Comparative analysis of variation in the quality and completeness of local outbreak control plans for SARS-CoV-2 in English local authorities

  1. Xinming Yu
  2. Mengye Li
  3. Laurie Lawson-Portuphy
  4. Avirup Chowdhury
  5. Padmanabhan Badrinath

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

Local outbreak control plans (LOCPs) are statutory documents produced by local authorities (LAs) across England. LOCPs outline LAs’ response to Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID19) outbreaks and the coordination of local resources, data and communication to support outbreak response. LOCPs are therefore crucial in the nation’s response to COVID-19. However, there has been no previous systematic assessment of these documents. We performed this study to systematically assess the quality of LOCPs and to offer recommendations of good practice.

Methods

All published LOCPs were assessed for basic characteristics. A framework based on Department of Health and Social Care guidelines was used to assess a random sample of LOCPs. Qualitative analysis was undertaken for LOCPs with highest completeness.

Results

Hundred and thirty-seven of 150 LAs publicly published a full LOCP; 9 were drafts. Statistical analysis demonstrated the significant difference between reporting of mainstream schools, care homes and the homeless population and other educational settings, high-risk settings and other vulnerable groups. LOCPs varied in approach when structuring outbreak response information and focused on different areas of outbreak management.

Conclusions

The majority of LAs are publicly accessible. There is significant variation between the reporting of high-risk settings and groups. Suggested recommendations may help to improve future LOCP updates.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1093/pubmed/fdab368
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.30.20240739: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Statistical analysis was performed on GraphPad Prism (GraphPad Prism version 9.0.0 for Mac, GraphPad Software, San Diego, California, USA) (18).
    GraphPad Prism
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)
    GraphPad
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)
    Where multiple LOCPs had the same number of fulfilled criteria, an LOCP was selected using random number generation in RStudio.
    RStudio
    suggested: (RStudio, RRID:SCR_000432)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    It would be of help to the DPHs and the central government to understand factors which constitute a good LOCP so that any limitations can be addressed when the plans are next updated. Our study reviews and compares COVID-19 LOCPs in LAs across England and provides recommendations for good practices when producing COVID-19 LOCPs. Based on our finds, we make the following recommendations for LAs and others: Limitations: LAs without publicly available LOCPs may still have LOCPs available within the authority. Likewise, not mentioning criteria within the LOCP does not exclude that the LA from having processes in place. However, given the public scrutiny facing LAs in the COVID-19 era, it may be prudent to make these processes more transparent. This is especially so with more implicit processes and is something that we have found when assessing LOCPs using the Association of Directors of Public Health guidance, which involved mostly implicit processes (24). For example, the guidance recommends that the LAs should have robust commissioning processes when delivering outbreak response functions. We found that LAs were unlikely to explicitly include information like this in LOCPs. Therefore, we were not able to account for the extent to which implicit processes have been accounted for. The small sample size of each group in each LA type, six and twelve, limited the statistical analyses which could be undertaken. Our method of assessing which plan fulfilled the most criteria during ass...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.11.30.20240739v1 on medRxiv