Facility- and ward-level factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks among residents in long-term care facilities: a retrospective cohort study

Background Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. Yet, the reasons why certain LTCFs are affected more by outbreaks are poorly understood. Objective To identify facility- and ward-level factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks among LTCF residents. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of multiple Dutch LTCFs (N=60;with 298 wards providing care for ∼5600 residents) from September 2020-June 2021. A dataset was constructed linking SARS-CoV-2 cases among LTCF residents to facility- and ward-level factors. Multilevel logistic regression analyses examined the associations between these factors and the likelihood of a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak among residents. Results During periods of the classic variant, mechanical recirculation of air was associated with significantly increased odds of a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. During periods of the alpha variant, factors associated with significantly increased odds included large ward size (≥21 beds), wards providing psychogeriatric care, fewer restrictions on staff movement within and between facilities, and a greater number of cases among staff (>10 cases). Conclusions Policy and protocols on reducing resident density, staff movement, and mechanical recirculation of air in buildings are recommended to enhance outbreak preparedness in LTCFs. The implementation of low-threshold preventive measures among psychogeriatric residents is important since they appear as a particularly vulnerable group.

Facility- and ward-level factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks among residents in long-term care facilities: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. Yet, the reasons why certain LTCFs are affected more by outbreaks are poorly understood. This study aimed to identify the facility- and ward-level factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks among LTCF residents. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of multiple Dutch LTCFs (N = 60; with 298 wards providing care for ∼5600 residents) from September 2020 to June 2021. A dataset was constructed linking SARS-CoV-2 cases among LTCF residents to facility- and ward-level factors. Multilevel logistic regression analyses examined the associations between these factors and the likelihood of a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak among residents. RESULTS: During periods of the Classic variant, the mechanical recirculation of air was associated with significantly increased odds of a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. During periods of the Alpha variant, the factors associated with significantly increased odds included large ward size (≥21 beds), wards providing psychogeriatric care, fewer restrictions on staff movement between wards and facilities, and a greater number of cases among staff (>10 cases). CONCLUSION: Policy and protocols on reducing resident density, staff movement, and mechanical recirculation of air in buildings are recommended to enhance outbreak preparedness in LTCFs. The implementation of low-threshold preventive measures among psychogeriatric residents is important because they appear as a particularly vulnerable group.

Barriers and facilitators to infection prevention and control in Dutch psychiatric institutions: a theory-informed qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The unique characteristics of psychiatric institutions contribute to the onset and spread of infectious agents. Infection prevention and control (IPC) is essential to minimise transmission and manage outbreaks effectively. Despite abundant studies regarding IPC conducted in hospitals, to date only a few studies focused on mental health care settings. However, the general low compliance to IPC in psychiatric institutions is recognised as a serious concern. Therefore, this study aimed to assess perceived barriers and facilitators to IPC among professionals working at psychiatric institutions, and to identify recommendations reported by professionals to improve IPC. METHODS: A descriptive, qualitative study involving 16 semi-structured interviews was conducted (before COVID-19) among professionals from five Dutch psychiatric institutions. The interview guide and data analysis were informed by implementation science theories, and explored guideline, individual, interpersonal, organisational, and broader environment barriers and facilitators to IPC. Data was subjected to thematic analysis, using inductive and deductive approaches. This study followed the Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research (COREQ) guidelines. RESULTS: Our findings generated six main themes: (1) patients' non-compliance (strongly related to mental illness); (2) professionals' negative cognitions and attitude towards IPC and IPC knowledge deficits; (3) monitoring of IPC performance and mutual professional feedback; (4) social support from professional to patient; (5) organisational support and priority; and (6) financial and material resource limitations (related to financial arrangements regarding mental health services). The main recommendations reported by professionals included: (1) to increase awareness towards IPC among all staff members, by education and training, and the communication of formal agreements as institutional IPC protocols; (2) to make room for and facilitate IPC at the organisational level, by providing adequate IPC equipment and appointing a professional responsible for IPC. CONCLUSIONS: IPC implementation in psychiatric institutions is strongly influenced by factors on the patient, professional and organisational level. Professional interaction and professional-patient interaction appeared to be additional important aspects. Therefore, a multidimensional approach should be adopted to improve IPC. To coordinate this approach, psychiatric institutions should appoint a professional responsible for IPC. Moreover, a balance between mental health care and IPC needs is required to sustain IPC.

Barriers and facilitators to infection prevention and control in Dutch residential care facilities for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A theory-informed qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Care institutions are recognised to be a high-risk setting for the emergence and spread of infections and antimicrobial-resistant organisms, which stresses the importance of infection prevention and control (IPC). Accurate implementation is crucial for optimal IPC practice. Despite the wide promotion of IPC and research thereof in the hospital and nursing home setting, similar efforts are lacking in disability care settings. Therefore, this study aimed to assess perceived barriers and facilitators to IPC among professionals working at residential care facilities (RCFs) for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), as well as to identify professional-reported recommendations to improve IPC. METHODS: This qualitative study involved semi-structured interviews (before COVID-19) with twelve professionals from five Dutch RCFs for people with IDD. An integrated theoretical approach was used to inform data collection and analysis. Thematic analysis using inductive and deductive approaches was conducted. This study followed the COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research (COREQ) guidelines. RESULTS: Our findings revealed barriers and facilitators at the guideline, client, professional, professional interaction, professional client interaction, client interaction, organisational, community, and societal level. Six main themes covering multiple barriers and facilitators were identified: (1) guidelines' applicability to (work)setting; (2) professionals' cognitions and attitude towards IPC (related to educational background); (3) organisational support and priority; (4) educational system; (5) time availability and staff capacity; and (6) task division and change coaches. The main professional-reported recommendations were the introduction of tailored and practical IPC guidelines, structural IPC education and training among all professionals, and client participation. CONCLUSIONS: To promote IPC, multifaceted and multilevel strategies should be implemented, with a preliminary need for improvements on the guideline, professional, and organisational level. Given the heterogeneous character, i.e., different professionals, clients and care needs, there is a need for a tailored approach to implement IPC and sustain it successfully in disability care. Our findings can inform future IPC practice improvements.