Mortality of care home residents and community-dwelling controls during the covid-19 pandemic in 2020: matched cohort study

Organising general practice for care homes: a multi-method study

Background

General practice provides first-line National Health Service care for around 400,000 care home residents. Good primary care can enhance residents' health and well-being and optimise use of hospital services.

Objectives

This study aimed to explore the relationships between organisation of general practice and the perspectives and experiences of residents, general practice and care home staff, outcomes and costs.

Design

Survey of general practices (2018), qualitative study (2019), analysis of primary care data (2019-21).

Policy context

National Health Service England Vanguard funded innovation in services for care homes in five areas (2015-8); Enhanced Health in Care Homes introduces standardised care home healthcare processes in England (2020-4).

Setting

England: national survey; qualitative work in three areas (two Vanguards); analysis of national primary care data across early implementation of Enhanced Health in Care Homes and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Participants

One hundred and fifty general practice survey respondents; 101 interviewees (general practitioners, practice managers, receptionists, care home managers, nurses, senior carers, residents, relatives, commissioners) in three areas; 103,732 care home residents ≥ 75 years, registered with participating practices in Clinical Research Datalink Aurum 2019-21.

Results

Qualitative analysis identified three themes concerned with general practitioner services to care homes: relational processes, communication and organisation. Continuity of care, sensitivity to the skills of care home staff and routines of the home, along with a willingness to dedicate time to patients, are all crucial. Different structures (e.g. scheduled visits) provide opportunities to develop effective, efficient care, but flounder without established, trusting relationships. The way in which new initiatives are implemented is crucial to acceptance and ultimate success: telemedicine was an example that generated efficiencies for the National Health Service, but could be a burden to care homes, resented by staff and perceived as a barrier to overcome. One hundred and fifty practices responded to our survey, a majority staffed by ≤ 5 general practitioners. Larger practices were more likely to have a nominated general practitioner for care homes and make weekly scheduled visits. Analysis of primary care data found that in practices with a higher number of care home residents, patients had more contacts with primary care and fewer urgent referrals. Between 2019 and 2021, total contacts and estimated costs increased, and urgent referrals and polypharmacy fell.

Limitations

Sparse evidence of systematic change in Vanguard areas limited our conclusions about specific initiatives. Implementation of national policy during the COVID-19 pandemic complicates data interpretation.

Conclusions

Larger practices or those with higher numbers of care home residents were more likely to adopt ways of working that are associated with higher-quality care. However, trusting relationships between care homes and a motivated, adequately resourced primary care workforce may be more important than models of care, in enhancing primary care for care homes. General practices and care homes find creative ways around initiatives that are not perceived to offer any benefits, emphasising the need for local flexibility when implementing national initiatives.

Future work

Future work could address how best to promote ways of working that prioritise trusting relationships; the absence of care pathways specific to care home patients, and the impact of Enhanced Health in Care Homes on system-wide costs.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 14/196/05) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 13, No. 11. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Unravelling demographic and socioeconomic patterns of COVID-19 death and other causes of death: results of an individual-level analysis of exhaustive cause of death data in Belgium, 2020

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic led to significant excess mortality in 2020 in Belgium. By using microlevel cause-specific mortality data for the total adult population in Belgium in 2020, three outcomes were considered in this study aiming at predicting sociodemographic (SD) and socioeconomic (SE) patterns of (1) COVID-19 specific death compared to survival; (2) all other causes of death (OCOD) compared to survival; and (3) COVID-19 specific death compared to all OCOD.

METHODS

Two complementary statistical methods were used. First, multivariable logistic regression models providing odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were fitted for the three study outcomes. In addition, we computed conditional inference tree (CIT) algorithms, a non-parametric class of classification trees, to identify and rank by significance level the strongest predictors of the three study outcomes.

RESULTS

Older individuals, males, individuals living in collectivities, first-generation migrants, and deprived SE groups experienced higher odds of dying from COVID-19 compared to survival; living in collectivities was identified by the CIT as the strongest predictor followed by age and sex. Education emerged as one of the strongest predictors for individuals not living in collectivities. Overall, similar patterns were observed for all OCOD except for first- and second-generation migrants having lower odds of all OCOD compared to survival; age group was identified by the CIT as the strongest predictor. Older individuals, males, individuals living in collectivities, first- and second-generation migrants, and individuals with lower levels of education had higher odds of COVID-19 death compared to all OCOD; living in collectivities was identified by the CIT as the strongest predictor followed by age, sex, and migration background. Education and income emerged as among the strongest predictors among individuals not living in collectivities.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified important SD and SE disparities in COVID-19 mortality, with living in collectivities highlighted as the strongest predictor. This underlines the importance of implementing preventive measures, particularly within the most vulnerable populations, in infectious disease pandemic preparedness to reduce virus circulation and the resulting lethality.

Alpha-1 adrenergic antagonists and the risk of hospitalization or death in non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A population-based study

BACKGROUND

Alpha-1 receptor antagonists may interfere with IL-6 signaling and could therefore be a potential treatment for COVID-19. However, the effectiveness of these drugs in mitigating the risk of clinical deterioration among non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to examine the association between alpha-1 antagonist exposure and the 30-day risk of a hospital encounter or death in nonhospitalized patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based cohort study of Ontario residents aged 35 years and older who were eligible for public drug coverage and who had a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 between January 1, 2020, and March 1, 2021. We matched each individual receiving an alpha-1 antagonist at the time of their positive test with two non-exposed individuals using propensity scores. Our outcome was a composite of a hospital admission, emergency department visit, or death, 1 to 30 days following the positive test.

RESULTS

We matched 3289 alpha-1 antagonist exposed patients to 6189 unexposed patients. Overall, there was no difference in the 30-day risk of the primary outcome among patients exposed to alpha-1 antagonists at the time of their diagnosis relative to unexposed individuals (28.8% vs. 28.0%; OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11). In a secondary analysis, individuals exposed to alpha-1 antagonists had a lower risk of death in the 30 days following a COVID diagnosis (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.93).

CONCLUSION

Alpha-1 antagonists did not mitigate the 30-day risk of clinical deterioration in non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Our findings do not support the general repurposing of alpha-1 antagonists as a treatment for such patients, although there may be subgroups of patients in whom further research is warranted.

Activities of psychiatrists in specialized coronavirus disease 2019 wards at Juntendo Hospital

Since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020, specialized COVID-19 wards have been established in general hospitals across Japan. Juntendo Hospital also established a dedicated COVID-19 ward; however, many hospitalized patients were found to have psychiatric symptoms, such as delirium and depression. Juntendo Hospital's COVID-19 specialist beds were staffed mainly by internists, who specialized in physical illnesses and were unfamiliar with psychiatric symptoms, making it difficult for them to provide adequate treatment. Some staff members were also found to be suffering from mental illness, compounding these issues. In 2021, to address these challenges, Juntendo Hospital's psychiatry department began having psychiatrists make rounds once a week in specialized COVID-19 wards. The number of consultations varied depending on the status of the COVID-19 epidemic; however, in the peak month, 45 consultations were made per month. Most consultations involved delirium and neurotic conditions, and there had been over 200 consultations for both by August 2023. We addressed not only the mental symptoms of the patients, but also the health status of the staff at the hospital beds, and took measures to maintain the mental health of the staff. Consequently, the hospital has not experienced any large-scale medical breakdowns due to excessive staff fatigue. New pandemics of emerging infectious diseases will likely occur in the future, and we believe that we need to learn from this pandemic and prepare for future pandemics.

Change in U.S. Hospice Quality Measure Scores During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Correlation With Exposure to State Policies for Protection of Older Adults

BACKGROUND

To limit spread of COVID-19, many U.S. states adopted policies affecting access to older adults, including those in hospice. This study aimed to assess differences in hospice quality measures from before COVID-19 to during the COVID-19 pandemic and to evaluate for any correlation with these state policies.

METHODS

Scores (treatment preferences, believes/values, pain screening and assessment, dyspnea screening and treatment, bowel regimen, and a composite score) and Denominators (population being measured) for CMS's Hospice Item Set were compared using a paired t-test between a pre-pandemic period (01/2019-12/2019) and a period early in the pandemic in the U.S (7/2020-6/2021). Correlations between HIS composite scores from 9 months (7/2020-3/2021) and exposure to state policies for older adult protection, and covariates, were assessed by linear regression.

RESULTS

Data were collected on 3535 hospices. Seven of 8 HIS scores increased during the pandemic period. The remaining score was unchanged. All Denominators decreased. There was negative correlation between composite score (7/2020-3/2021) and exposure to state policies for protecting older adults. There were positive correlations with hospice age, for-profit status, 2019 average daily census, and 2019 composite score.

CONCLUSION

Most HIS scores increased during this COVID-19 pandemic period; there was a small, significant negative correlation between the composite quality score and exposure to state policies for older adult protection. Further research is needed to better understand the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospice care in the U.S. and globally, and future additions in quality reporting may facilitate real-time assessment during future public health emergencies.

Individual and contextual risk factors for mortality in nursing home residents during the first wave of COVID-19 in France: a multilevel analysis of a nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

Mortality amongst nursing home (NH) residents increased by 43% during the first wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We estimated the 'contextual effect' on mortality, tried to explain it by NH characteristics and identified resident- and NH-level risk factors for mortality.

METHODS

The contextual effect was measured for two cohorts of NH residents managed by the general scheme in metropolitan France (RESIDESMS data from 03/01/2020 to 05/31/2020 and 03/01/2019 to 05/31/2019) by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) estimated from mixed-effects logistic regression.

RESULTS

Amongst 385,300 residents (5,339 NHs) included in 2020 (median age 89 years, 25% men), 9.1% died, versus 6.7% of 379,926 residents (5,270 NHs) in 2019. In the empty model, the ICC was 9.3% in 2020 and 1.5% in 2019. Only the geographic location partially explained the heterogeneity observed in 2020 (ICC: 6.5% after adjustment). Associations with mortality were stronger in 2020 than in 2019 for male sex and diabetes and weaker for heart disease, chronic respiratory disease and residence <6 months. Mortality was higher in 2020 (15.1%) than 2019 (6.3%) in NHs with at least one death with a mention of COVID-19 and more heterogeneous (ICC: 8.0%) than in the others (mortality: 6.7% in both years; ICC: 1.1%).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that the COVID-19 crisis had a heterogeneous impact on mortality in NH residents and that geographic location explain a part of the contextual effect, which appears to have had little influence on mortality in NHs not being affected by the virus.

Causes of deaths in long-term care and hospice care facilities during the first year of COVID-19 pandemic: a snapshot of Italy during 2020

BACKGROUND

Older adults living in long-term care facilities (LTCF) have been severely affected by COVID-19. Hospice care (HC) facilities and palliative care are essential in treating patients dying from COVID-19. In Italy, little is known about the impact of COVID-19 on deaths in LTCF and the care provided in HC to COVID-19 patients.

AIM

To assess overall and case-specific mortality in 2020 in LTC and HC facilities in comparison to the previous five years (2015-2019).

METHODS

We performed a descriptive study using data derived from the Italian national "Cause of Death" registry-managed by the Italian National Institute of Statistics-on deaths occurred in LTC and HC facilities during 2020 and the period 2015-2019.

RESULTS

Number of deaths significantly increased in 2020 compared with 2015-2019 in LTCF (83,062 deaths vs. 59,200) and slightly decreased in hospices (38,788 vs. 39,652). COVID-19 caused 12.5% of deaths in LTCF and only 2% in hospices. Other than COVID-19, in 2020, cancer accounted for 77% of all deaths that occurred in HC, while cardiovascular diseases (35.6%) and psychotic and behavioral disorders (10%) were the most common causes of death in LTCF. Overall, 22% of the excess mortality registered in Italy during 2020 is represented by the deaths that occurred in LTCF.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

LTCF were disproportionally affected by COVID-19, while the response to the pandemic in HC was limited. These data can help plan strategies to limit the impact of future epidemics and to better understand residential care response to COVID-19 epidemic.

Population Older than 69 Had Similar Fatality Rates Independently If They Were Admitted in Nursing Homes or Lived in the Community: A Retrospective Observational Study during COVID-19 First Wave

The aim of this study is to assess the influence of living in nursing homes on COVID-19-related mortality, and to calculate the real specific mortality rate caused by COVID-19 among people older than 20 years of age in the Balaguer Primary Care Centre Health Area during the first wave of the pandemic. We conducted an observational study based on a database generated between March and May 2020, analysing COVID-19-related mortality as a dependent variable, and including different independent variables, such as living in a nursing home or in the community (outside nursing homes), age, sex, symptoms, pre-existing conditions, and hospital admission. To evaluate the associations between the independent variables and mortality, we calculated the absolute and relative frequencies, and performed a chi-square test. To avoid the impact of the age variable on mortality and to assess the influence of the "living in a nursing home" variable, we established comparisons between infected population groups over 69 years of age (in nursing homes and outside nursing homes). Living in a nursing home was associated with a higher incidence of COVID-19 infection, but not with higher mortality in patients over 69 years of age (p = 0.614). The real specific mortality rate caused by COVID-19 was 2.27⁰/₀₀. In the study of the entire sample, all the comorbidities studied were associated with higher mortality; however, the comorbidities were not associated with higher mortality in the infected nursing home patients group, nor in the infected community patients over 69 years of age group (except for neoplasm history in this last group). Finally, hospital admission was not associated with lower mortality in nursing home patients, nor in community patients over 69 years of age.