Environmental health

Current calls for primary care‐based screening and brief interventions for alcohol use should be reviewed Alcohol continues to contribute to significant morbidity and mortality in the Australian community. It is responsible for 4.5% of total disease burden,1 and 4186 deaths in 20172 and over 144 000 hospitalisations per year.3 While levels of alcohol consumption are slowly declining, alcohol continues to be a major preventable contributor to disease and death among Australians. Currently, over 25% of Australians report consuming alcohol at moderate or high risk levels.4 Over the past 20 years, there has been considerable research into the value of alcohol screening, brief intervention and referral for treatment (SBIRT) in primary health care as a public health measure to reduce alcohol consumption and related harms. The Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT)5 was developed to assist with widespread standardised implementation of screening, and brief intervention for alcohol use disorder and has been extensively researched. More recently, the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST)6 was developed to address a broad range of substances. There is good evidence based on numerous randomised controlled trials that brief interventions for alcohol use result in reductions in drinking which are at least sustained for 12 months.7 However, the actual size of the reduction in drinking has been revised down from 2007 when it was estimated that SBIRT would result in a reduction of alcohol intake by 57 g (nearly six standard drinks) per week,8 to 20 g (two standard drinks) per week.7 This reduction in effect size will inevitably affect estimates in cost‐effectiveness models. While overall average consumption has reduced, at least based on self‐report, SBIRT has been found to have little effect on frequency of binge drinking, numbers of drinking days per week, and intensity of drinking.7 It is therefore likely to have little effect on adverse events from intoxication, the major cause of harm for younger people. Despite strong evidence that SBIRT will result in self‐reported reduced drinking (albeit less reduction than previously thought), there have been problems with real‐world translation into practice, both on a large scale multi‐practice level9,10 and a national basis as demonstrated in Scotland.11 In terms of demonstrated effects on alcohol consumption at a population level, the most extensive program implemented so far has been Scotland’s Alcohol Strategy.11 This program aimed to deliver SBIRT across the entire primary care, emergency department and antenatal populations and was part of a suite of measures to address alcohol‐related harms in Scotland. Other measures included prohibition of multi‐buy discounting (eg, “buy five, get one free”), minimum unit pricing (unsuccessfully challenged by the Scottish Whisky Association in the Scottish Supreme Court and now being implemented), tightening of liquor licencing processes, and a tripling of investment in treatment and support services. Subsequent measures of alcohol consumption across Scotland, Wales and England have not demonstrated any significant differences in the trajectories of alcohol consumption between these countries. Consumption has decreased in all three countries.11 Although 43% of hazardous and harmful drinkers were screened in Scotland and received brief interventions, data on exactly who was screened were difficult to collect, and screening among women attending antenatal care was only partially implemented.11 Young people were difficult to access, probably due to lower health service attendance rates. Furthermore, a 2018 Cochrane review7 found that research into the effects of SBIRT on alcohol‐related harms, the end point of most importance, has been very limited, and was unable to reach a conclusion regarding the effect of SBIRT on alcohol‐related harms. The studies that have looked at this important issue found that there was no effect.7 In addition, recent research has cast doubt on the effectiveness of referral to treatment among the higher risk (mostly dependent) drinkers. Frost and colleagues12 reviewed the effects of brief interventions on rates of referral. They found that patients at high risk who had received a brief intervention actually had less contact with specialist addiction services in the year following the brief intervention compared with those who had not received the brief intervention. Despite these concerns regarding effectiveness in real‐world settings, SBIRT has been recommended over the past decade in Australia by the 2009 National Preventative Health Strategy,13 and by the National Alcohol Strategy in 2019.14 Significant investment in structurally supporting SBIRT in primary care or other settings has not been forthcoming from Commonwealth or state governments. Currently in Australia, we have a situation where the Australian National Alcohol Strategy advocates for the adoption of SBIRT. This is despite a lack of evidence that it is effective in reducing harms even in research settings, as well as a lack of evidence for its effect on reducing population levels of drinking, and evidence that it does not result in increased engagement in specialist treatment even in well resourced health systems which have identified this as a target area. However, despite the current evidence that population‐based screening does not seem to have an effect on overall alcohol consumption, there is no denying the clinical value of addressing unhealthy alcohol consumption when identified in primary care. The AUDIT and the ASSIST both explore relevant key areas such as frequency of use, harms and dependence, which are important for the clinician and the patient to understand and address. They enable the clinician and patient to determine the risks associated with the patient’s current drinking patterns, and to start a conversation which then enables an agreed response. They should still be promoted as tools to use when a patient has been identified as drinking excessively through normal clinical processes. Despite current levels of alcohol‐related morbidity, the general practice environment does not support general practitioners responding to the problem. Longer consultations are insufficiently remunerated, skills development has been suboptimal, and secondary and tertiary services are not readily available when and where required. SBIRT alone will not address the current levels of alcohol use in Australia and associated harms. There should be increased emphasis on development of the skills base of the medical workforce at student, general practice and other specialty training levels so that clinicians can respond to hazardous and harmful alcohol and substance use effectively. Tools such as the AUDIT and the ASSIST may well have a role here. Use of current GP Medicare items such as mental health care plans, chronic disease management plans and team care arrangements should be encouraged and facilitated to better support complex care for patients with problems relating to alcohol and substance use. In addition, addiction services should work with general practice to streamline access to advice and referrals and improve communication channels. At the same time, policy changes to reduce alcohol‐related harms should continue to be pursued. Medical bodies including the Australian Medical Association and the Australian colleges representing physicians, GPs, surgeons, psychiatrists and emergency physicians have advocated strongly for such changes regarding alcohol, but despite this advocacy, most of the Australian community has not felt the need for major change. In general, policy change will only occur in response to community concern. The 2019 National Drug Strategy Household Survey indicated that the Australian community continues to identify methamphetamine as the drug of most concern, above alcohol. In addition, support continues to decline for reducing trading hours for pubs and clubs and increasing the minimum drinking age, as well as for all other evidence‐based measures aimed at reducing the harms nominated in the survey.4 It appears that the Australian community currently least supports the harm reduction strategies with the strongest evidence, but on the other hand supports the strategies with the least evidence. If there were more community support, other policy changes could include reviews of pricing of alcohol and packaged liquor outlet density, further regulation of advertising of alcohol, and further changes to drink driving laws. These might include requiring a zero blood alcohol level for broader groups of drivers such as all younger drivers (ie, under 25 years of age) and drivers with previous drink driving convictions. There should be a renewed emphasis on alcohol as a significant driver of morbidity and mortality at three levels: on the clinical level, renewed emphasis on education and training for medical practitioners to enable clinicians to better respond to people drinking harmfully; on the health care structural level, changing remuneration arrangements to better support primary care treatment for people with alcohol‐related problems should be advocated for; and in parallel with these changes, increased advocacy for changes to policies that reduce drinking and related harms on a population level, with particular emphasis on high risk populations. Health professionals are generally not trained as advocates. Bringing about change, even when supported by sound evidence, is difficult and takes time. Vested interests have sophisticated advocacy skills and are well resourced. Opportunities for the development of advocacy skills at medical student and postgraduate levels should be developed and promoted. Australia remains a world leader in tobacco control. The health professions should join forces, building on the lessons from tobacco control, to change the way the Australian community views alcohol, and then lead changes in clinical practice and policy which will reduce alcohol‐related harms.

Chris B Holmwood

To the Editor: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has raised multiple health challenges for Australian society. In addition to the direct impacts of infection, there will be broader health impacts caused by physical and social distancing and the collapse in economic activity leading to the loss of employment and income. Interventions by the federal government, including JobKeeper, increased JobSeeker payments, the introduction of telehealth, and increased mental health spending, have made an important initial contribution to addressing the health impacts for individuals, families, and communities.1,2 A by‐product of these interventions, however, has been a rapid increase in government debt.3 We are now seeing increased calls to enact austerity policies. Such policies prioritise rapid reductions in government debt usually through cuts to health and social services. These calls should cause concern. Economic crises can damage mental health, increase the misuse of alcohol and other drugs, and increase suicidal behaviour.4 Austerity policies are likely to worsen these effects.4 Such concerns are illustrated by the effects of austerity policies in Europe and the United Kingdom made in response to the global financial crisis, which had serious health‐related consequences.5 For example, a study on the impact of austerity measures on health reported that austerity policies were implicated in worsening mental health, increased suicide rates, heightened mortality in older age groups, and greater unmet health care needs.6 Indeed, despite relatively progressive government interventions during the global financial crisis in Australia, we still had a rise in suicide rates among employed and unemployed Australians.7 If enacted in Australia, austerity policies have the potential to lead to health‐damaging effects. It is important not to compound the health impacts of the pandemic with austerity programs focused on short term reductions in government debt. Health and social services are critical buffers against economic shocks,8 and austerity is likely to undermine these buffers. Policies that prioritise economic and social supports as well as increasing access to care are likely to reduce the health impacts of economic crises.4 In particular, European countries that invested most in social protections during the global financial crisis suffered the least harms to their populations’ wellbeing.5,6 It is also crucial to recognise that austerity policies are a choice. There are alternatives for managing high levels of government debt to cutting public spending on services,6 and austerity policies are not widely endorsed by economists.9 Government spending on health, education, and social supports has the potential to increase economic growth.10 Taking a longer term view and avoiding austerity measures will better serve the health of Australia’s population, and indeed the health of the nation.

Shane A Kavanagh · Anthony D LaMontagne · Sharon Brennan‐Olsen

Recommendations to guide residential aged care facilities in preparing for and managing infectious disease outbreaks

Georgia E Aitken · Alice L Holmes · Joseph E Ibrahim

The MJA aims to be an outstanding general medical journal, broadly relevant to all specialties in medicine and health, with a national and global focus, a journal that influences policy and practice

Nicholas J Talley

Inappropriate behaviour harms health workers and patients, and evidence-based solutions are needed

Anthony Scott · Danny Hills

To the Editor: The New South Wales Department of Health has taken necessarily stringent steps to reduce the risk of workplace outbreaks during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic. Currently, two nasopharyngeal samples, analysed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), negative for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) are required before asymptomatic individuals can return to high risk workplaces (eg, hospitals, schools and prisons) or close proximity living arrangements (eg, residential aged care facilities, military barracks, and group homes).1,2,3 In Newcastle, existent hospital in the home services have been redeployed as part of a tiered pandemic response under the banner “COVID Care at Home”. COVID Care at Home offers daily telehealth monitoring and efficient clearance certification for patients in isolation or excluded from workplaces. In our experience with 45 patients with COVID‐19 admitted to COVID Care at Home, increased PCR surveillance also uncovered cases of prolonged RNA detection. One passenger from the vessel Ruby Princess tested positive for COVID‐19 52 days after the initial swab and more than 60 days after the first day of symptoms. A review of international data showed that PCR positivity usually persists for 20–30 days regardless of symptomology.4 Cases of SARS‐CoV‐2 RNA detection persisting for 60 or even 80 days have been recorded in the literature.5,6 In the case of our patient, the ongoing exclusion from the workplace created significant psychological and financial burden due to lack of leave entitlement. Similar policies in countries with less worker security are likely to have even greater workforce impact. To tackle the issue of prolonged positivity, we have convened a panel of clinicians in the disciplines of infectious diseases, population health, and microbiology to make informed decisions about patients with prolonged viral RNA detection in regard to their ongoing need for isolation and exclusion from high risk environments. PCR positivity is not synonymous with infectivity.7,8 Regardless, to maintain the good results Australia has enjoyed thus far, we will need to persevere with a high level of vigilance. Making informed and safe decisions about clearance for high risk environments and supporting patients with prolonged exclusions from their workplace will be an ongoing challenge for Australian clinicians during the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Eliza Jane T Milliken · Sarah Browning · Danielle A Rohl

At the end of 2019 and into 2020, catastrophic fires in Australia consumed homes, lives, wildlife and land. Just as the fires subsided, Australia, like the rest of the world, faced another emergency — the COVID‐19 pandemic.1 It is instructive to reflect on lessons from the health disasters of the past year. Following publication of The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change,2 the Medical Journal of Australia (MJA)–Lancet Australian Countdown on health and climate change was published in December 2020.3 This annual report on health and climate change in Australia is in its third year and comprises the efforts of five Australian institutions, in collaboration with University College London, facilitated by a partnership between The Lancet and the MJA.3 All three reports make sobering reading.3,4,5 2019 was Australia’s hottest and driest year on record, with average temperatures 1.52°C above normal and mean rainfall 40% below the 30‐year average before 1991.3 Australia’s 2019–20 bushfires burned 10 million hectares, directly killed 33 people and destroyed more than 3000 homes.6 Smoke engulfed major capital cities, including Sydney and Melbourne, and smoke exposure caused an estimated 417 excess deaths and over 3000 hospital admissions.3,7,8 The catastrophe laid bare how extreme heat is a severe health risk.9 The ecological damage of the bushfires was enormous;6 almost 3 billion animals were killed or displaced, and natural systems of biodiversity and species were harmed, perhaps irreparably.6 Severe storms and floods followed the fires, bringing further damage. Insured losses from disaster events totalled AU$3.7 billion in 2019, with bushfires accounting for $2.2 billion, although the total costs of the so‐called Black Summer fires could be much higher.3 The devastation of the bushfires led the Australian Government to establish the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements. The final report of the Royal Commission in October 2020 identified climate change as a major driver and acknowledged the risk of increasing extreme weather events.6 However, the Royal Commission’s scope was limited to disaster management (mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery) and did not discuss root causes of climate change such as the fossil fuel industry’s grip on Australia’s energy infrastructure, economy, political will and public discourse. Australia has no decisive national plan to address climate change and its health consequences.3 The Australian Government is a signatory to the Paris Agreement, but has declined to affirm net zero carbon emissions by 2050 — or by any date — unlike the UK and the EU; China has also committed to this goal by 2060. Unlike this inadequate approach to the climate crisis, Australia’s response to COVID‐19 was rapid and effective, despite facing the pandemic while the last bushfires still burned.10,11 Strong community engagement with public health measures enabled effective management of the first and second waves, making Australia’s, together with those of New Zealand and parts of Asia, among the more successful responses to COVID‐19.12 Key to this success was the valuing by governments of science and data to guide decision making. The pandemic forced politicians from across the Australian political divide to prioritise the evidence and expertise of the medical, scientific and public health communities over the voices of conservative commentators, business leaders and politicians. Tough political decisions were made for the sake of the nation’s health. This bipartisan, science‐based approach is a model for the future management of climate change, if implemented alongside an appropriate national plan. Australia’s First Nations people, who are at increased risk of poorer health outcomes than the general population in a pandemic, have provided exceptional leadership in their response to COVID‐19, resulting in low rates of virus transmission thus far.13,14 The country’s Indigenous populations are also disproportionately vulnerable to future climate change natural disasters.6 Since the traditional owners of Australia’s land are effective, resilient caretakers of the country and experts in land and fire management, the Royal Commission recommended federal, state and territory governments learn from and engage with their expertise.6 As another initiative capitalising on local expertise, The Lancet Countdown’s regional report in partnership with the MJA has led to improved performance indicators for climate change. For example, the Australian Countdown reports3,4,5 developed the wildfire (bushfire) indicator, which the Countdown is now adopting globally. These data have encouraged more direct engagement with Australian policy makers and health professionals, and provided direct funding guidance to Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), which is expected to translate into funding changes in 2021.15 Australia’s leading medical and nursing bodies have recognised climate change as a health emergency.8 Governments of states and territories have committed to zero net carbon emissions by 2050, with climate change adaptation plans incorporating the health sector and investment in renewable energy.3,16 With the unprecedented disasters of 2020, public sentiment in Australia has shifted, as more people realise climate change is here now, with impacts for all. In November, the Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) Bill 2020 was introduced into the Australian federal Parliament by the independent Member of Parliament Zali Steggall, with wide public support, including from the Australian Medical Association and more than 100 major businesses.17 The outcome of the 2020 US election and the environmental platform of the incoming administration of Joe Biden coincides with a more positive stance in Australian politics towards addressing climate change.18 In the MJA–Lancet Countdowns,3,4,5 Australia embraced the importance of local data, local experts and local stories. A regional China Countdown report is also being published in parallel this year,19 and in 2021, there will potentially be Countdown collaborations for the EU, South America, the US, and Small Island Developing States. Looking forwards, Australia should as a priority establish a National Health and Climate Change Centre within the Australian Government Department of Health to develop a National Plan for Health and Climate Change with real‐time monitoring. As well as preparing to manage climate‐related health sequelae, Australia’s health sector should commit itself nationally to zero net carbon emissions by 2040 in line with the National Health Service in the UK, preferably with the states and territories responsible for implementing evidence‐based interventions.20 Reducing unnecessary medical tests and procedures will serve to reduce carbon emissions, health care costs and harmful outcomes.21 Research funded by the NHMRC and the Medical Research Futures Fund should guide better ways to efficiently reduce the carbon footprint of Australia’s health care services. Australia has an obligation under the Paris Agreement to submit enhanced nationally determined contributions by the end of 2020. We recommend that the Australian Government agree to a target of a 50% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030, which is what is likely required to limit global warming below 1.5°C.3,4,5 The Australian Government needs to recognise that fossil fuels are no longer a sound investment and join with other jurisdictions that are committed to shifting completely to renewable energies to make that sector the most cost‐effective for jobs and energy security. In Australia the crises of 2020 were unprecedented, shocking and predictable. We remain hopeful all Australian governments will aspire to the leadership shown nationally with the COVID‐19 pandemic and effectively deal with climate change now, understanding the major health risks of neglecting this issue. We anticipate health and corporate leaders, as well as leaders across other sectors, will continue to drive change. Interrogating successes and failures nationally in the MJA–Lancet annual Australian Countdown provides a robust model for monitoring and positive change. The flow on benefits to health and wellbeing, the economy and society from such change will be enormous. This article is co-published in The Lancet.22

Nicholas J Talley · Fiona J Stanley · Tamara Lucas · Richard C Horton

Stage 3 lockdown measures in Victoria reduced COVID-19 transmission, but more was required to control the epidemic

Allan Saul · Nick Scott · Brendan S Crabb · Suman S Majumdar · Benjamin Coghlan · Margaret E Hellard

The dangers of modern football are often scrutinised, but has safety actually evolved over time?

Jacob L Jewson · Peter Brukner · Thomas J Gara · Lauren V Fortington

Our findings may help remove the stigma attached to pyjama wearing

David G Chapman · Cindy Thamrin

Teaspoon migration appears to be a more substantial problem than fork disappearance

Mark Mattiussi · Amelia Livermore · Annabel Levido · Therese Starr · Melissa Lassig‐Smith · Janine Stuart · Cheryl Fourie · Joel Dulhunty

In Australia, colorectal cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer and one of the most common causes of cancer‐related death.1 Evidence that bowel cancer screening reduces mortality through early detection and treatment2 led to the introduction in 2006 of the Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP), offering faecal occult blood testing. The NBCSP has been progressively rolled out, from covering those aged 55 or 65 years in 2006 to screening every two years for all Australians aged 50–74 years by 2020.3 During 2016–17, 41% of people invited to participate in screening did so.4 A recent review of the NBCSP found that the risk of death from colorectal cancer was lower for invitees, and that those who had cancer were diagnosed at an earlier stage of disease.5 In Australia, jurisdictional cancer registries do not collect data on surgery‐related morbidity. However, the Binational Colorectal Cancer Audit (BCCA) (https://www.bowelcanceraudit.com) has collected information since 2007 on the diagnosis, management, and outcomes of surgically managed Australian and New Zealand patients with colorectal cancer, as well as whether patients were identified by the NBCSP. BCCA data are voluntarily collected by 435 registered surgeons at 138 participating hospitals across Australia and New Zealand, covering about 24% of newly diagnosed cases of colorectal cancer in 2019.6 We sought to determine whether patients with surgically managed colorectal cancer diagnosed through the NBCSP have better post‐operative outcomes than those diagnosed in other pathways. We undertook a cross‐sectional analysis of de‐identified BCCA data for patients aged 18 years or over who underwent surgery in Australia for colorectal cancer during January 2007 – December 2018. Outcome measures were inpatient and 30‐day mortality; surgical complications; medical complications; return to theatre; and hospital length of stay. We undertook binary logistic regression to assess associations between screening and binary outcomes. The association with length of stay was assessed in ordinary least squares linear regression models. The Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (project, 19327) and the BCCA Operations Committee provided ethics approval for our study. Of 23 310 cases of colorectal cancer in the database, we could include 15 630 cases with data on cancer type and screening status in our comparison of demographic and clinical characteristics. A larger proportion of patients identified by the NBSCP than of otherwise identified patients were men (58% v 54%); their mean age (64 years, standard deviation [SD], 7 years v 69 years; SD, 14 years) was lower, and larger proportions had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores in the low risk range (77% v 59%), were from lower socio‐economic status areas, had presented for elective surgery (96% v 85%), had less advanced cancer stage disease (stages 0–II: 69% v 63%), and underwent minimally invasive surgery (80% v 66%) (Box 1). Data on adjusting variables and outcomes were available for the 11 366 cases included in our logistic regression models. NBSCP‐detected patients were less likely to have post‐operative surgical (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69–0.99) or medical complications (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59–0.94); their length of stay was also briefer (adjusted mean difference, –1.56 days; 95% CI, –2.06 to –1.06 days). Post‐operative mortality and return to theatre rates were similar for screened and other patients (Box 2). Our analysis of BCCA data indicates that, in addition to the lower long term mortality associated with the NBCSP,5 short term post‐operative benefits are also evident that should be taken into account when promoting the program. Our study reinforces calls to improve participation rates in the national screening program by eligible participants to optimise the value of this critically important initiative. Box 1 – Demographic and clinical features of 15 730 patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer in Australia, 2007–2018, by diagnostic pathway Identification of patients Characteristic Total NBSCP Other P Number of patients 15 730 1357 14 373 Age at surgery (years) Mean (SD) 69 (13) 64 (7) 69 (14) < 0.001 Range 18–100 50–75 18–100 50 or under* 1556 (10%) 77 (6%) 1479 (10%) 51–60 2433 (15%) 385 (28%) 2048 (14%) 61–70 4192 (27%) 651 (48%) 3541 (25%) 71–80 4473 (28%) 244 (18%) 4229 (29%) over 80 3073 (20%) 0 3073 (21%) Missing data 3 0 3 Sex 0.003 Women 7142 (45%) 563 (42%) 6579 (46%) Men 8586 (55%) 792 (58%) 7794 (54%) Missing data 2 2 0 American Society of Anesthesiologists score < 0.001 1–2 (low risk) 9205 (60%) 1000 (77%) 8205 (59%) 3–5 (high risk) 6033 (40%) 294 (23%) 5739 (41%) Missing data 492 63 429 Socio‐economic status (IRSD quintile) < 0.001 1 (most disadvantaged) 2470 (16%) 224 (17%) 2246 (16%) 2 2385 (16%) 221 (17%) 2164 (16%) 3 2957 (20%) 278 (22%) 2679 (19%) 4 3107 (21%) 288 (22%) 2819 (20%) 5 (least disadvantaged) 4153 (28%) 282 (22%) 3871 (28%) Missing data 658 64 594 Cancer type 0.50 Colon 11 287 (72%) 963 (71%) 10 324 (72%) Rectal 4443 (28%) 394 (29%) 4049 (28%) Operative urgency < 0.001 Elective 13 457 (86%) 1310 (96%) 12 147 (85%) Emergency 999 (6%) 11 (1%) 988 (7%) Urgent 1248 (8%) 36 (2%) 1212 (8%) Missing data 26 0 26 Cancer stage < 0.001 0 (cancer in situ) 699 (5%) 92 (7%) 607 (4%) I (local disease) 3728 (24%) 535 (41%) 3193 (23%) II (local disease) 4689 (31%) 278 (21%) 4411 (32%) III (nodal spread) 4437 (29%) 347 (26%) 4090 (29%) IV (metastatic disease) 1625 (11%) 42 (3%) 1583 (11%) X (not identifiable) 121 (1%) 16 (1%) 105 (1%) Missing data 431 47 384 Operative approach < 0.001 Minimally invasive surgery† 10 498 (67%) 1082 (80%) 9416 (66%) Open 5140 (33%) 269 (20%) 4871 (34%) Missing data 92 6 86 IRSD = Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage (Australian Bureau of Statistics); NBSCP = National Bowel Cancer Screening Program; SD = standard deviation. * National screening program participants are aged 50 years or more. † Laparoscopic, hybrid, conversion of laparoscopic, robotic and transanal total mesorectal excision. table#t1 tbody td:nth-child(n+2) P. Pleft { text-align: center; } table#t2 tbody td:nth-child(n+2) P. Pleft { text-align: center; } Box 2 – Logistic and linear regression analysis of the association between screening and outcomes for 11 366 patients with colorectal cancer, Australia, 2007–2018 Identification of patients NBSCP v other Outcome NBSCP Other Univariate regression: OR (95% CI) Multivariate regression: aOR* (95% CI) Number of patients 843 10 523 30‐day mortality† 2 175 0.14 (0.02–0.44) 0.31 (0.05–1.01) Surgical complications‡ 171 2494 0.82 (0.69–0.97) 0.83 (0.69–0.99) Medical complications§ 89 1889 0.54 (0.43–0.67) 0.75 (0.59–0.94) Returned to theatre 52 658 0.99 (0.73–1.31) 1.02 (0.75–1.37) Mean difference (95% CI) Adjusted mean difference* (95% CI) Length of stay (days), mean (SD) 7.27 (6.17) 9.62 (8.02) –2.34 (–2.90 to –1.79) –1.56 (–2.06 to –1.06) aOR = adjusted odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; NBSCP = National Bowel Cancer Screening Program; OR = odds ratio; SD = standard deviation. * Adjusted for age, sex, socio‐economic status, screen category, cancer type, American Society of Anesthesiologists score. † Within 30 days of surgery. ‡ Abdominal/pelvic collection, anastomotic leak, entero‐cutaneous fistula, wound dehiscence, wound infection, sepsis, ileus, small bowel obstruction, urinary retention, ureteric injury, splenectomy, post‐operative haemorrhage. § Including chest infection, cardiac complications, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolus.

Sasha Taylor · Farhad Salimi · Arul Earnest · Alexander G Heriot · John R Zalcberg · Susannah Ahern

The MJA–Lancet Countdown on health and climate change was established in 2017, and produced its first Australian national assessment in 2018 and its first annual update in 2019. It examines indicators across five broad domains: climate change impacts, exposures and vulnerability; adaptation, planning and resilience for health; mitigation actions and health co‐benefits; economics and finance; and public and political engagement. In the wake of the unprecedented and catastrophic 2019–20 Australian bushfire season, in this special report we present the 2020 update, with a focus on the relationship between health, climate change and bushfires, highlighting indicators that explore these linkages. In an environment of continuing increases in summer maximum temperatures and heatwave intensity, substantial increases in both fire risk and population exposure to bushfires are having an impact on Australia’s health and economy. As a result of the “Black Summer” bushfires, the monthly airborne particulate matter less than 2.5 μm in diameter (PM2.5) concentrations in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory in December 2019 were the highest of any month in any state or territory over the period 2000–2019 at 26.0 μg/m3 and 71.6 μg/m3 respectively, and insured economic losses were $2.2 billion. We also found growing awareness of and engagement with the links between health and climate change, with a 50% increase in scientific publications and a doubling of newspaper articles on the topic in Australia in 2019 compared with 2018. However, despite clear and present need, Australia still lacks a nationwide adaptation plan for health. As Australia recovers from the compounded effects of the bushfires and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, the health profession has a pivotal role to play. It is uniquely suited to integrate the response to these short term threats with the longer term public health implications of climate change, and to argue for the economic recovery from COVID‐19 to align with and strengthen Australia’s commitments under the Paris Agreement.

Ying Zhang · Paul J Beggs · Alice McGushin · Hilary Bambrick · Stefan Trueck · Ivan C Hanigan · Geoffrey G Morgan · Helen L Berry · Martina K Linnenluecke · Fay H Johnston · Anthony G Capon · Nick Watts

Lifting lockdown when numbers are low but not zero means that superspreaders may remain, leading to a further wave of the epidemic

David Kault

Hospitals in the Northern Territory often operate beyond capacity and serve a sparsely distributed population with rates of chronic disease and household overcrowding that are higher than in many other parts of Australia. The NT consequently adopted particularly strict public health measures to avert the potentially catastrophic consequences of community transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), including supervised isolation until viral clearance of all people with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infections (Supporting Information 1). This measure provided a unique opportunity to study the duration and trajectory of viral shedding in relation to clinical illness. In this article, we describe epidemiologic, clinical, and virological aspects of the first 28 cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) in the NT. The Top End and Central Australian Human Research Ethics Committees approved the study (reference, 2020‐3737). Between 4 March and 4 April 2020, 28 cases of COVID‐19 were diagnosed in the NT, all linked to overseas or interstate travel. The median age of patients was 45.0 years (range, 1.5–75 years); 16 were women (Supporting Information 1, table). Two patients required supplemental oxygen, one of whom also required intubation. There were no deaths. Symptoms had been present for a median 3 days (range, 0–16 days) before oro‐nasopharyngeal swab collection and lasted a median 9.5 days (range, 4–18 days). Viral RNA could be detected by multiplex tandem real‐time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay (AusDiagnostics; Supporting Information 1) for a median 25 days after symptom onset (range, 14–41 days; interquartile range [IQR], 21–32 days), and in most patients for more than two weeks after symptom resolution (median, 17.5 days; range, 2–31 days; IQR, 14.5–22.5 days) (Box 1). Within‐patient variability in viral target cycle threshold values during follow‐up was considerable (Box 2; Supporting Information 1, figure), despite adequate and consistent amounts of human biologic material in test samples (data not shown). Prolonged compulsory isolation was distressing for several patients. The phylogeny of the 27 available NT viral genomes was consistent with acquisition in locations on all inhabited continents (Box 3). Five genetic clusters were evident (maximum of one single nucleotide polymorphism within each cluster) that were also epidemiologically linked by shared travel or household contact. The SARS‐CoV‐2 genomes from two independent travellers without epidemiologic connections were identical, but matched other publicly available genomes, highlighting the importance of interpreting genomic analyses in their epidemiologic context. The priority of the strict NT isolation requirements for patients with COVID‐19 was viral containment at a time when data on the duration of viral transmissibility were sparse. More recent evidence suggests that viable SARS‐CoV‐2 is rarely isolated more than 10 days after symptom onset,1,2,3 and requirements have consequently been eased, while maintaining supervised isolation with health management during the period of greatest infectivity. The high degree of temporal variability in viral shedding during follow‐up indicates that a single assay is not adequate for excluding infection in patients at epidemiologic risk of COVID‐19. The NT implemented particularly aggressive public health measures to contain SARS‐CoV‐2 transmission. Epidemiologic and genomic analyses suggest that this response has successfully prevented local community transmission of the virus. Box 1 – Time course of 28 cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) diagnosed in the Northern Territory, 4 March – 4 April 2020 Each line represents a single patient. Day zero is the day of collection of the first SARS‐CoV‐2‐positive specimen; thickened sections indicate the period of COVID‐19 symptoms. Closed circles indicate positive SARS‐CoV‐2 assay results, hollow circles negative assay results. Patients 13 and 15 (lighter marking) required supplemental oxygen. The bottom line summarises the median duration of symptoms prior to diagnosis, the median duration of symptoms, and the median time to viral clearance. Box 2 – Multiplex tandem polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold values for detection of the SARS‐CoV‐2 open reading frame 1a gene (ORF1a) Box 3 – Maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree, depicting SARS‐CoV‐2 genomes from the Northern Territory and elsewhere SARS‐CoV‐2 = severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The phylogenetic tree shows that SARS‐CoV‐2 genomes in the Northern Territory (on the inner side of the outer ring) were drawn from across the range of genomes reported elsewhere (outer ring). NT travel‐related cases with epidemiologic links formed genomic clusters. Two cases without epidemiologic links also comprised a cluster, but the genomes were identical with overseas genomes. The context genomes were obtained from GISAID (https://www.gisaid.org), with region based on location of the submitting laboratory; the Wuhan‐Hu‐1 genome was used as an outgroup, and the scale bar indicates substitutions per site.

for the Northern Territory COVID‐19 Response Group

Social restrictions reduced the spread of COVID-19 within 14 days of measurable changes in public mobility

Tu Hao Tran · Suraj N Sasikumar · Annemarie Hennessy · Aiden O'Loughlin · Lucy Morgan

To the Editor: The MJA and Madden and colleagues1 display foresight and leadership in advocating for a transition to environmentally sustainable health care. The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic exposes dual sustainability challenges: uncertain provision of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the face of a fractured global supply chain and burgeoning waste from single‐use materials. Australia has an opportunity to respond to both challenges by accessing local capability and switching to reusable PPE as appropriate. An apt place to begin is PPE gowns. Personal experience at an Australian hospital in March 2020 saw intensive care of one patient with COVID‐19 requiring more than 50 single‐use gowns during a 24‐hour period. This quantum highlights the need to reconsider the source and composition of PPE materials. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) guidelines2 state that gowns should be impervious to fluid, with no standards or levels applied. The oft‐used system from the American Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) grades gowns, single‐use or reusable, within a range: level 1 being splash‐resistant, and levels 2–4 being impervious to water columns placed upon them of 20, 50 and 100 cm respectively.3 Application of these levels is at the discretion of Australian health care providers, rather than mandated in the NHMRC guidelines. Fluid impervious level 2 provides an ample barrier to respiratory‐borne pathogens. A transition to reusable level 2 gowns, when appropriate, provides an opportunity to reduce waste because they can be repeatedly sanitised by clinical laundry practice (detergent and > 60°C hot water). One reusable gown has been estimated to replace 50 disposable gowns.4 By way of reducing reliance on distant supply chains, Australia currently has capacity to mill the fabric and manufacture reusable fluid impervious level 2 gowns today, and these gowns could be registered by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Current experience suggests policy makers and clinicians are unaware of this possibility. The perception that single‐use is the best choice indicates education is needed to assure clinicians that reusable gowns can provide at least equal protection for many clinical and intensive care unit tasks (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS‐CoV‐2] endures less on cloth than plastic).5 Activating local manufacture of reusable gowns would assure availability and potentially provide more environmentally and financially sustainable health care, while maintaining patient care and staff PPE supply.

Forbes McGain · Meriel Chamberlin · Jane Milburn

To the Editor: Health care workers are at occupational risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and may act as vectors of transmission. The guidelines from the Department of Health prioritise health care workers as a risk group for diagnostic testing.1,2 After confirmation of diagnosis, in addition to resolution of symptoms, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) negativity on at least two consecutive respiratory specimens collected 24 hours apart and at least 7 days after symptom onset was required before health care workers were permitted to return to work.1,2 Since 10 March 2020, there have been 11 health care workers managed at our hospital diagnosed with mild COVID‐19 not requiring hospitalisation, with repeated specimens tested by PCR (Box). All patients with COVID‐19 assessed and managed at the Austin Hospital were prospectively included in a clinical database approved by the Austin Health Human Research Ethics Committee (database reference number: CD 20002). The median time from PCR positivity to the second negative swab was 32.5 days (range, 11–53 days). None of these health care workers received any specific antiviral or immunomodulatory treatment. Our current understanding of the viral kinetics in COVID‐19 is incomplete. Pharyngeal viral shedding is very high early in the course of illness3 and may be prolonged.4 However, nucleic acid detection cannot differentiate between infectious and non‐infectious virus. In a study of nine patients with mild COVID‐19, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) was not recoverable by culture after day 8 of illness despite high viral loads by PCR.3 In another contact tracing study, there were no secondary cases in the group that was exposed after 6 days.5 These findings suggest that infectivity and transmissibility is low after the initial illness. In Australia, although there was allowance for the return to work of health care workers with prolonged PCR positivity, this was predicated on rounds of testing in what was assumed to be a “small proportion of people”.1,2 Culture for viable virus is not readily available. The findings in our cohort indicate that persistent positivity is the norm and is in line with international studies.4 Current guidelines for health care workers’ return to work appear conservative, with significant workforce implications if outbreaks were to occur in health care settings. Further studies are urgently required to determine the infectivity in patients with prolonged SARS‐CoV‐2 viral shedding to find a balance in policy that benefits health care workers, hospitals and patients. Box – Health care workers with mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) Patient number Age (years) Sex Duration of symptoms (days) Number of swabs collected after first positive swab Days between first PCR positive swab and second negative swab* 1† 62 Male 10 5 42 2 20 Female 5 5 34 3 24 Female 1 5 32 4 32 Female Patient asymptomatic 5 33 5 56 Male 23 3 na‡ 6 26 Female 8 6 43 7§ 62 Female 28 7 53 8 50 Female 12 2 11 9 35 Female 11 2 13 10¶ 52 Female 14 3 21 11 55 Female Unable to ascertain 2 23 na = not applicable; PCR = polymerase chain reaction. * Of two consecutive negative swabs. † Patient with asthma. ‡ The last collected specimen from patient 5 was PCR positive 11 days after initial positive specimen. The nucleic acid detection assay used was the AusDiagnostics Coronavirus Typing (8‐well) assay. This is a multiplex‐tandem PCR assay that employs two rounds of amplification. The cycle take‐off value for the last positive specimen on patient 5 was 23 cycles in the second round of amplification. § Patient with hypertension. ¶ Patient with rheumatoid arthritis.

Kyra YL Chua · Natasha E Holmes · Jason Kwong

Fit testing of respirators is recommended to ensure proper fit for individual health care workers and is required to comply with respirator standards

Adrian Regli · Britta S Ungern‐Sternberg