E-nursing homes: transforming access to nurses in nursing homes in response to the staffing crisis.

The UK is facing a nationwide staffing crisis within adult social care, due to difficulties in recruiting and retaining registered nurses. Current interpretation of legislation means nursing homes must always have the physical presence of a registered nurse on duty within the home. With the shortage of registered nurses increasing, reliance on agency workers is commonplace, a practice impacting service cost and continuity of care. Lack of innovation to tackle this issue means the question of how to transform service delivery to combat staffing shortages is open for debate. The potential for technology to augment the provision of care was highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article the authors present one possible solution focused on the provision of digital nursing care within nursing homes. Anticipated benefits include enhanced accessibility of nursing roles, reduced risk of viral spread and opportunities for upskilling staff. However, challenges include the current interpretation of legislation.

Implementing Affordable Socially Assistive Pet Robots in Care Homes Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Stratified Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial and Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Robot pets may assist in the challenges of supporting an aging population with growing dementia prevalence. Prior work has focused on the impacts of the robot seal Paro on older adult well-being, but recent studies have suggested the good acceptability and implementation feasibility of more affordable devices (Joy for All [JfA] cats and dogs). OBJECTIVE: We aimed to address the limited effectiveness research on JfA devices. METHODS: We conducted an 8-month, stratified, cluster randomized controlled trial in 8 care homes in Cornwall, United Kingdom. Over 4 months, 4 care homes each received 2 JfA devices (1 cat and 1 dog; intervention group), and 4 homes received care as usual (control group). Psychometrics were collected before and after the intervention to compare the change from baseline to follow-up between the groups. In the final 4 months, all 8 care homes received devices, but only qualitative data were collected owing to COVID-19 and reduced capacity. The primary outcome was neuropsychiatric symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory [NPI] Nursing Home version). Care provider burden was a secondary outcome (occupational disruptiveness NPI subscale), alongside the Challenging Behavior scale, the Holden communication scale, the Campaign to End Loneliness questionnaire, and medication use. Qualitative data were collected through care staff observation calendars and end-of-study interviews to understand use, experience, and impact. We also collected demographic data and assessed dementia severity. In total, 253 residents had robot interaction opportunities, and 83 were consented for direct data collection. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in the total change from baseline to follow-up between the intervention and control groups for NPI (P<.001) and occupational disruptiveness (P=.03). Neuropsychiatric symptoms increased in the control group and decreased in the intervention group. No significant difference was seen for communication issues or challenging behavior. For NPI subdomains, there were significant differences from baseline to follow-up in delusions (P=.03), depression (P=.01), anxiety (P=.001), elation (P=.02), and apathy (P=.009), all of which decreased in the intervention group and increased slightly in the control group. The summative impact results suggested that most residents (46/54, 85%) who interacted with robots experienced a positive impact. Those who interacted had significantly higher dementia severity scores (P=.001). The qualitative results suggested good adoption, acceptability, and suitability for subjectively lonely individuals and lack of a novelty effect through sustained use, and demonstrated that the reasons for use were entertainment, anxiety, and agitation. CONCLUSIONS: Affordable robot pets hold potential for improving the well-being of care home residents and people with dementia, including reducing neuropsychiatric symptoms and occupational disruptiveness. This work suggests no novelty effect and contributes toward understanding robot pet suitability. Moreover, interactions were more common among residents with more moderate/severe dementia and those subjectively lonely. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04168463; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04168463.

Meaningful patient and public involvement in digital health innovation, implementation and evaluation: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The importance of meaningfully involving patients and the public in digital health innovation is widely acknowledged, but often poorly understood. This review, therefore, sought to explore how patients and the public are involved in digital health innovation and to identify factors that support and inhibit meaningful patient and public involvement (PPI) in digital health innovation, implementation and evaluation. METHODS: Searches were undertaken from 2010 to July 2020 in the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and ACM Digital Library. Grey literature searches were also undertaken using the Patient Experience Library database and Google Scholar. RESULTS: Of the 10,540 articles identified, 433 were included. The majority of included articles were published in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, with representation from 42 countries highlighting the international relevance of PPI in digital health. 112 topic areas where PPI had reportedly taken place were identified. Areas most often described included cancer (n = 50), mental health (n = 43), diabetes (n = 26) and long-term conditions (n = 19). Interestingly, over 133 terms were used to describe PPI; few were explicitly defined. Patients were often most involved in the final, passive stages of an innovation journey, for example, usability testing, where the ability to proactively influence change was severely limited. Common barriers to achieving meaningful PPI included data privacy and security concerns, not involving patients early enough and lack of trust. Suggested enablers were often designed to counteract such challenges. CONCLUSIONS: PPI is largely viewed as valuable and essential in digital health innovation, but rarely practised. Several barriers exist for both innovators and patients, which currently limits the quality, frequency and duration of PPI in digital health innovation, although improvements have been made in the past decade. Some reported barriers and enablers such as the importance of data privacy and security appear to be unique to PPI in digital innovation. Greater efforts should be made to support innovators and patients to become meaningfully involved in digital health innovations from the outset, given its reported benefits and impacts. Stakeholder consensus on the principles that underpin meaningful PPI in digital health innovation would be helpful in providing evidence-based guidance on how to achieve this. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This review has received extensive patient and public contributions with a representative from the Patient Experience Library involved throughout the review's conception, from design (including suggested revisions to the search strategy) through to article production and dissemination. Other areas of patient and public contributor involvement include contributing to the inductive thematic analysis process, refining the thematic framework and finalizing theme wording, helping to ensure relevance, value and meaning from a patient perspective. Findings from this review have also been presented to a variety of stakeholders including patients, patient advocates and clinicians through a series of focus groups and webinars. Given their extensive involvement, the representative from the Patient Experience Library is rightly included as an author of this review.

COVID-Specific Coercive Control among Emerging Adults Attending College: A Brief Note.

The COVID-19 pandemic represents a "perfect storm" with regards to risk for intimate partner violence (IPV). Abusive partners may engage in novel forms of coercive control, such as pressuring their partner to engage in activities associated with COVID-19 infection risk (e.g., attend a large gathering). However, no empirical research has focused on COVID-specific coercive control. The current study sought to evaluate the prevalence of COVID-specific coercive control in a large sample of U.S. college students, as well as its association with other forms of IPV and depression and anxiety. A total of 2,289 undergraduate students attending eight U.S. universities who were currently in a sexual/dating/romantic relationship completed an online survey in Fall 2020 about COVID-specific coercive control, other forms of IPV (psychological, physical, sexual, coercive control) and depression and anxiety symptoms. Overall, 15.5% (n = 355) of students reported experiencing COVID-specific coercive control. Individuals who experienced COVID-specific coercive control were more likely to have experienced all other forms of IPV than those who did not experience COVID-specific coercive control. Further, individuals who experienced COVID-specific coercive control had significantly greater anxiety than individuals who did not experience any form of IPV. Individuals who experienced both COVID-specific coercive control and other forms of IPV had the highest levels of depression and anxiety. COVID-specific coercive control may serve to increase depression and anxiety, particularly if it co-occurs with other forms of IPV. Future work should evaluate the prevalence and long-term impact of coercive control during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fear of COVID-19, anxiety, and social support among college students.

OBJECTIVE: The present study prospectively examined the association between fear of COVID-19 and anxiety and whether social support moderated this association among college students. PARTICIPANTS: 1,539 students from 11 universities in the United States completed two online surveys, one prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and one during the pandemic. METHODS: Hierarchical linear regressions assessed the impact of COVID-19 fears and social support on anxiety, after accounting for pre-pandemic anxiety and demographics. RESULTS: Results supported that adding fear of COVID-19 to the regression model resulted in a significant increase in variance explained over demographics and pre-pandemic anxiety. Social support did not moderate the association between fear of COVID-19 and anxiety. CONCLUSION: These data underscore the mental health impact of COVID-19 on students and the urgency with which campus-wide initiatives are needed to support students during this unprecedented time.

Exploring Patient and Staff Experiences With Video Consultations During COVID-19 in an English Outpatient Care Setting: Secondary Data Analysis of Routinely Collected Feedback Data.

BACKGROUND: Video consultations (VCs) were rapidly implemented in response to COVID-19 despite modest progress before. OBJECTIVE: We aim to explore staff and patient experiences with VCs implemented during COVID-19 and use feedback insights to support quality improvement and service development. METHODS: Secondary data analysis was conducted on 955 patient and 521 staff responses (from 4234 consultations; 955/4234, 22.6% and 521/4234, 12.3%, respectively) routinely collected following a VC between June and July 2020 in a rural, older adult, and outpatient care setting at a National Health Service Trust. Responses were summarized using descriptive statistics and inductive thematic analysis and presented to Trust stakeholders. RESULTS: Most patients (890/955, 93.2%) reported having good (210/955, 22%) or very good (680/955, 71.2%) experience with VCs and felt listened to and understood (904/955, 94.7%). Most patients accessed their VC alone (806/955, 84.4%) except for those aged ≥71 years (23/58, 40%), with ease of joining VCs negatively associated with age (P<.001). Despite more difficulties joining, older adults were most likely to be satisfied with the technology (46/58, 79%). Patients and staff generally felt that patients' needs had been met (860/955, 90.1% and 453/521, 86.9%, respectively), although staff appeared to overestimate patient dissatisfaction with VC outcomes (P=.02). Patients (848/955, 88.8%) and staff (419/521, 80.5%) felt able to communicate everything they wanted, although patients were significantly more positive than staff (P<.001). Patient satisfaction with communication was positively associated with technical performance satisfaction (P<.001). Most staff members (466/521, 89.4%) reported positive (185/521, 35.5%) or very positive (281/521, 53.9%) experiences with joining and managing VCs. Staff reported reductions in carbon footprint (380/521, 72.9%) and time (373/521, 71.6%). Most patients (880/955, 92.1%) would choose VCs again. We identified three themes in responses: barriers, including technological difficulties, patient information, and suitability concerns; potential benefits, including reduced stress, enhanced accessibility, cost, and time savings; and suggested improvements, including trial calls, turning music off, photo uploads, expanding written character limit, supporting other internet browsers, and shared online screens. This routine feedback, including evidence to suggest that patients were more satisfied than clinicians had anticipated, was presented to relevant Trust stakeholders, allowing for improved processes and supporting the development of a business case to inform the Trust decision on continuing VCs beyond COVID-19 restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the importance of regularly reviewing and responding to routine feedback following digital service implementation. The feedback helped the Trust improve the VC service, challenge clinician-held assumptions about patient experience, and inform future use of VCs. It has focused improvement efforts on patient information; technological improvements such as blurred backgrounds and interactive whiteboards; and responding to the needs of patients with dementia, communication or cognitive impairment, or lack of appropriate technology. These findings have implications for other health care providers.

Technical considerations to development of serological tests for SARS-CoV-2.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact worldwide and has brought clinical assays both for acute diagnosis and prior exposure determination to the forefront. Serological testing intended for point-of-care or laboratory use can be used to determine more accurate individual and population assessments of prior exposure to SARS-CoV-2; improve our understanding of the degree to which immunity is conveyed to subsequent exposures; and quantify immune response to future vaccines. In response to this pandemic, initially more than 90 companies deployed serology assays to the U.S. market, many of which made overstated claims for their accuracy, regulatory approval status, and utility for intended purpose. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration subsequently instituted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) procedure requiring that manufacturers submit validation data, but allowing newly developed serological tests to be marketed without the usual approval process during this crisis. Although this rapid deployment was intended to benefit public health, the incomplete understanding of immune response to the virus and lack of assay vetting resulted in quality issues with some of these tests, and thus many were withdrawn after submission. Common assay platforms include lateral flow assays which can serve an important niche of low cost, rapid turnaround, and increased accessibility whereas established laboratory-based platforms based on ELISAs and chemiluminescence expand existing technologies to SARS-CoV-2 and can provide throughput and quantification capabilities. While most of the currently EUA assays rely on these well-established platforms, despite their apparent technical simplicity, there are numerous practical challenges both for manufacturers in developing and for end-users in running and interpreting such assays. Within are discussed technical challenges to serology development for SARS-CoV-2, with an emphasis on lateral flow assay technology.