to October 2021.
  • Decline in accuracy during the Omicron wave: The accuracy of predictions deteriorated significantly during the Omicron wave, with MAPE rising to over 110%.
  • Age band considerations: While the multivariable model generally outperformed the simple model, it also faced challenges such as multicollinearity—an issue where variables are highly correlated, leading to unstable predictions.

The rapid spread and distinct characteristics of the Omicron variant, including its lower severity and higher transmissibility compared to Delta, likely contributed to the reduced model performance. The study highlights the importance of continually monitoring prediction errors and adapting models as needed.

Practical Applications

The study demonstrated that even relatively simple models can provide useful predictions during stable periods of a pandemic. Importantly, the predictions generated by the model were shared with healthcare leaders twice a week and used in planning discussions to manage resources effectively.

Key Lessons for Future Pandemics:

  1. Monitoring and adaptation: Prediction models require ongoing monitoring to detect shifts in accuracy and adapt to changing epidemiological conditions.
  2. Collaborative decision-making: The integration of model outputs into strategic meetings allowed for proactive responses to surges in demand.
  3. Scalability: The simplicity of this approach makes it scalable and deployable in other settings, particularly when more sophisticated models are not feasible.
The study also highlights that modelling the impact of COVID-19 was simpler in the initial phases of the pandemic. This was largely due to the uniform susceptibility of the population, as there was no prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2 or any available immunisation. However, as the pandemic progressed, modelling became more complex due to factors such as:
  • Changes in population immunity: Prior infections and vaccination led to varying levels of immunity within the population.
  • Emergence of new variants: The appearance of new SARS-CoV-2 variants with different characteristics (such as the Delta and Omicron variants) further complicated the modelling process.
  •  Changes in government interventions: Public health measures implemented by governments, such as lockdowns and mask mandates, also influenced the spread of the virus and needed to be accounted for in the models.
These factors collectively made modelling more challenging later in the pandemic. The study highlights the need for models that can adapt to these complexities and accurately predict the impact of COVID-19.

Limitations and Future Directions

While the study’s pragmatic approach offers many advantages, several limitations should be addressed in future research:

  • Accounting for prior infections: The current model did not include the protective effect of previous COVID-19 infections, which could improve accuracy.
  • Vaccine efficacy variability: Incorporating dynamic estimates of vaccine efficacy based on variant-specific data and individual factors could enhance predictions.
  • Geographic granularity: Future models could explore more localized predictions by accounting for differences in prevalence and hospital capacity across regions.

Additionally, as COVID-19 testing availability changes over time, alternative data sources, such as primary care or emergency department data, may be required to maintain reliable predictions.

Conclusion: Balancing Simplicity and Accuracy

Our study highlights the value of pragmatic, data-driven models in supporting healthcare system resilience during pandemics. While more complex models may offer greater accuracy, the simplicity and accessibility of this approach make it a valuable tool for rapid response scenarios. The findings underscore the importance of collaboration between research teams and healthcare providers to develop, implement, and refine predictive models tailored to real-world needs.

As we continue to navigate the challenges of COVID-19 and prepare for future health crises, pragmatic prediction models will remain an essential component of effective healthcare planning and delivery.

Reference: Lovett D, Woodcock T, Naude J, et al. Evaluation of a pragmatic approach to predicting COVID-19-positive hospital bed occupancy. BMJ Health Care Inform 2025;32:e101055.

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as:

  • Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible.
  • Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections.
  • Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing poverty, improving education, and promoting social justice can create a more equitable society where everyone has the opportunity to thrive.

In contrast, primary prevention focuses on individuals or groups who are already exposed to risk factors. It aims to prevent the onset of disease by managing those existing risks. This involves measures like:

  • Vaccinations: Protecting individuals from infectious diseases such as polio or measles.
  • Long-term conditions: Reduce the risk of developing long-term conditions such as heart disease through interventions such as encouraging people to take preventive drugs like statins.
  • Lifestyle changes: Encouraging healthy habits like regular exercise, a balanced diet, and avoiding smoking.
  • Health education: Providing information and resources to empower people to make informed choices about their health.

Essentially, primordial prevention works “upstream” by creating a healthier society where risk factors are less likely to develop, while primary prevention works “downstream” by managing existing risks before they lead to disease. Although primordial and primary prevention operate at different levels, they are interlinked. For example, successful primordial prevention can reduce the burden on primary prevention by creating an environment where fewer people are exposed to risk factors and where general health and well-being are improved.