SARS-CoV-2 in Nursing Homes after 3 Months of Serial, Facilitywide Point Prevalence Testing, Connecticut, USA

How to protect long-term care facilities from pandemic-like events? - A systematic review on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological measures to prevent viral respiratory infections

BACKGROUND

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic underscored the need for pandemic preparedness, with respiratory-transmitted viruses considered as a substantial risk. In pandemics, long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are a high-risk setting with severe outbreaks and burden of disease. Non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) constitute the primary defence mechanism when pharmacological interventions are not available. However, evidence on the effectiveness of NPIs implemented in LTCFs remains unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review assessing the effectiveness of NPIs implemented in LTCFs to protect residents and staff from viral respiratory pathogens with pandemic potential. We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and two COVID-19 registries in 09/2022. Screening and data extraction was conducted independently by two experienced researchers. We included randomized controlled trials and non-randomized observational studies of intervention effects. Quality appraisal was conducted using ROBINS-I and RoB2. Primary outcomes encompassed number of outbreaks, infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. We synthesized findings narratively, focusing on the direction of effect. Certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE.

RESULTS

We analysed 13 observational studies and three (cluster) randomized controlled trials. All studies were conducted in high-income countries, all but three focused on SARS-CoV-2 with the rest focusing on influenza or upper-respiratory tract infections. The evidence indicates that a combination of different measures and hand hygiene interventions can be effective in protecting residents and staff from infection-related outcomes (moderate CoE). Self-confinement of staff with residents, compartmentalization of staff in the LTCF, and the routine testing of residents and/or staff in LTCFs, among others, may be effective (low CoE). Other measures, such as restricting shared spaces, serving meals in room, cohorting infected and non-infected residents may be effective (very low CoE). An evidence gap map highlights the lack of evidence on important interventions, encompassing visiting restrictions, pre-entry testing, and air filtration systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Although CoE of interventions was low or very low for most outcomes, the implementation of NPIs identified as potentially effective in this review often constitutes the sole viable option, particularly prior to the availability of vaccinations. Our evidence-gap map underscores the imperative for further research on several interventions. These gaps need to be addressed to prepare LTCFs for future pandemics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42022344149.

Disease burden and high-risk populations for complications in patients with acute respiratory infections: a scoping review

Background

Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) represent a significant public health concern in the U.S. This study aimed to describe the disease burden of ARIs and identify U.S. populations at high risk of developing complications.

Methods

This scoping review searched PubMed and EBSCO databases to analyze U.S. studies from 2013 to 2022, focusing on disease burden, complications, and high-risk populations associated with ARIs.

Results

The study included 60 studies and showed that ARI is associated with a significant disease burden and healthcare resource utilization (HRU). In 2019, respiratory infection and tuberculosis caused 339,703 cases per 100,000 people, with most cases being upper respiratory infections and most deaths being lower respiratory infections. ARI is responsible for millions of outpatient visits, especially for influenza and pneumococcal pneumonia, and indirect costs of billions of dollars. ARI is caused by multiple pathogens and poses a significant burden on hospitalizations and outpatient visits. Risk factors for HRU associated with ARI include age, chronic conditions, and socioeconomic factors.

Conclusion

The review underscores the substantial disease burden of ARIs and the influence of age, chronic conditions, and socioeconomic status on developing complications. It highlights the necessity for targeted strategies for high-risk populations and effective pathogen detection to prevent severe complications and reduce HRU.

Nursing Home Residents' COVID-19 Infections in the United States: A Systematic Review of Personal and Contextual Factors

Background: This mixed methods systemic review synthesizes the evidence about nursing home risks for COVID-19 infections. Methods: Four electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Sage Journals Online) were searched between January 2020 and October 2022. Inclusion criteria were studies reported on nursing home COVID-19 infection risks by geography, demography, type of nursing home, staffing and resident's health, and COVID-19 vaccination status. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess the levels of evidence for quality, and a narrative synthesis for reporting the findings by theme. Results: Of 579 initial articles, 48 were included in the review. Findings suggest that highly populated counties and urban locations had a higher likelihood of COVID-19 infections. Larger nursing homes with a low percentage of fully vaccinated residents also had increased risks for COVID-19 infections than smaller nursing homes. Residents with advanced age, of racial minority, and those with chronic illnesses were at higher risk for COVID-19 infections. Discussion and implications: Findings suggest that along with known risk factors for COVID-19 infections, geographic and resident demographics are also important preventive care considerations. Access to COVID-19 vaccinations for vulnerable residents should be a priority.

Lessons Learned from the Connecticut Response to COVID-19 in Nursing Homes during the First 2 Years of the Pandemic

Nearly half of all SARS-CoV-2-related deaths in the United States occurred in long-term care facilities during the early pandemic. In Connecticut, statewide mitigation of this impact involved a collaboration between the Connecticut Department of Public Health and the Yale School of Public Health, alongside existing relationships with the long-term care industry and individual facilities. This close government-academic-industry collaboration facilitated the creation of a robust COVID-19 surveillance system that allowed for real-time analysis and identification of nursing homes where outbreak support was needed. The collaboration further facilitated vaccine and booster deployment to Connecticut nursing homes at a speed that outpaced much of the country. The impact of these interventions is demonstrated through COVID-19 case and death burdens among nursing home residents and the greater Connecticut population during each wave of the pandemic. We outline the evolution and impact of these alliances and how they enabled us to prioritize facilities, interventions, and the distribution of limited resources and training throughout the pandemic. We further detail lessons learned over the first 2 years of the pandemic. Such partnerships strengthen our ability to respond effectively to public health crises and should be created and/or maintained in the face of continued pandemic threats.

Nurses' Experiences of Care in Portuguese Nursing Homes during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Focus Group Study

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a considerable influence on long-term care facilities, exposing the shortcomings of nursing homes in implementing recommendations by health authorities. It also emphasizes the need for a nursing management model customized to the vulnerable status of residents, organizational demands, and occupational nursing requirements. We aimed to characterize the perspectives of nurses who have experienced COVID-19 in nursing homes regarding measures implemented to avoid or manage outbreaks in that environment. An interview was conducted with a focus group following the consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative research guidelines. Data analysis was performed using WebQDA software following a thematic category orientation. Eight Portuguese nurses working in nursing homes from the country's central area participated in this study. We identified three major significant areas for long-term care respiratory outbreak management: strategic (policy, staffing, and resources); tactical (training, organization, engagement, and supervision); and operational planning (vigilance, prevention of disease spread, and family involvement). From the participants' view, the management of COVID-19 in nursing homes must be highly supportive and responsive, offering resources to control risks, supporting residents' care, and ensuring the safety and well-being of residents and staff members. Saturation was not reached; thus, further research is needed in this area.

Missing science: A scoping study of COVID-19 epidemiological data in the United States

Systematic approaches to epidemiologic data collection are critical for informing pandemic responses, providing information for the targeting and timing of mitigations, for judging the efficacy and efficiency of alternative response strategies, and for conducting real-world impact assessments. Here, we report on a scoping study to assess the completeness of epidemiological data available for COVID-19 pandemic management in the United States, enumerating authoritative US government estimates of parameters of infectious transmission, infection severity, and disease burden and characterizing the extent and scope of US public health affiliated epidemiological investigations published through November 2021. While we found authoritative estimates for most expected transmission and disease severity parameters, some were lacking, and others had significant uncertainties. Moreover, most transmission parameters were not validated domestically or re-assessed over the course of the pandemic. Publicly available disease surveillance measures did grow appreciably in scope and resolution over time; however, their resolution with regards to specific populations and exposure settings remained limited. We identified 283 published epidemiological reports authored by investigators affiliated with U.S. governmental public health entities. Most reported on descriptive studies. Published analytic studies did not appear to fully respond to knowledge gaps or to provide systematic evidence to support, evaluate or tailor community mitigation strategies. The existence of epidemiological data gaps 18 months after the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic underscores the need for more timely standardization of data collection practices and for anticipatory research priorities and protocols for emerging infectious disease epidemics.

Effectiveness of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA Vaccines Against Infection During an Outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Beta (B.1.351) Variant in a Skilled Nursing Facility: Virginia, March-April 2021

In April 2021, we assessed mRNA vaccine effectiveness (VE) in the context of a COVID-19 outbreak in a skilled nursing facility. Among 28 cases, genomic sequencing was performed on 4 specimens on 4 different patients, and all were classified by sequence analysis as the Beta (B.1.351) variant. Adjusted VE among residents was 65% (95% confidence interval: 25-84%). These findings underscore the importance of vaccination for prevention of COVID-19 in skilled nursing facilities.

The implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for long term care facilities

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite advances in infection prevention and control and breakthroughs in vaccination development, challenges remain for long-term care facilities (LTCFs) as they face a likely future of emerging infectious diseases. To ensure the safety of LTCF residents from the current and future pandemics, we identify lessons learned from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) experience for improving future prevention and response efforts.

RECENT FINDINGS

In addition to high disease susceptibility among LTCF residents, LTCF vulnerabilities include a lack of pandemic preparedness, a lack of surge capacity in human, material and testing resources, and poorly designed buildings. External sources of vulnerability include staff working in multiple LTCFs and high COVID-19 rates in surrounding communities. Other challenges include poor cooperation between LTCFs and the other components of health systems, inadequately enforced regulations, and the sometimes contradictory interests for-profit LTCFs face between protecting their residents and turning a profit.

SUMMARY

These challenges can be addressed in the post-COVID-19 period through systemic reforms. Governments should establish comprehensive health networks that normalize mechanisms for prediction/preparedness and response/recovery from disruptive events including pandemics. In addition, governments should facilitate cooperation among public and private sector health systems and institutions while utilizing advanced digital communication technologies. These steps will greatly reduce the threat to LTCFs posed by emerging infectious diseases in future.

Implementation of a national testing policy in Dutch nursing homes during SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Background

To evaluate how a national policy of testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) regardless of symptoms was implemented during outbreaks in Dutch nursing homes in the second wave of the pandemic and to explore barriers and facilitators to serial testing.

Methods

We conducted a mixed‐method study of nursing homes in the Netherlands with a SARS‐CoV‐2 outbreak after 15 September 2020. Direct care staff and management from 355 healthcare organizations were invited to participate in a digital survey. A total of 74 out of 355 (20.9%) healthcare organizations participated and provided information about 117 nursing homes. We conducted 26 in‐depth interviews on the outbreak and the testing strategy used. We also conducted four focus group meetings involving managers, physicians, nurses, and certified health assistants. Recordings were transcribed and data were thematically analyzed.

Results

One hundred and four nursing homes (89%) tested residents regardless of their symptoms during the outbreak, and 85 nursing homes (73%) tested the staff regardless of their symptoms. However, interviews showed testing was sometimes implemented during later stages of the outbreak and was not always followed up with serial testing. Barriers to serial testing regardless of symptoms were lack of knowledge of local leaders with decisional making authority, lack of a cohort ward or skilled staff, and insufficient collaboration with laboratories or local public health services. Important facilitators to serial testing were staff willingness to undergo testing and the availability of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests.

Conclusions

Serial testing regardless of symptoms was only partially implemented. The response rate of 21% of nursing home organizations gives a risk of selection bias. Barriers to testing need to be addressed. A national implementation policy that promotes collaboration between public health services and nursing homes and educates management and care staff is necessary.

COVID-19 Testing and Case Rates and Social Contact Among Residential College Students in Connecticut During the 2020-2021 Academic Year

Importance

During the 2020-2021 academic year, many institutions of higher education reopened to residential students while pursuing strategies to mitigate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission on campus. Reopening guidance emphasized polymerase chain reaction or antigen testing for residential students and social distancing measures to reduce the frequency of close interpersonal contact, and Connecticut colleges and universities used a variety of approaches to reopen campuses to residential students.

Objective

To characterize institutional reopening strategies and COVID-19 outcomes in 18 residential college and university campuses across Connecticut.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used data on COVID-19 testing and cases and social contact from 18 college and university campuses in Connecticut that had residential students during the 2020-2021 academic year.

Exposures

Tests for COVID-19 performed per week per residential student.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Cases per week per residential student and mean (95% CI) social contact per week per residential student.

Results

Between 235 and 4603 residential students attended the fall semester across each of 18 institutions of higher education in Connecticut, with fewer residential students at most institutions during the spring semester. In census block groups containing residence halls, the fall student move-in resulted in a 475% (95% CI, 373%-606%) increase in mean contact, and the spring move-in resulted in a 561% (95% CI, 441%-713%) increase in mean contact compared with the 7 weeks prior to move-in. The association between test frequency and case rate per residential student was complex; institutions that tested students infrequently detected few cases but failed to blunt transmission, whereas institutions that tested students more frequently detected more cases and prevented further spread. In fall 2020, each additional test per student per week was associated with a decrease of 0.0014 cases per student per week (95% CI, -0.0028 to -0.00001).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cohort study suggest that, in the era of available vaccinations and highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants, colleges and universities should continue to test residential students and use mitigation strategies to control on-campus COVID-19 cases.

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.