scholarly journals Preventing the transmission of COVID-19 and other coronaviruses in older adults aged 60 years and above living in long-term care: a rapid review

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Rios ◽  
Amruta Radhakrishnan ◽  
Chantal Williams ◽  
Naveeta Ramkissoon ◽  
Ba’ Pham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Long Term Care ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Environmental Cleaning ◽  
Automated Method

Abstract Background The objective of this review was to examine the current guidelines for infection prevention and control (IPAC) of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) or other coronaviruses in adults 60 years or older living in long-term care facilities (LTCF). Methods EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane library, pre-print servers, clinical trial registries, and relevant grey literature sources were searched until July 31, 2020, using database searching and an automated method called Continuous Active Learning® (CAL®). All search results were processed using CAL® to identify the most likely relevant citations that were then screened by a single human reviewer. Full-text screening, data abstraction, and quality appraisal were completed by a single reviewer and verified by a second. Results Nine clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were included. The most common recommendation in the CPGs was establishing surveillance and monitoring systems followed by mandating the use of PPE; physically distancing or cohorting residents; environmental cleaning and disinfection; promoting hand and respiratory hygiene among residents, staff, and visitors; and providing sick leave compensation for staff. Conclusions Current evidence suggests robust surveillance and monitoring along with support for IPAC initiatives are key to preventing the spread of COVID-19 in LTCF. However, there are significant gaps in the current recommendations especially with regard to the movement of staff between LTCF and their role as possible transmission vectors. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020181993

scholarly journals Preventing the Transmission of COVID-19 in Older Adults Aged 60 Years and Above Living in Long-Term Care: Rapid Review Update

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oluwaseun Egunsola ◽  
Mark Hofmeister ◽  
Laura E. Dowsett ◽  
Tom Noseworthy ◽  
Fiona Clement
Keyword(s):  
Infection Prevention ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Supervised Machine Learning ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Social Distancing ◽  
Care Facilities

Objectives: The objective of this study was to examine the effect of measures of control and management of COVID-19, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in adults 60 years or above living in long-term care facilities. This is an update of previous work done by Rios et al. Methods: A rapid review was conducted in accordance with the Rapid Review Guide for Health Policy and Systems Research. Literature search of databases MEDLINE, Cochrane library, and pre-print servers (biorxiv/medrxiv) was conducted from July 31, 2020 to October 9, 2020. EMBASE was searched from July 31, 2020 until October 18, 2020. Titles and abstracts from public archives were identified for screening using Gordon V. Cormack and Maura R. Grossmans Continuous Active Learning (CAL) tool, which uses supervised machine learning. Results: Five observational studies and one clinical practice guideline were identified. Infection prevention measures identified in this rapid review included: social distancing and isolation, personal protective equipment (PPE) use and hygiene practices, screening, training and staffing policies. The use of PPE, laboratory screening tests, sick pay to staff, self-confinement of staff within the LTCFs for 7 or more days, maintaining maximum resident occupancy, training and social distancing significantly reduced the prevalence of COVID-19 infection among residents and/or staff of LTCFs (p<0.05). Practices such as hiring of temporary staff, not assigning staff to care separately for infected and uninfected residents, inability to isolate sick residents and infrequent cleaning of communal areas significantly increased the prevalence of infection among residents and/or staff of LTCFs (p<0.05). Conclusion: The available studies are limited to only three countries despite the global nature of the disease. The majority of these studies showed that infection control measures such as favourable staffing policies, training, screening, social distancing, isolation and use of PPE significantly improved residents and staff related outcomes. More studies exploring the effects infection prevention and control practices in long term care facilities are required.

scholarly journals 1245. Infection Prevention and Control (IP&C) and Antibiotic Stewardship (AS) Practices in Pediatric Long-Term Care Facilities

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S379-S379
Author(s):  
Candace L Johnson ◽  
Alexandra Hill-Ricciuti ◽  
Lisa Saiman
Keyword(s):  
Long Term Care ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
Antibiotic Prescribing ◽  
Prescribing Practices ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Environmental Cleaning ◽  
C Programs ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
Feedback Strategies

Abstract Background In November 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) implemented a requirement for long-term care facilities (LTCFs) to incorporate AS into their IP&C programs. The purpose of this study was to describe baseline IP&C and AS practices in pediatric LTCFs. Methods We modified a survey from the CDC to assess IP&C in pediatric LTCFs. The internet-based survey was distributed to the 41 pLTCFs in the Pediatric Complex Care Association from May to June 2017. The 67-question survey included questions to assess IP&C domains and infrastructure such as written policies, hand and respiratory hygiene (HH), personal protective equipment (PPE) use, environmental cleaning, and AS practices. Responses to questions were summarized using frequencies and analyzed using χ2 or Fisher’s exact tests, as appropriate. The characteristics of sites with ≥90% compliance with the CMS rule, as assessed by 14 relevant survey questions, were compared with those of sites with &lt;90% compliance. Results Overall, 25 (61%) facilities nationwide completed the survey. All sites reported having written IP&C policies and most had a person responsible for IP&C (96%); fewer reported reviewing/updating these policies annually (72%). Few sites provided feedback to staff on HH adherence (44%), PPE use (40%), and cleaning/disinfection procedures (44%). Few had written policies on antibiotic prescribing (48%) or provided prescribers with feedback about their prescribing practices (40%). Sites with ≥90% compliance with the CMS rule were more likely to report providing prescribers with feedback (70% vs. 20%, P = 0.03), to have provided AS training to clinical (60% vs. 0%, P &lt; 0.01) and nursing staff (70% vs. 7%, P &lt; 0.01) in the past 12 months, and to provide feedback regarding HH (70% vs. 27%, P = 0.05). Conclusion While most facilities had implemented some IP&C and AS strategies pertaining to the CMS rule before its enforcement, this survey identified several gaps, especially pertaining to staff feedback for IP&C practices and antibiotic prescribing. Facilities should develop feedback strategies and regularly reinforce the importance of IP&C at employment and during regular trainings. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

scholarly journals Preventing respiratory illness in older adults aged 60 years and above living in long-term care

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Rios ◽  
Amruta Radhakrishnan ◽  
Sonia M. Thomas ◽  
Nazia Darvesh ◽  
Sharon E. Straus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Respiratory Illness ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Care Facilities

ABSTRACTBackgroundThe overall objective of this rapid overview of reviews (overview hereafter) was to identify evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) for infection control and prevention practices for adults aged 60 years and older in long-term care settings.MethodsComprehensive searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, biorxiv.org/medrxiv.org, clinicaltrials.gov and the Global Infectious Disease Epidemiology Network (GIDEON) were carried out in early March 2020. Title/abstract and full-text screening, data abstraction, and quality appraisal (AMSTAR 2) were carried out by single reviewers.ResultsA total of 6 SRs published between 1999 and 2018 were identified and included in the overview. The SRs included between 1 and 37 primary studies representing between 140 to 908 patients. All of the primary studies included in the SRs were carried out in long-term care facilities (LTCF) and examined pharmacological, non-pharmacological, or combined interventions. One high quality SR found mixed results for the effectiveness of hand hygiene to prevent infection (2 studies statistically significant positive results, 1 study non-statistically significant results). One moderate quality SR with meta-analysis found a moderate non-statistically significant effect for personal protective equipment (PPE) in preventing infection and found no statistically significant results for the effectiveness of social isolation. One moderate quality SR reported statically significant evidence for the effectiveness of amantadine and amantadine + PPE to prevent infection with respiratory illness in LTCF.ConclusionThe current evidence suggests that with antiviral chemoprophylaxis with adamantine is effective in managing respiratory illness in residents of long-term care facilities. The rest of the strategies can be used in long-term care facilities, yet have limited evidence supporting their use from systematic reviews.

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.

scholarly journals Characterization and evolution of infection control practices among SARS-CoV-2 infected healthcare workers of acute care hospitals and long-term care facilities in Quebec, Canada, Spring 2020

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-37
Author(s):  
Sara Carazo ◽  
Denis Laliberté ◽  
Jasmin Villeneuve ◽  
Richard Martin ◽  
Pierre Deshaies ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Care ◽  
Attack Rate ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Acute Care Hospitals ◽  
Exposure Period ◽  
Infection Prevention And Control ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Care Facilities

ABSTRACT Objectives: To estimate the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate and the secondary attack rate among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Quebec, the most affected province of Canada during the first wave; to describe the evolution of work-related exposures and infection prevention and control (IPC) practices in infected HCWs; and to compare the exposures and practices between acute care hospitals (ACHs) and long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Design: Survey of cases Participants: Quebec HCWs from private and public institutions with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosed between 1st March and 14th June 2020. HCWs ≥18 years old, having worked during the exposure period and survived their illness were eligible for the survey. Methods: After obtaining consent, 4542 HCWs completed a standardized questionnaire. COVID-19 rates and proportions of exposures and practices were estimated and compared between ACHs and LTCFs. Results: HCWs represented 25% (13,726/54,005) of all reported COVID-19 cases in Quebec and had an 11-times greater rate than non-HCWs. Their secondary household attack rate was 30%. Most affected occupations were healthcare support workers, nurses and nurse assistants, working in LTCFs (45%) and ACHs (30%). Compared to ACHs, HCWs of LTCFs had less training, higher staff mobility between working sites, similar PPE use but better self-reported compliance with at-work physical distancing. Sub-optimal IPC practices declined over time but were still present at the end of the first wave. Conclusion: Quebec HCWs and their families were severely affected during the first wave of COVID-19. Insufficient pandemic preparedness and suboptimal IPC practices likely contributed to high transmission in both LTCFs and ACHs.

scholarly journals Evidence for Publicly Reported Quality Indicators in Residential Long-Term Care: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 181-181
Author(s):  
Franziska Zúñiga ◽  
Magdalena Osinska ◽  
Franziska Zuniga
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Quality Indicators ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Public Reporting ◽  
Assessment Instrument ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Residential Long Term Care

Abstract Quality indicators (QIs) are used internationally to measure, compare and improve quality in residential long-term care. Public reporting of such indicators allows transparency and motivates local quality improvement initiatives. However, little is known about the quality of QIs. In a systematic literature review, we assessed which countries publicly report health-related QIs, whether stakeholders were involved in their development and the evidence concerning their validity and reliability. Most information was found in grey literature, with nine countries (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and five countries in Europe) publicly reporting a total of 66 QIs in areas like mobility, falls, pressure ulcers, continence, pain, weight loss, and physical restraint. While USA, Canada and New Zealand work with QIs from the Resident Assessment Instrument – Minimal Data Set (RAI-MDS), the other countries developed their own QIs. All countries involved stakeholders in some phase of the QI development. However, we only found reports from Canada and Australia on both, the criteria judged (e.g. relevance, influenceability), and the results of structured stakeholder surveys. Interrater reliability was measured for some RAI QIs and for those used in Germany, showing overall good Kappa values (&gt;0.6) except for QIs concerning mobility, falls and urinary tract infection. Validity measures were only found for RAI QIs and were mostly moderate. Although a number of QIs are publicly reported and used for comparison and policy decisions, available evidence is still limited. We need broader and accessible evidence for a responsible use of QIs in public reporting.

scholarly journals A Qualitative Work System Analysis Using a Human Factors Engineering Approach to Evaluate Environmental Cleaning in Veterans’ Affairs Hospitals

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (S1) ◽  
pp. s62-s63
Author(s):  
Linda McKinley ◽  
Cassie Goedken ◽  
Erin Balkenende ◽  
Stacey Hockett Sherlock ◽  
Heather Reisinger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Human Factors ◽  
System Analysis ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Veterans Affairs ◽  
Human Factors Engineering ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Environmental Cleaning ◽  
Veterans Affairs Hospitals ◽  
Environmental Surfaces

Background: Environmental cleaning is important in the interruption of pathogen transmission and subsequent infection. Although recent initiatives have targeted cleaning of high-touch surfaces and incorporated audit-and-feedback monitoring of cleaning practices, practice variations exist and compliance is still reportedly low. Evaluation of human factors influencing variations in cleaning practices can be valuable in developing interventions, leading to standardized practices and improved compliance. We conducted a work system analysis using a human-factors engineering framework [the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model] to identify barriers and facilitators to current environmental cleaning practices within Veterans’ Affairs hospitals. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with key stakeholders (ie, environmental staff, nursing, and infection preventionists) at 3 VA facilities across acute-care and long-term care settings. Interviews were conducted among 18 healthcare workers, audio recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed for thematic content within the SEIPS constructs (ie, person, environment, organization, tasks, and tools). Results: Within the SEIPS domain ‘person,’ we found that many environment service (EVS) staff were veterans and were highly motivated to serve fellow veterans, especially to prevent them from acquiring infections. However, the hiring of service members as EVS staff comes with significant hurdles that affect staffing. Within the domain of ‘environment’, EVS staff reported rooms that were either occupied by the patient or were multibed, were more difficult to clean. Conversely, they reported that it was easier to clean in settings where the patient was more likely to be out of bed (eg, long-term care residents). Patient flow and/or movement greatly influenced workload within the ‘organizational’ domain. Workload also changed by patient population and setting (eg, the longer the stay or more critical the patient), increased their workload. EVS staff felt that staffing consistency and experience improved cleaning practices. Within the ‘task’ domain, EVS staff were motivated for cleaning high-touch surfaces; however, knowledge of these surfaces varied. Finally, within the ‘tool’ domain, most EVS staff described having effective cleaning products; however, sometimes in limited supply. Most sites reported some form of monitoring of their cleaning process; however, there was variation in type and frequency. Conclusions: Human-factors analysis identified barriers to and facilitators of cleaning compliance. Incorporating environmental cleaning practices that address barriers and facilitators identified may facilitate standardized cleaning of environmental surfaces. Standardized procedures for cleaning multibed rooms and environmental surfaces surrounding occupied beds may improve cleaning compliance. Future research should evaluate standardized cleaning procedures or bundles that incorporate these best practices and steps to overcoming barriers and pilot feasibility.Funding: NoDisclosures: None

scholarly journals Improving palliative and end-of-life care with machine learning and routine data: a rapid review

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginia Storick ◽  
Aoife O’Herlihy ◽  
Sarah Abdelhafeez ◽  
Rakesh Ahmed ◽  
Peter May
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Routine Data ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Eol Care

Introduction: Improving end-of-life (EOL) care is a priority worldwide as this population experiences poor outcomes and accounts disproportionately for costs. In clinical practice, physician judgement is the core method of identifying EOL care needs but has important limitations. Machine learning (ML) is a subset of artificial intelligence advancing capacity to identify patterns and make predictions using large datasets.  ML approaches have the potential to improve clinical decision-making and policy design, but there has been no systematic assembly of current evidence. Methods: We conducted a rapid review, searching systematically seven databases from inception to December 31st, 2018: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, WOS, SCOPUS and ECONLIT.  We included peer-reviewed studies that used ML approaches on routine data to improve palliative and EOL care for adults.  Our specified outcomes were survival, quality of life (QoL), place of death, costs, and receipt of high-intensity treatment near end of life.  We did not search grey literature and excluded material that was not a peer-reviewed article. Results: The database search identified 426 citations. We discarded 162 duplicates and screened 264 unique title/abstracts, of which 22 were forwarded for full text review.  Three papers were included, 18 papers were excluded and one full text was sought but unobtainable.  One paper predicted six-month mortality, one paper predicted 12-month mortality and one paper cross-referenced predicted 12-month mortality with healthcare spending.  ML-informed models outperformed logistic regression in predicting mortality but poor prognosis is a weak driver of costs.  Models using only routine administrative data had limited benefit from ML methods. Conclusion: While ML can in principle help to identify those at risk of adverse outcomes and inappropriate treatment near EOL, applications to policy and practice are formative.  Future research must not only expand scope to other outcomes and longer timeframes, but also engage with individual preferences and ethical challenges.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document