"Crack on": a qualitative study of care home managers experiences and responses to system-led setbacks during the crisis of the COVID-19 Pandemic in England.

OBJECTIVES: To explore care home managers' experiences of systems working with various organisations, including statutory, third sector and private, during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic from Sept 2020 to April 2021 DESIGN: An exploratory qualitative interview study using a systems theory approach focussing on the intersections of relationship interdependencies with other organisations. SETTING: Conducted remotely with care home managers and key advisors who had worked since the start of the pandemic in/with care homes for older people across the East Midlands, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 8 care home managers and 2 end-of-life advisors who participated during the second wave of the pandemic from Sept 2020. A total of 18 care home managers participated in the wider study from April 2020 to April 2021 RESULTS: Four organisational relationship interdependencies were identified: care practices, resources governance and wise working. Managers identified changes in their care practices as a shift towards the normalisation of care, with an emphasis on navigating pandemic restrictions to fit the context. Resources such as staffing, clinical reviews, pharmaceutical and equipment supplies were challenged, leading to a sense of precarity and tension. National polices and local guidance were fragmented, complex and disconnected from the reality of managing a care home. As a response a highly pragmatic reflexive style of management was identified which encompassed the use of mastery to navigate and in some cases circumvent official systems and mandates. Managers' experience of persistent and multiple setbacks were viewed as negative and confirmed their views that care homes as a sector ere marginalised by policy makers and statutory bodies. CONCLUSIONS: Interactions with various organisations shaped the ways in which care home managers responded to and sought to maximise residents and staff well-being. Some relationships dissolved over time, such as when local business and schools returned to normal obligations. Other newly formed relationships became more robust including those with other care home managers, families, and hospices. Significantly, most managers viewed their relationship with local authority and national statutory bodies as detrimental to effective working, leading to a sense of increased mistrust and ambiguity. Respect, recognition and meaningful collaboration with the care home sector should underpin any future attempts to introduce practice change in the sector.

How to Conduct International Geriatric Rehabilitation Research?

With an ageing global population and an increasing focus on aging in place, the number of people in need of geriatric rehabilitation (GR) is rapidly increasing. As current GR practice is very heterogenous, cross-country comparisons could allow us to learn from each other and optimise the effectiveness of GR. However, international GR research comes with many challenges. This article summarises the facilitators and barriers relating to the recruitment of rehabilitation centres, the inclusion of patients, and data collection, as experienced by experts in the field of international GR research. The three most important methodological recommendations for conducting cross-national collaborative research in the field of GR are (1) make use of existing (inter)national networks and social media to aid recruitment of GR centres; (2) clearly define the GR treatment, setting, and patient characteristics in the inclusion criteria; and (3) use a hierarchical study structure to communicate transparently and regularly with both national and local coordinators. International GR research would greatly benefit from the implementation of a core dataset in regular GR care. Therefore, future studies should focus on developing an international consensus regarding the outcomes and corresponding cross-culturally validated measurement instruments to be used during GR.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in care home staff: A survey of Liverpool care homes.

Uptake of COVID-19 vaccine first doses in UK care homes has been higher among residents compared to staff. We aimed to identify causes of lower COVID-19 vaccine uptake amongst care home staff within Liverpool. An anonymised online survey was distributed to all care home managers, between the 21st and the 29th January 2021. 53 % of 87 care homes responded. The overall COVID-19 vaccination rate was 52.6 % (n = 1119). Reasons, identified by care home managers for staff being unvaccinated included: concerns about lack of vaccine research (37.0 %), staff being off-site during vaccination sessions (36.5 %), pregnancy and fertility concerns (5.6 %), and allergic reactions concerns (3.2 %). Care home managers wanted to tackle vaccine hesitancy through conversations with health professionals, and provision of evidence dispelling vaccine misinformation. Vaccine hesitancy and logistical issues were the main causes for reduced vaccine uptake among care home staff. The former could be addressed by targeted training, and public health communication campaigns to build confidence and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines.

Dietary nitrate supplementation for preventing and reducing the severity of winter infections, including COVID-19, in care homes (BEET-Winter): a randomised placebo-controlled feasibility trial.

PURPOSE: Infections cause considerable care home morbidity and mortality. Nitric oxide (NO) has broad-spectrum anti-viral, bacterial and yeast activity in vitro. We assessed the feasibility of supplementing dietary nitrate (NO substrate) intake in care home residents. METHODS: We performed a cluster-randomised placebo-controlled trial in UK residential and nursing care home residents and compared nitrate containing (400 mg) versus free (0 mg daily) beetroot juice given for 60 days. Outcomes comprised feasibility of recruitment, adherence, salivary and urinary nitrate, and ordinal infection/clinical events. RESULTS: Of 30 targeted care homes in late 2020, 16 expressed interest and only 6 participated. 49 residents were recruited (median 8 [interquartile range 7-12] per home), mean (standard deviation) age 82 (8) years, with proxy consent 41 (84%), advance directive for hospital non-admission 8 (16%) and ≥ 1 doses of COVID-19 vaccine 37 (82%). Background dietary nitrate was < 30% of acceptable daily intake. 34 (76%) residents received > 50% of juice. Residents randomised to nitrate vs placebo had higher urinary nitrate levels, median 50 [18-175] v 18 [10-50] mg/L, difference 25 [0-90]. Data paucity precluded clinical between-group comparisons; the outcome distribution was as follows: no infection 32 (67%), uncomplicated infection 0, infection requiring healthcare support 11 (23%), all-cause hospitalisation 5 (10%), all-cause mortality 0. Urinary tract infections were most common. CONCLUSIONS: Recruiting UK care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic was partially successful. Supplemented dietary nitrate was tolerated and elevated urinary nitrate. Together, infections, hospitalisations and deaths occurred in 33% of residents over 60 days. A larger trial is now required. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN51124684. Application date 7/12/2020; assignment date 13/1/2021.

Development of a core outcome set for the evaluation of interventions to prevent COVID-19 in care homes (COS-COVID-PCARE Study).

BACKGROUND: People living in care homes have experienced devastating impact from COVID-19. As interventions to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 are developed and evaluated, there is an urgent need for researchers to agree on the outcomes used when evaluating their effectiveness. Having an agreed set of outcomes that are used in all relevant trials can ensure that study results can be compared. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for trials assessing the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for preventing COVID-19 infection and transmission in care homes. METHODS: The study used established COS methodology. A list of candidate outcomes was identified by reviewing registered trials to evaluate interventions to prevent COVID-19 in care homes. Seventy key stakeholders participated in a Delphi survey, rating the candidate outcomes on a nine-point scale over two rounds, with the opportunity to propose additional outcomes. Stakeholders included care home representatives (n = 19), healthcare professionals (n = 20), people with personal experience of care homes (n = 7), researchers (n = 15) and others (n = 9). Outcomes were eligible for inclusion if they met an a priori threshold. A consensus meeting with stakeholders resulted in agreement of the final outcome set. RESULTS: Following the Delphi and consensus meeting, twenty-four outcomes were recommended for inclusion. These are grouped across four domains of infection, severity of illness, mortality, and 'other' (intervention specific or life impact). Due to the considerable heterogeneity between care homes, residents, and interventions, the relevance and importance of outcomes may differ between trial contexts. Intervention-specific outcomes would be included only where relevant to a given trial, thus reducing the measurement burden. CONCLUSION: Using a rapid response approach, a COS for COVID-19 prevention interventions in care homes has been developed. Future work should focus on identifying instruments for measuring these outcomes, and the interpretation and application of the COS across different trial contexts. Beyond COVID-19, the outcomes identified in this COS may have relevance to other infectious diseases in care homes, and the rapid response approach may be useful as preparation for future pandemics.

From Warkworth House to the 21st century care homes: progress marked by persistent challenges.

Long-term care homes play an essential role within health and social care. Successful measures to support older people at home for longer have led to increased prevalence of disability, frailty and cognitive impairment in those who live in care homes over the last two decades. The need for care home places is projected to increase for the next two decades. Modern care homes provide care for people who are predominantly over 80, have multiple long-term conditions, take multiple medicines, are physically dependent and live with cognitive impairment. Residents do better when services recognise the contributions of staff and care home providers rather than treating residents as individual patients living in a communal setting. There is a strong case given residents' frailty, multimorbidity and disability, that care should be structured around Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA). Care should be designed to allow opportunities for multiprofessional teams to come together for CGA, particularly if healthcare professionals are based outside care homes. Good data about care homes and residents are central to efforts to deliver high quality care-in some countries, these data are collected but not collated. Collating such data is a priority. Care home staff are under-recognised and underpaid-parity of pay and opportunity with NHS staff is the bare minimum to ensure that the best are recruited and retained in the sector. During the COVID-19 pandemic, residents and relatives have frequently been left out of decisions about policies that affect them, and better consultation is needed to deliver high quality care.

Mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 for health and social care workers caring for older people.

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.

COVID-19 pandemic and mortality in nursing homes across USA and Europe up to October 2021.

PURPOSE: We compared the prevalence of COVID-19 and related mortality in nursing homes (NHs) in 14 countries until October 2021. We explored the relationship between COVID-19 mortality in NHs with the average size of NHs and with the COVID-19 deaths at a population level. METHODS: The total number of COVID-19 cases and COVID-19-related deaths in all NHs as well as the total number of NHs and NH beds were provided by representatives of 14 countries. The population level respective figures in each country were provided up to October 2021. RESULTS: There was a wide variation in prevalence of COVID-19 cases and deaths between countries. We observed a significant correlation between COVID-19 deaths in NHs and that of the total population and between the mean size of NHs and COVID-19 deaths. CONCLUSION: Side-by-side comparisons between countries allow international sharing of good practice to better enable future pandemic preparedness.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to invest in care home research infrastructure.

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.

Management of post-acute COVID-19 patients in geriatric rehabilitation: EuGMS guidance.

PURPOSE: To describe a guidance on the management of post-acute COVID 19 patients in geriatric rehabilitation. METHODS: The guidance is based on guidelines for post-acute COVID-19 geriatric rehabilitation developed in the Netherlands, updated with recent insights from literature, related guidance from other countries and disciplines, and combined with experiences from experts in countries participating in the Geriatric Rehabilitation Special Interest Group of the European Geriatric Medicine Society. RESULTS: This guidance for post-acute COVID-19 rehabilitation is divided into a section addressing general recommendations for geriatric rehabilitation and a section addressing specific processes and procedures. The Sect. "General recommendations for geriatric rehabilitation" addresses: (1) general requirements for post-acute COVID-19 rehabilitation and (2) critical aspects for quality assurance during COVID-19 pandemic. The Sect. "Specific processes and procedures", addresses the following topics: (1) patient selection; (2) admission; (3) treatment; (4) discharge; and (5) follow-up and monitoring. CONCLUSION: Providing tailored geriatric rehabilitation treatment to post-acute COVID-19 patients is a challenge for which the guidance is designed to provide support. There is a strong need for additional evidence on COVID-19 geriatric rehabilitation including developing an understanding of risk profiles of older patients living with frailty to develop individualised treatment regimes. The present guidance will be regularly updated based on additional evidence from practice and research.

Point of care testing using rapid automated antigen testing for SARS-COV-2 in care homes – an exploratory safety, usability and diagnostic agreement evaluation

IntroductionSuccessful adoption of POCTs (Point-of-Care tests) for COVID-19 in care homes requires the identification of ideal use cases and a full understanding of the contextual and usability factors that affect test results and minimise biosafety risks. This paper presents a scoping-usability and test performance study of a microfluidic immunofluorescence assay for COVID-19 in care homes.MethodsA mixed-methods evaluation was conducted in four UK care homes to scope usability and to assess the agreement with qRT-PCR. A dry run with luminescent dye was conducted to explore biosafety issues.ResultsThe agreement analysis was conducted on 227 asymptomatic participants (159 staff and 68 residents) and 14 symptomatic participants (5 staff and 9 residents). Asymptomatic specimens showed 50% (95% CI:1.3%?98.7%) positive agreement and 96% (95% CI: 92.5%?98.1%) negative agreement with overall prevalence and bias-adjusted Kappa (PABAK) of 0.911 (95% CI: 0.857?0.965). Symptomatic specimens showed 83.3% (95% CI: 35.9%?99.6%) positive agreement and 100% (95% CI: 63.1%?100%) negative agreement with overall prevalence and bias-adjusted Kappa (PABAK) of 0.857 (95% CI: 0.549?1). The dry run highlighted four main sources of contamination that led to the modification of the standard operating procedures. Simulation post-modification showed no further evidence of contamination.ConclusionCareful consideration of biosafety issues and contextual factors associated with care home are mandatory for safe use the POCT. Whilst POCT may have some utility for ruling out COVID-19, further diagnostic accuracy evaluations are needed to promote effective adoption.

Implementing lateral flow devices in long-term care facilities: experiences from the Liverpool COVID-19 community testing pilot in care homes- a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Antigen-based lateral flow devices (LFDs) offer the potential of widespread rapid testing. The scientific literature has primarily focused on mathematical modelling of their use and test performance characteristics. For these tests to be implemented successfully, an understanding of the real-world contextual factors that allow them to be integrated into the workplace is vital. To address this gap in knowledge, we aimed to explore staff's experiences of integrating LFDs into routine practice for visitors and staff testing with a view to understand implementation facilitators and barriers. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis. RESULTS: We identified two main themes and five subthemes. The main themes included: visitor-related testing factors and staff-related testing factors. Subthemes included: restoring a sense of normality, visitor-related testing challenges, staff-related testing challenges, and pre-pilot antecedent factors. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that the real-world implementation of LFDs to test visitors and staff faces significant challenges as a result of several contextual factors negatively affecting the work practice and environment. More comprehensive studies are needed to identify and inform effective implementation strategies to ensure that LFDs can be adopted in an agile way that better supports an already exhausted and morally depleted workforce.

Making progress: but a way to go-the age and ageing care-home collection.

Care homes enable people with advanced physical and cognitive impairment to live well with 24-h support from staff. They are a feature of care systems in most countries. They have proved pivotal to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) response. We searched Age and Ageing for care-home articles published since 2015. From these we collated 42 into the Age and Ageing care-home collection. This collection draws together important papers that show how Age and Ageing is helping to shape and grow care-home research. The  collection outlines the technical issues that researchers face by grouping together important feasibility trials conducted in the sector. It looks at the challenges of measuring quality of life and working with routine data in care homes. It brings together observational studies considering loneliness, functional dependency, stroke outcomes, prescribing and acute deterioration. Health services research in care homes is represented by two studies that demonstrate realist evaluation as a way to make sense of service innovations. Papers are included that consider: non-pharmacological strategies for residents with dementia, end-of-life care, sexuality and intimacy and the care-home workforce. Given the importance of the COVID-19 pandemic in care homes, all of the care home COVID-19 papers published in Age and Ageing to date are included. Finally, a group of papers that present innovative approaches to research in care homes, each of which give voice to residents and/or staff, are collated and presented as a way of moving towards a more resident and care home centred research agenda.

Enhanced lateral flow testing strategies in care homes are associated with poor adherence and were insufficient to prevent COVID-19 outbreaks: results from a mixed methods implementation study.

INTRODUCTION: Care homes have been severely affected by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Rapid antigen testing could identify most SARS-CoV-2 infected staff and visitors before they enter homes. We explored implementation of staff and visitor testing protocols using lateral flow devices (LFDs). METHODS: An evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 LFD-based testing protocol in 11 care homes in Liverpool, UK, including staff and visitor testing, plus a qualitative exploratory study in nine of these homes. The proportion of pilot homes with outbreaks, and outbreak size, were compared to non-pilot homes in Liverpool. Adherence to testing protocols was evaluated. Fifteen staff were interviewed, and transcript data were thematically coded using an iterative analysis to identify and categorize factors influencing testing implementation. RESULTS: In total, 1,638 LFD rapid tests were performed on 407 staff. Protocol adherence was poor with 8.6% of staff achieving >75% protocol adherence, and 25.3% achieving $\ge$50%. Six care homes had outbreaks during the study. Compared to non-pilot care homes, there was no evidence of significant difference in the proportion of homes with outbreaks, or the size of outbreaks. Qualitative data showed difficulty implementing testing strategies due to excessive work burden. Factors influencing adherence related to test integration and procedural factors, socio-economic factors, cognitive overload and the emotional value of testing. CONCLUSION: Implementation of staff and visitor care home LFD testing protocols was poorly adhered to and consequently did not reduce the number or scale of COVID-19 outbreaks. More focus is needed on the contextual and behavioural factors that influence protocol adherence.

Communication during the COVID-19 pandemic: evaluation study on self-perceived competences and views of health care professionals.

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to describe communication experiences while wearing a mask during COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, to identify possible mask-related barriers to COVID-19-adapted communications and to investigate whether the ABC mnemonic (A: attend mindfully; B: behave calmly; C: communicate clearly) might address these. METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional, voluntary, web-based survey between January and February 2021. A 22-item survey was developed using the Surveymonkey platform and question styles were varied to include single choice and Likert scales. The respondents were also asked to view a short video presentation, which outlined the ABC mnemonic. CHERRIES (Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys) was used to ensure completeness of reporting. Diverging stacked bar charts were created to illustrate Likert scale responses. RESULTS: We received 226 responses. The respondents were mostly women (60.2%) and the majority worked in a teaching hospital (64.6%). The majority of the respondents indicated issues related to lack of time during clinical encounters, uncertainty about how to adapt communication, lack of personal protective equipment, lack of communication skills and lack of information about how to adapt their own communication skills. In addition, the participants indicated acknowledging emotions and providing information using clear, specific, unambiguous, and consistent lay language while wearing a mask were among the main communication challenges created during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, the study showed significantly improved self-perceived competency regarding key communication after watching the short video presentation. CONCLUSION: Effective communication in medical encounters requires both verbal and nonverbal skills.

COVID-19 point-of-care testing in care homes: what are the lessons for policy and practice?

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.

Is point-of-care testing feasible and safe in care homes in England? An exploratory usability and accuracy evaluation of a point-of-care polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2.

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.