Search

Background During the first epidemic wave, COVID-19 surveillance focused on quantifying the magnitude and the escalation of a growing global health crisis. The scientific community first assessed risk through basic indicators, such as the number of cases or rates of new cases and deaths, and later began using other direct impact indicators to conduct more detailed analyses. We aimed at synthesizing the scientific community's contribution to assessing the direct impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on population health through indicators reported in research papers. Methods We conducted a rapid scoping review to identify and describe health indicators included in articles published between January 2020 and June 2021, using one strategy to search PubMed, EMBASE and WHO COVID-19 databases. Sixteen experts from European public health institutions screened papers and retrieved indicator characteristics. We also asked in an online survey how the health indicators were added to and used in policy documents in Europe. Results After reviewing 3891 records, we selected a final sample of 67 articles and 233 indicators. We identified 52 (22.3%) morbidity indicators from 33 articles, 105 severity indicators (45.1%, 27 articles) and 68 mortality indicators (29.2%, 51). Respondents from 22 countries completed 31 questionnaires, and the majority reported morbidity indicators (29, 93.5%), followed by mortality indicators (26, 83.9%). Conclusions The indicators collated here might be useful to assess the impact of future pandemics. Therefore, their measurement should be standardized to allow for comparisons between settings, countries and different populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim The aim of this systematic review was to quantify the association between frailty and COVID-19 in relation to mortality in hospitalised patients. Methods Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the grey literature were searched for papers from inception to 10 September 2020; the search was re-run in Medline up until the 9 December 2020. Screening, data extraction and quality grading were undertaken by two reviewers. Results were summarised using descriptive statistics, including a meta-analysis of overall mortality; the relationships between frailty and COVID-19 mortality were summarised narratively. Results A total of 2,286 papers were screened resulting in 26 being included in the review. Most studies were from Europe, half from the UK, and one from Brazil; the median sample size was 242.5, median age 73.1 and 43.5% were female. In total, 22/26 used the Clinical Frailty Scale; reported mortality ranged from 14 to 65%. Most, but not all studies showed an association between increasing frailty and a greater risk of dying. Two studies indicated a sub-additive relationship between frailty, COVID-19 and death, and two studies showed no association. Conclusions Whilst the majority of studies have shown a positive association between COVID-19-related death and increasing frailty, some studies suggested a more nuanced understanding of frailty and outcomes in COVID-19 is needed. Clinicians should exert caution in placing too much emphasis on the influence of frailty alone when discussing likely prognosis in older people with COVID-19 illness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has affected the functioning and capacity of healthcare systems worldwide. COVID-19 has also disproportionately affected older adults. In the context of COVID-19, decision-making surrounding place of care (PoC) and place of death (PoD) in older adults involves significant new challenges. Aims To explore key factors that influence PoC and PoD decisions in older adults. A secondary aim was to investigate key factors that influence the process and outcome of these decisions in older adults. To apply findings from current evidence to the context of COVID-19. Methods Rapid review of reviews, undertaken using WHO guidance for rapid reviews for the production of actionable evidence. Data extracted was synthesised using narrative synthesis, with thematic analysis and tabulation. Results 10 papers were included for full data extraction. These papers were published between 2005 and 2020. Papers included discussed actual PoD, as well as preferred. Results were divided into papers that explored the process of decision-making, and those that explored decision-making outcomes. Conclusions The process and outcomes of decision-making for older people are affected by many factors—all of which have the potential to influence both patients and caregivers experience of illness and dying. Within the context of COVID-19, such decisions may have to be made rapidly and be reflexive to changing needs of systems and of families and patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background the COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected care home residents' and staffs' access to health care and advice. Health and social care professionals adapted rapidly to using video consultation (videoconferencing) technology without guidance. We sought to identify enablers and barriers to their use in supporting care home residents and staff. Methods a scoping review of the evidence on remote consultations between healthcare services and care homes. Interviews with English health and social care professionals about their experiences during the pandemic. Findings were synthesised using the non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, sustainability framework. Results 18 papers were included in the review. Twelve interviews were completed. Documented enablers and barriers affecting the uptake and use of technology (e.g. reliable internet; reduced travelling) resonated with participants. Interviews demonstrated rapid, widespread technology adoption overcame barriers anticipated from the literature, often strengthening working relationships with care homes. Novel implementation issues included using multiple platforms and how resident data were managed. Healthcare professionals had access to more bespoke digital platforms than their social care counterparts. Participants alternated between platforms depending on individual context or what their organisation supported. All participants supported ongoing use of technologies to supplement in-person consultations. Conclusions the evidence on what needs to be in place for video consultations to work with care homes was partly confirmed. The pandemic context demolished many documented barriers to engagement and provided reassurance that residents' assessments were possible. It exposed the need to study further differing resident requirements and investment in digital infrastructure for adequate information management between organisations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction the COVID-19 pandemic poses a high risk to older people. The aim of this article is to provide a rapid overview of the COVID-19 literature, with a specific focus on older adults. We frame our findings within an overview of the disease and have also evaluated the inclusion of older people within forthcoming clinical trials. Methods we searched PubMed and bioRxiv/medRxiv to identify English language papers describing the testing, treatment and prognosis of COVID-19. PubMed and bioRxiv/medRxiv searches took place on 20 and 24 March 2020, respectively. Results screening of over 1,100 peer-reviewed and pre-print papers yielded n  = 22 on COVID-19 testing, n  = 15 on treatment and n  = 13 on prognosis. Viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and serology are the mainstays of testing, but a positive diagnosis may be increasingly supported by radiological findings. The current evidence for the effectiveness of antiviral, corticosteroid and immunotherapies is inconclusive, although trial data are largely based on younger people. In addition to age, male gender and comorbidities, specific laboratory and radiology findings are important prognostic factors. Evidence suggests that social distancing policies could have important negative consequences, particularly if in place for an extended period. Conclusion given the established association between increasing age and poor prognosis in COVID-19, we anticipate that this rapid review of the current and emergent evidence might form a basis on which future work can be established. Exclusion of older people, particularly those with comorbidities, from clinical trials is well recognised and is potentially being perpetuated in the field of current COVID-19 research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In 2019, WHO classified vaccine hesitancy as one of the top 10 threats to global health. Vaccination is an area of excellence in nursing that has gained a new focus and has become a challenge in the provision of care and in the management field. Vaccine hesitation raises questions about mandatory vaccination, individual versus collective freedom that are highlighted in the current context due to the emergence of new vaccines. In this paper, we want to analyze and update knowledge about vaccines hesitancy from an ethical and bioethical perspective. Methods A combination of literature reviews on vaccine refusal/hesitancy, ethics and COVID-19 vaccine confidence, accessed on SciELO and PubMed databases and analysis of documents from General Directorate of Health and Ordem dos Enfermeiros (National Nurses Association). Results Vaccination programs aim is a collective protection. The desirable effects at individual level do not have the same ethical value at collective level, leading to cost-benefit imbalances. Moral conflicts between the individual and the collective, cost-benefit imbalances and the insufficiency of bioethics principles, lead us to the use of other moral values and principles, such as responsibility, solidarity and social justice, as a tool for ethical reflection problems related to COVID-19 vaccines. Conclusions There are no perfect solutions to ethical dilemmas and some optimal solutions could depend the context. In a pandemic situation, one of the most relevant ethical issues is the herd immunity since it leaves public health at risk. Equity and the principle of justice in vaccination campaign are shown daily in the nursing profession. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]