Dataset Information

Assessment of a Hotel-Based COVID-19 Isolation and Quarantine Strategy for Persons Experiencing Homelessness.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Several jurisdictions in the United States have secured hotels to temporarily house people experiencing homelessness who require isolation or quarantine for confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To our knowledge, little is known about how these programs serve this vulnerable population outside the hospital setting.

Objective

To assess the safety of a hotel-based isolation and quarantine (I/Q) care system and its association with inpatient hospital capacity.

Design, setting, and participants

This retrospective cohort study of a hotel-based I/Q care system for homeless and unstably housed individuals in San Francisco, California, was conducted from March 19 to May 31, 2020. Individuals unable to safely isolate or quarantine at home with mild to moderate COVID-19, persons under investigation, or close contacts were referred from hospitals, outpatient settings, and public health surveillance to 5 I/Q hotels. Of 1009 I/Q hotel guests, 346 were transferred from a large county public hospital serving patients experiencing homelessness.

Exposure

A physician-supervised team of nurses and health workers provided around-the-clock support, including symptom monitoring, wellness checks, meals, harm-reduction services, and medications for opioid use disorder.

Main outcomes and measures

Characteristics of I/Q hotel guests, program retention, county hospital readmissions, and mean length of stay.

Results

Overall, the 1009 I/Q hotel guests had a median age of 44 years (interquartile range, 33-55 years), 756 (75%) were men, 454 (45%) were Latinx, and 501 (50%) were persons experiencing sheltered (n = 295) or unsheltered (n = 206) homelessness. Overall, 463 (46%) received a diagnosis of COVID-19; 303 of 907 (33%) had comorbid medical disorders, 225 of 907 (25%) had comorbid mental health disorders, and 236 of 907 (26%) had comorbid substance use disorders. A total of 776 of 955 guests (81%) completed their I/Q hotel stay; factors most strongly associated with premature discontinuation were unsheltered homelessness (adjusted odds ratio, 4.5; 95% CI, 2.3-8.6; P < .001) and quarantine status (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.6; P = .001). In total, 346 of 549 patients (63%) were transferred from the county hospital; of 113 ineligible referrals, 48 patients (42%) had behavioral health needs exceeding I/Q hotel capabilities. Thirteen of the 346 patients transferred from the county hospital (4%) were readmitted for worsening COVID-19. Overall, direct transfers to I/Q hotels from emergency and outpatient departments were associated with averting many hospital admissions. There was a nonsignificant decrease in the mean hospital length of stay for inpatients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 from 5.5 to 2.7 days from March to May 2020 (P = .11).

Conclusions and relevance

To support persons experiencing homelessness during the COVID-19 pandemic, San Francisco rapidly and safely scaled a hotel-based model of I/Q that was associated with reduced strain on inpatient capacity. Strategies to improve guest retention and address behavioral health needs not met in hotel settings are intervention priorities.

SUBMITTER: Fuchs JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7926291 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePersons experiencing homelessness (PEH) are at higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe illness due to COVID-19 because of a limited ability to physically distance and a higher burden of underlying health conditions.ObjectiveTo describe and assess a hotel-based protective housing intervention to reduce incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among PEH in Chicago, Illinois, with increased risk of severe illness due to COVID-19.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study analyzed PEH who were provided protective housing in individual hotel rooms in downtown Chicago during the COVID-19 pandemic from April 2 through September 3, 2020. Participants were PEH at increased risk for severe COVID-19, defined as (1) aged at least 60 years regardless of health conditions, (2) aged at least 55 years with any underlying health condition posing increased risk, or (3) aged less than 55 years with any underlying health condition posing substantially increased risk (eg, HIV/AIDS).ExposuresParticipants were housed in individual hotel rooms to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection; on-site health care workers provided daily symptom monitoring, regular SARS-CoV-2 testing, and care for chronic health conditions. Additional on-site services included treatment of mental health and substance use disorders and social services.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome measured was SARS-CoV-2 incidence, with SARS-Cov2 infection defined as a positive upper respiratory specimen using any polymerase chain reaction diagnostic assay authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration. Secondary outcomes were blood pressure control, glycemic control as measured by hemoglobin A1c, and housing placements at departure.ResultsOf 259 participants from 16 homeless shelters in Chicago, 104 (40.2%) were aged at least 65 years, 190 (73.4%) were male, 185 (71.4%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 49 (18.9%) were non-Hispanic White. There was an observed reduction in SARS-CoV-2 incidence during the study period among the protective housing cohort (54.7 per 1000 people [95% CI, 22.4-87.1 per 1000 people]) compared with citywide rates for PEH residing in shelters (137.1 per 1000 people [95% CI, 125.1-149.1 per 1000 people]; P = .001). There was also an adjusted change in systolic blood pressure at a rate of -5.7 mm Hg (95% CI, -9.3 to -2.1 mm Hg) and hemoglobin A1c at a rate of -1.4% (95% CI, -2.4% to -0.4%) compared with baseline. More than half of participants (51% [n = 132]) departed from the intervention to housing of some kind (eg, supportive housing).Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study found that protective housing was associated with a reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infection among high-risk PEH during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Chicago. These findings suggest that with appropriate wraparound supports (ie, multisector services to address complex needs), such housing interventions may reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, improve noncommunicable disease control, and provide a pathway to permanent housing.

Project description:ImportancePeople experiencing incarceration (PEI) and people experiencing homelessness (PEH) have an increased risk of COVID-19 exposure from congregate living, but data on their hospitalization course compared with that of the general population are limited.ObjectiveTo compare COVID-19 hospitalizations for PEI and PEH with hospitalizations among the general population.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional analysis used data from the Premier Healthcare Database on 3415 PEI and 9434 PEH who were evaluated in the emergency department or were hospitalized in more than 800 US hospitals for COVID-19 from April 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021.ExposuresIncarceration or homelessness.Main outcomes and measuresHospitalization proportions were calculated. and outcomes (intensive care unit admission, invasive mechanical ventilation [IMV], mortality, length of stay, and readmissions) among PEI and PEH were compared with outcomes for all patients with COVID-19 (not PEI or PEH). Multivariable regression was used to adjust for potential confounders.ResultsIn total, 3415 PEI (2952 men [86.4%]; mean [SD] age, 50.8 [15.7] years) and 9434 PEH (6776 men [71.8%]; mean [SD] age, 50.1 [14.5] years) were evaluated in the emergency department for COVID-19 and were hospitalized more often (2170 of 3415 [63.5%] PEI; 6088 of 9434 [64.5%] PEH) than the general population (624 470 of 1 257 250 [49.7%]) (P < .001). Both PEI and PEH hospitalized for COVID-19 were more likely to be younger, male, and non-Hispanic Black than the general population. Hospitalized PEI had a higher frequency of IMV (410 [18.9%]; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04-1.30) and mortality (308 [14.2%]; aRR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.11-1.47) than the general population (IMV, 88 897 [14.2%]; mortality, 84 725 [13.6%]). Hospitalized PEH had a lower frequency of IMV (606 [10.0%]; aRR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.58-0.70) and mortality (330 [5.4%]; aRR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.47-0.59) than the general population. Both PEI and PEH had longer mean (SD) lengths of stay (PEI, 9 [10] days; PEH, 11 [26] days) and a higher frequency of readmission (PEI, 128 [5.9%]; PEH, 519 [8.5%]) than the general population (mean [SD] length of stay, 8 [10] days; readmission, 28 493 [4.6%]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, a higher frequency of COVID-19 hospitalizations for PEI and PEH underscored the importance of adhering to recommended prevention measures. Expanding medical respite may reduce hospitalizations in these disproportionately affected populations.

Project description:BackgroundPeople experiencing homelessness are vulnerable to COVID-19 due to the risk of transmission in shared accommodation and the high prevalence of comorbidities. In England, as in some other countries, preventive policies have been implemented to protect this population. We aimed to estimate the avoided deaths and health-care use among people experiencing homelessness during the so-called first wave of COVID-19 in England-ie, the peak of infections occurring between February and May, 2020-and the potential impact of COVID-19 on this population in the future.MethodsWe used a discrete-time Markov chain model of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection that included compartments for susceptible, exposed, infectious, and removed individuals, to explore the impact of the pandemic on 46 565 individuals experiencing homelessness: 35 817 living in 1065 hostels for homeless people, 3616 sleeping in 143 night shelters, and 7132 sleeping outside. We ran the model under scenarios varying the incidence of infection in the general population and the availability of prevention measures: specialist hotel accommodation, infection control in homeless settings, and mixing with the general population. We divided our scenarios into first wave scenarios (covering Feb 1-May 31, 2020) and future scenarios (covering June 1, 2020-Jan 31, 2021). For each scenario, we ran the model 200 times and reported the median and 95% prediction interval (2·5% and 97·5% quantiles) of the total number of cases, the number of deaths, the number hospital admissions, and the number of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions.FindingsUp to May 31, 2020, we calibrated the model to 4% of the homeless population acquiring SARS-CoV-2, and estimated that 24 deaths (95% prediction interval 16-34) occurred. In this first wave of SARS-CoV-2 infections in England, we estimated that the preventive measures imposed might have avoided 21 092 infections (19 777-22 147), 266 deaths (226-301), 1164 hospital admissions (1079-1254), and 338 ICU admissions (305-374) among the homeless population. If preventive measures are continued, we projected a small number of additional cases between June 1, 2020, and Jan 31, 2021, with 1754 infections (1543-1960), 31 deaths (21-45), 122 hospital admissions (100-148), and 35 ICU admissions (23-47) with a second wave in the general population. However, if preventive measures are lifted, outbreaks in homeless settings might lead to larger numbers of infections and deaths, even with low incidence in the general population. In a scenario with no second wave and relaxed measures in homeless settings in England, we projected 12 151 infections (10 718-13 349), 184 deaths (151-217), 733 hospital admissions (635-822), and 213 ICU admissions (178-251) between June 1, 2020, and Jan 31, 2021.InterpretationOutbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 in homeless settings can lead to a high attack rate among people experiencing homelessness, even if incidence remains low in the general population. Avoidance of deaths depends on prevention of transmission within settings such as hostels and night shelters.FundingNational Institute for Health Research, Wellcome, and Medical Research Council.