RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Nursing home residents constituted a vulnerable population during the COVID-19 pandemic, and half of all cause-attributed COVID-19 deaths occurred within nursing homes. Yet, given the low life expectancy of nursing home residents, it is unclear to what extent COVID-19 mortality increased overall mortality within this population. Moreover, there might have been differences between nursing homes in their ability to protect residents against excess mortality. This article estimates the number of excess deaths among Dutch nursing home residents during the pandemic, the variation in excess deaths across nursing homes, and its relationship with nursing home characteristics. DESIGN: Retrospective, use of administrative register data. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: All residents (N = 194,432) of Dutch nursing homes (n = 1463) in 2016-2021. METHODS: We estimated the difference between actual and predicted mortality, pooled at the nursing home level, which provided an estimate of nursing home-specific excess mortality corrected for resident case-mix differences. We show the variation in excess mortality across nursing homes and relate this to nursing home characteristics. RESULTS: In 2020 and 2021, the mortality probability among nursing home residents was 4.0 and 1.6 per 100 residents higher than expected. There was considerable variation in excess deaths across nursing homes, even after correcting for differences in resident case mix and regional factors. This variation was substantially larger than prepandemic mortality and was in 2020 related to prepandemic spending on external personnel and satisfaction with the building, and in 2021 to prepandemic staff absenteeism. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The variation in excess mortality across nursing homes was considerable during the COVID-19 pandemic, and larger compared with prepandemic years. The association of excess mortality with the quality of the building and spending on external personnel indicates the importance of considering differences across nursing home providers when designing policies and guidelines related to pandemic preparedness.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Economic evaluations of interventions in health and social care require outcome measures that capture their full benefits, including those beyond health. This study aimed to assess construct validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness of the newly developed 10-item Well-being instrument (WiX). METHODS: Data were gathered via an online survey in a representative sample of the adult general population in The Netherlands (N = 1045). Construct validity was assessed by inspecting convergent, structural, and discriminant validity, following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments methodology. Regression analyses of the WiX and its items on other validated measures of well-being were performed to assess the convergent validity of the instrument and the relevance of its items. Dimensionality of the WiX was assessed using exploratory factor analysis. To assess discriminant validity, several hypotheses in terms of well-being differences were assessed. Finally, a second survey was sent out 2 weeks after the initial survey (n = 563; 53.9% response rate) to assess the test-retest reliability and responsiveness of the WiX. RESULTS: The WiX showed to be correlated with alternative well-being measures as expected and able to sufficiently differentiate between relevant subgroups in the population. Moreover, the dimensionality analysis indicated that the WiX captures a broad array of elements relevant to well-being, including physical and mental health. The test-retest reliability was good, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.82. CONCLUSIONS: The results regarding the WiX are favorable and indicate that this new instrument may be a promising alternative for existing measures of well-being for evaluating interventions in health and social care.
