ArticleBMJ open2026
Exploring long covid care pathways in the UK NHS: a qualitative study of healthcare professionals' experiences.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore the operational reality of the long covid care pathway from the perspective of National Health Service (NHS) professionals, addressing the gap between national guidelines and frontline implementation.
designA qualitative study using single-timepoint, semi-structured interviews. Data were collected between July and October 2024. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
settingPrimary and secondary NHS care settings in a diverse South London Borough (Croydon), UK.
participants12 NHS healthcare professionals managing adult patients, comprising general practitioners (GPs, n=5), respiratory consultants (n=2), specialist nurses (n=3), a respiratory physiotherapist (n=1) and a clinical psychologist (n=1).
resultsThe operational reality of long covid care was constructed around four central themes. First, lacking definitive biomarkers, clinicians navigated diagnostic uncertainty using pragmatic, exclusionary testing and subjective severity assessments. Second, GPs acted as administrative linchpins, compelled to triage patients into fragmented, symptom-driven specialist silos. Third, treatment demonstrated therapeutic pragmatism, relying heavily on non-pharmacological rehabilitation rather than medicalised cures. Finally, variable monitoring practices across secondary services created a post-discharge 'continuity gap', placing the burden of re-initiating care on the patient. These systemic frictions were synthesised into an eight-step operational care pathway map.
conclusionsWhile national guidelines provide best practices, this study uniquely captures the systemic bottlenecks that occur when operationalising these standards locally. The mapped pathway reveals a pressing need for the standardisation of functional assessment tools, genuinely integrated interdisciplinary clinics and robust post-discharge tracking to mitigate the burden of coordination on primary care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.