Association between COVID-19 vaccination and 28-day all-cause mortality in SARS-CoV-2-infected older people living in residential aged care facilities.

This retrospective cross-sectional study reviewed the association between COVID-19 vaccination and the 28-day all-cause mortality amongst SARS-CoV-2-infected older people living in residential aged care facilities. A lower mortality rate was observed in fully vaccinated residents compared with not fully vaccinated residents. Further research is required to investigate the optimal timing of vaccination boosters and vaccine efficacy as variants evolve.

Residential aged care facility COVID-19 outbreaks and magnitude of spread among residents: observations from a Victorian residential in-reach service.

There is a paucity of Australian literature exploring the spread of COVID-19 among residents living in residential aged care facilities (RACF). In this case series of COVID-19 outbreaks in six RACF, we collected data on the cumulative proportion of residents who tested positive for COVID-19 within 21 days of the index case being identified. We describe the observations of a Residential In-Reach service within these six RACF and found that rapid cohorting strategies, personal protective equipment availability and adequacy of use, embedded infection control staff, and adequate outbreak preparedness plans may have influenced the differences observed between RACF in the containment and minimisation of the spread of COVID-19 amongst residents.

Feasibility and impact of a post-discharge geriatric evaluation and management service for patients from residential care: the Residential Care Intervention Program in the Elderly (RECIPE).

BACKGROUND: Geriatric evaluation and management has become standard care for community dwelling older adults following an acute admission to hospital. It is unclear whether this approach is beneficial for the frailest older adults living in permanent residential care. This study was undertaken to evaluate (1) the feasibility and consumer satisfaction with a geriatrician-led supported discharge service for older adults living in residential care facilities (RCF) and (2) its impact on the uptake of Advanced Care Planning (ACP) and acute health care service utilisation. METHODS: In 2002-4 a randomised controlled trial was conducted in Melbourne, Australia comparing the geriatrician-led outreach service to usual care for RCF residents. Patients were recruited during their acute hospital stay and followed up at the RCF for six months. The intervention group received a post-discharge home visit within 96 hours, at which a comprehensive geriatric assessment was performed and a care plan developed. Participants and their families were also offered further meetings to discuss ACPs and document Advanced Directives (AD). Additional reviews were made available for assessment and management of intercurrent illness within the RCF. Consumer satisfaction was surveyed using a postal questionnaire. RESULTS: The study included 116 participants (57 intervention and 59 controls) with comparable baseline characteristics. The service was well received by consumers demonstrated by higher satisfaction with care in the intervention group compared to controls (95% versus 58%, p = 0.006).AD were completed by 67% of participants/proxy decision makers in the intervention group compared to 13% of RCF residents prior to service commencement. At six months there was a significant reduction in outpatient visits (intervention 21 (37%) versus controls 45 (76%), (p < 0.001), but no difference in readmissions rates (39% intervention versus 34% control, p = 0.6). There was a trend towards reduced hospital bed-day utilisation (intervention 271 versus controls 372 days). CONCLUSION: It is feasible to provide a supported discharge service that includes geriatrician assessment and care planning within a RCF. By expanding the service there is the potential for acute health care cost savings by decreasing the demand for outpatient consultation and further reducing acute care bed-days.

Gaps in continuity of medication management during the transition from hospital to residential care: an observational study (MedGap Study).

AIM: To assess continuity of medication management during transition from hospital to residential care facilities (RCFs). METHOD: Telephone interviews with RCF staff were performed 24 hours after patient transfer to determine the proportion of patients with: missed or significantly delayed doses; RCF medication chart not written/updated in time for the first dose; suitably packed medications not available for the first dose; and RCF medication chart written/updated by a locum doctor. Retrospective audit was used to identify discharge summary discrepancies. RESULTS: Seventy-five doses for 37/202 (18.3%) patients were missed or significantly delayed in the 24 hours after discharge. One hundred and twenty-five (61.9%) patients did not have their medication chart written/updated and 77 (38.1%) did not have suitably packed medications available for the first dose. Locum doctors wrote RCF medication charts for 66 (32.7%) patients. One hundred and ninety-seven of 392 (50.3%) changes to regularly scheduled medications were communicated. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies are needed to address gaps in the continuity of medication management.

Impact of a pharmacist-prepared interim residential care medication administration chart on gaps in continuity of medication management after discharge from hospital to residential care: a prospective pre- and post-intervention study (MedGap Study).

OBJECTIVES: To test the impact of a hospital pharmacist-prepared interim residential care medication administration chart (IRCMAC) on medication administration errors and use of locum medical services after discharge from hospital to residential care. DESIGN: Prospective pre-intervention and post-intervention study. SETTING: One major acute care hospital and one subacute aged-care hospital; 128 residential care facilities (RCF) in Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 428 patients (median age 84 years, IQR 79-88) discharged to a RCF from an inpatient ward over two 12-week periods. INTERVENTION: Seven-day IRCMAC auto-populated with patient and medication data from the hospitals' pharmacy dispensing software, completed and signed by a hospital pharmacist and sent with the patient to the RCF. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary end points were the proportion of patients with one or more missed or significantly delayed (>50% of prescribed dose interval) medication doses, and the proportion of patients whose RCF medication chart was written by a locum doctor, in the 24 h after discharge. Secondary end points included RCF staff and general practitioners' opinions about the IRCMAC. RESULTS: The number of patients who experienced one or more missed or delayed doses fell from 37/202 (18.3%) to 6/226 (2.7%) (difference in percentages 15.6%, 95% CI 9.5% to 21.9%, p<0.001). The number of patients whose RCF medication chart was written by a locum doctor fell from 66/202 (32.7%) to 25/226 (11.1%) (difference in percentages 21.6%, 95% CI 13.5% to 29.7%, p<0.001). For 189/226 (83.6%) discharges, RCF staff reported that the IRCMAC improved continuity of care; 31/35 (88.6%) general practitioners said that the IRCMAC reduced the urgency for them to attend the RCF and 35/35 (100%) said that IRCMACs should be provided for all patients discharged to a RCF. CONCLUSIONS: A hospital pharmacist-prepared IRCMAC significantly reduced medication errors and use of locum medical services after discharge from hospital to residential care.