Dataset Information

A rapid systematic review of measures to protect older people in long-term care facilities from COVID-19.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The global COVID-19 pandemic produced large-scale health and economic complications. Older people and those with comorbidities are particularly vulnerable to this virus, with nursing homes and long term care facilities (LTCF) experiencing significant morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 outbreaks. The aim of this rapid systematic review was to investigate measures implemented in LTCF to reduce transmission of COVID-19 and their effect on morbidity and mortality of residents, staff and visitors.

Setting

Long-term care facilities.

Participants

Residents, staff and visitors of facilities.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Databases and repositories and MedRXiv prepublished database) were systematically searched from inception to 27 July 2020 to identify studies reporting assessment of interventions to reduce transmission of COVID-19 in nursing homes among residents, staff or visitors. Outcome measures include facility characteristics, morbidity data, case fatalities and transmission rates. Due to study quality and heterogeneity, no meta-analysis was conducted.

Results

The search yielded 1414 articles, with 38 studies included. Reported interventions include mass testing, use of personal protective equipment, symptom screening, visitor restrictions, hand hygiene and droplet/contact precautions, and resident cohorting. Prevalence rates ranged from 1.2% to 85.4% in residents and 0.6% to 62.6% in staff. Mortality rates ranged from 5.3% to 55.3% in residents.

Conclusions

Novel evidence in this review details the impact of facility size, availability of staff and practices of operating between multiple facilities, and for-profit status of facilities as factors contributing to the size and number of COVID-19 outbreaks. No causative relationships can be determined; however, this review provides evidence of interventions that reduce transmission of COVID-19 in LTCF.

Prospero registration number

CRD42020191569.

SUBMITTER: Frazer K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8523961 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite clear evidence of benefits in acute-care hospitals, controversy over the effectiveness of IPC measures for MDROs is perceptible and evidence-based practice has not been established.ObjectiveTo investigate the effects of IPC interventions on MDRO colonization and infections in LTCFs.Data sourcesOvid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from inception to September 2020.Eligibility criteriaOriginal and peer-reviewed articles examining the post-intervention effects on MDRO colonization and infections in LTCFs.Interventions(i) Horizontal interventions: administrative engagement, barrier precautions, education, environmental cleaning, hand hygiene, performance improvement, and source control; and (ii) vertical intervention: active surveillance plus decolonization.Study appraisal and synthesisWe employed a random-effects meta-analysis to estimate the pooled risk ratios (pRRs) for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization by intervention duration; and conducted subgroup analyses on different intervention components. Study quality was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tools.ResultsOf 3877 studies identified, 19 were eligible for inclusion (eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs)). Studies reported outcomes associated with MRSA (15 studies), vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE) (four studies), Clostridium difficile (two studies), and Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) (two studies). Eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pRRs were close to unity regardless of intervention duration (long: RR 0.81 [95% CI 0.60-1.10]; medium: RR 0.81 [95% CI 0.25-2.68]; short: RR 0.95 [95% CI 0.53-1.69]). Vertical interventions in studies with a small sample size showed significant reductions in MRSA colonization while horizontal interventions did not. All studies involving active administrative engagement reported reductions. The risk of bias was high in all but two studies.ConclusionsOur meta-analysis did not show any beneficial effects from IPC interventions on MRSA reductions in LTCFs. Our findings highlight that the effectiveness of interventions in these facilities is likely conditional on resource availability-particularly decolonization and barrier precautions, due to their potential adverse events and uncertain effectiveness. Hence, administrative engagement is crucial for all effective IPC programmes. LTCFs should consider a pragmatic approach to reinforce standard precautions as routine practice and implement barrier precautions and decolonization to outbreak responses only.

Project description:Long-term care (LTC) facilities are an important part of the health care industry, providing care to the fastest-growing group of the population. However, the adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) in LTC facilities lags behind other areas of the health care industry. One of the reasons for the lack of widespread adoption in the United States is that LTC facilities are not eligible for incentives under the Meaningful Use program. Implementation of an EHR system in an LTC facility can potentially enhance the quality of care, provided it is appropriately implemented, used, and maintained. Unfortunately, the lag in adoption of the EHR in LTC creates a paucity of literature on the benefits of EHR implementation in LTC facilities.The objective of this systematic review was to identify the potential benefits of implementing an EHR system in LTC facilities. The study also aims to identify the common conditions and EHR features that received favorable remarks from providers and the discrepancies that needed improvement to build up momentum across LTC settings in adopting this technology.The authors conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), and MEDLINE databases. Papers were analyzed by multiple referees to filter out studies not germane to our research objective. A final sample of 28 papers was selected to be included in the systematic review.Results of this systematic review conclude that EHRs show significant improvement in the management of documentation in LTC facilities and enhanced quality outcomes. Approximately 43% (12/28) of the papers reported a mixed impact of EHRs on the management of documentation, and 33% (9/28) of papers reported positive quality outcomes using EHRs. Surprisingly, very few papers demonstrated an impact on patient satisfaction, physician satisfaction, the length of stay, and productivity using EHRs.Overall, implementation of EHRs has been found to be effective in the few LTC facilities that have implemented them. Implementation of EHRs in LTC facilities caused improved management of clinical documentation that enabled better decision making.

Project description:BackgroundCaring for older persons has become a global necessity to ensure functional ability and healthy ageing. It is of paramount importance that standards of care are monitored, especially for older persons who live in long term care facilities (LTCF). We, therefore, scoped and summarised evidence relating to standards and the quality of care for older persons in LTCFs in gerontological literature globally.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review using Askey and O'Malley's framework, including Levac et al. recommendations. PubMed, CINAHL, Health Sources, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched with no date limitation up to May 2020 using keywords, Boolean terms, and medical subject headings. We also consulted the World Health Organization website and the reference list of included articles for evidence sources. This review also included peer-reviewed publications and grey literature in English that focused on standards and quality of care for older residents in LTCFs. Two reviewers independently screened the title, abstract, and full-text of evidence sources screening stages and performed the data extraction. Thematic content analysis was used, and a summary of the findings are reported narratively.ResultsSixteen evidence sources published from 1989 to 2017 met this study's eligibility criteria out of 73,845 citations obtained from the broader search. The majority of the studies were conducted in the USA 56% (9/16), and others were from Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, Norway, Israel, Japan, and France. The included studies presented evidence on the effectiveness of prompted voiding intervention for urinary incontinence in LTCFs (37.5%), the efficacy of professional support to LTCF staff (18.8%), and the prevention-effectiveness of a pressure ulcer programme in LTCFs (6.3%). Others presented evidence on regulation and quality of care (12.5%); nursing documentation and quality of care (6.3%); medical, nursing, and psychosocial standards on the quality of care (6.3%); medication safety using the Beer criteria (6.3%); and the quality of morning care provision (6.3%).ConclusionThis study suggests most studies relating to standards and quality of care in LTCFs focus on effectiveness of interventions, few on people-centredness and safety, and are mainly conducted in European countries and the United States of America. Future studies on people-centerdness, safety, and geographical settings with limited or no evidence are recommended.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Older people in long-term residential care are at increased risk of medication prescribing and administration errors. The main aim of this study was to measure the incidence of medication administration errors in nursing and residential homes using a barcode medication administration (BCMA) system. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted in 13 care homes (9 residential and 4 nursing). Data on all medication administrations for a cohort of 345 older residents were recorded in real-time using a disguised observation technique. Every attempt by social care and nursing staff to administer medication over a 3-month observation period was analysed using BCMA records to determine the incidence and types of potential medication administration errors (MAEs) and whether errors were averted. Error classifications included attempts to administer medication at the wrong time, to the wrong person or discontinued medication. Further analysis compared data for residential and nursing homes. In addition, staff were surveyed prior to BCMA system implementation to assess their awareness of administration errors. RESULTS: A total of 188,249 medication administration attempts were analysed using BCMA data. Typically each resident was receiving nine different drugs and was exposed to 206 medication administration episodes every month. During the observation period, 2,289 potential MAEs were recorded for the 345 residents; 90% of residents were exposed to at least one error. The most common (n = 1,021, 45% of errors) was attempting to give medication at the wrong time. Over the 3-month observation period, half (52%) of residents were exposed to a serious error such as attempting to give medication to the wrong resident. Error incidence rates were 1.43 as high (95% CI 1.32-1.56 p < 0.001) in nursing homes as in residential homes. The level of non-compliance with system alerts was very low in both settings (0.075% of administrations). The pre-study survey revealed that only 12/41 staff administering drugs reported they were aware of potential administration errors in their care home. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of medication administration errors is high in long-term residential care. A barcode medication administration system can capture medication administration errors and prevent these from occurring.

Project description:BackgroundThe acute nature of COVID-19 and its effects on society in terms of social distancing and quarantine regulations affect the provision of palliative care for people with dementia who live in long-term care facilities. The current COVID-19 pandemic poses a challenge to nursing staff, who are in a key position to provide high-quality palliative care for people with dementia and their families.ObjectiveTo formulate practice recommendations for nursing staff with regard to providing palliative dementia care in times of COVID-19.Design and methodA rapid scoping review following guidelines from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Eligible papers focused on COVID-19 in combination with palliative care for older people or people with dementia and informed practical nursing recommendations for long-term care facilities. After data extraction, we formulated recommendations covering essential domains in palliative care adapted from the National Consensus Project's Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care.Data sourcesWe searched the bibliographic databases of PubMed, CINAHL and PsycINFO for academic publications. We searched for grey literature using the search engine Google. Moreover, we included relevant letters and editorials, guidelines, web articles and policy papers published by knowledge and professional institutes or associations in dementia and palliative care.ResultsIn total, 23 documents (7 (special) articles in peer-reviewed journals, 6 guides, 4 letters to editors, 2 web articles (blogs), 2 reports, a correspondence paper and a position paper) were included. The highest number of papers informed recommendations under the domains 'advance care planning' and 'psychological aspects of care'. The lowest number of papers informed the domains 'ethical care', 'care of the dying', 'spiritual care' and 'bereavement care'. We found no papers that informed the 'cultural aspects of care' domain.ConclusionLiterature that focuses specifically on palliative care for people with dementia in long-term care facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic is still largely lacking. Particular challenges that need addressing involve care of the dying and the bereaved, and ethical, cultural and spiritual aspects of care. Moreover, we must acknowledge grief and moral distress among nursing staff. Nursing leadership is needed to safeguard the quality of care and nursing staff should work together within an interprofessional care team to initiate advance care planning conversations in a timely manner, to review and document advance care plans, and to adapt goals of care as they may change due to the COVID-19 situation. Tweetable abstract: The current COVID-19 pandemic affects people living with dementia, their families and their professional caregivers. This rapid scoping review searched for academic and grey literature to formulate practical recommendations for nursing staff working in long-term care facilities on how to provide palliative care for people with dementia in times of COVID-19. There is a particular need for grief and bereavement support and we must acknowledge grief and moral distress among nursing staff. This review exposes practice and knowledge gaps in the response to COVID-19 that reflect the longstanding neglect and weaknesses of palliative care in the long-term care sector. Nursing leadership is needed to safeguard the quality of palliative care, interprofessional collaboration and peer support among nursing staff.