Evaluation of symptomatology and viral load among residents and healthcare staff in long-term care facilities: A coronavirus disease 2019 retrospective case-cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated COVID-19 symptoms, case fatality rate (CFR), and viral load among all Long-Term Care Facility (LTCF) residents and staff in South Limburg, the Netherlands (February 2020-June 2020, wildtype SARS-CoV-2 Wuhan strain). METHODS: Patient information was gathered via regular channels used to notify the public health services. Ct-values were obtained from the Maastricht University Medical Centre laboratory. Logistic regression analyses were performed to assess associations between COVID-19, symptoms, CFR, and viral load. RESULTS: Of 1,457 staff and 1,540 residents, 35.1% and 45.2% tested positive for COVID-19. Symptoms associated with COVID-19 for female staff were fever, cough, muscle ache and loss of taste and smell. Associated symptoms for men were cough, and loss of taste and smell. Associated symptoms for residents were subfebrility, fatigue, and fever for male residents only. LTCF residents had a higher mean viral load compared to staff. Male residents had a higher CFR (35.8%) compared to women (22.5%). Female residents with Ct-values 31 or less had increased odds of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Subfebrility and fatigue seem to be associated with COVID-19 in LTCF residents. Therefore, physicians should also consider testing residents who (only) show aspecific symptoms whenever available resources prohibit testing of all residents. Viral load was higher in residents compared to staff, and higher in male residents compared to female residents. All COVID-19 positive male residents, as well as female residents with a medium to high viral load (Ct-values 31 or lower) should be monitored closely, as these groups have an overall increased risk of mortality.

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.

COVID-19: first long-term care facility outbreak in the Netherlands following cross-border introduction from Germany, March 2020.

BACKGROUND: The Dutch province of Limburg borders the German district of Heinsberg, which had a large cluster of COVID-19 cases linked to local carnival activities before any cases were reported in the Netherlands. However, Heinsberg was not included as an area reporting local or community transmission per the national case definition at the time. In early March, two residents from a long-term care facility (LTCF) in Sittard, a Dutch town located in close vicinity to the district of Heinsberg, tested positive for COVID-19. In this study we aimed to determine whether cross-border introduction of the virus took place by analysing the LTCF outbreak in Sittard, both epidemiologically and microbiologically. METHODS: Surveys and semi-structured oral interviews were conducted with all present LTCF residents by health care workers during regular points of care for information on new or unusual signs and symptoms of disease. Both throat and nasopharyngeal swabs were taken from residents suspect of COVID-19, based on regional criteria, for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by Real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction. Additionally, whole genome sequencing was performed using a SARS-CoV-2 specific amplicon-based Nanopore sequencing approach. Moreover, twelve random residents were sampled for possible asymptomatic infections. RESULTS: Out of 99 residents, 46 got tested for COVID-19. Out of the 46 tested residents, nineteen (41%) tested positive for COVID-19, including 3 asymptomatic residents. CT-values for asymptomatic residents seemed higher compared to symptomatic residents. Eleven samples were sequenced, along with three random samples from COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the regional hospital at the time of the LTCF outbreak. All samples were linked to COVID-19 cases from the cross-border region of Heinsberg, Germany. CONCLUSIONS: Sequencing combined with epidemiological data was able to virtually prove cross-border transmission at the start of the Dutch COVID-19 epidemic. Our results highlight the need for cross-border collaboration and adjustment of national policy to emerging region-specific needs along borders in order to establish coordinated implementation of infection control measures to limit the spread of COVID-19.