Search

Background vaccination uptake in the UK and increased care home testing are likely affecting care home visitation. With scant scientific evidence to date, the aim of this longitudinal qualitative study was to explore the impact of both (vaccination and testing) on the conduct and experiences of care home visits. Methods family carers of care home residents with dementia and care home staff from across the UK took part in baseline (October/November 2020) and follow-up interviews (March 2021). Public advisers were involved in all elements of the research. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results across 62 baseline and follow-up interviews with family carers (n  = 26; 11) and care home staff (n  = 16; 9), five core themes were developed: delayed and inconsistent offers of face-to-face visits; procedures and facilitation of visits; variable uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine; misinformation, education and free choice; frustration and anger among family carers. The variable uptake in staff, compared to family carers, was a key factor seemingly influencing visitation, with a lack of clear guidance leading care homes to implement infection control measures and visitation rights differently. Conclusions we make five recommendations in this paper to enable improved care home visitation in the ongoing, and in future, pandemics. Visits need to be enabled and any changes to visiting rights must be used as a last resort, reviewed regularly in consultation with residents and carers and restored as soon as possible as a top priority, whilst more education needs to be provided surrounding vaccination for care home staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background defining features of the COVID-19 pandemic in many countries were the tragic extent to which care home residents were affected and the difficulty in preventing the introduction and subsequent spread of infection. Management of risk in care homes requires good evidence on the most important transmission pathways. One hypothesised route at the start of the pandemic, prior to widespread testing, was the transfer of patients from hospitals that were experiencing high levels of nosocomial events. Methods we tested the hypothesis that hospital discharge events increased the intensity of care home cases using a national individually linked health record cohort in Wales, UK. We monitored 186,772 hospital discharge events over the period from March to July 2020, tracking individuals to 923 care homes and recording the daily case rate in the homes populated by 15,772 residents. We estimated the risk of an increase in case rates following exposure to a hospital discharge using multi-level hierarchical logistic regression and a novel stochastic Hawkes process outbreak model. Findings in regression analysis, after adjusting for care home size, we found no significant association between hospital discharge and subsequent increases in care home case numbers (odds ratio: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.82, 1.90). Risk factors for increased cases included care home size, care home resident density and provision of nursing care. Using our outbreak model, we found a significant effect of hospital discharge on the subsequent intensity of cases. However, the effect was small and considerably less than the effect of care home size, suggesting the highest risk of introduction came from interaction with the community. We estimated that approximately 1.8% of hospital discharged patients may have been infected. Interpretation there is growing evidence in the UK that the risk of transfer of COVID-19 from the high-risk hospital setting to the high-risk care home setting during the early stages of the pandemic was relatively small. Although access to testing was limited to initial symptomatic cases in each care home at this time, our results suggest that reduced numbers of discharges, selection of patients and action taken within care homes following transfer all may have contributed to the mitigation. The precise key transmission routes from the community remain to be quantified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in catastrophic levels of morbidity and mortality for care home residents. Despite this, research platforms for COVID-19 in care homes arrived late in the pandemic compared with other care settings. The Prophylactic Therapy in Care Homes Trial (PROTECT-CH) was established to provide a platform to deliver multi-centre cluster-randomized clinical trials of investigational medicinal products for COVID-19 prophylaxis in UK care homes. Commencing set-up in January 2021, this involved the design and development of novel infrastructure for contracting and recruitment, remote consent, staff training, research insurance, eligibility screening, prescribing, dispensing and adverse event reporting; such infrastructure being previously absent. By the time this infrastructure was in place, the widespread uptake of vaccination in care homes had changed the epidemiology of COVID-19 rendering the trial unfeasible. While some of the resources developed through PROTECT-CH will enable the future establishment of care home platform research, the near absence of care home trial infrastructure and nationally linked databases involving the care home sector will continue to significantly hamper progress. These issues are replicated in most other countries. Beyond COVID-19, there are many other research questions that require addressing to provide better care to people living in care homes. PROTECT-CH has exposed a clear need for research funders to invest in, and legislate for, an effective care home research infrastructure as part of national pandemic preparedness planning. Doing so would also invigorate care home research in the interim, leading to improved healthcare delivery specific to those living in this sector. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Care homes have been severely affected by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Rapid antigen testing could identify most SARS-CoV-2 infected staff and visitors before they enter homes. We explored implementation of staff and visitor testing protocols using lateral flow devices (LFDs). Methods An evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 LFD-based testing protocol in 11 care homes in Liverpool, UK, including staff and visitor testing, plus a qualitative exploratory study in nine of these homes. The proportion of pilot homes with outbreaks, and outbreak size, were compared to non-pilot homes in Liverpool. Adherence to testing protocols was evaluated. Fifteen staff were interviewed, and transcript data were thematically coded using an iterative analysis to identify and categorize factors influencing testing implementation. Results In total, 1,638 LFD rapid tests were performed on 407 staff. Protocol adherence was poor with 8.6% of staff achieving >75% protocol adherence, and 25.3% achieving |$\ge$| 50%. Six care homes had outbreaks during the study. Compared to non-pilot care homes, there was no evidence of significant difference in the proportion of homes with outbreaks, or the size of outbreaks. Qualitative data showed difficulty implementing testing strategies due to excessive work burden. Factors influencing adherence related to test integration and procedural factors, socio-economic factors, cognitive overload and the emotional value of testing. Conclusion Implementation of staff and visitor care home LFD testing protocols was poorly adhered to and consequently did not reduce the number or scale of COVID-19 outbreaks. More focus is needed on the contextual and behavioural factors that influence protocol adherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background informal carers provide the majority of the support for persons with dementia living at home. Restrictions imposed due to COVID-19 have had a profound impact on the daily life of the entire population. This study provides insight into the impact of these restrictions on carers of people with dementia living at home. Design qualitative semi-structured interviews. Participants purposive sample of carers who provide at least 10 hours of care a week for the person with dementia living at home. Setting UK. Results twenty-three carers were interviewed, and thematic analysis identified three main themes—Changes to daily life, impact on carer health and wellbeing and reduced support from health and social support networks. The results highlight the impact of restrictions imposed on daily life and routines due to the pandemic, wellbeing of carers, reduced social support, lack of access to health and care professionals and respite for carers. The restrictions have had negative consequences on carers' wellbeing, and they have experienced difficulties in accessing formal care services and respite care. Conclusion carers attempt to continue to provide physical, emotional and practical support for persons with dementia in the community throughout the COVID-19 restrictions. To prevent a future carer crisis, carers need better support systems including formal carer services, telecare solutions that work for them and additional support for respite, as the restrictions from this pandemic continue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background epidemiological data on COVID-19 infection in care homes are scarce. We analysed data from a large provider of long-term care for older people to investigate infection and mortality during the first wave of the pandemic. Methods cohort study of 179 UK care homes with 9,339 residents and 11,604 staff. We used manager-reported daily tallies to estimate the incidence of suspected and confirmed infection and mortality in staff and residents. Individual-level electronic health records from 8,713 residents were used to model risk factors for confirmed infection, mortality and estimate attributable mortality. Results 2,075/9,339 residents developed COVID-19 symptoms (22.2% [95% confidence interval: 21.4%; 23.1%]), while 951 residents (10.2% [9.6%; 10.8%]) and 585 staff (5.0% [4.7%; 5.5%]) had laboratory-confirmed infections. The incidence of confirmed infection was 152.6 [143.1; 162.6] and 62.3 [57.3; 67.5] per 100,000 person-days in residents and staff, respectively. Sixty-eight percent (121/179) of care homes had at least one COVID-19 infection or COVID-19-related death. Lower staffing ratios and higher occupancy rates were independent risk factors for infection. Out of 607 residents with confirmed infection, 217 died (case fatality rate: 35.7% [31.9%; 39.7%]). Mortality in residents with no direct evidence of infection was twofold higher in care homes with outbreaks versus those without (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.2 [1.8; 2.6]). Conclusions findings suggest many deaths occurred in people who were infected with COVID-19, but not tested. Higher occupancy and lower staffing levels were independently associated with risks of infection. Protecting staff and residents from infection requires regular testing for COVID-19 and fundamental changes to staffing and care home occupancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The care and support of older people residing in long-term care facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic has created new and unanticipated uncertainties for staff. In this short report, we present our analyses of the uncertainties of care home managers and staff expressed in a self-formed closed WhatsApp™ discussion group during the first stages of the pandemic in the UK. We categorised their wide-ranging questions to understand what information would address these uncertainties and provide support. We have been able to demonstrate that almost one-third of these uncertainties could have been tackled immediately through timely, responsive and unambiguous fact-based guidance. The other uncertainties require appraisal, synthesis and summary of existing evidence, commissioning or provision of a sector- informed research agenda for medium to long term. The questions represent wider internationally relevant care home pandemic-related uncertainties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the COVID-19 pandemic, patients who are older and residents of long-term care facilities (LTCF) are at greatest risk of worse clinical outcomes. We reviewed discharge criteria for hospitalised COVID-19 patients from 10 countries with the highest incidence of COVID-19 cases as of 26 July 2020. Five countries (Brazil, Mexico, Peru, Chile and Iran) had no discharge criteria; the remaining five (USA, India, Russia, South Africa and the UK) had discharge guidelines with large inter-country variability. India and Russia recommend discharge for a clinically recovered patient with two negative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests 24 h apart; the USA offers either a symptom based strategy—clinical recovery and 10 days after symptom onset, or the same test-based strategy. The UK suggests that patients can be discharged when patients have clinically recovered; South Africa recommends discharge 14 days after symptom onset if clinically stable. We recommend a unified, simpler discharge criteria, based on current studies which suggest that most SARS-CoV-2 loses its infectivity by 10 days post-symptom onset. In asymptomatic cases, this can be taken as 10 days after the first positive PCR result. Additional days of isolation beyond this should be left to the discretion of individual clinician. This represents a practical compromise between unnecessarily prolonged admissions and returning highly infectious patients back to their care facilities, and is of particular importance in older patients discharged to LTCFs, residents of which may be at greatest risk of transmission and worse clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]