Scope of treatment and clinical-decision making in the older patient with COVID-19 infection, a European perspective.

PURPOSE: Older patients were particularly vulnerable to severe COVID-19 disease resulting in high in-hospital mortality rates during the two first waves. The aims of this study were to better characterize the management of older people presenting with COVID-19 in European hospitals and to identify national guidelines on hospital admission and ICU admission for this population. METHODS: Online survey based on a vignette of a frail older patient with Covid-19 distributed by e-mail to all members of the European Geriatric Medicine Society. The survey contained questions regarding the treatment of the vignette patient as well as general questions regarding available services. Additionally, questions on national policies and differences between the first and second wave of the pandemic were asked. RESULTS: Survey of 282 respondents from 28 different countries was analyzed. Responses on treatment of the patient in the vignette were similar from respondents across the 28 countries. 247 respondents (87%) would admit the patient to the hospital, in most cases to a geriatric COVID-19 ward (78%). Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was found medically inappropriate by 85% of respondents, intubation and mechanical ventilation by 91% of respondents, admission to the ICU by 82%, and ExtraCorpular Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) by 93%. Sixty percent of respondents indicated they would consult with a palliative care specialist, 56% would seek the help of a spiritual counsellor. National guidelines on admission criteria of geriatric patients to the hospital existed in 22 different European countries. CONCLUSION: This pandemic has fostered the collaboration between geriatricians and palliative care specialists to improve the care for older patients with a severe disease and often an uncertain prognosis.

Improving vaccination coverage and offering vaccine to all school-age children allowed uninterrupted in-person schooling in King County, WA: Modeling analysis.

The rapid spread of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants combined with slowing pace of vaccination in Fall 2021 created uncertainty around the future trajectory of the epidemic in King County, Washington, USA. We analyzed the benefits of offering vaccination to children ages 5-11 and expanding the overall vaccination coverage using mathematical modeling. We adapted a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, calibrated to data from King County, Washington, to simulate scenarios of vaccinating children aged 5-11 with different starting dates and different proportions of physical interactions (PPI) in schools being restored. Dynamic social distancing was implemented in response to changes in weekly hospitalizations. Reduction of hospitalizations and estimated time under additional social distancing measures are reported over the 2021-2022 school year. In the scenario with 85% vaccination coverage of 12+ year-olds, offering early vaccination to children aged 5-11 with 75% PPI was predicted to prevent 756 (median, IQR 301-1434) hospitalizations cutting youth hospitalizations in half compared to no vaccination and largely reducing the need for additional social distancing measures over the school year. If, in addition, 90% overall vaccination coverage was reached, 60% of remaining hospitalizations would be averted and the need for increased social distancing would almost certainly be avoided. Our work suggests that uninterrupted in-person schooling in King County was partly possible because reasonable precaution measures were taken at schools to reduce infectious contacts. Rapid vaccination of all school-aged children provides meaningful reduction of the COVID-19 health burden over this school year but only if implemented early. It remains critical to vaccinate as many people as possible to limit the morbidity and mortality associated with future epidemic waves.

COVID-19 vaccines that reduce symptoms but do not block infection need higher coverage and faster rollout to achieve population impact.

Trial results for two COVID-19 vaccines suggest at least 90% efficacy against symptomatic disease (VEDIS). It remains unknown whether this efficacy is mediated by lowering SARS-CoV-2 infection susceptibility (VESUSC) or development of symptoms after infection (VESYMP). We aim to assess and compare the population impact of vaccines with different efficacy profiles (VESYMP and VESUSC) satisfying licensure criteria. We developed a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, calibrated to data from King County, Washington. Rollout scenarios starting December 2020 were simulated with combinations of VESUSC and VESYMP resulting in up to 100% VEDIS. We assumed no reduction of infectivity upon infection conditional on presence of symptoms. Proportions of cumulative infections, hospitalizations and deaths prevented over 1 year from vaccination start are reported. Rollouts of 1 M vaccinations (5000 daily) using vaccines with 50% VEDIS are projected to prevent 23-46% of infections and 31-46% of deaths over 1 year. In comparison, vaccines with 90% VEDIS are projected to prevent 37-64% of infections and 46-64% of deaths over 1 year. In both cases, there is a greater reduction if VEDIS is mediated mostly by VESUSC. The use of a "symptom reducing" vaccine will require twice as many people vaccinated than a "susceptibility reducing" vaccine with the same 90% VEDIS to prevent 50% of the infections and death over 1 year. Delaying the start of the vaccination by 3 months decreases the expected population impact by more than 50%. Vaccines which prevent COVID-19 disease but not SARS-CoV-2 infection, and thereby shift symptomatic infections to asymptomatic infections, will prevent fewer infections and require larger and faster vaccination rollouts to have population impact, compared to vaccines that reduce susceptibility to infection. If uncontrolled transmission across the U.S. continues, then expected vaccination in Spring 2021 will provide only limited benefit.

Access to inflammatory bowel disease speciality care: the primary healthcare physician perspective.

BACKGROUND: There is little literature related to access to inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care that incorporates the perspective of key system stakeholders, such as primary healthcare providers (PHCP), despite their clear and integral role in facilitating access. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify barriers to referring patients to speciality IBD care as perceived by referring PHCP. In particular, we sought to understand PHCP satisfaction with the current IBD specialist referral system, as well as indicators of geographic variance to access. METHODS: A population-based survey was mailed out to currently practising PHCPs who have referred or who are currently referring patients to IBD speciality care in Nova Scotia (Canada). Descriptive statistics and multivariate analyses were performed. Qualitative comments were themed using framework analysis to identify key barriers. RESULTS: The majority of PHCP (57%) were dissatisfied with the current referral process due to long patient wait times and perceived system inefficiency. Key areas of geographic variance in access included access to speciality care in the community and patient wait times. PHCPs suggested ideas to improve access including increased gastroenterologist supply, particularly in rural areas, and the creation of a provincial centralized referral and triage process. CONCLUSIONS: PHCPs play an important role in identifying and managing patients with IBD in partnership with gastroenterologists. This study identifies key PHCP perceived barriers that may prevent patients from accessing speciality IBD care. Understanding and addressing barriers to access from multiple stakeholder perspectives, including PHCPs, has the potential to support informed system redesign and overcome access inequities.

Primary healthcare providers (e.g. family doctors and nurse practitioners) play an important role in connecting patients with speciality health care. Patients with digestive diseases, such as inflammatory bowel diseases (e.g. Crohn's and colitis), may rely on primary healthcare providers to connect them with inflammatory bowel disease specialists (e.g. gastroenterologists). Past research on access to inflammatory bowel disease care has focused on the patient perspective; however, almost no research has focused on how primary healthcare providers perceive access to inflammatory bowel disease speciality care, despite their important role in facilitating access. This paper focuses on what 155 primary healthcare providers in Nova Scotia (Canada) perceive as key barriers for their patients when accessing speciality Inflammatory bowel disease care. This paper also presents potential improvements to the referral process and healthcare system, as suggested by primary healthcare providers, which may improve global access to inflammatory bowel disease care.

Widespread testing, case isolation and contact tracing may allow safe school reopening with continued moderate physical distancing: A modeling analysis of King County, WA data.

BACKGROUND: In late March 2020, a "Stay Home, Stay Healthy" order was issued in Washington State in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On May 1, a 4-phase reopening plan began. We investigated whether adjunctive prevention strategies would allow less restrictive physical distancing to avoid second epidemic waves and secure safe school reopening. METHODS: We developed a mathematical model, stratifying the population by age, infection status and treatment status to project SARS-CoV-2 transmission during and after the reopening period. The model was parameterized with demographic and contact data from King County, WA and calibrated to confirmed cases, deaths and epidemic peak timing. Adjunctive prevention interventions were simulated assuming different levels of pre-COVID physical interactions (pC_PI) restored. RESULTS: The best model fit estimated ~35% pC_PI under the lockdown which prevented ~17,000 deaths by May 15. Gradually restoring 75% pC_PI for all age groups between May 15-July 15 would have resulted in ~350 daily deaths by early September 2020. Maintaining <45% pC_PI was required with current testing practices to ensure low levels of daily infections and deaths. Increased testing, isolation of symptomatic infections, and contact tracing permitted 60% pC_PI without significant increases in daily deaths before November and allowed opening of schools with <15 daily deaths. Inpatient antiviral treatment was predicted to reduce deaths significantly without lowering cases or hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: We predict that widespread testing, contact tracing and case isolation would allow relaxation of physical distancing, as well as opening of schools, without a surge in local cases and deaths.

High-quality end of life care for older people with frailty: helping people to live and die well.

Guidance from the British Geriatrics Society provides practical advice to support healthcare professionals who are involved in caring for frail, older people in the last phase of life.

Commentary: COVID in care homes-challenges and dilemmas in healthcare delivery.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected care home residents internationally, with 19-72% of COVID-19 deaths occurring in care homes. COVID-19 presents atypically in care home residents and up to 56% of residents may test positive whilst pre-symptomatic. In this article, we provide a commentary on challenges and dilemmas identified in the response to COVID-19 for care homes and their residents. We highlight the low sensitivity of polymerase chain reaction testing and the difficulties this poses for blanket screening and isolation of residents. We discuss quarantine of residents and the potential harms associated with this. Personal protective equipment supply for care homes during the pandemic has been suboptimal and we suggest that better integration of procurement and supply is required. Advance care planning has been challenged by the pandemic and there is a need to for healthcare staff to provide support to care homes with this. Finally, we discuss measures to implement augmented care in care homes, including treatment with oxygen and subcutaneous fluids, and the frameworks which will be required if these are to be sustainable. All of these challenges must be met by healthcare, social care and government agencies if care home residents and staff are to be physically and psychologically supported during this time of crisis for care homes.

Let's all get home safely: a commentary on NICE and SCIE guidelines (NG27) transition between inpatient hospital settings and community or care home settings.

Safe and appropriate transition between inpatient settings and the community is one of the major challenges facing the modern NHS. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in conjunction with the Social Care Institute for Excellence published guidance on this challenging area in December 2015. This commentary provides context, summary and discussion of the key areas covered. The guidance particularly emphasises the importance of a person-centred approach in which patients are individuals and equal partners in the multidisciplinary team who should be treated with dignity and respect. Additionally, communication and information sharing is crucial both on admission and when taking a proactive approach to discharge, including the role of the discharge coordinator in liaising with community teams and arranging follow-up post-discharge. Self-care and the significance of carers are also highlighted as valuable in facilitating safe discharge and reducing readmissions. It is clear that in older people with complex needs, safe appropriate transition between hospital and community settings has a positive impact on patients and their carers. Given the financial and capacity pressures facing the NHS, strategies to reduce readmissions and prevent delays in discharge are increasingly important. These guidelines are therefore both timely and advocated to improve care for older people.

Geriatric medicine and geriatricians in the UK. How they relate to acute and general internal medicine and what the future might hold?

The Royal College of Physicians and its Future Hospitals Commission has a renewed focus on general internal medicine. But in 2015, most is in effect either acute medicine or geriatric medicine. Acute physicians and 'organ specialists' looking after inpatients on specialty wards or at the acute hospital 'front door' will need sufficient skills in geriatric medicine, rehabilitation, discharge planning and palliative care, as frailty, dementia and complex comorbidities may complicate the care of older patients with predominant speciality-defining complaints. In an era where we are urged to focus on patient-centred care, patients' preference for continuity and 'whole-stay', consultants must be recognised and respected. Ideally, this will require increasing numbers of geriatricians and acute physicians, more age attuned training for all; a shift in values and status. This should be backed by adequate capacity and rapid access to social and intermediate care services outside hospital, as well as adequate multidisciplinary staff and skills within the acute hospital to ensure that older patients' needs beyond the immediate complaints are not neglected. Meanwhile, geriatric medicine itself has diversified into specialised, community and interface roles, aligned with the integration agenda, and continues to contribute substantially to acute, general and stroke medicine. These developments are described here.

New horizons in care home medicine.

Care home medicine has been an under-researched area, but over the last decade there has been a substantial growth in publications. Most of these have focused on the 'geriatric giants' of falls, incontinence and mental health issues (especially dementia, behavioural disturbance and depression) as well as other key topics such as medication use and issues related to death and dying. Other areas of recent interest are around access to health services for care home residents, how such services may most effectively be developed and how the quality of life for residents can be enhanced. While many of the reported studies are small and not always well designed, evidence in several areas is emerging which begins to guide service developments. A common theme is that multi-disciplinary interventions are the most effective models of delivery. The role of care home staff as members of these teams is key to their effectiveness. Recent consensus guidelines around falls prevention in care homes synthesise the evidence and recommend multi-disciplinary interventions, and clarify the role of vitamin D and of exercise in certain populations in the care home. The benefits of pharmacist led medication reviews are beginning to emerge; although studies reviewed to date have not yet led to the 'holy grail' of hospital admission avoidance they point to benefits in reduction of drug burden. Effectiveness may be enhanced when working with GPs and care home nurses. Welcome evidence is emerging that in the UK the rate of prescription of anti-psychotics has fallen. This is clear evidence that changes in practice around care homes can be effected. The poor access to non-pharmacological therapies for care home residents with behavioural disturbance remains a significant gap in service. End-of-life care planning and delivery is an important part of care in care homes, and there is evidence that integrated pathways can improve care; however, the use of palliative care medications was limited unless specialist care staff were involved. Integrated models of care that focus on resident-centred goals and which value the role of care home staff as members of the team working to deliver these goals are most likely to result in improvements in the quality of care experienced by care home residents.

Physical rehabilitation for older people in long-term care.

BACKGROUND: The worldwide population is progressively ageing, with an expected increase in morbidity and demand for long-term care. Physical rehabilitation is beneficial in older people, but relatively little is known about effects on long-term care residents. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of rehabilitation interventions directed at maintaining, or improving, physical function for older people in long-term care through the review of randomised and cluster randomised controlled trials. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the trials registers of the following Cochrane entities: the Stroke Group (May 2012), the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (April 2012), and the Rehabilitation and Related Therapies Field (April 2012). In addition, we searched 20 relevant electronic databases, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2009, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2009), EMBASE (1980 to December 2009), CINAHL (1982 to December 2009), AMED (1985 to December 2009), and PsycINFO (1967 to December 2009). We also searched trials and research registers and conference proceedings; checked reference lists; and contacted authors, researchers, and other relevant Cochrane entities. We updated our searches of electronic databases in 2011 and listed relevant studies as awaiting assessment. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised studies comparing a rehabilitation intervention designed to maintain or improve physical function with either no intervention or an alternative intervention in older people (over 60 years) who have permanent long-term care residency. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. The primary outcome was function in activities of daily living. Secondary outcomes included exercise tolerance, strength, flexibility, balance, perceived health status, mood, cognitive status, fear of falling, and economic analyses. We investigated adverse effects, including death, morbidity, and other events. We synthesised estimates of the primary outcome with the mean difference; mortality data, with the risk ratio; and secondary outcomes, using vote-counting. MAIN RESULTS: We included 67 trials, involving 6300 participants. Fifty-one trials reported the primary outcome, a measure of activities of daily living. The estimated effects of physical rehabilitation at the end of the intervention were an improvement in Barthel Index (0 to 100) scores of six points (95% confidence interval (CI) 2 to 11, P = 0.008, seven studies), Functional Independence Measure (0 to 126) scores of five points (95% CI -2 to 12, P = 0.1, four studies), Rivermead Mobility Index (0 to 15) scores of 0.7 points (95% CI 0.04 to 1.3, P = 0.04, three studies), Timed Up and Go test of five seconds (95% CI -9 to 0, P = 0.05, seven studies), and walking speed of 0.03 m/s (95% CI -0.01 to 0.07, P = 0.1, nine studies). Synthesis of secondary outcomes suggested there is a beneficial effect on strength, flexibility, and balance, and possibly on mood, although the size of any such effect is unknown. There was insufficient evidence of the effect on other secondary outcomes. Based on 25 studies (3721 participants), rehabilitation does not increase risk of mortality in this population (risk ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.13). However, it is possible bias has resulted in overestimation of the positive effects of physical rehabilitation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Physical rehabilitation for long-term care residents may be effective, reducing disability with few adverse events, but effects appear quite small and may not be applicable to all residents. There is insufficient evidence to reach conclusions about improvement sustainability, cost-effectiveness, or which interventions are most appropriate. Future large-scale trials are justified.

Prescribing in care homes: the role of the geriatrician.

Large numbers of frail elderly people spend some time of their lives in care homes. Increasing age is associated with altered physiology, multiple diagnoses and complex comorbidity, and polypharmacy. Those living in care homes often take larger numbers of medications than those who live in the community and the risk of morbidity as a direct or indirect result of medications is high. Many methods have been suggested to revise the number and type of medications prescribed for individuals at risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), both in the community and in hospital with variable success and implementation. Assessment of prescribed and nonprescribed medications by pharmacists, nurses and general practitioners all have a role in optimizing therapeutics with evidence that improved prescribing can reduce the risk of ADRs. In conjunction with these professionals, community geriatricians undertaking a comprehensive geriatric assessment can reduce the number of medications prescribed or optimize therapy where there may be underprescribing (e.g. in depression), thereby reducing the overall risk of hospital admission ADRs.

Rehabilitation for older people in long-term care.

BACKGROUND: Examination of demographic trends indicates that the worldwide population is progressively ageing. It is expected that such longevity will be associated with an increase in morbidity and demand for long-term residential care. This review examines whether there is evidence that physical rehabilitation benefits older people in long-term care. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate physical rehabilitation interventions directed at improving physical function among older people in long-term care. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the trials registers of the following Cochrane entities: Stroke Group (searched March 2008), Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (searched August 2006) and the Rehabilitation and Related Therapies Field, (searched August 2006). In addition, we searched 17 relevant electronic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to 1 October 2007), EMBASE (1980 to 1 October 2007), CINAHL (1982 to 1 October 2007), AMED (1985 to 1 October 2007), PsycINFO (1967 to 1 October 2007) and PEDro (searched 1 October 2007). We also searched trials and research registers and conference proceedings, checked reference lists, and contacted authors and researchers in the field and other relevant Cochrane entities. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised studies comparing a rehabilitation intervention designed to maintain or improve physical function with either no intervention or an alternative intervention in older people aged 60 years or over who have permanent long-term care residency. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-nine trials involving 3611 participants were included. On average, 74 (range 12 to 468) participants were randomised into trials at baseline. Of studies which reported age, the overall mean age was 82 years (range of 69 to 89). Most interventions lasted less than 20 weeks, and comprised approximately three 30 to 45-minute group sessions per week. Twelve trials conducted post-intervention follow up (maximum one year). Most often a 'usual care' control group was used, but social activity and alternative interventions also featured. The primary outcome, daily activity restriction, was reported by 38 trials. A range of secondary outcomes are also reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Provision of physical rehabilitation interventions to long-term care residents is worthwhile and safe, reducing disability with few adverse events.Most trials reported improvement in physical condition. However, there is insufficient evidence to make recommendations about the best intervention, improvement sustainability and cost-effectiveness.

Care home medicine in the UK--in from the cold.

The quality of care within care homes comes under frequent media scrutiny, and is underpinned by the medical support to the staff. In the UK, medical care to care homes is provided by general practitioners. A GP is likely to have patients in many homes, and each home relates to many GPs. The growing complexity of patients in care requires proactive models of care delivered by those with an understanding of care home medicine. A range of innovative models of medical care are emerging across the UK which have the potential to improve the standard of care in homes, and reduce inappropriate use of secondary care admissions. These models are described, and the need for them to be subjected to evaluation.

A whole system study of intermediate care services for older people.

BACKGROUND: Intermediate care (IC) services have been widely introduced in England and have the strategic objectives of reducing hospital and long-term care use. There is uncertainty about the clinical outcomes of these services and whether their strategic aims will be realised. SETTING: A metropolitan city in northern England. DESIGN: A quasi-experimental study comparing a group of older people before and after the introduction of an IC service. A quota sampling method was used to match the groups. SUBJECTS: Patients presenting as emergency admissions to two elderly care departments with falls, confusion, incontinence or immobility. INTERVENTION: a city-wide service in which a joint care management team (multi-agency, multi-disciplinary) assessed patient need and purchased support and rehabilitation from sector-based IC teams. OUTCOMES: Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living score, Barthel Index, Hospital Anxiety and Depression score, mortality, readmission to hospital, and new institutional care placement at 3, 6 and 12 months post-recruitment. RESULTS: There were 800 and 848 patients, respectively, in the control and intervention groups. Clinical outcomes, hospital and long-term care use were similar between the groups. Uptake of IC was lower than anticipated at 29%. An embedded case-control study comparing the 246 patients who received IC with a matched sample from the control group demonstrated similar clinical outcomes but increased hospital bed days used over 12 months (mean +8 days; 95% CI 3.1-13.0). CONCLUSION: This city-wide IC service was associated with similar clinical outcomes but did not achieve its strategic objectives of reducing long-term care and hospital use.