Understanding Definitions and Reporting of Deaths Attributed to COVID-19 in the UK – Evidence from FOI Requests

Author:

Jefferson Tom,Dietrich Madeleine,Brassey Jon,Heneghan Carl

Abstract

AbstractDeath is a widely used outcome to assess the severity of pandemics. Accuracy in assigning the cause of death is of vital importance to define the impact of the agent, monitor its evolution, and compare its threat with those of other agents. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been widespread reporting of aggregate death data with little attention paid to the accuracy of the assignment of causation.We aimed to analyse public authorities’ understanding of the assignment of cause of deaths during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the UK by accessing Freedom of Information requests posed in three periods in 2020-21. By public authorities, we mean NHS Health Trusts, laboratories, and government agencies such as Public Health England and the Department of Health and Social Care. We searched WhatDoTheyKnow using the terms “covid and death”. We excluded those requests to bodies that cannot provide an answer (e.g. Councils) and those dealing with the effects of vaccines.We grouped questions into themes addressing the definitions and causes of death relevant to the pandemic. We looked at the responses to the questions of the definition of cause of death, the accuracy of the attribution, the role of other pre-existing pathologies and how these were reported and quantified.We found 800 requests from over 90 individuals. There was no consistency in the definition of cause of death or contributory cause of death across national bodies and in different bodies within the same nation. Nursing home providers, as well as medical practitioners, can assign a cause of death according to the Care Quality Commission. Post-mortem examinations were uncommon, the ONS did not incorporate their results in the summary of deaths by cause during the pandemic period. The meaning of the words “test” or “swab” was never clarified by any of the respondents. In care homes in England 1,304 out of 17,264 COVID-19 (7.6%, range 0% to 63%) mentioned COVID-19 in the absence of contributory or other factors in the death certificate, making it impossible to ascertain a chain of causality. The inconsistencies already noted hinder the ascertainment of the role of each factor leading to death and the quantification of the importance of infection. Some responses indicate that SARS-CoV-2 negative individuals or those whose death was not caused by COVID-19 were classified as “COVID-19 deaths”. We found 14 different ways of attributing the causes of death mentioned by respondents.The overall lack of consistency has confused the public and likely led to erroneous conclusions. We are unable to separate the effects on deaths of SARS-CoV-2 from those of human interventions. A coherent process based on consistent definitions across the devolved nations is required. Furthermore, to enhance the accuracy of causation in pandemics a subset of deaths should be verified using autopsies with full medical documentation.

Publisher

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

Reference18 articles.

1. Heneghan C , Dietrich M , Brassey J , Jefferson T. Effects of COVID-19 in Care Homes – A Mixed-Method Review. Collateral Global. https://collateralglobal.org/article/effects-of-COVID-19-in-care-homes/

2. Behind the headlines: Counting COVID-19 deaths. https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2020/08/12/behind-the-headlines-counting-COVID-19-deaths/

3. Coronavirus (COVID-19) latest insights: Deaths https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronavirusCOVID19latestinsights/deaths

4. David Oliver: Mistruths and misunderstandings about COVID-19 death numbers. BMJ 2021; 372 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n352 (Published 10 February 2021)

5. A Review of the Accuracy of Death Certification on the Intensive Care Unit and the Proposed Reforms to the Coroner's System

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3