Dataset Information

When planning meets reality: COVID-19 interpandemic survey of Michigan Nursing Homes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Nursing home (NH) populations have borne the brunt of morbidity and mortality of COVID-19. We surveyed Michigan NHs to evaluate preparedness, staffing, testing, and adaptations to these challenges.

Methods

Interpandemic survey responses were collected May 1-12, 2020. We used Pearson's Chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, and logistic regression to evaluate relationships.

Results

Of 452 Michigan NHs contacted via e-mail, 145 (32.1%) opened the survey and of these, 143 (98.6%) responded. Sixty-eight percent of respondents indicated their response plan addressed most issues. NHs reported receiving rapidly changing guidance from many sources. Two-thirds reported shortages of personal protective equipment and other supplies. Half (50%) lacked sufficient testing resources with only 36% able to test residents and staff with suspected COVID-19. A majority (55%) experienced staffing shortages. Sixty-three percent experienced resignations, with front-line clinical staff more likely to resign, particularly in facilities caring for COVID-19 patients (P < .001). Facilities adapted quickly, creating COVID-19 units (78%) to care for patients on site. To reduce isolation, NHs facilitated communication via phone calls (98%), videoconferencing (96%), and window visits (81%). A majority continued to provide requisite therapies (90%).

Conclusions

NHs experienced shortages of resources, testing supplies, and staffing challenges. COVID-19 in the facility was a key predictor of staff resignations. Facilities relied on rapidly changing, often conflicting advice from multiple sources, suggesting high-yield areas of improvement.

SUBMITTER: Jones K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8007185 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Older people living in nursing homes (NHs) are particularly vulnerable in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, due to the high prevalence of chronic diseases and disabilities (e.g., dementia). The phenomenon of adverse events (AEs), intended as any harm or injury resulting from medical care or to the failure to provide care, has not yet been investigated in NHs during the pandemic. We performed a national survey on 3,292 NHs, either public or providing services both privately and within the national health system, out of the 3,417 NHs covering the whole Italian territory. An online questionnaire was addressed to the directors of each facility between March 24 and April 27, 2020. The list of NHs was provided by the Dementia Observatory, an online map of Italian services for people with dementia, which was one of the objectives of the implementation of the Italian National Dementia Plan. About 26% of residents in the Italian NHs for older people listed within the Dementia Observatory site had dementia. The objective of our study was to report the frequency of AEs that occurred during the months when SARS-CoV-2 spreading rate was at its highest in the Italian NHs and to identify which conditions and attributes were most associated with the occurrence of AEs by means of multivariate regression logistic analysis. Data are referred to 1,356 NHs that participated in the survey. The overall response rate was 41.2% over a time-period of six weeks (from March 24 to May 5). About one third of the facilities (444 out of 1,334) (33.3%) reported at least 1 adverse event, with a total of 2,000 events. Among the included NHs, having a bed capacity higher than the median of 60 beds (OR=1.57, CI95% 1.17-2.09; p=0.002), an observed increased in the use of psychiatric drugs (OR=1.80, CI95% 1.05-3.07; p=0.032), adopting physical restraint measures (OR=1.97, CI95% 1.47-2.64; p<0.001), residents hospitalized due to flu-like symptoms (OR =1.73, CI95% 1.28-2.32; p<0.001), and being located in specific geographic areas (OR=3.59, CI95% 1.81-7.08; OR = 2.90, CI95% 1.45-5.81 and OR = 4.02, CI05% 2.01-8.04 for, respectively, North-West, North-East and Centre vs South, p<0.001) were all factors positively associated to the occurrence of adverse events in the facility. Future recommendations for the management and care of residents in NHs during the COVID-19 pandemic should include specific statements for the most vulnerable populations, such as people with dementia.

Project description:ImportanceStaff absences and departures at nursing homes may put residents at risk and present operational challenges.ObjectiveTo quantify changes in nursing home facility staffing during and after a severe COVID-19 outbreak.Design setting and participantsIn this cohort study, daily staffing payroll data were used to construct weekly measures of facility staffing, absences, departures, and use of overtime and contract staff among US nursing homes experiencing a severe COVID-19 outbreak that started between June 14, 2020, and January 1, 2021. Facility outbreaks were identified using COVID-19 case data. An event-study design with facility and week fixed effects was used to investigate the association of severe outbreaks with staffing measures.ExposuresWeeks since the beginning of a severe COVID-19 outbreak (4 weeks prior to 16 weeks after).Main outcomes and measuresTotal weekly staffing hours, staff counts, staff absences, departures, new hires, overtime and contract staff hours measured for all nursing staff and separately by staff type (registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, certified nursing assistants), facility self-reported staff shortages, and resident deaths.ResultsOf the included 2967 nursing homes experiencing severe COVID-19 outbreaks, severe outbreaks were associated with a statistically significant drop in nursing staffing levels owing to elevated absences and departures. Four weeks after an outbreak's start, around when average new cases peaked, staffing hours were 2.6% (95% CI, 2.1%-3.2%) of the mean below preoutbreak levels, despite facilities taking substantial measures to bolster staffing through increased hiring and the use of contract staff and overtime. Because these measures were mostly temporary, staffing declined further in later weeks; 16 weeks after an outbreak's start, staffing hours were 5.5% (95% CI, 4.5%-6.5%) of the mean below preoutbreak levels. Staffing declines were greatest among certified nursing assistants, primarily owing to smaller increases in new hires of this staff type compared with licensed practical nurses and registered nurses.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of nursing homes experiencing severe COVID-19 outbreaks, facilities experienced considerable staffing challenges during and after outbreaks. These results suggest the need for policy action to ensure facilities' abilities to maintain adequate staffing levels during and after infectious disease outbreaks.

Project description:BackgroundDespite widespread adoption of surveillance testing for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) among staff members in skilled nursing facilities, evidence is limited regarding its relationship with outcomes among facility residents.MethodsUsing data obtained from 2020 to 2022, we performed a retrospective cohort study of testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among staff members in 13,424 skilled nursing facilities during three pandemic periods: before vaccine approval, before the B.1.1.529 (omicron) variant wave, and during the omicron wave. We assessed staff testing volumes during weeks without Covid-19 cases relative to other skilled nursing facilities in the same county, along with Covid-19 cases and deaths among residents during potential outbreaks (defined as the occurrence of a case after 2 weeks with no cases). We reported adjusted differences in outcomes between high-testing facilities (90th percentile of test volume) and low-testing facilities (10th percentile). The two primary outcomes were the weekly cumulative number of Covid-19 cases and related deaths among residents during potential outbreaks.ResultsDuring the overall study period, 519.7 cases of Covid-19 per 100 potential outbreaks were reported among residents of high-testing facilities as compared with 591.2 cases among residents of low-testing facilities (adjusted difference, -71.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], -91.3 to -51.6). During the same period, 42.7 deaths per 100 potential outbreaks occurred in high-testing facilities as compared with 49.8 deaths in low-testing facilities (adjusted difference, -7.1; 95% CI, -11.0 to -3.2). Before vaccine availability, high- and low-testing facilities had 759.9 cases and 1060.2 cases, respectively, per 100 potential outbreaks (adjusted difference, -300.3; 95% CI, -377.1 to -223.5), along with 125.2 and 166.8 deaths (adjusted difference, -41.6; 95% CI, -57.8 to -25.5). Before the omicron wave, the numbers of cases and deaths were similar in high- and low-testing facilities; during the omicron wave, high-testing facilities had fewer cases among residents, but deaths were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsGreater surveillance testing of staff members at skilled nursing facilities was associated with clinically meaningful reductions in Covid-19 cases and deaths among residents, particularly before vaccine availability.

Project description:BackgroundMost of the limited number of studies that have been carried out on COVID-19 in nursing homes have not included primarily nursing staff. Nevertheless, knowledge about staff experiences will help to provide recommendations for the future.AimThe aim of this study was to describe stress experienced and interventions performed by nursing staff and to identify factors that are associated to the perceived stress among Austrian nursing home staff during the first and the second waves of COVID-19.MethodsA secondary data analysis of two cross-sectional surveys performed in 2020 and 2021 among nursing home staff was performed. We did descriptive analysis as well as univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.ResultsA total of 449 nurses participated in the first survey and 300 in the second survey. 12.7% experienced high stress levels in the first wave, while 26.0% experienced high stress levels in the second wave (p < 0.001). The analysis showed that nursing staff in the second wave had a 2.195-fold higher relative chance of experiencing a high stress level compared to nursing staff in the first wave (p < 0.001). Caring for COVID-19 residents (odds ratio [OR] 1.827; p = 0.007) and being female (OR 1.992; p = 0.018) also significantly increased the relative chance of experiencing a high stress level. Some protective interventions, such as the use of FFP masks, increased between the two waves, while others decreased, such as the practice of airing the residents' rooms.ConclusionAustrian nursing staff in nursing homes experienced more stress during the second wave, illustrating the heavy burden of the long pandemic on staff. Nursing management should plan appropriate supportive interventions such as psychological help, stress relief measures and financial incentives for nursing staff, especially for the identified high-risk groups.Supplementary informationThe online version of this article (10.1007/s16024-022-00395-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.