Dataset Information

Estimation of Transmission of COVID-19 in Simulated Nursing Homes With Frequent Testing and Immunity-Based Staffing.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Nursing homes and other long-term care facilities have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Strategies are urgently needed to reduce transmission in these high-risk populations.

Objective

To evaluate COVID-19 transmission in nursing homes associated with contact-targeted interventions and testing.

Design, setting, and participants

This decision analytical modeling study developed an agent-based susceptible-exposed-infectious (asymptomatic/symptomatic)-recovered model between July and September 2020 to examine SARS-CoV-2 transmission in nursing homes. Residents and staff of a simulated nursing home with 100 residents and 100 staff split among 3 shifts were modeled individually; residents were split into 2 cohorts based on COVID-19 diagnosis. Data were analyzed from September to October 2020.

Exposures

In the resident cohorting intervention, residents who had recovered from COVID-19 were moved back from the COVID-19 (ie, infected with SARS-CoV-2) cohort to the non-COVID-19 (ie, susceptible and uninfected with SARS-CoV-2) cohort. In the immunity-based staffing intervention, staff who had recovered from COVID-19 were assumed to have protective immunity and were assigned to work in the non-COVID-19 cohort, while susceptible staff worked in the COVID-19 cohort and were assumed to have high levels of protection from personal protective equipment. These interventions aimed to reduce the fraction of people's contacts that were presumed susceptible (and therefore potentially infected) and replaced them with recovered (immune) contacts. A secondary aim of was to evaluate cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections associated with 2 types of screening tests (ie, rapid antigen testing and polymerase chain reaction [PCR] testing) conducted with varying frequency.

Main outcomes and measures

Estimated cumulative incidence proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infection after 3 months.

Results

Among the simulated cohort of 100 residents and 100 staff members, frequency and type of testing were associated with smaller outbreaks than the cohorting and staffing interventions. The testing strategy associated with the greatest estimated reduction in infections was daily antigen testing, which reduced the mean cumulative incidence proportion by 49% in absence of contact-targeted interventions. Under all screening testing strategies, the resident cohorting intervention and the immunity-based staffing intervention were associated with reducing the final estimated size of the outbreak among residents, with the immunity-based staffing intervention reducing it more (eg, by 19% in the absence of testing) than the resident cohorting intervention (eg, by 8% in the absence of testing). The estimated reduction in transmission associated with these interventions among staff varied by testing strategy and community prevalence.

Conclusions and relevance

These findings suggest that increasing the frequency of screening testing of all residents and staff, or even staff alone, in nursing homes may reduce outbreaks in this high-risk setting. Immunity-based staffing may further reduce spread at little or no additional cost and becomes particularly important when daily testing is not feasible.

SUBMITTER: Holmdahl I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8122229 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:ObjectiveTo estimate and contrast the relationships between nurse staffing and health outcomes in nursing homes with low and high dementia census, to understand the association of staffing hours with dementia care quality.Data sources and study settingA national sample of nursing homes during 2017-2019 (pre-COVID). Data included the Payroll-Based Journal, Medicare Claims, Nursing Home Care Compare, and Long-Term Care Focus.Study designRetrospective, regression analyses. We estimated separate linear models predicting six long-term facility-level outcomes. Independent variables included staffing hours per resident-day (HPRD) interacted with the facility percentage of dementia residents, controlling for other resident and facility characteristics.Data collection/extraction methodsHospital-based nursing homes, those with fewer than 30% dementia residents, and missing data were excluded.Principal findingsWe found that registered nurses and certified nurse assistants HPRDs were likely to exhibit positive returns in terms of outcomes throughout most of the range of HPRD for both high and low-census dementia facilities, although, high- and low-dementia facilities differed in most outcome rates at all staffing levels. Average predicted antipsychotics and activities of daily living as functions of HPRD were worse in higher dementia facilities, independent movement, and hospitalizations did not differ significantly, and Emergency Rooms and pressure sores were worse in lower dementia facilities. Average marginal effects were not statistically different [CI included zero] between the high and low dementia facilities for any outcome.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that increasing staffing will improve outcomes by similar increments in both low- and high-dementia facilities for all outcomes. However, at any given level of staffing, absolute differences in outcomes between low- and high-dementia facilities remain, suggesting that additional staffing alone will not suffice to close these gaps. Further studies are required to identify opportunities for improvement in performance for both low- and high-dementia census facilities.

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:BackgroundUS nursing homes are required to follow Centers for Disease Control guidance for COVID-19 transmission-based precautions (TBP) when admitting COVID-positive patients.ObjectiveTo assess how frequently nursing homes had shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) or staffing in weeks when they admitted COVID-positive patients, which likely made it more difficult to follow TBP, and to compare facility characteristics by admissions practices.Design and settingFacility-level data from the Nursing Home COVID-19 Public File for the period between June 7, 2020 and March 7, 2021 was combined with additional data. The percentages of nursing homes that admitted COVID-positive patients and that had shortages when admitting were calculated for each week. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used to examine the relationship between facility characteristics and the likelihood of admitting COVID-positive patients.MeasurementsFacilities were categorized as having admitted COVID-positive patients in a week if one or more admissions requiring TBP were reported for that week. Facilities that reported having less than a 1-week supply of any type of PPE or being short any type of staff in a week were defined, respectively, as having a PPE shortage or staffing shortage in that week.ResultsOver the 40-week study period, 39% of US nursing homes admitted COVID-positive patients in at least 1 week in which they were experiencing PPE or staffing shortages. Facilities that admitted COVID-positive patients with shortages generally had lower Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services overall five-star ratings than other facilities. Only a small percentage of facilities that admitted COVID-positive patients while facing shortages were located in counties with severe shortages of PPE or staffing. In logistic regression models, shortages were not associated with COVID-positive admissions.ConclusionThe widespread practice of admitting COVID-positive patients while facing shortages may have put nursing home residents and staff at heightened risk of COVID-19 infection.

Project description:ImportanceSeveral states implemented COVID-19 vaccine mandates for nursing home employees, which may have improved vaccine coverage but may have had the unintended consequence of staff departures.ObjectiveTo assess whether state vaccine mandates for US nursing home employees are associated with staff vaccination rates and reported staff shortages.Design setting and participantsThis cohort study performed event study analyses using National Healthcare Safety Network data from June 6, 2021, through November 14, 2021. Changes in weekly staff vaccination rates and reported staffing shortages were evaluated for nursing homes in states with mandates after the mandate announcement compared with changes in facilities in nonmandate states. An interaction between the mandates and county political leaning was considered. Data analysis was performed from February to March 2022.ExposuresWeeks after announcement of a state's COVID-19 vaccine mandate.Main outcomes and measuresWeekly percentage of all health care staff at a nursing home who received at least 1 COVID-19 vaccine dose, and a weekly indicator of whether a nursing home reported a staffing shortage.ResultsAmong 38 study-eligible states, 26 had no COVID-19 vaccine mandate for nursing home employees, 4 had a mandate with a test-out option, and 8 had a mandate with no test-out option. Ten weeks or more after mandate announcement, nursing homes in states with a mandate and no test-out option experienced a 6.9 percentage point (pp) increase in staff vaccination coverage (95% CI, -0.1 to 13.9); nursing homes in mandate states with a test-out option experienced a 3.1 pp increase (95% CI, 0.5 to 5.7) compared with facilities in nonmandate states. No significant increases were detected in the frequency of reported staffing shortages after a mandate announcement in mandate states with or without test-out options. Increases in vaccination rates in states with mandates were larger in Republican-leaning counties (14.3 pp if no test-out option; 4.3 pp with option), and there was no evidence of increased staffing shortages.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cohort study suggest that state-level vaccine mandates were associated with increased staff vaccination coverage without increases in reported staffing shortages. Vaccination increases were largest when mandates had no test-out option and were also larger in Republican-leaning counties, which had lower mean baseline vaccination rates. These findings support the use of state mandates for booster doses for nursing home employees because they may improve vaccine coverage, even in areas with greater vaccine hesitancy.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the effect of Hurricane Irma on staff-related financial expenditures and daily direct-care nurse staffing levels.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingSeptember 3-24, 2017 in the state of Florida, United States. Hurricane Irma made landfall on September 10, 2017.ParticipantsSix hundred and fifty-three nursing homes (NHs), 81 evacuated facilities, and 572 facilities that sheltered-in-place.MeasurementsThis study used data from Payroll-Based Journaling (PBJ), Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reports (CASPER), and Florida's health providers' emergency reporting system. PBJ provided estimates of daily direct-care nurse staffing levels for registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, and certified nursing assistants. CASPER reported facility-level characteristics such as profit status, chain membership, and special care unit availability. Florida's emergency reporting system identified evacuation status during Hurricane Irma. Linear mixed-effects models were used to estimate the unique contribution of evacuation status on daily staffing increases over time from September 3 to 10.ResultsAmong all facilities, we found significant increases in staffing for licensed practical nurses (p = 0.02) and certified nursing assistants (p < 0.001), but not for registered nurses (p = 0.10) before Hurricane Irma made landfall. From 1 week before landfall to 2 weeks after landfall (September 3-24), an additional estimated $2.41 million was spent on direct-care nurse staffing. In comparison to facilities that sheltered-in-place, evacuated facilities increased staffing levels of all nurse types (all p < 0.001). At landfall, evacuated facilities spent an estimated $93.74 on nurse staffing per resident whereas facilities that sheltered-in-place spent $76.10 on nurse staffing per resident.ConclusionNHs face unprecedented challenges during hurricanes, including maintaining adequate direct-care nurse staffing levels to meet the needs of their residents. NHs that evacuated residents had an increase in direct-care nurse staffing that was greater than that seen in NHs that sheltered-in-place.