Search

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 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]

We also recognize that care recipient diagnoses can have an impact on caregiver experiences of burden and isolation, but we also recognize that some experiences are universally shared amongst caregivers regardless of care recipient diagnoses. Specific to the United States, policymakers should use the information from this paper to further stimulate policy surrounding technology-based service delivery, caregiver training and well-being, and caregiver-centered care. Keywords: Caregiving; COVID-19; Health policy; Scoping review; Telehealth EN Caregiving COVID-19 Health policy Scoping review Telehealth 131 135 5 10/26/22 20221001 NES 221001 Decades of research have documented the increasing reliance of health systems and older adults on caregivers ("unpaid family members or friends"; [17]; [25]). To further align with a caregiver-centered care approach, vendors should also consider the caregiver needs, values, preferences, and cultural contexts when designing and revising EMR portals. [Extracted from the article]

This paper discusses the impact of COVID-19 on older people and people with disabilities. It draws attention to the violations of their human rights in the context of COVID-19 which in turn reveal the hierarchical social order of our society. Although statistics show higher deaths of older people in regard to COVID-19, these numbers co-exist with rampant discrimination towards these groups with underlying messaging that their lives are dispensable. The paper highlights violations at different levels—discursive, ethical, and everyday—and shows how they are underpinned by ageism and disablism which stereotype older people and people with disabilities with prejudicial messaging and actions by states and societal actors. At the same time, the paper also highlights the value of human rights discourses and instruments which are mobilized by the disability movement and groups upholding the rights of older people, to question these rights infringements in the context of COVID-19. The politics of these groups which call for principled equality and inclusion of older people and people with disabilities in times of COVID-19 exhibit a much-needed disruption of our social order, an undertaking that needs to be continued in COVID-19 times and after. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, many experts pointed to potential adverse mental health effects for older adults. By contrast, many studies in young to middle-aged adults found older age to be associated with reduced mental burden. However, a systematic review on older adults is missing. Objectives To comprehensively assess the pandemic's mental health impact on older adults. Data sources We searched nine databases from December 2019 to April 2022. Study selection We included longitudinal and repeated cross-sectional studies assessing pre- and/or peri-pandemic mental distress and/or positive mental health indicators (e.g. wellbeing) on at least two occasions. Data synthesis We identified 108 studies comprising 102,136 participants (≥60 years). After removal of outliers, there was a small increase in mental distress from pre-to-peri-pandemic assessments, standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.01, 0.18]. Furthermore, a small peri-pandemic decrease in anxiety symptoms was observed, whereas other symptoms remained unchanged. For positive mental health indicators, wellbeing and quality of life showed an initial decrease, whereas overall positive mental health increased during the pandemic, SMD = 0.08, 95% CI [0.01, 0.15]. Being female was related to larger peri-pandemic increases in mental distress. Conclusions Based on many studies, this review demonstrated small decreases in mental health during early stages of the pandemic in older adults, with evidence for later recovery. These findings are similar to those for younger adults and correct earlier claims that older adults are at particular risk for negative mental health consequences. The results ask for further research into resilience and adaptation processes in older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Care home residents transitioning from hospital are at risk of receiving poor-quality care with their safety being challenged by the SARS-CoV-2 virus (COVID-19) pandemic. Little is known about how care home staff worked with hospital staff and other healthcare professionals to address these challenges and make improvements to increase patient safety. Objective To gain insight into how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the safety of transitions between hospital and care home. Method Semi-structured interviews were conducted with care home staff and healthcare professionals involved in hospital to care home transitions including doctors, nurses, paramedics, pharmacists, social workers, and occupational therapists. Commonalities and patterns in the data were identified using thematic analysis. Results Seventy participants were interviewed. Three themes were developed, first, 'new challenges', described care homes were pressurised to receive hospital patients amidst issues with COVID-19 testing, changes to working practices and contentious media attention, which all impacted staff negatively. Second, 'dehumanisation' described how care home residents were treated, being isolated from others amounted to feelings of being imprisoned, caused fear and engendered negative reactions from families. Third, 'better ways of working' described how health and social care workers developed relationships that improved integration and confidence and benefited care provision. Conclusion The COVID-19 pandemic contributed to and compounded high-risk hospital-to-care home discharges. Government policy failed to support care homes. Rapid discharge objectives exposed a myriad of infection control issues causing inhumane conditions for care home residents. However, staff involved in transitions continued to provide and improve upon care provision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2019/20 major bushfires devastated Australia's East Coast. Shortly afterward the COVID-19 pandemic was declared. Older people are disproportionately affected by disasters and are at high risk from respiratory pandemics. However, little is known about how these events impact on older peoples' health and well-being and engagement with services such as primary care.Objective: To explore the health impacts of the 2019/20 bushfires and the COVID-19 pandemic on older Australians' health and well-being.Methods: One hundred and fifty-five people aged over 65 years living in South-eastern New South Wales, Australia participated in an online survey. The survey measured the impacts of the bushfires and COVID-19 on physical and mental health and the capacity of older people to manage these impacts.Results: Most respondents felt that the bushfires caused them to feel anxious/worried (86.2%) and negatively affected their physical (59.9%) and mental (57.2%) health. While many participants had similar feelings about COVID-19, significantly fewer felt these physical and mental health impacts than from the bushfires. A significantly greater perceived level of impact was observed for females and those with health problems. More respondents described negative mental health than physical health effects. Those who felt more impacted by the events had lower levels of resilience, social connection and support, and self-rated health.Conclusion: The health impacts identified in this study represent an opportunity for primary care to intervene to both ensure that people with support needs are identified and provided timely support and that older people are prepared for future disasters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) were high-risk settings for COVID-19 outbreaks. Objective To assess the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on LTCFs, including rates of infection, hospitalisation, case fatality, and mortality, and to determine the association between control measures and SARS-CoV-2 infection rates in residents and staff. Method We conducted a systematic search of six databases for articles published between December 2019 and 5 November 2021, and performed meta-analyses and subgroup analyses to identify the impact of COVID-19 on LTCFs and the association between control measures and infection rate. Results We included 108 studies from 19 countries. These studies included 1,902,044 residents and 255,498 staff from 81,572 LTCFs, among whom 296,024 residents and 36,807 staff were confirmed SARS-CoV-2 positive. The pooled infection rate was 32.63% (95%CI: 30.29 ~ 34.96%) for residents, whereas it was 10.33% (95%CI: 9.46 ~ 11.21%) for staff. In LTCFs that cancelled visits, new patient admissions, communal dining and group activities, and vaccinations, infection rates in residents and staff were lower than the global rate. We reported the residents' hospitalisation rate to be 29.09% (95%CI: 25.73 ~ 32.46%), with a case-fatality rate of 22.71% (95%CI: 21.31 ~ 24.11%) and mortality rate of 15.81% (95%CI: 14.32 ~ 17.30%). Significant publication biases were observed in the residents' case-fatality rate and the staff infection rate, but not in the infection, hospitalisation, or mortality rate of residents. Conclusion SARS-CoV-2 infection rates would be very high among LTCF residents and staff without appropriate control measures. Cancelling visits, communal dining and group activities, restricting new admissions, and increasing vaccination would significantly reduce the infection rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background the negative consequences of COVID-19 distancing measures on older adults' mental health and ability to access services have been well documented. Online cognitive behavioural therapy and mindfulness interventions for older adults, carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic, have shown that these interventions are feasible and have potential mental health benefits. However, little research has been carried out on older adults' experiences of engaging with online psychological therapy, and specifically mindfulness therapy. Objectives to understand the experience of older adults engaging with online mindfulness therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Study design a qualitative analysis of four community-based focus groups. Participants thirty-six community dwelling older adults aged between 65 and 85 years were recruited via older adult organisations, charities and the local press. Nineteen percent had long-term physical health conditions, 25% had severe and enduring mental health difficulties and 19% had mild to moderate mental health difficulties. Results there was a strong sense of group cohesion and community from the participants. Three main themes were identified: reasons for applying, experience of the mindfulness therapy and connecting at home. Conclusions the majority of participants were positive about attending a mindfulness group online. This extended to the perceived psychological and social benefits as well as practical considerations. While some participants noted technological hurdles at the beginning of the course, the findings challenge previous studies that suggest older adults are reluctant to engage in online psychological therapies and has important implications for the future provision of psychological therapies to this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Ethnic differences in the risk of severe COVID-19 may be linked to household composition. We quantified the association between household composition and risk of severe COVID-19 by ethnicity for older individuals. Methods With the approval of NHS England, we analysed ethnic differences in the association between household composition and severe COVID-19 in people aged 67 or over in England. We defined households by number of age-based generations living together, and used multivariable Cox regression stratified by location and wave of the pandemic and accounted for age, sex, comorbidities, smoking, obesity, housing density and deprivation. We included 2 692 223 people over 67 years in Wave 1 (1 February 2020–31 August 2020) and 2 731 427 in Wave 2 (1 September 2020–31 January 2021). Results Multigenerational living was associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19 for White and South Asian older people in both waves [e.g. Wave 2, 67+ living with three other generations vs 67+-year-olds only: White hazard ratio (HR) 1.61 95% CI 1.38–1.87, South Asian HR 1.76 95% CI 1.48–2.10], with a trend for increased risks of severe COVID-19 with increasing generations in Wave 2. There was also an increased risk of severe COVID-19 in Wave 1 associated with living alone for White (HR 1.35 95% CI 1.30–1.41), South Asian (HR 1.47 95% CI 1.18–1.84) and Other (HR 1.72 95% CI 0.99–2.97) ethnicities, an effect that persisted for White older people in Wave 2. Conclusions Both multigenerational living and living alone were associated with severe COVID-19 in older adults. Older South Asian people are over-represented within multigenerational households in England, especially in the most deprived settings, whereas a substantial proportion of White older people live alone. The number of generations in a household, number of occupants, ethnicity and deprivation status are important considerations in the continued roll-out of COVID-19 vaccination and targeting of interventions for future pandemics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background frailty imparts a higher risk for hospitalisation, mortality and morbidity due to COVID-19 infection, but the broader impacts of the pandemic and associated public health measures on community-living people with frailty are less known. Methods we used cross-sectional data from 23,974 Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging participants who completed a COVID-19 interview (Sept–Dec 2020). Participants were included regardless of whether they had COVID-19 or not. They were asked about health, resource, relationship and health care access impacts experienced during the pandemic. Unadjusted and adjusted prevalence of impacts was estimated by frailty index quartile. We further examined if the relationship with frailty was modified by sex, age or household income. Results community-living adults (50–90 years) with greater pre-pandemic frailty reported more negative impacts during the first year of the pandemic. The frailty gradient was not explained by socio-demographic or health behaviour factors. The largest absolute difference in adjusted prevalence between the most and least frail quartiles was 15.1% (challenges accessing healthcare), 13.3% (being ill) and 7.4% (increased verbal/physical conflict). The association between frailty and healthcare access differed by age where the youngest age group tended to experience the most challenges, especially for those categorised as most frail. Conclusion although frailty has been endorsed as a tool to inform estimates of COVID-19 risk, our data suggest it may have a broader role in primary care and public health by identifying people who may benefit from interventions to reduce health and social impacts of COVID-19 and future pandemics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background dementia may increase care home residents' risk of COVID-19, but there is a lack of evidence on this effect and on interactions with individual and care home-level factors. Methods we created a national cross-sectional retrospective cohort of care home residents in Wales for 1 September to 31 December 2020. Risk factors were analysed using multi-level logistic regression to model the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality. Results the cohort included 9,571 individuals in 673 homes. Dementia was diagnosed in 5,647 individuals (59%); 1,488 (15.5%) individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. We estimated the effects of age, dementia, frailty, care home size, proportion of residents with dementia, nursing and dementia services, communal space and region. The final model included the proportion of residents with dementia (OR for positive test 4.54 (95% CIs 1.55–13.27) where 75% of residents had dementia compared to no residents with dementia) and frailty (OR 1.29 (95% CIs 1.05–1.59) for severe frailty compared with no frailty). Analysis suggested 76% of the variation was due to setting rather than individual factors. Additional analysis suggested severe frailty and proportion of residents with dementia was associated with all-cause mortality, as was dementia diagnosis. Mortality analyses were challenging to interpret. Discussion whilst individual frailty increased the risk of COVID-19 infection, dementia was a risk factor at care home but not individual level. These findings suggest whole-setting interventions, particularly in homes with high proportions of residents with dementia and including those with low/no individual risk factors may reduce the impact of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are at high risk of adverse outcomes from SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to estimate the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of one and two doses of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx-1 against SARS CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related death in residents of LTCFs. Methods this observational study used testing, vaccination and mortality data for LTCF residents aged ≥ 65 years who were regularly tested regardless of symptoms from 8 December 2020 to 30 September 2021 in England. Adjusted VE, calculated as one minus adjusted hazard ratio, was estimated using time-varying Cox proportional hazards models for infection and death within 28 days of positive test result. Vaccine status was defined by receipt of one or two doses of vaccine and assessed over a range of intervals. Results of 197,885 LTCF residents, 47,087 (23.8%) had a positive test and 11,329 (5.8%) died within 28 days of a positive test during the study period. Relative to unvaccinated individuals, VE for infection was highest for ChAdOx-1 at 61% (40–74%) at 1–4 weeks and for BNT162b2 at 69% (52–80%) at 11–15 weeks following the second dose. Against death, VE was highest for ChAdOx-1 at 83% (58–94%) at 1–4 weeks and for BNT162b2 at 91% (75–97%) at 11–15 weeks following second dose. Conclusions compared with unvaccinated residents, vaccination with one dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx-1 provided moderate protection against infection and death in residents of LTCFs. Protection against death improved after two doses. However, some waning of protection over time was noted. [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 has particularly adversely affected older people with frailty and functional dependency. Essential regular contact with care staff has been evidenced as an important source of infection for this group. Vaccinating care staff can reduce the incidence, duration and severity of infection, preventing onward transmission to older people and minimising the harm associated with discontinuity caused by staff absence. Voluntary vaccination programmes for staff are more likely to be effective when associated with information and education, community engagement and financial incentives, but programmes using all of these approaches have failed to establish consistently high vaccination rates among care staff during the pandemic. Mandatory vaccination, proposed as a solution in some countries, can increase vaccination rates. It is only ethical if a vaccine is effective and cost-effective, the risk associated with vaccinating care workers is proportionate to the risk reduction achieved through vaccination, and where all efforts to encourage voluntary vaccination have been exhausted. Even when these conditions have been met, careful attention is required to ensure that the penalties associated with conscientious objection are proportionate and to ensure that implementation is equitable in a way that does not disadvantage particular groups of staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Only a few studies have been carried out with a large sample size on the relationship between chronic conditions and hospitalization for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and there is no research examining recently diagnosed conditions. Our purpose was to evaluate this association in a large sample including the older population from Europe and Israel.Method: Data from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe COVID-19 Survey, a representative survey of individuals aged 50 or older residing in 27 European countries and Israel, were retrieved. Associations between recently diagnosed chronic conditions (ie, conditions detected over the last 3 years) (exposure) and hospitalization due to COVID-19 (outcome) were assessed using multivariable logistic regression.Results: A total of 51 514 participants on average 71.0 (SD = 9.2) years old were included. Participants with multimorbidity (ie, 2 or more recently diagnosed conditions) had significantly higher odds for COVID-19 hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.91 [95% CI = 2.14-7.12]). Independent conditions such as lung disease (AOR = 16.94 [95% CI = 9.27-30.95]), heart disease (AOR = 3.29 [95% CI = 1.50-7.21]), or cancer (AOR = 3.45 [95% CI = 1.26-9.48]) showed particularly high odds for hospitalization due to COVID-19.Conclusions: People with recently diagnosed diseases, and in particular those having lung disease, heart disease, or cancer, were significantly more likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19. [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]

Background climate change is a health emergency. Central to addressing this is understanding the carbon footprint of our daily life and work, in order to reduce it effectively. The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought about rapid change to clinical practice, most notably in use of virtual clinics and personal protective equipment (PPE). Aim to estimate the carbon footprint of a Geriatric Medicine clinic, including the effect of virtual consultation and PPE, in order to inform design of a service that addresses both the health of our patients and our environment. Method data from the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, NHS Carbon Footprint Plus and UK Government were used to estimate the carbon emissions per consultation. Values were calculated for virtual and face-to-face contact and applied to actual clinics both before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results the carbon footprint of a face-to-face clinic consultation is 4.82 kgCO2e, most of which is patient travel, followed by staff travel and use of PPE. The footprint of a virtual consultation is 0.99 kgCO2e, most of which is staff travel, followed by data use. Using our hybrid model for a single session clinic reduced our annual carbon footprint by an estimated 200 kgCO2e, roughly equivalent to a surgical operation. Discussion the COVID-19 pandemic has made us deliver services differently. The environmental benefits seen of moving to a partially virtual clinic highlight the importance of thinking beyond reverting to 'business as usual'—instead deliberately retaining changes, which benefit the current and future health of our community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 crisis has had a severe and disproportionate impact on older persons—due both to the effects of the virus itself and to the effects of the measures adopted to counter its spread, including some of those specifically designed to ensure better protection of the elderly. This impact has not gone unnoticed but most of the reports and statements that pertain to it either simply describe what has happened or explain the situation by pointing to the natural frailty of older persons and the unprecedented nature of the emergency. This article argues that such an explanation is incomplete. The problems that older persons have experienced in the recent months are neither natural nor coincidental. They reflect certain gaps that have existed in the protection of the human rights of older persons for a long time and that the current crisis has solely made more acute and more visible. The article introduces these gaps (normative, implementation, monitoring, institutional, information and societal gaps) and shows that they are all closely interrelated. To improve the protection of the human rights of older persons during COVID-19 and beyond, it is necessary to address all these gaps simultaneously. This, moreover, may not be done by legal means only. Other, non-legal means must be put in place as well. A comprehensive approach to the human rights of older persons should therefore replace the non-comprehensive approach that has prevailed so far. [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 Sars-CoV-2 outbreaks resulted in a high case fatality rate in nursing homes (NH) worldwide. It is unknown to which extent presymptomatic residents and staff contribute to the spread of the virus. Aims To assess the contribution of asymptomatic and presymptomatic residents and staff in SARS-CoV-2 transmission during a large outbreak in a Dutch NH. Methods Observational study in a 185-bed NH with two consecutive testing strategies: testing of symptomatic cases only, followed by weekly facility-wide testing of staff and residents regardless of symptoms. Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal testing with RT-PCR for SARs-CoV-2, including sequencing of positive samples, was conducted with a standardised symptom assessment. Results 185 residents and 244 staff participated. Sequencing identified one cluster. In the symptom-based test strategy period, 3/39 residents were presymptomatic versus 38/74 residents in the period of weekly facility-wide testing (P -value < 0.001). In total, 51/59 (91.1%) of SARS-CoV-2 positive staff was symptomatic, with no difference between both testing strategies (P -value 0.763). Loss of smell and taste, sore throat, headache or myalga was hardly reported in residents compared to staff (P -value <0.001). Median Ct-value of presymptomatic residents was 21.3, which did not differ from symptomatic (20.8) or asymptomatic (20.5) residents (P -value 0.624). Conclusions Symptoms in residents and staff are insufficiently recognised, reported or attributed to a possible SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, residents without (recognised) symptoms showed the same potential for viral shedding as residents with symptoms. Weekly testing was an effective strategy for early identification of SARS-Cov-2 cases, resulting in fast mitigation of the outbreak. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Reliable rapid testing for COVID-19 is needed in care homes to reduce the risk of outbreaks and enable timely care. This study aimed to examine the usability and test performance of a point of care polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for detection of SARS-CoV-2 (POCKITTM Central) in care homes. Methods POCKITTM Central was evaluated in a purposeful sample of four UK care homes. Test agreement with laboratory real-time PCR and usability and used errors were assessed. Results No significant usability-related hazards emerged, and the sources of error identified were found to be amendable with minor changes in training or test workflow. POCKITTM Central has acceptable sensitivity and specificity based on RT-PCR as the reference standard, especially for symptomatic cases. Asymptomatic specimens showed 83.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 35.9–99.6%) positive agreement and 98.7% negative agreement (95% CI: 96.2–99.7%), with overall prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) of 0.965 (95% CI: 0.932– 0.999). Symptomatic specimens showed 100% (95% CI: 2.5–100%) positive agreement and 100% negative agreement (95% CI: 85.8–100%), with overall PABAK of 1. Recommendations are provided to mitigate the frequency of occurrence of the residual use errors observed. Integration pathways were discussed to identify opportunities and limitations of adopting POCKIT™ Central for screening and diagnostic testing purposes. Conclusions Point-of-care PCR testing in care homes can be considered with appropriate preparatory steps and safeguards. Further diagnostic accuracy evaluations and in-service evaluation studies should be conducted, if the test is to be implemented more widely, to build greater certainty on this initial exploratory analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The World Health Organization designated the decade 2020-2030 as the "decade of healthy ageing." It is a tragic irony that the year 2020 should begin with a pandemic that is so lethal for older persons. Not only are older persons the most vulnerable to COVID-19 mortality, but many of the mitigation efforts to slow the spread of the virus have imposed yet further emotional and mental health burdens on the most vulnerable among those older than 70 years. To help prevent future infectious disease mortality and suffering, as well as the profound health burdens from the chronic diseases associated with ageing, insights from biogerontology must become an integral part of global public health priorities. The timing is ripe for making the public health aspiration of developing an applied gerontological intervention a reality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19 is deadly to older adults, with research showing that being older and having underlying chronic diseases are significant risk factors for COVID-19 related deaths. However, though similarities exist between both nursing home residents and older community-dwelling people, nursing home residents are substantially more vulnerable to COVID-19. A closer review of both demographic groups provides clarity concerning the difference within the context of COVID-19. Therefore, to address the research gap, drawing insights from Maslow's hierarchy of needs model, this article aims to examine similarities and differences in COVID-19 risk factors experienced by nursing home residents and community-dwelling older people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background COVID-19 deaths are commoner among care-home residents, but the mortality burden has not been quantified. Methods Care-home residency was identified via a national primary care registration database linked to mortality data. Life expectancy was estimated using Makeham–Gompertz models to (i) describe yearly life expectancy from November 2015 to October 2020 (ii) compare life expectancy (during 2016–18) between care-home residents and the wider population and (iii) apply care-home life expectancy estimates to COVID-19 death counts to estimate years of life lost (YLL). Results Among care-home residents, life expectancy in 2015/16 to 2019/20 ranged from 2.7 to 2.3 years for women and 2.3 to 1.8 years for men. Age–sex-specific life expectancy in 2016–18 in care-home residents was lower than in the Scottish population (10 and 2.5 years in those aged 70 and 90, respectively). Applying care home-specific life expectancies to COVID-19 deaths yield mean YLLs for care-home residents of 2.6 and 2.2 for women and men, respectively. In total YLL care-home residents have lost 3,560 years in women and 2,046 years in men. Approximately half of deaths and a quarter of YLL attributed to COVID-19 were accounted for by the 5% of over-70s who were care-home residents. Conclusion COVID-19 infection has led to the loss of substantial years of life in care-home residents aged 70 years and over in Scotland. Prioritising the 5% of older adults who are care-home residents for vaccination is justified not only in terms of total deaths, but also in terms of YLL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim To investigate changes in psychological distress in community-dwelling older adults before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the contribution of frailty transitions and multimorbidity in predicting the psychological distress. Methods Prospective repeated-measures cohort study on a sample of participants aged 60 and over. A total of 2, 785 respondents at the baseline (May 2019) were followed during the COVID-19 (August 2020). The changes in psychological distress before and during the COVID-19 were assessed using generalised estimation equations with adjusting for sex, age, education, economic status, marital status, tea drinking status, smoking status, alcohol drinking status, sedentary time, sleep quality and activities of daily living. Results The psychological distress of older people has significantly increased in August 2020 compared with May 2019. Both older adults who remained frail and transitioned into frail state reported more psychological distress during the COVID-19. Similarly, both pre-existing multimorbidity and emerging multimorbidity groups were associated with more psychological distress. The group of frailty progression who reported new emerging multimorbidity showed more increase in psychological distress in comparison with those who remained in the non-frail state who reported no multimorbidity. Conclusion Psychological distress has increased among the community-dwelling older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic, and sustained and progressive frail states as well as multimorbidity were all associated with a greater increase of psychological distress. These findings suggest that future public health measures should take into account the increased psychological distress among older people during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the assessment of frailty and multimorbidity might help in warning of psychological distress. [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]

Introduction Previous investigations have identified high rates of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among residents and staff in care homes reporting an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We investigated care homes reporting a single suspected or confirmed case to assess whether early mass testing might reduce risk of transmission during the peak of the pandemic in London. Methods Between 18 and 27 April 2020, residents and staff in care homes reporting a single case of COVID-19 to Public Health England had a nasal swab to test for SARS-CoV-2 infection by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and subsequent whole-genome sequencing. Residents and staff in two care homes were re-tested 8 days later. Results Four care homes were investigated. SARS-CoV-2 positivity was 20% (65/333) overall, ranging between 3 and 59%. Among residents, positivity ranged between 3 and 76% compared with 3 and 40% in staff. Half of the SARS-CoV-2-positive residents (23/46, 50%) and 63% of staff (12/19) reported symptoms within 14 days before or after testing. Repeat testing 8 days later in two care homes with the highest infection rates identified only two new cases. Genomic analysis demonstrated a small number of introduction of the virus into care homes, and distinct clusters within three of the care homes. Conclusions We found extensive but variable rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection among residents and staff in care homes reporting a single case of COVID-19. Although routine whole-home testing has now been adopted into practice, care homes must remain vigilant and should be encouraged to report a single suspected case, which should trigger appropriate outbreak control measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Frail older persons may have an atypical presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The value of real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) testing for identifying severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nursing homes (NHs) residents is not known. Objective To determine whether (i) atypical symptoms may predict rRT-PCR results and (ii) rRT-PCR results may predict immunisation against SARS-CoV-2 in NH residents. Design A retrospective longitudinal study. Setting Eight NHs with at least 10 rRT-PCR-positive residents. Subjects A total of 456 residents. Methods Typical and atypical symptoms recorded in residents' files during the 14 days before and after rRT-PCR testing were analysed. Residents underwent blood testing for IgG-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein 6 to 8 weeks after testing. Univariate and multivariate analyses compared symptoms and immunisation rates in rRT-PCR-positive and negative residents. Results A total of 161 residents had a positive rRT-PCR (35.3%), 17.4% of whom were asymptomatic before testing. Temperature >37.8°C, oxygen saturation <90%, unexplained anorexia, behavioural change, exhaustion, malaise and falls before testing were independent predictors of a further positive rRT-PCR. Among the rRT-PCR-positive residents, 95.2% developed SARS-CoV-2 antibodies vs 7.6% in the rRT-PCR-negative residents. Among the residents with a negative rRT-PCR, those who developed SARS-CoV-2 antibodies more often had typical or atypical symptoms (P  = 0.02 and <0.01, respectively). Conclusion This study supports a strategy based on (i) testing residents with typical or unexplained atypical symptoms for an early identification of the first SARS-CoV-2 cases, (ii) rT-PCR testing for identifying COVID-19 residents, (iii) repeated wide-facility testing (including asymptomatic cases) as soon as a resident is tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and (iv) implementing SARS-CoV-2 infection control measures in rRT-PCR-negative residents when they have unexplained typical or atypical symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Care home residents are at high risk of dying from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Regular testing, producing rapid and reliable results is important in this population because infections spread quickly, and presentations are often atypical or asymptomatic. This study evaluated current testing pathways in care homes to explore the role of point-of-care tests (POCTs). Methods A total of 10 staff from eight care homes, purposively sampled to reflect care organisational attributes that influence outbreak severity, underwent a semi-structured remote videoconference interview. Transcripts were analysed using process mapping tools and framework analysis focussing on perceptions about, gaps within and needs arising from current pathways. Results Four main steps were identified in testing: infection prevention, preparatory steps, swabbing procedure and management of residents. Infection prevention was particularly challenging for mobile residents with cognitive impairment. Swabbing and preparatory steps were resource-intensive, requiring additional staff resource. Swabbing required flexibility and staff who were familiar to the resident. Frequent approaches to residents were needed to ensure they would participate at a suitable time. After-test management varied between sites. Several homes reported deviating from government guidance to take more cautious approaches, which they perceived to be more robust. Conclusion Swab-based testing is organisationally complex and resource-intensive in care homes. It needs to be flexible to meet the needs of residents and provide care homes with rapid information to support care decisions. POCT could help address gaps but the complexity of the setting means that each technology must be evaluated in context before widespread adoption in care homes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People with dementia can experience shrinkage of their social worlds, leading to a loss of independence, control and reduced well-being. We used 'the shrinking world' theory to examine how the COVID 19 pandemic has impacted the lives of people with early to middle stage dementia and what longer-term impacts may result. Interviews were conducted with 19 people with dementia and a thematic analysis generated five themes: the forgotten person with dementia, confusion over government guidance, deterioration of cognitive function, loss of meaning and social isolation, safety of the lockdown bubble. The findings suggest that the pandemic has accelerated the 'shrinking world' effect and created tension in how people with dementia perceive the outside world. Participants felt safe and secure in lockdown but also missed the social interaction, cognitive stimulation and meaningful activities that took place outdoors. As time in lockdown continued, these individuals experienced a loss of confidence and were anxious about their ability to re-engage in the everyday practises that allow them to participate in society. We recommend ways in which the government, communities and organisations might counteract some of the harms posed by this shrinking world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Caring for older patients with breast cancer presents unique clinical considerations because of preexisting and competing comorbidity, the potential for treatment-related toxicity, and the consequent impact on functional status. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, treatment decision making for older patients is especially challenging and encourages us to refocus our treatment priorities. While we work to avoid treatment delays and maintain therapeutic benefit, we also need to minimize the risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exposures, myelosuppression, general chemotherapy toxicity, and functional decline. Herein, we propose multidisciplinary care considerations for the aging patient with breast cancer, with the goal to promote a team-based, multidisciplinary treatment approach during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. These considerations remain relevant as we navigate the "new normal" for the approximately 30% of breast cancer patients aged 70 years and older who are diagnosed in the United States annually and for the thousands of older patients living with recurrent and/or metastatic disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: C-reactive protein (CRP) is a non-specific acute phase reactant elevated in infection or inflammation. Higher levels indicate more severe infection and have been used as an indicator of COVID-19 disease severity. However, the evidence for CRP as a prognostic marker is yet to be determined. The aim of this study is to examine the CRP response in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and to determine the utility of CRP on admission for predicting inpatient mortality.Methods: Data were collected between 27 February and 10 June 2020, incorporating two cohorts: the COPE (COVID-19 in Older People) study of 1564 adult patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 admitted to 11 hospital sites (test cohort) and a later validation cohort of 271 patients. Admission CRP was investigated, and finite mixture models were fit to assess the likely underlying distribution. Further, different prognostic thresholds of CRP were analysed in a time-to-mortality Cox regression to determine a cut-off. Bootstrapping was used to compare model performance [Harrell's C statistic and Akaike information criterion (AIC)].Results: The test and validation cohort distribution of CRP was not affected by age, and mixture models indicated a bimodal distribution. A threshold cut-off of CRP ≥40 mg/L performed well to predict mortality (and performed similarly to treating CRP as a linear variable).Conclusions: The distributional characteristics of CRP indicated an optimal cut-off of ≥40 mg/L was associated with mortality. This threshold may assist clinicians in using CRP as an early trigger for enhanced observation, treatment decisions and advanced care planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is little evidence about the utilisation of healthcare services and disease recognition in the older population, which was urged to self-isolate during the COVID-19 lockdown. Objectives We aimed to describe the utilisation of physician consultations, specialist referrals, hospital admissions and the recognition of incident diseases in Germany for this age group during the COVID-19 lockdown. Design Cross-sectional observational study. Setting 1,095 general practitioners (GPs) and 960 specialist practices in Germany. Subjects 2.45 million older patients aged 65 or older. Methods The number of documented physician consultations, specialist referrals, hospital admissions and incident diagnoses during the imposed lockdown in 2020 was descriptively analysed and compared to 2019. Results Physician consultations decrease slightly in February (−2%), increase before the imposed lockdown in March (+9%) and decline in April (−18%) and May (−14%) 2020 compared to the same periods in 2019. Volumes of hospital admissions decrease earlier and more intensely than physician consultations (−39 versus −6%, respectively). Overall, 15, 16 and 18% fewer incident diagnoses were documented by GPs, neurologists and diabetologists, respectively, in 2020. Diabetes, dementia, depression, cancer and stroke were diagnosed less frequently during the lockdown (−17 to −26%), meaning that the decrease in the recognition of diseases was greater than the decrease in physician consultations. Conclusion The data suggest that organisational changes were adopted quickly by practice management but also raise concerns about the maintenance of routine care. Prospective studies should evaluate the long-term effects of lockdowns on patient-related outcomes. [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]

Background The aim of this study was to describe outcomes in hospitalised older people with different levels of frailty and COVID-19 infection. Methods We undertook a single-centre, retrospective cohort study examining COVID-19-related mortality using electronic health records, for older people (65 and over) with frailty, hospitalised with or without COVID-19 infection. Baseline covariates included demographics, early warning scores, Charlson Comorbidity Indices and frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale, CFS), linked to COVID-19 status. Findings We analysed outcomes on 1,071 patients with COVID-19 test results (285 (27%) were positive for COVID-19). The mean age at ED arrival was 79.7 and 49.4% were female. All-cause mortality (by 30 days) rose from 9 (not frail) to 33% (severely frail) in the COVID-negative cohort but was around 60% for all frailty categories in the COVID-positive cohort. In adjusted analyses, the hazard ratio for death in those with COVID-19 compared to those without COVID-19 was 7.3 (95% CI: 3.00, 18.0) with age, comorbidities and illness severity making small additional contributions. Interpretation In this study, frailty measured using the CFS appeared to make little incremental contribution to the hazard of dying in older people hospitalised with COVID-19 infection; illness severity and comorbidity had a modest association with the overall adjusted hazard of death, whereas confirmed COVID-19 infection dominated, with a sevenfold hazard for death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Older adults are far more vulnerable to adverse health outcomes and mortality after contracting COVID-19. There are likely multiple age-related biological, clinical, and environmental reasons for this increased risk, all of which are exacerbated by underlying age-associated changes to the immune system as well as increased prevalence of chronic disease states in older adults. Innate immune system overactivity, termed the cytokine storm, appears to be critical in the development of the worst consequences of COVID-19 infection. Pathophysiology suggests that viral stimulation of the innate immune system, augmented by inflammatory signals sent from dying cells, ramps up into a poorly controlled outpouring of inflammatory mediators. Other aging-related changes in cells such as senescence as well as higher prevalence of chronic disease states also likely ramp up inflammatory signaling. This in turn drives downstream pathophysiological changes to pulmonary, cardiovascular, skeletal muscle, and brain tissues that drive many of the adverse health outcomes observed in older adults. This article provides an overview of the underlying etiologies of innate immune system activation and adaptive immune system dysregulation in older adults and how they potentiate the consequences of the COVID-19-related cytokine storm, and possible uses of this knowledge to develop better risk assessment and treatment monitoring strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Frailty, increased vulnerability to physiological stressors, is associated with adverse outcomes. COVID-19 exhibits a more severe disease course in older, comorbid adults. Awareness of atypical presentations is critical to facilitate early identification. Objective To assess how frailty affects presenting COVID-19 symptoms in older adults. Design Observational cohort study of hospitalised older patients and self-report data for community-based older adults. Setting Admissions to St Thomas' Hospital, London with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Community-based data for older adults using the COVID Symptom Study mobile application. Subjects Hospital cohort: patients aged 65 and over (n  = 322); unscheduled hospital admission between 1 March 2020 and 5 May 2020; COVID-19 confirmed by RT-PCR of nasopharyngeal swab. Community-based cohort: participants aged 65 and over enrolled in the COVID Symptom Study (n  = 535); reported test-positive for COVID-19 from 24 March (application launch) to 8 May 2020. Methods Multivariable logistic regression analysis performed on age-matched samples from hospital and community-based cohorts to ascertain association of frailty with symptoms of confirmed COVID-19. Results Hospital cohort: significantly higher prevalence of probable delirium in the frail sample, with no difference in fever or cough. Community-based cohort: significantly higher prevalence of possible delirium in frailer, older adults and fatigue and shortness of breath. Conclusions This is the first study demonstrating higher prevalence of probable delirium as a COVID-19 symptom in older adults with frailty compared to other older adults. This emphasises need for systematic frailty assessment and screening for delirium in acutely ill older patients in hospital and community settings. Clinicians should suspect COVID-19 in frail adults with delirium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Hong Kong, about 15% of older people (aged 80 and above) live in care homes, one of the highest proportions in the world. During the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome in 2003, the crude fatality rate for older people in care homes that were infected was 72%. After taking the advice of a team of international experts, the Hong Kong Government implemented comprehensive preventive measures to cope with the future epidemics. This commentary evaluates the effectiveness of these measures in coping with both influenza outbreaks and COVID-19 and suggests the lessons learnt are relevant to both developed and less developed countries? Lockdown in care homes is very effective under two conditions. Healthcare workers must wear surgical masks in the care home. Hospitals must adopt a strict policy to prevent virus transmission by discharged patients. Care homes situated within high-rise residential towers are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 transmission; their residents can more easily be infected by asymptomatic carriers from the community. Airborne virus can also be transmitted more swiftly in care homes with open-plan layouts. Lockdown had been shown to significantly reduce influenza outbreaks in care homes. On the other hand, lockdown causes loneliness to residents. Care homes allow residents to move freely within the care home though with the risk of spreading the virus by resident who is an asymptomatic carrier. Finally, lockdown may cause family members to have guilty feelings. Family members can only make video call or window visit to residents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background SARS-CoV-2 has disproportionately affected nursing homes (NH). In Ireland, the first NH case COVID-19 occurred on 16 March 2020. A national point-prevalence testing programme of all NH residents and staff took place (18 April 2020 to 5 May 2020). Aims to examine characteristics of NHs across three Irish Community Health Organisations, proportions with COVID-19 outbreaks, staff and resident infection rates symptom profile and resident case fatality. Methods in total, 45 NHs surveyed, requesting details on occupancy, size, COVID-19 outbreak, outbreak timing, total symptomatic/asymptomatic cases and outcomes for residents from 29 February 2020 to 22 May 2020. Results surveys were returned from 62.2% (28/45) of NHs (2,043 residents, 2,303 beds). Three-quarters (21/28) had COVID-19 outbreaks (1,741 residents, 1,972 beds). Median time from first COVID-19 case in Ireland to first case in these NHs was 27.0 days. Resident incidence was 43.9% (764/1,741)—40.8% (710/1,741) laboratory confirmed, with 27.2% (193/710) asymptomatic and 3.1% (54/1,741) clinically suspected. Resident case fatality was 27.6% (211/764) for combined laboratory-confirmed/clinically suspected COVID-19. Similar proportions of residents in NHs with 'early-stage' (<28 days) versus 'later-stage' outbreaks developed COVID-19. Lower proportions of residents in 'early' outbreak NHs had recovered compared with those with 'late' outbreaks (37.4 versus 61.7%; χ2 = 56.9, P  < 0.001). Of 395 NH staff across 12 sites with confirmed COVID-19, 24.7% (99/398) were asymptomatic. There was a significant correlation between the proportion of staff with symptomatic COVID-19 and resident numbers with confirmed/suspected COVID-19 (Spearman's rho = 0.81, P  < 0.001). Conclusion this study demonstrates the significant impact of COVID-19 on the NH sector. Systematic point-prevalence testing is necessary to reduce risk of transmission from asymptomatic carriers and manage outbreaks in this setting. [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]

Epidemics caused by microbial organisms are part of the natural phenomena of increasing biological complexity. The heterogeneity and constant variability of hosts, in terms of age, immunological status, family structure, lifestyle, work activities, social and leisure habits, daily division of time and other demographic characteristics make it extremely difficult to predict the evolution of epidemics. Such prediction is, however, critical for implementing intervention measures in due time and with appropriate intensity. General conclusions should be precluded, given that local parameters dominate the flow of local epidemics. Membrane computing models allows us to reproduce the objects (viruses and hosts) and their interactions (stochastic but also with defined probabilities) with an unprecedented level of detail. Our LOIMOS model helps reproduce the demographics and social aspects of a hypothetical town of 10 320 inhabitants in an average European country where COVID-19 is imported from the outside. The above-mentioned characteristics of hosts and their lifestyle are minutely considered. For the data in the Hospital and the ICU we took advantage of the observations at the Nursery Intensive Care Unit of the Consortium University General Hospital, Valencia, Spain (included as author). The dynamics of the epidemics are reproduced and include the effects on viral transmission of innate and acquired immunity at various ages. The model predicts the consequences of delaying the adoption of non-pharmaceutical interventions (between 15 and 45 days after the first reported cases) and the effect of those interventions on infection and mortality rates (reducing transmission by 20, 50 and 80%) in immunological response groups. The lockdown for the elderly population as a single intervention appears to be effective. This modeling exercise exemplifies the application of membrane computing for designing appropriate multilateral interventions in epidemic situations. Membrane computing technology is able to reproduce in-silico the demographic complexity of a town where COVID-19 is introduced. The model predicts the effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the epidemiogical dynamics, severity and mortality of the disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been particularly severe on older people. Past coronavirus epidemics namely Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome and the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome have also been severe on older people. These epidemics lasted for only a limited period, however, and have proven short lived in the memories of both the public and public health systems. No lessons were learnt to mitigate the impact of future epidemics of such nature, on older people. This complacency we feel has claimed the lives of many older people during the current COVID-19 global epidemic. The nature of risks associated with acquiring infections and associated mortality among older people in respiratory epidemic situations are varied and of serious concern. Our commentary identifies demographic, biological, behavioural, social and healthcare-related determinants, which increase the vulnerability of older people to respiratory epidemics. We acknowledge that these determinants will likely vary between older people in high- and low-middle income countries. Notwithstanding these variations, we call for urgent action to mitigate the impact of epidemics on older people and preserve their health and dignity. Intersectoral programmes that recognise the special needs of older people and in unique contexts such as care homes must be developed and implemented, with the full participation and agreement of older people. COVID-19 has created upheaval, challenging humanity and threatening the lives, rights, and well-being of older people. We must ensure that we remain an age-friendly society and make the world a better place for all including older people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Older people are disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has had a profound impact on research as well as clinical service delivery. This commentary identifies key challenges and opportunities in continuing to conduct research with and for older people, both during and after the current pandemic. It shares opinions from responders to an international survey, a range of academic authors and opinions from specialist societies. Priorities in COVID-19 research include its specific presentation in older people, consequences for physical, cognitive and psychological health, treatments and vaccines, rehabilitation, supporting care homes more effectively, the impact of social distancing, lockdown policies and system reconfiguration to provide best health and social care for older people. COVID-19 research needs to be inclusive, particularly involving older people living with frailty, cognitive impairment or multimorbidity, and those living in care homes. Non-COVID-19 related research for older people remains of critical importance and must not be neglected in the rush to study the pandemic. Profound changes are required in the way that we design and deliver research for older people in a world where movement and face-to-face contact are restricted, but we also highlight new opportunities such as the ability to collaborate more widely and to design and deliver research efficiently at scale and speed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19 has devastated care homes. Point-of-care tests (POCTs), mainly using lateral flow devices (LFDs), have been deployed hurriedly without much consideration of their usability or impact on care workflow. Even after the pandemic, POCTs, particularly multiplex tests, may be an important control against spread of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory infections in care homes by enabling identification of cases. They should not, however, replace other infection control measures such as barrier methods and quarantine. Adherence to LFDs as implemented among care home staff is suboptimal. Other tests—such as point-of-care polymerase chain reaction and automated antigen tests—would also need to be accommodated into care home workflows to improve adherence. The up-front costs of POCTs are straightforward but additional costs, including staffing preparation and reporting processes and the impacts of false positive and negative tests on absence rates and infection days, are more complex and as yet unquantified. A detailed appraisal is needed as the future of testing in care homes is considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the article, the authors discuss the effects of the Quick Response (QR) code system on older persons amidst the COVID-19 outbreak in China. Also cited are the use of the system as an electronic voucher to allow entry and exit in public spaces and travel to other places, how older people are discriminated due to their limited knowledge of digital technologies, and the need to address the issue to ensure older people's access to the Internet and health QR system.