Dataset Information

Caring for nursing home residents with COVID-19: a "hospital-at-nursing home" intermediate care intervention.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Nursing home (NH) residents have been dramatically affected by COVID-19, with extremely high rates of hospitalization and mortality.

Aims

To describe the features and impact of an assistance model involving an intermediate care mobile medical specialist team (GIROT, Gruppo Intervento Rapido Ospedale Territorio) aimed at delivering "hospital-at-nursing home" care to NH residents with COVID-19 in Florence, Italy.

Methods

The GIROT activity was set-up during the first wave of the pandemic (W1, March-April 2020) and became a structured healthcare model during the second (W2, October 2020-January 2021). The activity involved (1) infection transmission control among NHs residents and staff, (2) comprehensive geriatric assessment including prognostication and geriatric syndromes management, (3) on-site diagnostic assessment and protocol-based treatment of COVID-19, (4) supply of nursing personnel to understaffed NHs. To estimate the impact of the GIROT intervention, we reported hospitalization and infection lethality rates recorded in SARS-CoV-2-positive NH residents during W1 and W2.

Results

The GIROT activity involved 21 NHs (1159 residents) and 43 NHs (2448 residents) during W1 and W2, respectively. The percentage of infected residents was higher in W2 than in W1 (64.5% vs. 38.8%), while both hospitalization and lethality rates significantly decreased in W2 compared to W1 (10.1% vs 58.2% and 23.4% vs 31.1%, respectively).

Discussion

Potentiating on-site care in the NHs paralleled a decrease of hospital admissions with no increase of lethality.

Conclusions

An innovative "hospital-at-nursing home" patient-centred care model based on comprehensive geriatric assessment may provide a valuable contribution in fighting COVID-19 in NH residents.

SUBMITTER: Benvenuti E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8378521 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceTransition from hospital to nursing home is a high-risk period for adverse events in long-term care (LTC) residents. Adverse events include harms from medical care, including failure to provide appropriate care.ObjectiveTo report the incidence, type, severity, and preventability of adverse events in LTC residents transitioning from hospital back to the same LTC facility.Design, setting, and participantsProspective cohort study of LTC residents discharged from hospital back to LTC from March 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017, and followed up for 45 days. In a random sample of 32 nursing homes located in 6 New England states, 555 LTC residents were selected, contributing 762 transitions from hospital back to the same LTC facility.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was an adverse event within the 45-day period after transition from hospital back to nursing home. Trained nurse abstractors reviewed nursing home records for the period, and then 2 physicians independently reviewed each potential adverse event to determine whether harm occurred and to characterize the type, severity, and preventability of each event. When reviewers disagreed, they met to reach consensus.ResultsOf the 555 individual residents, 365 (65.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) age at the time of discharge was 82.2 (11.5) years. Five hundred twenty (93.7%) were non-Hispanic white, 21 (3.8%) were non-Hispanic black, 9 (1.6%) were Hispanic, and 5 (0.9%) were of other non-Hispanic race/ethnicity. In the cohort, there were 379 adverse events among 762 discharges. One hundred ninety-seven events (52.0%) related to resident care, with pressure ulcers, skin tears, and falls with injury representing the most common types of events in this category. Health care-acquired infections (108 [28.5%]) and adverse drug events (64 [16.9%]) were the next most common. One hundred ninety-eight (52.2%) adverse events were characterized as less serious. However, 145 (38.3%) events were deemed serious, 28 (7.4%) life-threatening, and 8 (2.1%) fatal. In terms of preventability, 267 (70.4%) adverse events were found to be preventable or ameliorable, with less serious events more often considered preventable or ameliorable (146 [73.7%]) compared with more severe events (121 [66.9%]). In addition, resident care-related adverse events such as fall with injury, skin tear, and pressure ulcer were more commonly deemed preventable (173 of 197 [87.8%]) compared with adverse drug events (39 of 64 [60.9%]) or health care-acquired infections (49 of 108 [45.4%]).Conclusions and relevanceAdverse events developed in nearly 4 of 10 of discharges from hospital back to LTC. Most were preventable or ameliorable. Standardized reporting of events and better coordination and information transfer across settings are potential ways to prevent adverse events in LTC residents.

Project description:ObjectivesTo pilot a complex intervention to support healthcare and improve early detection and treatment for common health conditions experienced by nursing home (NH) residents.DesignPilot cluster randomised controlled trial.Setting14 NHs (7 intervention, 7 control) in London and West Yorkshire.ParticipantsNH residents, their family carers and staff.InterventionComplex intervention to support healthcare and improve early detection and treatment of urinary tract and respiratory infections, chronic heart failure and dehydration, comprising: (1) 'Stop and Watch (S&W)' early warning tool for changes in physical health, (2) condition-specific care pathway and (3) Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation tool to enhance communication with primary care. Implementation was supported by Practice Development Champions, a Practice Development Support Group and regular telephone coaching with external facilitators.Outcome measuresData on NH (quality ratings, size, ownership), residents, family carers and staff demographics during the month prior to intervention and subsequently, numbers of admissions, accident and emergency visits, and unscheduled general practitioner visits monthly for 6 months during intervention. We collected data on how the intervention was used, healthcare resource use and quality of life data for economic evaluation. We assessed recruitment and retention, and whether a full trial was warranted.ResultsWe recruited 14 NHs, 148 staff, 95 family carers and 245 residents. We retained the majority of participants recruited (95%). 15% of residents had an unplanned hospital admission for one of the four study conditions. We were able to collect sufficient questionnaire data (all over 96% complete). No NH implemented intervention tools as planned. Only 16 S&W forms and 8 care pathways were completed. There was no evidence of harm.ConclusionsRecruitment, retention and data collection processes were effective but the intervention not implemented. A full trial is not warranted.Trial registration numberISRCTN74109734 (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN74109734). ORIGINAL PROTOCOL: BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e026510. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026510.

Project description:ObjectiveCompassionate care continues to be a focus for national and international attention, but the existing evidence base lacks the experimental methodology necessary to guide the selection of effective interventions for practice. This study aimed to evaluate the Creating Learning Environments for Compassionate Care (CLECC) intervention in improving compassionate care.SettingWard nursing teams (clusters) in two English National Health Service hospitals randomised to intervention (n=4) or control (n=2). Intervention wards comprised two medicines for older people (MOPs) wards and two medical/surgical wards. Control wards were both MOPs.ParticipantsData collected from 627 patients and 178 staff.Exclusion criteriareverse barrier nursed, critically ill, palliative or non-English speaking. All other patients and all nursing staff and Health Care Assistant HCAs were invited to participant, agency and bank staff were excluded.InterventionCLECC, a workplace intervention focused on developing sustainable leadership and work-team practices to support the delivery of compassionate care.ControlNo educational activity.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary-Quality of Interaction Schedule (QuIS) for observed staff-patient interactions. Secondary-patient-reported evaluations of emotional care in hospital (PEECH); nurse-reported empathy (Jefferson Scale of Empathy).ResultsTrial proceeded as per protocol, randomisation was acceptable. Some but not all blinding strategies were successful. QuIS observations achieved 93% recruitment rate with 25% of patient sample cognitively impaired. At follow-up there were more total positive (78% vs 74%) and less total negative (8% vs 11%) QuIS ratings for intervention wards versus control wards. Sixty-three per cent of intervention ward patients scored lowest (ie, more negative) scores on PEECH connection subscale, versus 79% of control. This was not a statistically significant difference. No statistically significant differences in nursing empathy were observed.ConclusionsUse of experimental methods is feasible. The use of structured observation of staff-patient interaction quality is a promising outcome measure inclusive of hard to reach groups.Trial registration numberISRCTN16789770.