Post-COVID-19 patients in geriatric rehabilitation substantially recover in daily functioning and quality of life.

BACKGROUND: After an acute infection, older persons may benefit from geriatric rehabilitation (GR). OBJECTIVES: This study describes the recovery trajectories of post-COVID-19 patients undergoing GR and explores whether frailty is associated with recovery. DESIGN: Multicentre prospective cohort study. SETTING: 59 GR facilities in 10 European countries. PARTICIPANTS: Post-COVID-19 patients admitted to GR between October 2020 and October 2021. METHODS: Patients' characteristics, daily functioning (Barthel index; BI), quality of life (QoL; EQ-5D-5L) and frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale; CFS) were collected at admission, discharge, 6 weeks and 6 months after discharge. We used linear mixed models to examine the trajectories of daily functioning and QoL. RESULTS: 723 participants were included with a mean age of 75 (SD: 9.91) years. Most participants were pre-frail to frail (median [interquartile range] CFS 6.0 [5.0-7.0]) at admission. After admission, the BI first steeply increased from 11.31 with 2.51 (SE 0.15, P < 0.001) points per month and stabilised around 17.0 (quadratic slope: -0.26, SE 0.02, P < 0.001). Similarly, EQ-5D-5L first steeply increased from 0.569 with 0.126 points per month (SE 0.008, P < 0.001) and stabilised around 0.8 (quadratic slope: -0.014, SE 0.001, P < 0.001). Functional recovery rates were independent of frailty level at admission. QoL was lower at admission for frailer participants, but increased faster, stabilising at almost equal QoL values for frail, pre-frail and fit patients. CONCLUSIONS: Post-COVID-19 patients admitted to GR showed substantial recovery in daily functioning and QoL. Frailty at GR admission was not associated with recovery and should not be a reason to exclude patients from GR.

Active involvement in scientific research of persons living with dementia and long-term care users: a systematic review of existing methods with a specific focus on good practices, facilitators and barriers of involvement.

BACKGROUND: Active involvement of persons living with dementia (PLWD) and long-term care (LTC) users in research is essential but less developed compared to other patient groups. However, their involvement in research is not only important but also feasible. This study aims to provide an overview of methods, facilitators, and barriers for involving PLWD and LTC users in scientific research. METHODS: A systematic literature search across 12 databases in December 2020 identified studies involving PLWD, LTC users, or their carers beyond research subjects and describing methods or models for involvement. Qualitative descriptions of involvement methods underwent a risk of bias assessment using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Checklist 2018. A data collection sheet in Microsoft Excel and thematic analysis were used to synthesize the results. RESULTS: The eighteen included studies delineated five core involvement methods spanning all research phases: advisory groups, formal and informal research team meetings, action groups, workshops, and co-conducting interviews. Additionally, two co-research models with PLWD and carers were found, while only two studies detailed LTC user involvement methods. Four distinct involvement roles were identified: consulting and advisory roles, co-analysts, co-researchers, and partners. The review also addressed barriers, facilitators, and good practices in the preparation, execution, and translation phases of research, emphasizing the importance of diversity, bias reduction, and resource allocation. Trust-building, clear roles, ongoing training, and inclusive support were highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: Planning enough time for active involvement is important to ensure that researchers have time to build a trusting relationship and meet personal needs and preferences of PLWD, LTC users and carers. Researchers are advised not to presume the meaning of burden and to avoid a deficit perspective. A flexible or emergent design could aid involved persons' ownership of the research process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero 2021: CRD42021253736.

Priority measures to prevent infections and maintain residents' well-being during COVID-19 outbreaks in nursing homes: Consensus among staff and resident representatives determined in an online nominal group technique study.

Background: COVID-19 infection prevention measures can negatively impact nursing home residents' well-being. Society has been concerned about the imbalance between infection prevention and residents' well-being, and about nursing home residents' autonomy in COVID-19 policymaking. Objective: This study explores consensus among nursing home staff about which measures they found to be most important in contributing to preventing infections and to maintaining well-being of residents during COVID-19 outbreaks. In addition, this study explores the decision-making processes regarding COVID-19 measures and the involvement of residents or their representatives. Design: Mixed methods based on an online nominal group technique. Settings: Dutch nursing homes, June-November 2020. Participants: Managers, policy advisors, elderly care physicians, psychologists, a spiritual counselor, nurses, care assistants, and resident representatives (N = 35). Methods: Four panels from the viewpoint of infection prevention, and four panels from the viewpoint of well-being were performed with 3 to 7 participants per panel. Participants individually selected the measure they found most important, discussed these measures together in an online conversation, and rated the importance and urgency of these measures during COVID-19 outbreaks on a 5-point Likert scale. The measures that were rated as (very) important and (very) urgent by all members of that panel were defined as 'prioritized in consensus'. Panels also discussed the decision-making process regarding COVID-19 measures and the involvement of residents or their representatives. These conversations were transcribed verbatim and thematically coded using an inductive approach. Results: The infection prevention panels prioritized isolation measures; testing measures; testing and isolation combinations; use of personal protective equipment around (suspected) infected residents; and preparation for outbreaks by COVID-19 outbreak teams. The well-being panels prioritized cohort isolation, testing combined with cohort isolation and with isolation in residents' rooms, exceptions to visitor bans, maximum numbers of visitors, and registration and accompanying visitors to the residents' rooms. Resident representatives and staff were dissatisfied with their reduced involvement in policy making during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, although they understood that decisions had to be made quickly. Conclusions: Staff and resident representatives should be involved in COVID-19 policy making. According to them, priority COVID-19 measures should include: cohort isolation, testing and isolation combinations, use of personal protective equipment, crisis management by COVID-19 outbreak teams, and nursing home visit regulations and instruction of visitors. Combining these measures may be a first step towards packages of COVID-19 measures that better balance infection prevention and maintaining residents' well-being. Registration: N/A. Tweetable abstract: Priority COVID-19 nursing home measures are isolation, testing, testing and isolation combinations, PPE use, preparations by outbreak teams, and visit regulations @wilcoachterberg.

Distancing Measures and Challenges Discussed by COVID-19 Outbreak Teams of Dutch Nursing Homes: The COVID-19 MINUTES Study.

The most severe COVID-19 infections and highest mortality rates are seen among long-term care residents. To reduce the risk of infection, physical distancing is important. This study investigates what physical distancing measures were discussed by COVID-19 outbreak teams of Dutch long-term care organizations and what challenges they encountered. The COVID-19 MINUTES study is a qualitative multi-center study (n = 41) that collected minutes of COVID-19 outbreak teams from March 2020 to October 2021. Textual units about distancing measures were selected and analyzed using manifest content analysis for the first wave: early March-early May 2020; the intermediate period of 2020: mid-May-mid-September 2020; and the second wave: late September 2020-mid-June 2021. During all periods, COVID-19 outbreak teams often discussed distancing visitors from residents. Moreover, during the first wave they often discussed isolation measures, during the intermediate period they often discussed distancing staff and volunteers from residents, and during both the intermediate period and the second wave they often discussed distancing among residents. During all periods, less often admission measures were discussed. Challenges persisted and included unrest among and conflicts between visitors and staff, visitors violating measures, resident non-adherence to measures, and staffing issues. The discussed distancing measures and corresponding challenges may guide local long-term care and (inter)national policymakers during the further course of the COVID-19 pandemic, outbreaks of other infectious diseases, and long-term care innovations.

Activities for Residents of Dutch Nursing Homes during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study.

To protect nursing home residents from getting infected with COVID-19, several measures have been imposed. The aim of this study was to describe the impact of these measures on activities for Dutch nursing home residents, the conditions under which the activities could take place, and the considerations when making decisions about the (dis)continuation of activities. The study consisted of the data of the qualitative MINUTES-study. Textual units derived from documentation of an outbreak team (OT) meetings on activities, well-being, informal caregivers, and volunteers from 39 long-term care organizations were re-analyzed using a content analysis. The results shows that OTs more often discussed restarting and continuing activities than stopping activities during the COVID-19 pandemic. There were differences between time periods, but activities never completely stopped according to the minutes. Activities were offered in an adapted way, often under certain conditions, such as organizing activities at other locations (e.g., outside), with limited group size, and following specific guidelines. The main focus of the considerations made were the ability to adhere to the guidelines, the well-being of residents, ensuring safety, and balancing benefits versus risks given vaccination availability and coverage. Overall, the study showed that organizing activities for nursing home residents despite COVID-19 measures is possible.

Strategies to Increase Willingness to Receive a COVID-19 Vaccine among Nursing Home Staff.

BACKGROUND: Nursing home (NH) staff and residents have been prioritized to receive COVID-19 vaccinations. However, NH staff have been hesitant. This study explored what strategies were used to overcome this hesitancy and which of these were found to be important by NH staff to increase their willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine. METHODS: This study employed a sequential exploratory qualitative design. The COVID-19 MINUTES study aimed to describe the challenges presented by, responses to, and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in NHs. The minutes of COVID-19 outbreak teams (COTs) in Dutch long-term care organizations (n = 41) were collected and coded using content analysis. Textual units from December 2020 to April 2021 that regarded strategies to increase staff's vaccination willingness (n = 67) were selected. Subsequently, to validate these data, two panels of NH healthcare workers (HCWs) and policy workers (PWs) (n = 8) selected, discussed, and ranked the strategies that they found to be important using a modified nominal group technique. RESULTS: The strategies described in the minutes included financial reimbursements, personal contact, story sharing, logistics support, role models, visual information, and written information. Except for financial reimbursement, all these strategies were considered important or very important by the panel participants. Some organizations combined multiple strategies. CONCLUSION: The strategies that were found important in combination may be used more broadly and should be developed further with the involvement of HCWs.

COVID-19 management in nursing homes by outbreak teams (MINUTES) - study description and data characteristics: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Nursing homes are hit relatively hard by the COVID-19 pandemic. Dutch long-term care (LTC) organisations installed outbreak teams (OTs) to coordinate COVID-19 infection prevention and control. LTC organisations and relevant national policy organisations expressed the need to share experiences from these OTs that can be applied directly in COVID-19 policy. The aim of the 'COVID-19 management in nursing homes by outbreak teams' (MINUTES) study is to describe the challenges, responses and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Dutch nursing homes. In this first article, we describe the MINUTES Study and present data characteristics. DESIGN: This large-scale multicentre study has a qualitative design using manifest content analysis. The participating organisations shared their OT minutes and other meeting documents on a weekly basis. Data from week 16 (April) to week 53 (December) 2020 included the first two waves of COVID-19. SETTING: National study with 41 large Dutch LTC organisations. PARTICIPANTS: The LTC organisations represented 563 nursing home locations and almost 43 000 residents. RESULTS: At least 36 of the 41 organisations had one or more SARS-CoV-2 infections among their residents. Most OTs were composed of management, medical staff, support services staff, policy advisors and communication specialists. Topics that emerged from the documents were: crisis management, isolation of residents, personal protective equipment and hygiene, staff, residents' well-being, visitor policies, testing and vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: OT meeting minutes are a valuable data source to monitor the impact of and responses to COVID-19 in nursing homes. Depending on the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, data collection and analysis will continue until November 2021. The results are used directly in national and organisational COVID-19 policy.

A European Research Agenda for Geriatric Emergency Medicine: a modified Delphi study.

PURPOSE: Geriatric Emergency Medicine (GEM) focuses on delivering optimal care to (sub)acutely ill older people. This involves a multidisciplinary approach throughout the whole healthcare chain. However, the underpinning evidence base is weak and it is unclear which research questions have the highest priority. The aim of this study was to provide an inventory and prioritisation of research questions among GEM professionals throughout Europe. METHODS: A two-stage modified Delphi approach was used. In stage 1, an online survey was administered to various professionals working in GEM both in the Emergency Department (ED) and other healthcare settings throughout Europe to make an inventory of potential research questions. In the processing phase, research questions were screened, categorised, and validated by an expert panel. Subsequently, in stage 2, remaining research questions were ranked based on relevance using a second online survey administered to the same target population, to identify the top 10 prioritised research questions. RESULTS: In response to the first survey, 145 respondents submitted 233 potential research questions. A total of 61 research questions were included in the second stage, which was completed by 176 respondents. The question with the highest priority was: Is implementation of elements of CGA (comprehensive geriatric assessment), such as screening for frailty and geriatric interventions, effective in improving outcomes for older patients in the ED? CONCLUSION: This study presents a top 10 of high-priority research questions for a European Research Agenda for Geriatric Emergency Medicine. The list of research questions may serve as guidance for researchers, policymakers and funding bodies in prioritising future research projects.

Older individuals' views on their personal screening results for complex health problems: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Providing older persons with information about their health status may increase their involvement in their own health and enhance self-management. However, we need a better understanding of how older persons view their personal results after completing a screening questionnaire on complex health, of their (lack of) motivation and their subsequent action. METHODS: In this qualitative study community-dwelling older persons (≥80 years, n = 13) who completed a screening questionnaire on complex health problems were interviewed regarding their perception of the results, the actions they considered taking and their personal motivations. Data were analysed thematically (qualitative content analyses). RESULTS: Participants expressed interest in feedback, as an objective questionnaire might substantiate their own views regarding their personal health. They were mostly unsurprised by the results and/or had already taken precautions and were therefore not inclined to undertake additional action. They admitted difficulty with and appreciated advice from a professional regarding preparation of an action plan. Unexpected negative results would lead them to discuss matters with family and/or their general practitioner, provided they had a good relationship with their GP. CONCLUSION: Older people were interested in direct feedback regarding their screening questionnaire results and in subsequent advice on possible additional measures. General practices could consider inviting older persons to complete a screening questionnaire and discuss activities and personal goals. This information could serve to better shape future interventions aimed at increasing self-management amongst older persons.