Effectiveness of a On-site Medicalization Program for Nursing Homes With COVID-19 Outbreaks

The Impact of Pandemic-Driven Care Redesign on Hospital Efficiency

Purpose

This study aims to identify medical care transformations during the COVID-19 pandemic and to assess the economic efficiency of these care transformations.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviewing and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The databases used in the search protocol included PubMed, RSCI, and Google Scholar.

Results

Ten eligible studies in English and one publication in Russian were identified. In general, the following changes in organization of health care processes since 2020 are observed: hospital at home, telemedicine (physician-to-patient), and the adoption of new information communication technologies within physician-to-physician and physician-to-nurse communication. Earlier trends, such as (a) wider use of electronic devices, (b) adoption of Lean techniques, (c) the incorporation of patient and other customer experience feedback, and (d) the implementation of clinical decision support systems and automation of workflow, tend to be preserved.

Conclusion

The most common changes in hospital care organization and the respective impacts of workflow changes (ie, workflow interventions, redesign, and transformations) on the efficiency of hospital care were summarized and avenues for future research and policy implications were discussed. The pandemic demonstrated a need for building more resilient and adaptive healthcare systems, enhancing crisis preparedness along with rapid and effective responses.

Risk evaluation of venue types and human behaviors of COVID-19 outbreaks in public indoor environments: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Despite increasing vaccination rates, the incidence of breakthrough infections with COVID-19 has increased due to the continued emergence of new variants of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Therefore, Non-pharmaceutical interventions remain the most effective measures for coping with the ever-changing pandemic. The lifting of compulsory interventions has made individuals primary responsibility for their own health, which highlights the importance of increasing awareness of the infection risk from the environment in which they live and their individual behaviors. We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and Scopus on April 17, 2023, for all studies reporting COVID-19 outbreaks in public indoor venues. The study outcome was the attack rate. A total of 42 studies, which included cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, and case studies, reporting data on 1951 confirmed cases in 64 COVID-19 outbreaks satisfied the meta-analysis and were included in the review. A random-effect model was used in the meta-analysis, and subgroup analyses were conducted to investigate factors affecting attack rates. We found a strong level of evidence (p < 0.01) supporting a higher pooled attack rate in recreation-related venues (0.44, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.60) than in work-related venues (0.21, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.27). Compared to those outbreaks without that, outbreaks with high-intensity exercise, vocalization, contact behavior, or close body proximity had a higher attack rate of 0.51, 0.55, 0.33, and 0.39, respectively. Further studies suggest that different attack rates across different types of settings may be the result of heterogeneity in exposed people's behaviors. There were significant heterogeneities that may limit the interpretation of connections between influencing factors and outbreak outcomes. The identification of key behaviors that may contribute to transmission risk, and their correlation with venue type, has important implications for the development of future public health interventions and individual prevention strategies for respiratory infectious diseases such as COVID-19.

Universal masking during COVID-19 outbreaks in aged care settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aged care facilities (ACF) are a high-risk COVID-19 transmission setting, and older residents are at greater risk of severe outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed whether universal masking and COVID-19 vaccination reduce SARS-CoV-2 attack rates (ARs) in ACF. Articles published between 1 December 2019 and 28 February 2022 were screened across five databases (Medline, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)). Risk of bias was assessed using relevant Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools. Meta-analysis of single proportions, subgroup analysis, and meta-regression were performed to compare the effects of universal masking and vaccine doses on pooled SARS-CoV-2 ARs. Of 99 included articles, SARS-CoV-2 ARs for residents were available in 86 studies (representing 139 outbreaks), and for staff in 49 studies (78 outbreaks). Universal masking was associated with lower SARS-CoV-2 ARs in ACF outbreaks (AR = 34.9% [95% CI: 27.2-42.6%]) compared to facilities without universal masking (67.3% [54.2-80.4%], p < .0001). In ACF with universal masking prior to outbreak onset, facility-wide testing, and documentation of asymptomatic infection, the asymptomatic AR at time of testing was 11.4% (6.5-17.4%) in residents. Receipt of zero, one and two vaccination doses were associated with ARs of 64.9% (49.6-80.2%), 54.9% (33.7-76.1%) and 45.2% (29.2-61.3%), respectively. To protect residents from COVID-19, ACF should provide vaccination of residents and staff, universal masking for staff, and facility-wide testing during times of heightened community transmission.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding control measures on long-term care facilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Lessons Learned from the COVID-19 Pandemic in Nursing Homes: A Systematic Review

Nursing homes are one of the hardest-hit environments in terms of mortality from COVID-19. Given the reactive management of the pandemic, it is necessary to reflect on, and answer, the question as to which good practices (interventions) were implemented in care homes (population) to improve management and care quality (outcomes). This systematic review aimed to identify and describe good practices adopted in care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic or other recent epidemics. We conducted searches in Embase, PubMed, ScienceDirect, ProQuest Central, and Scopus over the period 1-30 November, 2021, using the descriptors "nursing homes", "long-term care", "long-term care facilities" and "COVID-19"; and the keywords "learnings", "lessons", "positive learnings", "positive lessons", "SARS", "MERS", "COVID-19" and "pandemic". We identified 15 papers describing 14 best practices and 26 specific actions taken for COVID-19 management in long-term care facilities. Following the IDEF methodology, the practices were classified into strategic processes (staff training, communication with the national health system, person-centered care, and protocols), operational processes (cohorts, diagnostic testing, case monitoring, personal protective equipment, staff reinforcement, restriction of visits, social distancing, and alternative means for communication with families) and support processes (provision of equipment and hygiene reinforcement). Fifty percent of practices were likely to be maintained beyond the outbreak to improve the operation and quality of the long-term care facilities. This review summarizes the most common measures adopted to manage the COVID-19 pandemic in the context of increased vulnerability and highlights the deficiencies that must be addressed.

Managing the Impact of COVID-19 in Nursing Homes and Long-Term Care Facilities: An Update

Older adults in nursing homes are at greatest risk of morbidity and mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nursing home residents constituted one-third to more than half of all deaths during the early waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Following this, widespread adaptation of infection prevention and control measures and the supply and use of personal protective equipment resulted in a significant decrease in nursing home infections and deaths. For nursing homes, the most important determinant of experiencing a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in the first instance appears to be community-transmission levels (particularly with variants of concern), although nursing home size and quality, for-profit status, and sociodemographic characteristics are also important. Use of visitation bans, imposed to reduce the impact of COVID-19 on residents, must be delicately balanced against their impact on resident, friend or family, and staff well-being. The successful rollout of primary vaccination has resulted in a sharp decrease in morbidity and mortality from SARS-CoV-2 in nursing homes. However, emerging evidence suggests that vaccine efficacy may wane over time, and the use of a third or additional vaccine "booster" doses in nursing home residents restores protection afforded by primary vaccination. Ongoing monitoring of vaccine efficacy in terms of infection, morbidity, and mortality is crucial in this vulnerable group in informing ongoing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine boosting strategies. Here, we detail the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on nursing home residents and discuss important considerations in the management of nursing home SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks. We additionally examine the use of testing strategies, nonpharmacologic outbreak control measures and vaccination strategies in this cohort. Finally, the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on the sector is reflected on as we emphasize the need for adoption of universal standards of medical care and integration with wider public health infrastructure in nursing homes in order to provide a safe and effective long-term care sector.

Site of care and factors associated with mortality in unvaccinated Australian aged care residents during COVID-19 outbreaks

BACKGROUND

Residential InReach presents an alternative to hospital admission for aged care residents swabbed for COVID-19, though relative outcomes remain unknown.

AIMS

To compare rates and predictors of 28-day mortality for aged care residents seen by InReach with COVID-19, or 'suspected COVID-19' ('sCOVID'), including hospital vs InReach-based care.

METHODS

Prospective observational study of consecutive patients referred to a Victorian InReach service meeting COVID-19 testing criteria between April-October 2020 (pre-vaccine availability). COVID-19 was determined by positive polymerase chain reaction testing on nasopharyngeal swab. sCOVID-19 was defined as meeting symptomatic Victorian Government testing criteria but persistently swab negative.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in age, gender, Clinical Frailty Score (CFS) or Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) between 152 patients with COVID-19 and 118 patients with sCOVID. 28-day mortality was similar between patients with COVID-19 (35/152, 23%) and sCOVID (32/118, 27%) (p=0.4). For the combined cohort, 28-day mortality was associated with initial oxygen saturation (p<0.001), delirium (p<0.001), hospital transfer for acuity (p=0.02; but not public health/facility reasons), CFS (p=0.04), prior ischaemic heart disease (p=0.01) and dementia (p=0.02). For COVID-19 patients, 28-day mortality was associated with initial oxygen saturation (p=0.02), delirium (p<0.001), and hospital transfer for acuity (p=0.01), but not public health/facility reasons.

CONCLUSION

Unvaccinated aged care residents meeting COVID-19 testing criteria seen by InReach during a pandemic experience high mortality rates, including with negative swab result. Residents remaining within-facility (with InReach) experienced similar adjusted mortality odds to residents transferred to hospital for public health/facility-based reasons, and lower than those transferred for clinical acuity. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Health impact of the first and second wave of COVID-19 and related restrictive measures among nursing home residents: a scoping review

Background and objectives

COVID-19 disproportionally affects older adults living in nursing homes. The purpose of this review was to explore and map the scientific literature on the health impact of COVID-19 and related restrictive measures during the first and second wave among nursing home residents. A specific focus was placed on health data collected among nursing home residents themselves.

Research design and methods

In this study, best practices for scoping reviews were followed. Five databases were systematically searched for peer-reviewed empirical studies published up until December 2020 in which data were collected among nursing home residents. Articles were categorized according to the type of health impact (physical, social and/or psychological) and study focus (impact of COVID-19 virus or related restrictive measures). Findings were presented using a narrative style.

Results

Of 60 included studies, 57 examined the physical impact of COVID-19. All of these focused on the direct impact of the COVID-19 virus. These studies often used an observational design and quantitative data collection methods, such as swab testing or reviewing health records. Only three studies examined the psychological impact of COVID-19 of which one study focused on the impact of COVID-19-related restrictive measures. Findings were contradictory; both decreased and improved psychological wellbeing was found during the pandemic compared with before. No studies were found that examined the impact on social wellbeing and one study examined other health-related outcomes, including preference changes of nursing home residents in Advanced Care planning following the pandemic.

Discussion and implications

Studies into the impact of the first and second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic among nursing home residents predominantly focused on the physical impact. Future studies into the psychological and social impact that collect data among residents themselves will provide more insight into their perspectives, such as lived experiences, wishes, needs and possibilities during later phases of the pandemic. These insights can inform policy makers and healthcare professionals in providing person-centered care during the remaining COVID-19 pandemic and in future crisis periods.

COVID-19's Influence on Information and Communication Technologies in Long-Term Care: Results From an Online Survey with Long-Term Care Administrators

Background

The prevalence of COVID-19 in the United States led to mandated lockdowns for long-term care (LTC) facilities, resulting in loss of in-person contact with social ties for LTC residents. Though information and communication technologies (ICTs) can be used by LTC residents to support their socioemotional needs, residents must have access to ICTs to use them.

Objective

This study explored ICT access and use in LTC facilities and how LTC facilities adapted to try to enhance social connections for their residents during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

LTC administrators in South Carolina (United States) were invited to complete a web-based survey exploring ICT access and use in LTC facilities and whether access and use changed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

LTC administrators (N=70, 12 nursing homes [NHs], and 58 assisted living facilities [ALFs]) completed the web-based survey. Since March 2020, a total of 53% (37/70) of the LTC facilities have purchased ICTs for residents’ use. ICTs have mainly been used for videoconferencing with family members (31/36, 86%), friends (25/36, 69%), and health care providers (26/36, 72%). NHs were 10.23 times more likely to purchase ICTs for residents’ use during the COVID-19 pandemic than ALFs (odds ratio 11.23, 95% CI 1.12-113.02; P=.04). Benefits of ICT use included residents feeling connected to their family members, friends, and other residents. Barriers to ICT use included staff not having time to assist residents with using the technology, nonfunctional technology, and residents who do not want to share technology.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that over half of the LTC facilities in this study were able to acquire ICTs for their residents to use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional research is needed to explore how residents adapted to using the ICTs and whether LTC facilities developed and adopted technology integration plans, which could help them be prepared for future situations that may affect LTC residents’ engagement and communication opportunities, such as another pandemic.

Clinical features and risk factors for mortality among long-term care facility residents hospitalized due to COVID-19 in Spain

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 severely impacted older adults and long-term care facility (LTCF) residents. Our primary aim was to describe differences in clinical and epidemiological variables, in-hospital management, and outcomes between LTCF residents and community-dwelling older adults hospitalized with COVID-19. The secondary aim was to identify risk factors for mortality due to COVID-19 in hospitalized LTCF residents.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional analysis within a retrospective cohort of hospitalized patients≥75 years with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to 160 Spanish hospitals. Differences between groups and factors associated with mortality among LTCF residents were assessed through comparisons and logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of 6,189 patients≥75 years, 1,185 (19.1%) were LTCF residents and 4,548 (73.5%) were community-dwelling. LTCF residents were older (median: 87.4 vs. 82.1 years), mostly female (61.6% vs. 43.2%), had more severe functional dependence (47.0% vs 7.8%), more comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index: 6 vs 5), had dementia more often (59.1% vs. 14.4%), and had shorter duration of symptoms (median: 3 vs 6 days) than community-dwelling patients (all, p<.001). Mortality risk factors in LTCF residents were severe functional dependence (aOR:1.79;95%CI:1.13-2.83;p=.012), dyspnea (1.66;1.16-2.39;p=.004), SatO2<94% (1.73;1.27-2.37;p=.001), temperature≥37.8ºC (1.62;1.11-2.38; p=.013); qSOFA index≥2 (1.62;1.11-2.38;p=.013), bilateral infiltrates (1.98;1.24-2.98;p<.001), and high C-reactive protein (1.005;1.003-1.007;p<.001). In-hospital mortality was initially higher among LTCF residents (43.3% vs 39.7%), but lower after adjusting for sex, age, functional dependence, and comorbidities (aOR:0.74,95%CI:0.62-0.87;p<.001).

CONCLUSION

Basal functional status and COVID-19 severity are risk factors of mortality in LTCF residents. The lower adjusted mortality rate in LTCF residents may be explained by earlier identification, treatment, and hospitalization for COVID-19.

Non-pharmacological measures implemented in the setting of long-term care facilities to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections and their consequences: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

Starting in late 2019, COVID-19, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, spread around the world. Long-term care facilities are at particularly high risk of outbreaks, and the burden of morbidity and mortality is very high among residents living in these facilities.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of non-pharmacological measures implemented in long-term care facilities to prevent or reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection among residents, staff, and visitors.

SEARCH METHODS

On 22 January 2021, we searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, Web of Science, and CINAHL. We also conducted backward citation searches of existing reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered experimental, quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies that assessed the effects of the measures implemented in long-term care facilities to protect residents and staff against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Primary outcomes were infections, hospitalisations and deaths due to COVID-19, contaminations of and outbreaks in long-term care facilities, and adverse health effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. One review author performed data extractions, risk of bias assessments and quality appraisals, and at least one other author checked their accuracy. Risk of bias and quality assessments were conducted using the ROBINS-I tool for cohort and interrupted-time-series studies, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for case-control studies, and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively, focusing on the direction of effect. One review author assessed certainty of evidence with GRADE, with the author team critically discussing the ratings.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 observational studies and 11 modelling studies in the analysis. All studies were conducted in high-income countries. Most studies compared outcomes in long-term care facilities that implemented the measures with predicted or observed control scenarios without the measure (but often with baseline infection control measures also in place). Several modelling studies assessed additional comparator scenarios, such as comparing higher with lower rates of testing. There were serious concerns regarding risk of bias in almost all observational studies and major or critical concerns regarding the quality of many modelling studies. Most observational studies did not adequately control for confounding. Many modelling studies used inappropriate assumptions about the structure and input parameters of the models, and failed to adequately assess uncertainty. Overall, we identified five intervention domains, each including a number of specific measures. Entry regulation measures (4 observational studies; 4 modelling studies) Self-confinement of staff with residents may reduce the number of infections, probability of facility contamination, and number of deaths. Quarantine for new admissions may reduce the number of infections. Testing of new admissions and intensified testing of residents and of staff after holidays may reduce the number of infections, but the evidence is very uncertain. The evidence is very uncertain regarding whether restricting admissions of new residents reduces the number of infections, but the measure may reduce the probability of facility contamination. Visiting restrictions may reduce the number of infections and deaths. Furthermore, it may increase the probability of facility contamination, but the evidence is very uncertain. It is very uncertain how visiting restrictions may adversely affect the mental health of residents. Contact-regulating and transmission-reducing measures (6 observational studies; 2 modelling studies) Barrier nursing may increase the number of infections and the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Multicomponent cleaning and environmental hygiene measures may reduce the number of infections, but the evidence is very uncertain. It is unclear how contact reduction measures affect the probability of outbreaks. These measures may reduce the number of infections, but the evidence is very uncertain. Personal hygiene measures may reduce the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain.  Mask and personal protective equipment usage may reduce the number of infections, the probability of outbreaks, and the number of deaths, but the evidence is very uncertain. Cohorting residents and staff may reduce the number of infections, although evidence is very uncertain. Multicomponent contact -regulating and transmission -reducing measures may reduce the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Surveillance measures (2 observational studies; 6 modelling studies) Routine testing of residents and staff independent of symptoms may reduce the number of infections. It may reduce the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Evidence from one observational study suggests that the measure may reduce, while the evidence from one modelling study suggests that it probably reduces hospitalisations. The measure may reduce the number of deaths among residents, but the evidence on deaths among staff is unclear.  Symptom-based surveillance testing may reduce the number of infections and the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Outbreak control measures (4 observational studies; 3 modelling studies) Separating infected and non-infected residents or staff caring for them may reduce the number of infections. The measure may reduce the probability of outbreaks and may reduce the number of deaths, but the evidence for the latter is very uncertain. Isolation of cases may reduce the number of infections and the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Multicomponent measures (2 observational studies; 1 modelling study) A combination of multiple infection-control measures, including various combinations of the above categories, may reduce the number of infections and may reduce the number of deaths, but the evidence for the latter is very uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a comprehensive framework and synthesis of a range of non-pharmacological measures implemented in long-term care facilities. These may prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections and their consequences. However, the certainty of evidence is predominantly low to very low, due to the limited availability of evidence and the design and quality of available studies. Therefore, true effects may be substantially different from those reported here. Overall, more studies producing stronger evidence on the effects of non-pharmacological measures are needed, especially in low- and middle-income countries and on possible unintended consequences of these measures. Future research should explore the reasons behind the paucity of evidence to guide pandemic research priority setting in the future.

Specific approaches to patients affected by dementia and covid-19 in nursing homes: the role of the geriatrician

The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is relevant in older people. Attention was given to the nursing homes in which frailer people are usually admitted. In this review, we discuss the approaches for daily problems found in nursing home as geriatricians and potentially new research directions. We start with the problem of the older people affected by dementia and Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia for which also the execution of a simple diagnostic test (such as nasopharyngeal swab) could be problematic. Another important problem is the management of wandering patients for which the re-organization of the spaces and vaccination could be the solutions. The relationship with families is another important problem, also from a medico-legal point of view, that can be faced using video conferencing tools. Moreover, we discussed the importance of stratifying prognosis in older nursing home residents for the best management and therapeutically approach, including palliative care, also using telemedicine and the inclusion of prognostic tools in daily clinical practice. Finally, we approached the therapeutical issues in older people that suggests the necessity of future research for finding older-friendly medications.

Early multidrug treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) and reduced mortality among nursing home (or outpatient/ambulatory) residents

The outbreak of COVID-19 from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread all over the world with tremendous morbidity and mortality in the elderly. In-hospital treatment addresses the multifaceted nature of the illness including initial viral replication, cytokine storm, and endothelial injury with thrombosis. We identified nine reports of early treatment outcomes in COVID-19 nursing home patients. Multi-drug therapy including hydroxychloroquine with one or more anti-infectives, corticosteroids, and antithrombotic anti-blood clotting agents can be extended to seniors in the nursing home setting without hospitalization. Data from nine studies found hydroxychloroquine-based multidrug regimens were associated with a statistically significant > 60% reduction in mortality. Going forward, we conclude that early empiric treatment for the elderly with COVID-19 in the nursing home setting (or similar congregated settings with elderly residents/patients e.g. LTF or ALF) has a reasonable probability of success and acceptable safety. This group remains our highest at-risk group and warrants acute treatment focus prior to symptoms worsening. Given the rapidity and severity of SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in nursing homes, in-center treatment of acute COVID-19 patients is a reasonable strategy to reduce the risks of hospitalization and death. If elderly high-risk patients in such congregated nursing home type settings are allowed to worsen with no early treatment, they may be too sick and fragile to benefit from in-hospital therapeutics and are at risk for pulmonary failure, life-ending micro-thrombi of the lungs, kidneys etc. The issue is timing of therapeutics, and we argue that early treatment before hospitalization, is the right time and can potentially save lives, especially among our higher-risk elderly populations hit hardest by severe illness and death from COVID-19. We must reiterate, we are talking about ‘early’ treatment before the disease is far along in the disease sequelae where the patient then needs hospitalization and aggressive interventions. We are referring to the initial days e.g. day one, post infection when symptoms emerge or there is strong clinical suspicion. This early therapeutic option deserves serious and urgent consideration by the medical establishment and respective decision-makers. Doctors must be allowed their clinical discretion in how they optimally treat their patients. Doctors must be brave and trust their skilled judgements and do all to save the lives of their patients.

We therefore hypothesize that early outpatient ambulatory treatment, once initiated as soon as symptoms begin in high-risk positive persons, would significantly reduce hospitalizations and prevent deaths. Specifically, the provision of early multi-drug sequenced therapy with repurposed drugs will reduce hospitalization and death in elderly patients being cared for in long-term-care facilities.

The most important implications of our hypothesis are: 1) hospitalizations and deaths would be reduced 2) transmission would be reduced due to the mitigation of symptoms and 3) recovery following infection and treatment provides for natural exposure immunity that is broad based, durable, and robust (helping towards natural immunity within the population). The end result is reduced strain on hospitals and systems that would allow for other non-COVID illnesses to receive care.

Health, Psycho-Social Factors, and Ageism in Older Adults in Spain during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Older adults are a population at risk for COVID-19. This study has two independent objectives: (1) to report the impact of COVID-19, as well as psycho-social responses during lockdown, in a sample of older adults in Spain, and (2) to explore through the review of published surveys what extent ageism has increased at the population level. The first objective was to search through an online questionnaire collecting information about self-reported health, lifestyles, psycho-social conditions, and a diversity of concerns. This questionnaire was administered to a volunteer sample of 315 older Spanish men and women (301 COVID-19-free and 14 diagnosed with COVID-19). All individuals reported that they had information about the COVID-19 pandemic. Their self-perception of health was also quite good, most maintaining healthy lifestyles and few reporting unhealthy behaviors. They reported few changes in family and interpersonal relations during lockdown. Those diagnosed with COVID-19 reported higher levels of anxiety, irritation, and fear, in comparison with the COVID-19-free group. Interestingly, instead of being concerned about health, the greatest concern in both groups (COVID-free and those diagnosed with COVID) were politics and the future. Our second objective, to explore ageism during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, was examined across various surveys conducted in several populations by several authors. Results showed an increase in ageism in Spain. Although some new information about health perception, psychosocial responses, and concerns during this unknown stressful situation was obtained, much more research with representative samples is required in order to arrive at more accurate conclusions.

Epidemiology and clinical features of COVID-19 outbreaks in aged care facilities: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 outbreaks in aged care facilities (ACFs) often have devastating consequences. However, epidemiologically these outbreaks are not well defined. We aimed to define such outbreaks in ACFs by systematically reviewing literature published during the current COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We searched 11 bibliographic databases for literature published on COVID-19 in ACFs between December 2019 and September 2020. Original studies reporting extractable epidemiological data as part of outbreak investigations or non-outbreak surveillance of ACFs were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020211424.

FINDINGS

We identified 5,148 publications and selected 49 studies from four continents reporting data on 214,380 residents in 8,502 ACFs with 25,567 confirmed cases of COVID-19. Aged care residents form a distinct vulnerable population with single-facility attack rates of 45% [95% CI 32-58%] and case fatality rates of 23% [95% CI 18-28%]. Of the cases, 31% [95% CI 28-34%] were asymptomatic. The rate of hospitalization amongst residents was 37% [95% CI 35-39%]. Data from 21 outbreaks identified a resident as the index case in 58% of outbreaks and a staff member in 42%. Findings from the included studies were heterogeneous and of low to moderate quality in risk of bias assessment.

INTERPRETATION

The clinical presentation of COVID-19 varies widely in ACFs residents, from asymptomatic to highly serious cases. Preventing the introduction of COVID-19 into ACFs is key, and both residents and staff are a priority group for COVID-19 vaccination. Rapid diagnosis, identification of primary and secondary cases and close contacts plus their isolation and quarantine are of paramount importance.

FUNDING

Queensland Advancing Clinical Research Fellowship awarded to Prof. Gulam Khandaker by Queensland Health's Health Innovation, Investment and Research Office (HIRO), Office of the Director-General.