Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Seropositivity among Healthcare Personnel in Hospitals and Nursing Homes, Rhode Island, USA, July-August 2020.

Healthcare personnel are recognized to be at higher risk for infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. We conducted a serologic survey in 15 hospitals and 56 nursing homes across Rhode Island, USA, during July 17-August 28, 2020. Overall seropositivity among 9,863 healthcare personnel was 4.6% (95% CI 4.2%-5.0%) but varied 4-fold between hospital personnel (3.1%, 95% CI 2.7%-3.5%) and nursing home personnel (13.1%, 95% CI 11.5%-14.9%). Within nursing homes, prevalence was highest among personnel working in coronavirus disease units (24.1%; 95% CI 20.6%-27.8%). Adjusted analysis showed that in hospitals, nurses and receptionists/medical assistants had a higher likelihood of seropositivity than physicians. In nursing homes, nursing assistants and social workers/case managers had higher likelihoods of seropositivity than occupational/physical/speech therapists. Nursing home personnel in all occupations had elevated seropositivity compared with hospital counterparts. Additional mitigation strategies are needed to protect nursing home personnel from infection, regardless of occupation.

Nursing home oversight during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Regulatory oversight has been a central strategy to assure nursing home quality of care for decades. In response to COVID-19, traditional elements of oversight that relate to resident care have been curtailed in favor of implementing limited infection control surveys and targeted complaint investigations. We seek to describe the state of nursing home oversight during the pandemic to facilitate a discussion of whether and how these activities should be altered going forward. DESIGN AND SETTING: In a retrospective study, we describe national oversight activities in January-June 2020 and compare these activities to the same time period from 2019. We also examine state-level oversight activities during the peak months of the pandemic. PARTICIPANTS: United States nursing homes. DATA: Publicly available Quality, Certification, and Oversight Reports (QCOR) data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). MEASUREMENTS: Number of standard, complaint, and onsite infection surveys, number of deficiencies from standard and complaint surveys, number of citations by deficiency tag, and number and amount of civil monetary penalties. RESULTS: The number of standard and complaint surveys declined considerably in the second quarter of 2020 relative to the same time frame in 2019. Deficiency citations generally decreased to near zero by April 2020 with the exception of infection prevention and control deficiencies and citations for failure to report COVID-19 data to the national health safety network. Related enforcement actions were down considerably in 2020, relative to 2019. CONCLUSION: In the months since COVID-19 first impacted nursing homes, regulatory oversight efforts have fallen off considerably. While CMS implemented universal infection control surveys and targeted complaint investigations, other routine aspects of oversight dropped in light of justifiable limits on nursing home entry. Going forward, we must develop policies that allow regulators to balance the demands of the pandemic while fulfilling their responsibilities effectively.

Factors Associated With Racial Differences in Deaths Among Nursing Home Residents With COVID-19 Infection in the US.

Importance: It is important to understand differences in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) deaths by nursing home racial composition and the potential reasons for these differences so that limited resources can be distributed equitably. Objective: To describe differences in the number of COVID-19 deaths by nursing home racial composition and examine the factors associated with these differences. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of 13 312 nursing homes in the US used the Nursing Home COVID-19 Public File from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which contains COVID-19 cases and deaths among nursing home residents as self-reported by nursing homes beginning between January 1, 2020, and May 24, 2020, and ending on September 13, 2020. Data were analyzed from July 28 to December 18, 2020. Exposures: Confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection. Confirmed cases were defined as COVID-19 infection confirmed by a diagnostic laboratory test. Suspected cases were defined as signs and/or symptoms of COVID-19 infection or patient-specific transmission-based precautions for COVID-19 infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: Deaths associated with COVID-19 among nursing home residents. Death counts were compared by nursing home racial composition, which was measured as the proportion of White residents. Results: Among 13 312 nursing homes included in the study, the overall mean (SD) age of residents was 79.5 (6.7) years. A total of 51 606 COVID-19-associated deaths among residents were reported, with a mean (SD) of 3.9 (8.0) deaths per facility. The mean (SD) number of deaths in nursing homes with the lowest proportion of White residents (quintile 1) vs nursing homes with the highest proportions of White residents (quintile 5) were 5.6 (9.2) and 1.7 (4.8), respectively. Facilities in quintile 1 experienced a mean (SE) of 3.9 (0.2) more deaths than those in quintile 5, representing a 3.3-fold higher number of deaths in quintile 1 compared with quintile 5. Adjustment for the number of certified beds reduced the mean (SE) difference between these 2 nursing home groups to 2.2 (0.2) deaths. Controlling for case mix measures and other nursing home characteristics did not modify this association. Adjustment for county-level COVID-19 prevalence further reduced the mean (SE) difference to 1.0 (0.2) death. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, nursing homes with the highest proportions of non-White residents experienced COVID-19 death counts that were 3.3-fold higher than those of facilities with the highest proportions of White residents. These differences were associated with factors such as larger nursing home size and higher infection burden in counties in which nursing homes with high proportions of non-White residents were located. Focusing limited available resources on facilities with high proportions of non-White residents is needed to support nursing homes during potential future outbreaks.

Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 protect against re-infection during outbreaks in care homes, September and October 2020.

Two London care homes experienced a second COVID-19 outbreak, with 29/209 (13.9%) SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive cases (16/103 residents, 13/106 staff). In those with prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure, 1/88 (1.1%) individuals (antibody positive: 87; RT-PCR-positive: 1) became PCR-positive compared with 22/73 (30.1%) with confirmed seronegative status. After four months protection offered by prior infection against re-infection was 96.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 72.7-99.5%) using risk ratios from comparison of proportions and 96.1% (95% CI: 78.8-99.3%) using a penalised logistic regression model.

Health conditions of potential risk for severe Covid-19 in institutionalized elderly people.

The objective of this study was to identify the health conditions considered potential risk factors for severe Covid-19 and analyze its association with the BMI of elderly people living in Long-Term Care Facilities (LTCF). This is a descriptive and cross-sectional study, with a quantitative approach, carried out in eight LTCF in the Metropolitan Region of Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, with a population of 267 elderly people, between the months of February and December 2018. The Elderly Health Handbook was used to collect data on sociodemographic, health and risk factors. The Pearson's Chi-square test and odds ratio were used for the analysis. A higher frequency of low weight was observed in elderly people with cognitive impairment (24.6%), and overweight in those hypertensive (23.3%) and diabetics (12.9%). BMI was associated with the age group of 80 years or over, hypertension and diabetes (p = 0.013; p < 0.001; p = 0.001). Hypertensive elderly people were more likely to have low weight when compared to non-hypertensive individuals (RC = 3.6; 95% CI 1.5-8.6). The institutionalized elderly individuals present health conditions that may contribute to the occurrence of adverse outcomes in case of infection by Covid-19. The importance of protective measures for this population must be reinforced, in view of the devastating action of this disease in these institutions.

Acute Ischemic Stroke and COVID-19: An Analysis of 27 676 Patients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Acute ischemic stroke may occur in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but risk factors, in-hospital events, and outcomes are not well studied in large cohorts. We identified risk factors, comorbidities, and outcomes in patients with COVID-19 with or without acute ischemic stroke and compared with patients without COVID-19 and acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: We analyzed the data from 54 health care facilities using the Cerner deidentified COVID-19 dataset. The dataset included patients with an emergency department or inpatient encounter with discharge diagnoses codes that could be associated to suspicion of or exposure to COVID-19 or confirmed COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 103 (1.3%) patients developed acute ischemic stroke among 8163 patients with COVID-19. Among all patients with COVID-19, the proportion of patients with hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, atrial fibrillation, and congestive heart failure was significantly higher among those with acute ischemic stroke. Acute ischemic stroke was associated with discharge to destination other than home or death (relative risk, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.6-2.4]; P<0.0001) after adjusting for potential confounders. A total of 199 (1.0%) patients developed acute ischemic stroke among 19 513 patients without COVID-19. Among all ischemic stroke patients, COVID-19 was associated with discharge to destination other than home or death (relative risk, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.0-1.3]; P=0.03) after adjusting for potential confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Acute ischemic stroke was infrequent in patients with COVID-19 and usually occurs in the presence of other cardiovascular risk factors. The risk of discharge to destination other than home or death increased 2-fold with occurrence of acute ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19.

Acute Ischemic Stroke and COVID-19: An Analysis of 27 676 Patients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Acute ischemic stroke may occur in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but risk factors, in-hospital events, and outcomes are not well studied in large cohorts. We identified risk factors, comorbidities, and outcomes in patients with COVID-19 with or without acute ischemic stroke and compared with patients without COVID-19 and acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: We analyzed the data from 54 health care facilities using the Cerner deidentified COVID-19 dataset. The dataset included patients with an emergency department or inpatient encounter with discharge diagnoses codes that could be associated to suspicion of or exposure to COVID-19 or confirmed COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 103 (1.3%) patients developed acute ischemic stroke among 8163 patients with COVID-19. Among all patients with COVID-19, the proportion of patients with hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, atrial fibrillation, and congestive heart failure was significantly higher among those with acute ischemic stroke. Acute ischemic stroke was associated with discharge to destination other than home or death (relative risk, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.6-2.4]; P<0.0001) after adjusting for potential confounders. A total of 199 (1.0%) patients developed acute ischemic stroke among 19 513 patients without COVID-19. Among all ischemic stroke patients, COVID-19 was associated with discharge to destination other than home or death (relative risk, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.0-1.3]; P=0.03) after adjusting for potential confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Acute ischemic stroke was infrequent in patients with COVID-19 and usually occurs in the presence of other cardiovascular risk factors. The risk of discharge to destination other than home or death increased 2-fold with occurrence of acute ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19.

Does Angiotensin II receptor blockers increase the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection? A real-life experience.

OBJECTIVE: Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, millions of people have been infected with thousands of deaths. Few data regarding factors that increase the risk of infection are available. Our study aimed to evaluate all people living in retirement homes (PLRNH) and identify factors that could increase infection risk in a close community. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study enrolling all PLRNH, where at least one SARS-CoV-2 infected person was present. Variables were compared with Student's t-test or Pearson chi-square test as appropriate. Uni- and multivariate analyses were conducted to evaluate variables' influence on the infection. RESULTS: We included 452 PLRNH; 144 (31.7%) were male, with a mean age of 82.2±8.6 years. People with a positive swab for SARS-CoV-2 were 306 (67.4%). A significant difference between SARS-CoV-2 infected and not infected was observed in the percentage of those receiving chronic treatment with Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) (18.6% vs. 9.5%, p=0.012). On the contrary, there was no difference in the proportion of those receiving ACE inhibitors (ACE-I) (21.2% vs. 23.6%, p=0.562). At multivariate analysis, people with mental illness and cancer had an increased risk of being infected. Furthermore, receiving ARBs as a chronic treatment was an independent predictor of infection risk [OR 1.95 (95% CI 1.03-3.72) p=0.041]. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that, in close communities, such as retirement nursing homes, the receipt of ARBs increased the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, before changing an important chronic treatment in a fragile population, such as the elderly living in retirement nursing homes, clinicians should carefully evaluate the risk-benefit ratio.

Factors associated with hospitalization, invasive mechanical ventilation treatment and death among all confirmed COVID-19 cases in Norway: Prospective cohort study.

Aims: For everyone with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 in Norway, we studied whether age, sex, comorbidity, continent of birth and nursing home residency were risk factors for hospitalization, invasive mechanical ventilation treatment and death. Methods: Data for everyone who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in Norway by end of June 2020 (N = 8569) were linked at the individual level to hospitalization, receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation treatment and death measured to end of July 2020. Underlying comorbidity was proxied by hospital-based in- or outpatient treatment during the two months before the SARS-CoV-2 test. Multivariable generalized linear models were used to assess risk ratios (RRs). Results: Risk of hospitalization was particularly high for elderly (for those aged 90 and above: RR 9.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.1-12.7; comparison group aged below 50), Norwegian residents born in Asia, Africa or Latin-America (RR 2.1; 95% CI 1.9-2.4; comparison group born in Norway), patients with underlying comorbidity (RR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4-1.8) and men (RR 1.3; 95% CI 1.2-1.5). Men and residents born in Africa, Asia and Latin-America were also at higher risk of receiving ventilation treatment and dying, but the mortality risk was especially high for the elderly (for those aged 90 and above: RR 607.9; 95% CI 145.5-2540.1; comparison group aged below 50) and residents in nursing homes (RR 4.2; 95% CI 3.1-5.7). Conclusions: High age was the most important predictor of severe disease and death if infected with SARS-CoV-2, and nursing home residents were at particularly high risk of death.

COVID-19 testing in outbreak-free care homes: what are the public health benefits?

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 care home outbreaks represent a significant proportion of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality in the UK. National testing initially focused on symptomatic care home residents, before extending to asymptomatic cohorts. AIM: The aim was to describe the epidemiology and transmission of COVID-19 in outbreak free care homes. METHODS: A two-point prevalence survey of COVID-19, in 34 Liverpool care homes, was performed in April and May 2020. Changes in prevalence were analysed. Associations between care home characteristics, reported infection, prevention and control interventions, and COVID-19 status were described and analysed. FINDINGS: No resident developed COVID-19 symptoms during the study. There was no significant difference between: the number of care homes containing at least one test positive resident between the first (17.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.8-34.5) and second round (14.7%, 95% CI 5.0-31.1) of testing (p>0.99); and the number of residents testing positive between the first (2.1%, 95% CI 1.2-3.4) and second round (1.0%, 95% CI 0.5-2.1) of testing (P=0.11). Care homes providing nursing care (risk ratio (RR) 7.99, 95% CI 1.1-57.3) and employing agency staff (RR 8.4, 95% CI 1.2-60.8) were more likely to contain test positive residents. Closing residents shared space was not associated with residents testing positive (RR 2.63, 95% CI 0.4-18.5). CONCLUSIONS: Asymptomatic COVID-19 care homes showed no evidence of disease transmission or development of outbreaks; suggesting that current infection prevention and control measures are effective in preventing transmission. Repeat testing at two to three weeks had limited or no public health benefits over regular daily monitoring of staff and residents for symptoms. These results should inform policies calling for regular testing of asymptomatic residents.

The impact of COVID-19 on adjusted mortality risk in care homes for older adults in Wales, UK: a retrospective population-based cohort study for mortality in 2016-2020.

BACKGROUND: mortality in care homes has had a prominent focus during the COVID-19 outbreak. Care homes are particularly vulnerable to the spread of infectious diseases, which may lead to increased mortality risk. Multiple and interconnected challenges face the care home sector in the prevention and management of outbreaks of COVID-19, including adequate supply of personal protective equipment, staff shortages and insufficient or lack of timely COVID-19 testing. AIM: to analyse the mortality of older care home residents in Wales during COVID-19 lockdown and compare this across the population of Wales and the previous 4 years. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: we used anonymised electronic health records and administrative data from the secure anonymised information linkage databank to create a cross-sectional cohort study. We anonymously linked data for Welsh residents to mortality data up to the 14th June 2020. METHODS: we calculated survival curves and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for the risk of mortality. We adjusted HRs for age, gender, social economic status and prior health conditions. RESULTS: survival curves show an increased proportion of deaths between 23rd March and 14th June 2020 in care homes for older people, with an adjusted HR of 1.72 (1.55, 1.90) compared with 2016. Compared with the general population in 2016-2019, adjusted care home mortality HRs for older adults rose from 2.15 (2.11, 2.20) in 2016-2019 to 2.94 (2.81, 3.08) in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: the survival curves and increased HRs show a significantly increased risk of death in the 2020 study periods.

Remotely delivered information, training and support for informal caregivers of people with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Many people with dementia are cared for at home by unpaid informal caregivers, usually family members. Caregivers may experience a range of physical, emotional, financial and social harms, which are often described collectively as caregiver burden. The degree of burden experienced is associated with characteristics of the caregiver, such as gender, and characteristics of the person with dementia, such as dementia stage, and the presence of behavioural problems or neuropsychiatric disturbances. It is a strong predictor of admission to residential care for people with dementia. Psychoeducational interventions might prevent or reduce caregiver burden. Overall, they are intended to improve caregivers' knowledge about the disease and its care; to increase caregivers' sense of competence and their ability to cope with difficult situations; to relieve feelings of isolation and allow caregivers to attend to their own emotional and physical needs. These interventions are heterogeneous, varying in their theoretical framework, components, and delivery formats. Interventions that are delivered remotely, using printed materials, telephone or video technologies, may be particularly suitable for caregivers who have difficulty accessing face-to-face services because of their own health problems, poor access to transport, or absence of substitute care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, containment measures in many countries required people to be isolated in their homes, including people with dementia and their family carers. In such circumstances, there is no alternative to remote delivery of interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and acceptability of remotely delivered interventions aiming to reduce burden and improve mood and quality of life of informal caregivers of people with dementia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, MEDLINE, Embase and four other databases, as well as two international trials registries, on 10 April 2020. We also examined the bibliographies of relevant review papers and published trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials that assessed the remote delivery of structured interventions for informal caregivers who were providing care for people with dementia living at home. Caregivers had to be unpaid adults (relatives or members of the person's community). The interventions could be delivered using printed materials, the telephone, the Internet or a mixture of these, but could not involve any face-to-face contact with professionals. We categorised intervention components as information, training or support. Information interventions included two key elements: (i) they provided standardised information, and (ii) the caregiver played a passive role. Support interventions promoted interaction with other people (professionals or peers). Training interventions trained caregivers in practical skills to manage care. We excluded interventions that were primarily individual psychotherapy. Our primary outcomes were caregiver burden, mood, health-related quality of life and dropout for any reason. Secondary outcomes were caregiver knowledge and skills, use of health and social care resources, admission of the person with dementia to institutional care, and quality of life of the person with dementia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study selection, data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias in included studies were done independently by two review authors. We used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) to describe the interventions. We conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model to derive estimates of effect size. We used GRADE methods to describe our degree of certainty about effect estimates. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 studies in this review (2367 participants). We compared (1) interventions involving training, support or both, with or without information (experimental interventions) with usual treatment, waiting list or attention control (12 studies, 944 participants); and (2) the same experimental interventions with provision of information alone (14 studies, 1423 participants). We downgraded evidence for study limitations and, for some outcomes, for inconsistency between studies. There was a frequent risk of bias from self-rating of subjective outcomes by participants who were not blind to the intervention. Randomisation methods were not always well-reported and there was potential for attrition bias in some studies. Therefore, all evidence was of moderate or low certainty. In the comparison of experimental interventions with usual treatment, waiting list or attention control, we found that the experimental interventions probably have little or no effect on caregiver burden (nine studies, 597 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.35 to 0.23); depressive symptoms (eight studies, 638 participants; SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.12); or health-related quality of life (two studies, 311 participants; SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.32). The experimental interventions probably result in little or no difference in dropout for any reason (eight studies, 661 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.53). In the comparison of experimental interventions with a control condition of information alone, we found that experimental interventions may result in a slight reduction in caregiver burden (nine studies, 650 participants; SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.04); probably result in a slight improvement in depressive symptoms (11 studies, 1100 participants; SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.06); may result in little or no difference in caregiver health-related quality of life (two studies, 257 participants; SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.21); and probably result in an increase in dropouts for any reason (12 studies, 1266 participants; RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.20). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Remotely delivered interventions including support, training or both, with or without information, may slightly reduce caregiver burden and improve caregiver depressive symptoms when compared with provision of information alone, but not when compared with usual treatment, waiting list or attention control. They seem to make little or no difference to health-related quality of life. Caregivers receiving training or support were more likely than those receiving information alone to drop out of the studies, which might limit applicability. The efficacy of these interventions may depend on the nature and availability of usual services in the study settings.

ANTECEDENTES: Muchas personas con demencia son atendidas en casa por cuidadores informales no remunerados, generalmente miembros de la familia. Los cuidadores pueden sufrir una serie de efectos perjudiciales físicos, emocionales, económicos y sociales, que a menudo se describen colectivamente como una carga para el cuidador. El grado de carga que se experimenta está asociado con las características del cuidador, como el género, y con las características de la persona con demencia, como la etapa de la demencia, y la presencia de problemas de comportamiento o trastornos neuropsiquiátricos. Es un fuerte predictor del ingreso en una residencia para personas con demencia. Las intervenciones psicoeducativas pueden prevenir o reducir la carga del cuidador. En general, tienen como objetivo mejorar los conocimientos de los cuidadores sobre la enfermedad y su cuidado; aumentar el sentido de competencia de los cuidadores y su capacidad para afrontar situaciones difíciles; aliviar los sentimientos de aislamiento y permitir que los cuidadores atiendan sus propias necesidades emocionales y físicas. Estas intervenciones son heterogéneas y varían en su marco teórico, sus componentes y sus formatos de administración. Las intervenciones que se realizan a distancia, utilizando material impreso, el teléfono o las tecnologías de vídeo, pueden ser particularmente adecuadas para los cuidadores que tienen dificultades para acceder a los servicios de forma presencial debido a sus propios problemas de salud, al escaso acceso al transporte o a la falta de un cuidado alternativo. Durante la pandemia de covid­19, las medidas de contención en muchos países exigían que las personas estuvieran aisladas en sus hogares, incluidas las personas con demencia y sus familiares cuidadores. En tales circunstancias, no hay alternativa a la realización de intervenciones a distancia. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar la eficacia y la aceptabilidad de las intervenciones realizadas a distancia con el fin de reducir la carga y mejorar el estado de ánimo y la calidad de vida de los cuidadores informales de personas con demencia. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: El 10 de abril de 2020 se realizaron búsquedas en el Registro especializado del Grupo Cochrane de Demencia y trastornos cognitivos (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), MEDLINE, Embase y otras cuatro bases de datos, así como en dos registros internacionales de ensayos. También se examinaron las bibliografías de documentos de revisión pertinentes y de ensayos publicados. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Sólo se incluyeron los ensayos controlados aleatorizados que evaluaron la administración a distancia de intervenciones estructuradas para los cuidadores informales que atendían a personas con demencia que vivían en el domicilio. Los cuidadores debían ser adultos no remunerados (parientes o miembros de la comunidad de la persona). Las intervenciones se podían realizar utilizando materiales impresos, el teléfono, la internet o una mezcla de estos, pero no podían implicar un contacto presencial con profesionales. Los componentes de la intervención se clasificaron como información, formación o apoyo. Las intervenciones de información incluyeron dos elementos clave: i) proporcionaron información estandarizada, y ii) el cuidador desempeñaba un papel pasivo. Las intervenciones de apoyo promovieron la interacción con otras personas (profesionales o iguales). Las intervenciones de formación entrenaron a los cuidadores en habilidades prácticas para proporcionar la atención. Se excluyeron las intervenciones que consistieron principalmente en psicoterapia individual. Los desenlaces principales fueron la carga del cuidador, el estado de ánimo, la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud y el abandono por cualquier motivo. Los desenlaces secundarios fueron los conocimientos y aptitudes de los cuidadores, la utilización de los recursos de atención sanitaria y social, el ingreso de la persona con demencia en una institución y la calidad de vida de la persona con demencia. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión realizaron de forma independiente la selección de los estudios, la extracción de los datos y la evaluación del riesgo de sesgo de los estudios incluidos. Se utilizó la Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) para describir las intervenciones. Los metanálisis se realizaron mediante un modelo de efectos aleatorios para obtener las estimaciones del tamaño del efecto. Se utilizaron los métodos GRADE para describir el grado de certeza sobre las estimaciones del efecto. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: En esta revisión se incluyeron 26 estudios (2367 participantes). Se compararon (1) las intervenciones que incluyeron formación, apoyo o ambos, con o sin información (intervenciones experimentales) con el tratamiento habitual, una lista de espera o el control de la atención (12 estudios, 944 participantes); y (2) las mismas intervenciones experimentales con el suministro de información solamente (14 estudios, 1423 participantes). La calidad de la evidencia se redujo por las limitaciones de los estudios y, en el caso de algunos desenlaces, por la falta de consistencia entre los estudios. Hubo un riesgo frecuente de sesgo debido a la autocalificación de los desenlaces subjetivos por parte de participantes que no estaban cegados a la intervención. Los métodos de asignación al azar no siempre se informaron bien y hubo un posible sesgo de desgaste en algunos estudios. Por lo tanto, toda la evidencia fue de certeza moderada o baja. En la comparación de las intervenciones experimentales con el tratamiento habitual, una lista de espera o el control de la atención, se encontró que las intervenciones experimentales probablemente tienen poco o ningún efecto sobre la carga del cuidador (nueve estudios, 597 participantes; diferencia de medias estandarizada [DME] ­0,06; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: ­0,35 a 0,23); los síntomas depresivos (ocho estudios, 638 participantes; DME ­0,05; IC del 95%: ­0,22 a 0,12) o la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud (dos estudios, 311 participantes; DME 0,10; IC del 95%: ­0,13 a 0,32). Las intervenciones experimentales probablemente dan lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en el abandono por cualquier motivo (ocho estudios, 661 participantes; razón de riesgos [RR] 1,15; IC del 95%: 0,87 a 1,53). En la comparación de las intervenciones experimentales con una condición control de información sola, se encontró que las intervenciones experimentales pueden dar lugar a una leve reducción de la carga del cuidador (nueve estudios, 650 participantes; DME ­0,24; IC del 95%: ­0,51 a 0,04); probablemente dan lugar a una leve mejoría de los síntomas depresivos (11 estudios, 1100 participantes; DME ­0,25; IC del 95%: ­0,43 a ­0,06); podrían dar lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud de los cuidadores (dos estudios, 257 participantes; DME ­0,03; IC del 95%: ­0,28 a 0,21); y probablemente dé lugar a un aumento de los abandonos por cualquier motivo (12 estudios, 1266 participantes; RR 1,51; IC del 95%: 1,04 a 2,20). CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Las intervenciones realizadas a distancia, como el apoyo, la formación o ambas, con o sin información, podrían reducir ligeramente la carga del cuidador y mejorar los síntomas depresivos del cuidador en comparación con el suministro de información únicamente, pero no en comparación con el tratamiento habitual, una lista de espera o el control de la atención. Parecen dar lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud. Los cuidadores que recibieron formación o apoyo tuvieron más probabilidades de abandonar los estudios que los que recibieron sólo información, lo que podría limitar la aplicabilidad. La eficacia de esas intervenciones puede depender de la naturaleza y la disponibilidad de los servicios habituales en los ámbitos de estudio.

Compress the curve: a cross-sectional study of variations in COVID-19 infections across California nursing homes.

OBJECTIVE: Nursing homes' residents and staff constitute the largest proportion of the fatalities associated with COVID-19 epidemic. Although there is a significant variation in COVID-19 outbreaks among the US nursing homes, we still do not know why such outbreaks are larger and more likely in some nursing homes than others. This research aims to understand why some nursing homes are more susceptible to larger COVID-19 outbreaks. DESIGN: Observational study of all nursing homes in the state of California until 1 May 2020. SETTING: The state of California. PARTICIPANTS: 713 long-term care facilities in the state of California that participate in public reporting of COVID-19 infections as of 1 May 2020 and their infections data could be matched with data on ratings and governance features of nursing homes provided by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The number of reported COVID-19 infections among staff and residents. RESULTS: Study sample included 713 nursing homes. The size of outbreaks among residents in for-profit nursing homes is 12.7 times larger than their non-profit counterparts (log count=2.54; 95% CI, 1.97 to 3.11; p<0.001). Higher ratings in CMS-reported health inspections are associated with lower number of infections among both staff (log count=-0.19; 95% CI, -0.37 to -0.01; p=0.05) and residents (log count=-0.20; 95% CI, -0.27 to -0.14; p<0.001). Nursing homes with higher discrepancy between their CMS-reported and self-reported ratings have higher number of infections among their staff (log count=0.41; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.51; p<0.001) and residents (log count=0.13; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.18; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The size of COVID-19 outbreaks in nursing homes is associated with their ratings and governance features. To prepare for the possible next waves of COVID-19 epidemic, policy makers should use these insights to identify the nursing homes who are more likely to experience large outbreaks.

Predictors of mortality of COVID-19 in the general population and nursing homes.

The factors that predispose an individual to a higher risk of death from COVID-19 are poorly understood. The goal of the study was to identify factors associated with risk of death among patients with COVID-19. This is a retrospective cohort study of people with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from February to May 22, 2020. Data retrieved for this study included patient sociodemographic data, baseline comorbidities, baseline treatments, other background data on care provided in hospital or primary care settings, and vital status. Main outcome was deaths until June 29, 2020. In the multivariable model based on nursing home residents, predictors of mortality were being male, older than 80 years, admitted to a hospital for COVID-19, and having cardiovascular disease, kidney disease or dementia while taking anticoagulants or lipid-lowering drugs at baseline was protective. The AUC was 0.754 for the risk score based on this model and 0.717 in the validation subsample. Predictors of death among people from the general population were being male and/or older than 60 years, having been hospitalized in the month before admission for COVID-19, being admitted to a hospital for COVID-19, having cardiovascular disease, dementia, respiratory disease, liver disease, diabetes with organ damage, or cancer while being on anticoagulants was protective. The AUC was 0.941 for this model's risk score and 0.938 in the validation subsample. Our risk scores could help physicians identify high-risk groups and establish preventive measures and better follow-up for patients at high risk of dying.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04463706.

Exploring the N95 and Surgical Mask Supply in U.S. Nursing Homes During COVID-19.

U.S. health care facilities have been encountering a recurrence of medical supply shortage since COVID-19 exploded in March 2020. There is an urgent need for important Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as N95 and surgical masks. This project examined the factors that were associated with nursing homes' N95 and surgical mask supply. We analyzed data from the Nursing Home COVID-19 Public File and conducted a multivariate logistic regression estimating the association between nursing home characteristics and county-level demographic parameters with mask supply. We found that a high number of resident COVID-19 cases contributed to the supply of N95, but not surgical masks, whereas a high number of staff cases did not lead to an adequate supply of either N95 or surgical masks. Compared with not-for-profit (NFP) facilities, for-profit (FP) nursing homes were less likely to get enough masks. A better supply distribution plan is needed to prepare for future possible PPE shortage.

Temperature Screening for SARS-CoV-2 in Nursing Homes: Evidence from Two National Cohorts.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Infection screening tools classically define fever as 38.0°C (100.4°F). Frail older adults may not mount the same febrile response to systemic infection as younger or healthier individuals. We evaluate temperature trends among nursing home (NH) residents undergoing diagnostic SARS-CoV-2 testing and describe the diagnostic accuracy of temperature measurements for predicting test-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study evaluating diagnostic accuracy of pre-SARS-CoV-2 testing temperature changes. SETTING: Two separate NH cohorts tested diagnostically (e.g., for symptoms) for SARS-CoV-2. PARTICIPANTS Veterans residing in Veterans Affairs (VA) managed NHs and residents in a private national chain of community NHs. MEASUREMENTS: For both cohorts, we determined the sensitivity, specificity, and Youden's index with different temperature cutoffs for SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction results. RESULTS: The VA cohort consisted of 1,301 residents in 134 facilities from March 1, 2020, to May 14, 2020, with 25% confirmed for SARS-CoV-2. The community cohort included 3,368 residents spread across 282 facilities from February 18, 2020, to June 9, 2020, and 42% were confirmed for SARS-CoV-2. The VA cohort was younger, less White, and mostly male. A temperature testing threshold of 37.2°C has better sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2, 76% and 34% in the VA and community NH, respectively, versus 38.0°C with 43% and 12% sensitivity, respectively. CONCLUSION: A definition of 38.0°C for fever in NH screening tools should be lowered to improve predictive accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Stakeholders should carefully consider the impact of adopting lower testing thresholds on testing availability, cost, and burden on staff and residents. Temperatures alone have relatively low sensitivity/specificity, and we advocate any threshold be used as part of a screening tool, along with other signs and symptoms of infection.