Investigating the impact of music therapy on two in-patient psychiatric wards for people living with dementia: retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Music therapy can lift mood and reduce agitation for people living with dementia (PwD) in community and residential care settings, potentially reducing the prevalence of distress behaviours. However, less is known about the impact of music therapy on in-patient psychiatric wards for PwD. AIMS: To investigate the impact of music therapy on two in-patient psychiatric wards for PwD. METHOD: A mixed-methods design was used. Statistical analysis was conducted on incidents involving behaviours reported as 'disruptive and aggressive' in 2020, when music therapy delivery varied because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Semi-structured interviews conducted online with three music therapists and eight ward-based staff were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Quantitative findings showed a significant reduction in the frequency of behaviours reported as disruptive and aggressive on days with in-person music therapy (every 14 days) than on the same weekday with no or online music therapy (every 3.3 or 3.1 days, respectively). Qualitative findings support this, with music therapy reported by music therapists and staff members to be accessible and meaningful, lifting mood and reducing agitation, with benefits potentially lasting throughout the day and affecting the ward environment. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a significant reduction in the occurrence of distress behaviours on days with in-person music therapy when compared with no music therapy. Music therapy was reported to be a valuable intervention, supporting patient mood and reducing agitation. Interventional studies are needed to investigate the impact of music therapy and its optimum mode of delivery.

Risk Factors for Longer-Term Mortality in Discharged Patients with Dementia and SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Matched Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: Persisting symptoms and increased mortality after SARS-CoV-2 infection has been described in COVID-19 survivors. OBJECTIVE: We examined longer-term mortality in patients with dementia and SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: A retrospective matched case-control study of 165 patients with dementia who survived an acute hospital admission with COVID-19 infection, and 1325 patients with dementia who survived a hospital admission but without SARS-CoV-2 infection. Potential risk factors investigated included socio-demographic factors, clinical features, and results of investigations. Data were fitted using a Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: Compared to patients with dementia but without SARS-CoV-2 infection, people with dementia and SARS-CoV-2 infection had a 4.4-fold risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 4.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.13-6.30) even beyond the acute phase of infection. This excess mortality could be seen up to 125 days after initial recovery but was not elevated beyond this time. Risk factors for COVID-19-associated mortality included prescription of antipsychotics (aHR = 3.06, 95% CI 1.40-6.69) and benzodiazepines (aHR = 3.00, 95% CI 1.28-7.03). Abnormalities on investigation associated with increased mortality included high white cell count (aHR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.04-1.39), higher absolute neutrophil count (aHR = 1.28, 95% CI 1.12-1.46), higher C-reactive protein (aHR = 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02), higher serum sodium (aHR = 1.09, 95% CI 1.01-1.19), and higher ionized calcium (aHR = 1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.06). The post-acute COVID mortality could be modeled for the first 120 days after recovery with a balanced accuracy of 87.2%. CONCLUSION: We found an increased mortality in patients with dementia beyond the acute phase of illness. We identified several investigation results associated with increased mortality, and increased mortality in patients prescribed antipsychotics or benzodiazepines.

Risk factors for excess deaths during lockdown among older users of secondary care mental health services without confirmed COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate factors contributing to excess deaths of older patients during the initial 2020 lockdown beyond those attributable to confirmed COVID-19. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study comparing patients treated between 23 March 2020 and 14 June 2020, deemed exposed to the pandemic/lockdown, to patients treated between 18 December 2019 and 10 March 2020, deemed to be unexposed. Data came from electronic clinical records from secondary care mental health services in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (CPFT), UK (catchment area population ∼0.86 million). Eligible patients were aged 65 years or over at baseline with at least 14 days' follow-up, excluding patients diagnosed with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. FINDINGS: In the two cohorts, 3,073 subjects were exposed to lockdown and 4,372 subjects were unexposed; the cohorts were followed up for an average of 74 and 78 days, respectively. After controlling for confounding by sociodemographic factors, smoking status, mental comorbidities, and physical comorbidities, patients with dementia suffered an additional 53% risk of death (HR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.02-2.31), and patients with severe mental illness suffered an additional 123% risk of death (HR = 2.23, 95% CI = 1.42-3.49). No significant additional mortality risks were identified from physical comorbidities, potentially due to low statistical power in that respect. CONCLUSION: During lockdown people with dementia or severe mental illness had a higher risk of death without confirmed COVID-19. These data could inform future health service responses and policymaking to help prevent avoidable excess death during future outbreaks of this or a similar infectious disease.

Challenges and opportunities for conducting a vaccine trial during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented challenges for healthcare systems worldwide. It has also stimulated research in a wide range of areas including rapid diagnostics, novel therapeutics, use of technology to track patients and vaccine development. Here, we describe our experience of rapidly setting up and delivering a novel COVID-19 vaccine trial, using clinical and research staff and facilities in three National Health Service Trusts in Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom. We encountered and overcame a number of challenges including differences in organisational structures, research facilities available, staff experience and skills, information technology and communications infrastructure, and research training and assessment procedures. We overcame these by setting up a project team that included key members from all three organisations that met at least daily by teleconference. This group together worked to identify the best practices and procedures and to harmonise and cascade these to the wider trial team. This enabled us to set up the trial within 25 days and to recruit and vaccinate the participants within a further 23 days. The lessons learned from our experiences could be used to inform the conduct of clinical trials during a future infectious disease pandemic or public health emergency.

Simulating a Community Mental Health Service During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Effects of Clinician-Clinician Encounters, Clinician-Patient-Family Encounters, Symptom-Triggered Protective Behaviour, and Household Clustering.

Objectives: Face-to-face healthcare, including psychiatric provision, must continue despite reduced interpersonal contact during the COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus) pandemic. Community-based services might use domiciliary visits, consultations in healthcare settings, or remote consultations. Services might also alter direct contact between clinicians. We examined the effects of appointment types and clinician-clinician encounters upon infection rates. Design: Computer simulation. Methods: We modelled a COVID-19-like disease in a hypothetical community healthcare team, their patients, and patients' household contacts (family). In one condition, clinicians met patients and briefly met family (e.g., home visit or collateral history). In another, patients attended alone (e.g., clinic visit), segregated from each other. In another, face-to-face contact was eliminated (e.g., videoconferencing). We also varied clinician-clinician contact; baseline and ongoing "external" infection rates; whether overt symptoms reduced transmission risk behaviourally (e.g., via personal protective equipment, PPE); and household clustering. Results: Service organisation had minimal effects on whole-population infection under our assumptions but materially affected clinician infection. Appointment type and inter-clinician contact had greater effects at low external infection rates and without a behavioural symptom response. Clustering magnified the effect of appointment type. We discuss infection control and other factors affecting appointment choice and team organisation. Conclusions: Distancing between clinicians can have significant effects on team infection. Loss of clinicians to infection likely has an adverse impact on care, not modelled here. Appointments must account for clinical necessity as well as infection control. Interventions to reduce transmission risk can synergize, arguing for maximal distancing and behavioural measures (e.g., PPE) consistent with safe care.

The role of integrated mental and community physical healthcare trusts in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.

For several decades, mental health services within the UK's National Health Service were provided by specialist mental health trusts. More recently many of these trusts have integrated community physical health services into their operations. We describe here how two integrated mental health trusts in England were able to make an enhanced response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Isolating residents including wandering residents in care and group homes: Medical ethics and English law in the context of Covid-19.

This article investigates the lawfulness of isolating residents of care and group homes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many residents are mobile, and their freedom to move is a central ethical tenet and human right. It is not however an absolute right and trade-offs between autonomy, liberty and health need to be made since COVID-19 is highly infectious and poses serious risks of critical illness and death. People living in care and group homes may be particularly vulnerable because recommended hygiene practices are difficult for them and many residents are elderly, and/or have co-morbidities. In some circumstances, the trade-offs can be made easily with the agreement of the resident and for short periods of time. However challenging cases arise, in particular for residents and occupants with dementia who 'wander', meaning they have a strong need to walk, sometimes due to agitation, as may also be the case for some people with developmental disability (e.g. autism), or as a consequence of mental illness. This article addresses three central questions: (1) in what circumstances is it lawful to isolate residents of social care homes to prevent transmission of COVID-19, in particular where the resident has a strong compulsion to walk and will not, or cannot, remain still and isolated? (2) what types of strategies are lawful to curtail walking and achieve isolation and social distancing? (3) is law reform required to ensure any action to restrict freedoms is lawful and not excessive? These questions emerged during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and are still relevant. Although focussed on COVID-19, the results are also relevant to other future outbreaks of infectious diseases in care and group homes. Likewise, while we concentrate on the law in England and Wales, the analysis and implications have international significance.

The early impact of COVID-19 on mental health and community physical health services and their patients' mortality in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, UK.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has affected social interaction and healthcare worldwide. METHODS: We examined changes in presentations and referrals to the primary provider of mental health and community health services in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, UK (population ~0·86 million), plus service activity and deaths. We conducted interrupted time series analyses with respect to the time of UK "lockdown", which was shortly before the peak of COVID-19 infections in this area. We examined changes in standardized mortality ratio for those with and without severe mental illness (SMI). RESULTS: Referrals and presentations to nearly all mental and physical health services dropped at lockdown, with evidence for changes in both supply (service provision) and demand (help-seeking). This was followed by an increase in demand for some services. This pattern was seen for all major forms of presentation to liaison psychiatry services, except for eating disorders, for which there was no evidence of change. Inpatient numbers fell, but new detentions under the Mental Health Act were unchanged. Many services shifted from face-to-face to remote contacts. Excess mortality was primarily in the over-70s. There was a much greater increase in mortality for patients with SMI, which was not explained by ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has been associated with a system-wide drop in the use of mental health services, with some subsequent return in activity. "Supply" changes may have reduced access to mental health services for some. "Demand" changes may reflect a genuine reduction of need or a lack of help-seeking with pent-up demand. There has been a disproportionate increase in death among those with SMI during the pandemic.