scholarly journals How much time should long-term care and geriatric rehabilitation facilities (nursing homes) spend on infection control?

2010 ◽  
Vol 38 (9) ◽  
pp. 723-725 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peterhans J. van den Broek ◽  
Herman J.M. Cools ◽  
Mireille Wulf ◽  
Philo H.A.C. Das
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Homes ◽  
Infection Control ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Geriatric Rehabilitation ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Rehabilitation Facilities

scholarly journals Reducing Morbidity and Mortality Rates from COVID-19, Influenza and Pneumococcal Illness in Nursing Homes and Long-Term Care Facilities by Vaccination and Comprehensive Infection Control Interventions

Geriatrics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 48
Author(s):  
Roger E. Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Homes ◽  
Infection Control ◽  
Strong Evidence ◽  
Disease Transmission ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Tract Infections

The COVID-19 pandemic identifies the problems of preventing respiratory illnesses in seniors, especially frail multimorbidity seniors in nursing homes and Long-Term Care Facilities (LCTFs). Medline and Embase were searched for nursing homes, long-term care facilities, respiratory tract infections, disease transmission, infection control, mortality, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. For seniors, there is strong evidence to vaccinate against influenza, SARS-CoV-2 and pneumococcal disease, and evidence is awaited for effectiveness against COVID-19 variants and when to revaccinate. There is strong evidence to promptly introduce comprehensive infection control interventions in LCFTs: no admissions from inpatient wards with COVID-19 patients; quarantine and monitor new admissions in single-patient rooms; screen residents, staff and visitors daily for temperature and symptoms; and staff work in only one home. Depending on the vaccination situation and the current risk situation, visiting restrictions and meals in the residents’ own rooms may be necessary, and reduce crowding with individual patient rooms. Regional LTCF administrators should closely monitor and provide staff and PPE resources. The CDC COVID-19 tool measures 33 infection control indicators. Hand washing, social distancing, PPE (gowns, gloves, masks, eye protection), enhanced cleaning of rooms and high-touch surfaces need comprehensive implementation while awaiting more studies at low risk of bias. Individual ventilation with HEPA filters for all patient and common rooms and hallways is needed.

scholarly journals TIMELY LESSONS FROM A PANDEMIC ON THE BENEFITS OF PERSON CENTRIC CARE IN LONG TERM CARE FACILITIES

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
S.-L. Wee ◽  
P.L.K. Yap
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Nursing Homes ◽  
Infection Control ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Person Centered Care ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
Centered Care

Since the outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), there have been few deadlier places than in nursing homes. As such, several useful guidelines on coping with COVID-19 in nursing homes have emerged. The critical immediate term measures mentioned in the guidelines have longer term implications especially on quality of care. We discuss how these measures instituted for infection control can be synergistic with person-centered care which has been synonymous with quality of care in nursing homes.

Uitbraak COVID-19 in de verpleeghuiszorg

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Nursing Home ◽  
Nursing Homes ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Informal Caregivers ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Daily Routine ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Care Facilities

Long-term care for older adults is highly affect by the COVID-19 outbreak. The objective of this rapid review is to understand what we can learn from previous crises or disasters worldwide to optimize the care for older adults in long term care facilities during the outbreak of COVID-19. We searched five electronic databases to identify potentially relevant articles. In total, 23 articles were included in this study. Based on the articles, it appeared that nursing homes benefit from preparing for the situation as best as they can. For instance, by having proper protocols and clear division of tasks and collaboration within the organization. In addition, it is helpful for nursing homes to collaborate closely with other healthcare organizations, general practitioners, informal caregivers and local authorities. It is recommended that nursing homes pay attention to capacity and employability of staff and that they support or relieve staff where possible. With regard to care for the older adults, it is important that staff tries to find a new daily routine in the care for residents as soon as possible. Some practical tips were found on how to communicate with people who have dementia. Furthermore, behavior of people with dementia may change during a crisis. We found tips for staff how to respond and act upon behavior change. After the COVID-19 outbreak, aftercare for staff, residents, and informal caregivers is essential to timely detect psychosocial problems. The consideration between, on the one hand, acute safety and risk reduction (e.g. by closing residential care facilities and isolating residents), and on the other hand, the psychosocial consequences for residents and staff, were discussed in case of other disasters. Furthermore, the search of how to provide good (palliative) care and to maintain quality of life for older adults who suffer from COVID-19 is also of concern to nursing home organizations. In the included articles, the perspective of older adults, informal caregivers and staff is often lacking. Especially the experiences of older adults, informal caregivers, and nursing home staff with the care for older adults in the current situation, are important in formulating lessons about how to act before, during and after the coronacrisis. This may further enhance person-centered care, even in times of crisis. Therefore, we recommend to study these experiences in future research.

Predictors of Mortality in Board and Care Homes

1997 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas G. Castle
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Home ◽  
Nursing Homes ◽  
Social Services ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
Board And Care

Long-term care institutions have emerged as dominant sites of death for the elderly. However, studies of this trend have primarily examined nursing homes. The purpose of this research is to determine demographic, functional, disease, and facility predictors and/or correlates of death for the elderly residing in board and care facilities. Twelve factors are found to be significant: proportion of residents older than sixty-five years of age, proportion of residents who are chair- or bed-fast, proportion of residents with HIV, bed size, ownership, chain membership, affiliation with a nursing home, number of health services provided other than by the facility, the number of social services provided other than by the facility, the number of social services provided by the facility, and visits by Ombudsmen. These are discussed and comparisons with similar studies in nursing homes are made.

scholarly journals Investigation of a Prolonged Group A Streptococcus Outbreak Among Residents and Outpatients Receiving Wound Care at a Long-Term Care Facility (LTCF)

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s305-s306
Author(s):  
Alana Cilwick ◽  
April Burdorf ◽  
Wendy Bamberg ◽  
Christopher Czaja ◽  
Alexis Burakoff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Infection Control ◽  
Staff Member ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Wound Care ◽  
Care Facility ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Term Care Facility ◽  
Long Term Care Facility ◽  
Group A

Background: In February 2019, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) identified a cluster of 3 invasive group A Streptococcus (GAS) infections in residents receiving wound care in a long-term care facility (LTCF). An investigation revealed a larger outbreak that extended to nonresidents receiving outpatient wound care at the LTCF. Methods: A case was defined as a positive culture for GAS emm type 82 from an individual with exposure to the LTCF between January and June 2019. Cases were categorized as clinical (symptoms of GAS disease or GAS isolated from a wound or sterile site) or carriage (no symptoms). Carriers were identified via samples collected from throat and skin lesions. Screening occurred in 2 rounds and included residents of affected units followed by screening of all wound-care staff and residents facility-wide. Available isolates were sent for emm type testing and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) at the CDC. CDPHE staff performed infection control observations. Results: We identified 14 cases: 8 clinical and 6 carriage (from 5 residents and 1 staff member). Two patients with invasive GAS died. Of 8 patients with clinical GAS, 6 resided in the facility on or 1 day prior to symptom onset; 2 were not residents but received outpatient therapy at the LTCF. All 8 patients with clinical GAS (100%) and 3 carriers had received wound care. The staff member with emm 82 carriage had provided wound care and occupational therapy to the affected residents and the 2 outpatients. Two additional cases were detected with onset dates following staff member decolonization. Moreover, 13 of the 14 emm 82 isolates were found to be identical by WGS. Infection control observations identified lapses in staff wound care and hand hygiene practices in the residential and outpatient settings of the facility. Conclusions: This investigation details a large GAS outbreak in an LTCF associated with asymptomatic carriage in residents and staff that included patients who had only received care in the outpatient portion of the facility. The outbreak was halted following decolonization of a staff member and improvements in infection control, including in the outpatient setting. Outpatient services, particularly wound care, provided by LTCFs should be considered when investigating LTCF-related GAS cases and outbreaks.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

scholarly journals The Impact of Enhanced Antimicrobial Stewardship Support on Antibiotic Starts in Long-Term Care Facilities

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s527-s527
Author(s):  
Gabriela Andujar-Vazquez ◽  
Kirthana Beaulac ◽  
Shira Doron ◽  
David R Snydman
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Infection Control ◽  
Antimicrobial Stewardship ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
The Impact

Background: The Tufts Medical Center Antimicrobial Stewardship (ASP) Team has partnered with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) to provide broad-based educational programs (BBEP) to long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in an effort to improve ASP and infection control practices. LTCFs have consistently expressed interest in individualized and hands-on involvement by ASP experts, yet they lack resources. The goal of this study was to determine whether “enhanced” individualized guidance provided by an ASP expert would lead to antibiotic start decreases in LTCFs participating in our pilot study. Methods: A pilot study was conducted to test the feasibility and efficacy of providing enhanced ASP and infection control practices to LTCFs. In total, 10 facilities already participating in MDPH BBEP and submitting monthly antibiotic start data were enrolled, were stratified by bed size and presence of dementia unit, and were randomized 1:1 to the “enhanced” group (defined as reviewing protocols and antibiotic start cases, providing lectures and feedback to staff and answering questions) versus the “nonenhanced” group. Antibiotic start data were validated and collected prospectively from January 2018 to July 2019, and the interventions began in April 2019. Due to staff turnover and lack of engagement, intervention was not possible in 2 of the 5 LTCFs randomized to the enhanced group, which were therefore analyzed as a nonenhanced group. An incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% CIs were calculated comparing the antibiotic start rate per 1,000 resident days between periods in the pilot groups. Results: The average bed sizes for enhanced groups versus nonenhanced groups were 121 (±71.0) versus 108 (±32.8); the average resident days per facility per month were 3,415.7 (±2,131.2) versus 2,911.4 (±964.3). Comparatively, 3 facilities in the enhanced group had dementia unit versus 4 in the nonenhanced group. In the per protocol analysis, the antibiotic start rate in the enhanced group before versus after the intervention was 11.35 versus 9.41 starts per 1,000 resident days (IRR, 0.829; 95% CI, 0.794–0.865). The antibiotic start rate in the nonenhanced group before versus after the intervention was 7.90 versus 8.23 antibiotic starts per 1,000 resident days (IRR, 1.048; 95% CI, 1.007–1.089). Physician hours required for ASP for the enhanced group totaled 8.9 (±2.2) per facility per month. Conclusions: Although the number of hours required for intervention by an expert was not onerous, maintaining engagement proved difficult and in 2 facilities could not be achieved. A statistically significant 20% decrease in the antibiotic start rate was achieved in the enhanced group after interventions, potentially reflecting the benefit of enhanced ASP support by an expert.Funding: This study was funded by the Leadership in Epidemiology, Antimicrobial Stewardship, and Public Health (LEAP) fellowship training grant award from the CDC.Disclosures: None

A Comparison of Wandering Behavior in Nursing Homes and Assisted Living Facilities

2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth R. A. Beattie ◽  
JunAh Song ◽  
Shane LaGore
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Homes ◽  
Assisted Living ◽  
Challenging Behavior ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Assisted Living Facilities ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Training Requirements ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
Staffing And Training

Wandering, a challenging behavior associated with dementia, affects many residents of long-term care facilities and can result in elopement, injury, and death. Most studies of wandering have taken place in nursing homes (NH). Expansion of the long-term care sector over the last 2 decades has resulted in a surge in options such as assisted living facilities (ALF). This study compared wandering behavior of residents (N = 108) in 21 long-term care facilities (15 NH, 6 ALF). Staff used the Revised Algase Wandering Scale-Nursing Home Version (RAWS-NH) to quantify wandering. While there were some differences in demographic variables (i.e., race, motor ability) between NH and ALF participants, no significant differences were found in either RAWS-NH overall or any of the 6 subscale scores. This suggests that the expression of wandering is similar in long-term care residents across all dimensions of the RAWS-NH regardless of facility type. Findings are of concern for those involved in the safe management and protection of residents at risk for wandering, particularly in long-term care facilities with underregulated staffing and training requirements.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document