Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 105
Filter
3.
J Appl Gerontol ; 41(7): 1641-1650, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1785007

ABSTRACT

This study's aim was to determine nursing home (NH) and county-level predictors of COVID-19 outbreaks in nursing homes (NHs) in the southeastern region of the United States across three time periods. NH-level data compiled from census data and from NH compare and NH COVID-19 infection datasets provided by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services cover 2951 NHs located in 836 counties in nine states. A generalized linear mixed-effect model with a random effect was applied to significant factors identified in the final stepwise regression. County-level COVID-19 estimates and NHs with more certified beds were predictors of COVID-19 outbreaks in NHs across all time periods. Predictors of NH cases varied across the time periods with fewer community and NH variables predicting COVID-19 in NH during the late period. Future research should investigate predictors of COVID-19 in NH in other regions of the US from the early periods through March 2021.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Nursing Homes , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S. , Humans , Medicare , Nursing Homes/statistics & numerical data , Southeastern United States/epidemiology , United States
4.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 21(11): 1529-1538, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1637724

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in older adults living in long-term care facilities is uncertain. We investigated the protective effect of the first dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca non-replicating viral-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19; AZD1222) and the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2) in residents of long-term care facilities in terms of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection over time since vaccination. METHODS: The VIVALDI study is a prospective cohort study that commenced recruitment on June 11, 2020, to investigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission, infection outcomes, and immunity in residents and staff in long-term care facilities in England that provide residential or nursing care for adults aged 65 years and older. In this cohort study, we included long-term care facility residents undergoing routine asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing between Dec 8, 2020 (the date the vaccine was first deployed in a long-term care facility), and March 15, 2021, using national testing data linked within the COVID-19 Datastore. Using Cox proportional hazards regression, we estimated the relative hazard of PCR-positive infection at 0-6 days, 7-13 days, 14-20 days, 21-27 days, 28-34 days, 35-48 days, and 49 days and beyond after vaccination, comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated person-time from the same cohort of residents, adjusting for age, sex, previous infection, local SARS-CoV-2 incidence, long-term care facility bed capacity, and clustering by long-term care facility. We also compared mean PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values for positive swabs obtained before and after vaccination. The study is registered with ISRCTN, number 14447421. FINDINGS: 10 412 care home residents aged 65 years and older from 310 LTCFs were included in this analysis. The median participant age was 86 years (IQR 80-91), 7247 (69·6%) of 10 412 residents were female, and 1155 residents (11·1%) had evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. 9160 (88·0%) residents received at least one vaccine dose, of whom 6138 (67·0%) received ChAdOx1 and 3022 (33·0%) received BNT162b2. Between Dec 8, 2020, and March 15, 2021, there were 36 352 PCR results in 670 628 person-days, and 1335 PCR-positive infections (713 in unvaccinated residents and 612 in vaccinated residents) were included. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for PCR-positive infection relative to unvaccinated residents declined from 28 days after the first vaccine dose to 0·44 (95% CI 0·24-0·81) at 28-34 days and 0·38 (0·19-0·77) at 35-48 days. Similar effect sizes were seen for ChAdOx1 (adjusted HR 0·32, 95% CI 0·15-0·66) and BNT162b2 (0·35, 0·17-0·71) vaccines at 35-48 days. Mean PCR Ct values were higher for infections that occurred at least 28 days after vaccination than for those occurring before vaccination (31·3 [SD 8·7] in 107 PCR-positive tests vs 26·6 [6·6] in 552 PCR-positive tests; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Single-dose vaccination with BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines provides substantial protection against infection in older adults from 4-7 weeks after vaccination and might reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. However, the risk of infection is not eliminated, highlighting the ongoing need for non-pharmaceutical interventions to prevent transmission in long-term care facilities. FUNDING: UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Nursing Homes/statistics & numerical data , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , England/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Immunization Schedule , Incidence , Male , Mass Vaccination/methods , Mass Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Treatment Outcome
5.
PLoS One ; 16(12): e0260051, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1596447

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To model the risk of COVID-19 mortality in British care homes conditional on the community level risk. METHODS: A two stage modeling process ("doubly latent") which includes a Besag York Mollie model (BYM) and a Log Gaussian Cox Process. The BYM is adopted so as to estimate the community level risks. These are incorporated in the Log Gaussian Cox Process to estimate the impact of these risks on that in care homes. RESULTS: For an increase in the risk at the community level, the number of COVID-19 related deaths in the associated care home would be increased by exp (0.833), 2. This is based on a simulated dataset. In the context of COVID-19 related deaths, this study has illustrated the estimation of the risk to care homes in the presence of background community risk. This approach will be useful in facilitating the identification of the most vulnerable care homes and in predicting risk to new care homes. CONCLUSIONS: The modeling of two latent processes have been shown to be successfully facilitated by the use of the BYM and Log Gaussian Cox Process Models. Community COVID-19 risks impact on that of the care homes embedded in these communities.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Nursing Homes/statistics & numerical data , Residence Characteristics , Geography , Humans , Models, Statistical , Risk Factors
6.
Viruses ; 14(1)2021 12 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1580404

ABSTRACT

The burden of COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted the elderly, who are at increased risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death. This cross-sectional study aimed to assess the association between SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among nursing home staff, and cumulative incidence rates of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths among residents. Staff seroprevalence was estimated within the SEROCoV-WORK+ study between May and September 2020 across 29 nursing homes in Geneva, Switzerland. Data on nursing home residents were obtained from the canton of Geneva for the period between March and August 2020. Associations were assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficient and quasi-Poisson regression models. Overall, seroprevalence among staff ranged between 0 and 31.4%, with a median of 8.3%. A positive association was found between staff seroprevalence and resident cumulative incidence of COVID-19 cases (correlation coefficient R = 0.72, 95%CI 0.45-0.87; incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.10, 95%CI 1.07-1.17), hospitalizations (R = 0.59, 95%CI 0.25-0.80; IRR = 1.09, 95%CI 1.05-1.13), and deaths (R = 0.71, 95%CI 0.44-0.86; IRR = 1.12, 95%CI 1.07-1.18). Our results suggest that SARS-CoV-2 transmission between staff and residents may contribute to the spread of the virus within nursing homes. Awareness among nursing home professionals of their likely role in the spread of SARS-CoV-2 has the potential to increase vaccination coverage and prevent unnecessary deaths due to COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Nursing Homes/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/transmission , Cross-Sectional Studies , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization , Humans , Incidence , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Switzerland/epidemiology
8.
Public Health Rep ; 137(1): 137-148, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1523161

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Nursing homes are a primary setting of COVID-19 transmission and death, but research has primarily focused only on factors within nursing homes. We investigated the relationship between US nursing home-associated COVID-19 infection rates and county-level and nursing home attributes. METHODS: We constructed panel data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) minimum dataset, CMS nursing home data, 2010 US Census data, 5-year (2012-2016) American Community Survey estimates, and county COVID-19 infection rates. We analyzed COVID-19 data from June 1, 2020, through January 31, 2021, during 7 five-week periods. We used a maximum likelihood estimator, including an autoregressive term, to estimate effects and changes over time. We performed 3 model forms (basic, partial, and full) for analysis. RESULTS: Nursing homes with nursing (0.005) and staff (0.002) shortages had high COVID-19 infection rates, and locally owned (-0.007) or state-owned (-0.025) and nonprofit (-0.011) agencies had lower COVID-19 infection rates than privately owned agencies. County-level COVID-19 infection rates corresponded with COVID-19 infection rates in nursing homes. Racial and ethnic minority groups had high nursing home-associated COVID-19 infection rates early in the study. High median annual personal income (-0.002) at the county level correlated with lower nursing home-associated COVID-19 infection rates. CONCLUSIONS: Communities with low rates of nursing home infections had access to more resources (eg, financial resources, staffing) and likely had better mitigation efforts in place earlier in the pandemic than nursing homes that had access to few resources and poor mitigation efforts. Future research should address the social and structural determinants of health that are leaving racial and ethnic minority populations and institutions such as nursing homes vulnerable during times of crises.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/ethnology , Ethnic and Racial Minorities/statistics & numerical data , Homes for the Aged/statistics & numerical data , Nursing Homes/statistics & numerical data , Social Determinants of Health/ethnology , Humans , Ownership , SARS-CoV-2 , Sociodemographic Factors , United States/epidemiology
12.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(9): e2122885, 2021 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1400713

ABSTRACT

Importance: Federal data underestimate the impact of COVID-19 on US nursing homes because federal reporting guidelines did not require facilities to report case and death data until the week ending May 24, 2020. Objective: To assess the magnitude of unreported cases and deaths in the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) and provide national estimates of cases and deaths adjusted for nonreporting. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a cross-sectional study comparing COVID-19 cases and deaths reported by US nursing homes to the NHSN with those reported to state departments of health in late May 2020. The sample includes nursing homes from 20 states, with 4598 facilities in 12 states that required facilities to report cases and 7401 facilities in 19 states that required facilities to report deaths. Estimates of nonreporting were extrapolated to infer the national (15 397 facilities) unreported cases and deaths in both May and December 2020. Data were analyzed from December 2020 to May 2021. Exposures: Nursing home ownership (for-profit or not-for-profit), chain affiliation, size, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services star rating, and state. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the difference between the COVID-19 cases and deaths reported by each facility to their state department of health vs those reported to the NHSN. Results: Among 15 415 US nursing homes, including 4599 with state case data and 7405 with state death data, a mean (SE) of 43.7% (1.4%) of COVID-19 cases and 40.0% (1.1%) of COVID-19 deaths prior to May 24 were not reported in the first NHSN submission in sample states, suggesting that 68 613 cases and 16 623 deaths were omitted nationwide, representing 11.6% of COVID-19 cases and 14.0% of COVID-19 deaths among nursing home residents in 2020. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that federal NHSN data understated total cases and deaths in nursing homes. Failure to account for this issue may lead to misleading conclusions about the role of different facility characteristics and state or federal policies in explaining COVID outbreaks.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Nursing Homes/statistics & numerical data , Bias , COVID-19/mortality , Cross-Sectional Studies , Databases, Factual , Federal Government , Humans , Surveys and Questionnaires , United States/epidemiology
14.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 70(1): 8-18, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1373834

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Limited COVID-19 vaccination acceptance among healthcare assistants (HCAs) may adversely impact older adults, who are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 infections. Our study objective was to evaluate the perceptions of COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy in a sample of frontline HCAs, overall and by race and ethnicity. METHODS: An online survey was conducted from December 2020 to January 2021 through national e-mail listserv and private Facebook page for the National Association of Health Care Assistants. Responses from 155 HCAs, including certified nursing assistants, home health aides, certified medical assistants, and certified medication technicians, were included. A 27-item survey asked questions about experiences and perceptions of COVID-19 vaccines, including how confident they were that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and adequately tested in people of color. Multivariable regression was used to identify associations with confidence in COVID-19 vaccines. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 155 completed responses. Among respondents, 23.9% were black and 8.4% Latino/a. Most respondents worked in the nursing home setting (53.5%), followed by hospitals (12.9%), assisted living (11.6%), and home care (10.3%). Respondents expressed low levels of confidence in COVID-19 vaccines, with fewer than 40% expressing at least moderate confidence in safety (38.1%), effectiveness (31.0%), or adequate testing in people of color (27.1%). Non-white respondents reported lower levels of confidence in adequate testing of vaccines compared to white respondents. In bivariate and adjusted models, respondents who gave more favorable scores of organizational leadership at their workplace expressed greater confidence in COVID-19 vaccines. CONCLUSION: Frontline HCAs reported low confidence in COVID-19 vaccines. Stronger organizational leadership in the workplace appears to be an important factor in influencing HCA's willingness to be vaccinated. Action is needed to enhance COVID-19 vaccine uptake in this important population with employers playing an important role to build vaccine confidence and trust among employees.


Subject(s)
Allied Health Personnel/psychology , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Ethnicity/statistics & numerical data , Perception , Racial Groups/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Assisted Living Facilities/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Hospitals/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Internet , Male , Middle Aged , Nursing Homes/statistics & numerical data , Surveys and Questionnaires , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination Hesitancy
15.
BMJ ; 374: n1868, 2021 08 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1365155

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine associations of BNT162b2 vaccination with SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospital admission and death with covid-19 among nursing home residents, nursing home staff, and healthcare workers. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Nursing homes and linked electronic medical record, test, and mortality data in Catalonia on 27 December 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 28 456 nursing home residents, 26 170 nursing home staff, and 61 791 healthcare workers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants were followed until the earliest outcome (confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospital admission or death with covid-19) or 26 May 2021. Vaccination status was introduced as a time varying exposure, with a 14 day run-in after the first dose. Mixed effects Cox models were fitted to estimate hazard ratios with index month as a fixed effect and adjusted for confounders including sociodemographics, comorbidity, and previous medicine use. RESULTS: Among the nursing home residents, SARS-CoV-2 infection was found in 2482, 411 were admitted to hospital with covid-19, and 450 died with covid-19 during the study period. In parallel, 1828 nursing home staff and 2968 healthcare workers were found to have SARS-CoV-2 infection, but fewer than five were admitted or died with covid-19. The adjusted hazard ratio for SARS-CoV-2 infection after two doses of vaccine was 0.09 (95% confidence interval 0.08 to 0.11) for nursing home residents, 0.20 (0.17 to 0.24) for nursing home staff, and 0.13 (0.11 to 0.16) for healthcare workers. Adjusted hazard ratios for hospital admission and mortality after two doses of vaccine were 0.05 (0.04 to 0.07) and 0.03 (0.02 to 0.04), respectively, for nursing home residents. Nursing home staff and healthcare workers recorded insufficient events for mortality analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination was associated with 80-91% reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infection in all three cohorts and greater reductions in hospital admissions and mortality among nursing home residents for up to five months. More data are needed on longer term effects of covid-19 vaccines.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/mortality , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Homes for the Aged/statistics & numerical data , Nursing Homes/statistics & numerical data , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Proportional Hazards Models , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain/epidemiology , Treatment Outcome
16.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(8): e2118441, 2021 08 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1335942

ABSTRACT

Importance: COVID-19 has had devastating effects on the health and well-being of older adult residents and health care professionals in nursing homes. Uncertainty about the associated consequences of these adverse effects on the use of medications common to this care setting remains. Objective: To examine the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and prescription medication changes among nursing home residents. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study with an interrupted time-series analysis used linked health administrative data bases for residents of all nursing homes (N = 630) in Ontario, Canada. During the observation period, residents were divided into consecutive weekly cohorts. The first observation week was March 5 to 11, 2017; the last observation week was September 20 to 26, 2020. Exposures: Onset of the COVID-19 pandemic on March 1, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Weekly proportion of residents dispensed antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, opioids, antibiotics, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. Autoregressive integrated moving average models with step and ramp intervention functions tested for level and slope changes in weekly medication use after the onset of the pandemic and were fit on prepandemic data for projected trends. Results: Across study years, the annual cohort size ranged from 75 850 to 76 549 residents (mean [SD] age, 83.4 [10.8] years; mean proportion of women, 68.9%). A significant increased slope change in the weekly proportion of residents who were dispensed antipsychotics (parameter estimate [ß] = 0.051; standard error [SE] = 0.010; P < .001), benzodiazepines (ß = 0.026; SE = 0.003; P < .001), antidepressants (ß = 0.046; SE = 0.013; P < .001), trazodone hydrochloride (ß = 0.033; SE = 0.010; P < .001), anticonvulsants (ß = 0.014; SE = 0.006; P = .03), and opioids (ß = 0.038; SE = 0.007; P < .001) was observed. The absolute difference in observed vs estimated use in the last week of the pandemic period ranged from 0.48% (for anticonvulsants) to 1.52% (for antipsychotics). No significant level or slope changes were found for antibiotics, ARBs, or ACE inhibitors. Conclusions and Relevance: In this population-based cohort study, statistically significant increases in the use of antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and opioids followed the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, although absolute differences were small. There were no significant changes for antibiotics, ARBs, or ACE inhibitors. Studies are needed to monitor whether changes in pharmacotherapy persist, regress, or accelerate during the course of the pandemic and how these changes affect resident-level outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Drug Prescriptions/statistics & numerical data , Homes for the Aged/statistics & numerical data , Nursing Homes/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Anticonvulsants/therapeutic use , Antidepressive Agents/therapeutic use , Antipsychotic Agents/therapeutic use , Benzodiazepines/therapeutic use , Cohort Studies , Databases, Factual , Female , Humans , Interrupted Time Series Analysis , Male , Ontario , SARS-CoV-2
17.
J Hosp Palliat Nurs ; 23(5): 455-461, 2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1328958

ABSTRACT

This discussion article highlights the challenges of providing hospice care in nursing homes since the start of the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic and illuminates practice changes needed in nursing homes. The article provides an overview of the expectations of hospice care, explains the differences in delivering hospice care during the COVID-19 pandemic, examines social isolation and emotional loneliness and the role of familial caregivers, and describes policy changes related to the COVID-19 affecting hospice care delivery in nursing homes. This article answers the following questions: (1) How did residents receiving hospice care have their needs met during the COVID-19 pandemic? (2) What areas of nursing home care need to be improved through governmental policy and restructuring? This article also summarized the lessons learned as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and provided practical implications for nursing, specific to changes in hospice care deliveries for nursing home residents.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Hospice Care/statistics & numerical data , Nursing Homes/statistics & numerical data , Palliative Care/statistics & numerical data , Quality of Life , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/psychology , Female , Hospice Care/organization & administration , Humans , Loneliness/psychology , Male , Needs Assessment , Nursing Homes/organization & administration , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Social Isolation/psychology
19.
Environ Microbiol ; 22(7): 2445-2456, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1319213

ABSTRACT

In the absence of an efficient drug treatment or a vaccine, the control of the COVID-19 pandemic relies on classic infection control measures. Since these means are socially disruptive and come with substantial economic loss for societies, a better knowledge of the epidemiology of the new coronavirus epidemic is crucial to achieve control at a sustainable cost and within tolerable restrictions of civil rights.


Subject(s)
Asymptomatic Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Child , China/epidemiology , Coronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Europe/epidemiology , Humans , Immunity, Herd , Masks , Models, Theoretical , Molecular Epidemiology/statistics & numerical data , Nursing Homes/statistics & numerical data , Olfaction Disorders/virology , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Public Health , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Singapore , United States/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL