Acute vertigo is a common but diagnostically challenging presentation in emergency departments (EDs), where rapid distinction of life-threatening conditions—like stroke—is critical. Patient and clinician perspectives are often overlooked, and real ED needs and possibilities remain poorly understood. While smartphone-based clinical decision support tools (CDSTs) show promise, evidence on required features for trust and adoption is limited. The UK’s 2025 10-Year Health Plan highlights digital innovation and AI in urgent care, underscoring the need to address these gaps.

To explore the experiences of emergency physicians and patients with acute vertigo during the diagnostic process; identify real-world challenges, needs and opportunities within the ED setting; and assess participants’ perceptions of the acceptability of implementing a smartphone-based decision-support tool (CDST) to aid in acute vertigo diagnosis.

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and reflexive thematic analysis.

Emergency Department of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (UCLH), UK.

10 emergency physicians with experience in managing acute vertigo and 10 patients who had recently presented to the ED with symptoms of acute vertigo.

The analyses identified challenges and needs when diagnosing acute vertigo in the ED and participants’ views on future smartphone-based CDST development to assist the diagnostic process. Clinicians emphasised diagnostic complexity, limited training and system-level constraints—like lack of space, time and resources—as major challenges. Patients emphasised the need for better communication and clearer diagnostic pathways. Both groups saw potential in smartphone-based CDSTs to improve diagnostic efficiency and accuracy by offering structured assessments and helping clinicians identify serious conditions.

This study offers insights into real-world constraints of diagnosing acute vertigo in the ED. Findings suggest that aligning CDST design with clinical workflows, user trust and environmental realities may facilitate adoption and impact in emergency care settings.

Economic evaluations are essential for informing healthcare resource allocation. When conducted from a societal perspective, they may include productivity costs such as paid and unpaid productivity losses for patients and their caregivers. Although several methods exist to measure and value productivity costs, there is limited methodological consensus on which methods should be used. This scoping review aims to synthesise existing methods for measuring and valuing patient and caregiver productivity costs.

This review will follow the Arksey and O’Malley framework, enhanced by subsequent methodological guidance from Levac and the Joanna Briggs Institute. The six stages include identifying the research question; identifying relevant studies; selecting studies; charting the data; collating, summarising and reporting the results; and consultation. We will search MEDLINE, Embase and EconLit from 1996 to July 2025. Eligible sources will include peer-reviewed literature that reports methods for the measurement or valuation of productivity costs related to paid or unpaid work among patients or caregivers. Screening and data extraction will be conducted independently by two reviewers. Extracted data will include types of productivity costs, instruments used, valuation approaches, as well as recommendations on preferred measurement and valuation methods. Results will be synthesised thematically and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for Scoping Reviews checklist.

Ethics approval is not required as this review will rely exclusively on publicly available literature and does not involve human participants or the use of primary data. The findings will first be shared with Canada’s Drug Agency as a report and then disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and academic presentations to inform future research and practice.

This protocol has been registered with the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FK9D4).

To assess the impact of opening a large community-based asynchronous review ophthalmic clinic on attendance delays among patients with stable chronic eye disease attending a London teaching eye hospital network.

Interrupted time-series analysis of routine electronic health records of appointment attendances.

A large eye hospital network with facilities across London, UK, between June 2018 and April 2023.

We analysed 69 257 attendances from 39 357 patients, with glaucoma and medical retina accounting for 62% (n=42 982) and 38% (n=26 275) of visits, respectively. Patients over 65 made up 54% (n=37 824) of attendances, while 53% (n=37 014) were from the more deprived half of the population, and 51% (n=35 048) were males.

An asynchronous review clinic opened in a shopping centre in London, in autumn 2021, following the COVID-19 lockdown in spring 2020.

Average attendance delays (days), calculated as the difference between follow-up attendance date and the latest clinically appropriate date determined at the preceding attendance.

Pre-COVID-19, attendance delays for chronic eye disease monitoring were increasing by 0.9 days per week (95% CI, 0.8 to 0.9) on average, worsening to 2.0 days per week (95% CI, 2.0 to 2.0) after the first COVID-19 national lockdown, mid-March 2020. Opening the asynchronous review clinic increased appointment capacity, with delays decreasing on average by 8.1 days per week (95% CI, 8.1 to 8.2) shortly after opening. The rate of decrease slowed to 0.3 days per week (95% CI, 0.3 to 0.3) after 5 months. We found no significant differences in average attendance delays by age, gender or level of deprivation.

The asynchronous review clinic significantly reduced attendance delays across the hospital network, addressing pre-existing backlog for stable chronic eye diseases. The reduction appeared to be maintained after the initial backlog had been cleared.