COVID-19 testing in outbreak-free care homes: what are the public health benefits?

Effectiveness of social distancing measures and lockdowns for reducing transmission of COVID-19 in non-healthcare, community-based settings

Social distancing measures (SDMs) are community-level interventions that aim to reduce person-to-person contacts in the community. SDMs were a major part of the responses first to contain, then to mitigate, the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in the community. Common SDMs included limiting the size of gatherings, closing schools and/or workplaces, implementing work-from-home arrangements, or more stringent restrictions such as lockdowns. This systematic review summarized the evidence for the effectiveness of nine SDMs. Almost all of the studies included were observational in nature, which meant that there were intrinsic risks of bias that could have been avoided were conditions randomly assigned to study participants. There were no instances where only one form of SDM had been in place in a particular setting during the study period, making it challenging to estimate the separate effect of each intervention. The more stringent SDMs such as stay-at-home orders, restrictions on mass gatherings and closures were estimated to be most effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Most studies included in this review suggested that combinations of SDMs successfully slowed or even stopped SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the community. However, individual effects and optimal combinations of interventions, as well as the optimal timing for particular measures, require further investigation. This article is part of the theme issue 'The effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: the evidence'.

Learning from the covid-19 outbreaks in long-term care facilities: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has devastatingly affected Long-Term Care Facilities (LTCF), exposing aging people, staff members, and visitors. The world has learned through the pandemic and lessons can be taken to adopt effective measures to deal with COVID-19 outbreaks in LTCF. We aimed to systematically review the available evidence on the effect of measures to minimize the risk of transmission of COVID-19 in LTCs during outbreaks since 2021.

METHODS

The search method was guided by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews (PRISMA) and the reporting guideline synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews. The search was performed in April 2023. Observational and interventional studies from the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, and Academic Search were systematically reviewed. We included studies conducted in the LTCF with outbreaks that quantitatively assess the effect of non-pharmacological measures on cases of COVID-19. Two review authors independently reviewed titles for inclusion, extracted data, and undertook the risk of bias according to pre-specified criteria. The quality of studies was analyzed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included, with 8442 LTCF experiencing COVID-19 outbreaks and 598 thousand participants (residents and staff members). Prevention and control of COVID-19 infection interventions were grouped into three themes: strategic, tactical, and operational measures. The strategic measures reveal the importance of COVID-19 prevention and control as LTCF structural characteristics, namely the LTCF size, new admissions, infection control surveillance, and architectural structure. At the tactical level, the lack of personal and long staff shifts is related to COVID-19's spread. Operational measures with a favorable effect on preventing COVID-19 transmission are sufficient. Personal protective equipment stock, correct mask use, signaling, social distancing, and resident cohorting.

CONCLUSIONS

Operational, tactical, and strategic approaches may have a favorable effect on preventing the spread of COVID-19 in LTCFs experiencing outbreaks. Given the heterogeneous nature of the measures, performing a meta-analysis was not possible. Future research should use more robust study designs to explore similar infection control measures in LTCFs during endemic situations with comparable outbreaks.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol of this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020214566).

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in care home staff: A survey of Liverpool care homes

Uptake of COVID-19 vaccine first doses in UK care homes has been higher among residents compared to staff. We aimed to identify causes of lower COVID-19 vaccine uptake amongst care home staff within Liverpool. An anonymised online survey was distributed to all care home managers, between the 21st and the 29th January 2021. 53 % of 87 care homes responded. The overall COVID-19 vaccination rate was 52.6 % (n = 1119). Reasons, identified by care home managers for staff being unvaccinated included: concerns about lack of vaccine research (37.0 %), staff being off-site during vaccination sessions (36.5 %), pregnancy and fertility concerns (5.6 %), and allergic reactions concerns (3.2 %). Care home managers wanted to tackle vaccine hesitancy through conversations with health professionals, and provision of evidence dispelling vaccine misinformation. Vaccine hesitancy and logistical issues were the main causes for reduced vaccine uptake among care home staff. The former could be addressed by targeted training, and public health communication campaigns to build confidence and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and corresponding control measures on long-term care facilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) were high-risk settings for COVID-19 outbreaks.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on LTCFs, including rates of infection, hospitalisation, case fatality, and mortality, and to determine the association between control measures and SARS-CoV-2 infection rates in residents and staff.

METHOD

We conducted a systematic search of six databases for articles published between December 2019 and 5 November 2021, and performed meta-analyses and subgroup analyses to identify the impact of COVID-19 on LTCFs and the association between control measures and infection rate.

RESULTS

We included 108 studies from 19 countries. These studies included 1,902,044 residents and 255,498 staff from 81,572 LTCFs, among whom 296,024 residents and 36,807 staff were confirmed SARS-CoV-2 positive. The pooled infection rate was 32.63% (95%CI: 30.29 ~ 34.96%) for residents, whereas it was 10.33% (95%CI: 9.46 ~ 11.21%) for staff. In LTCFs that cancelled visits, new patient admissions, communal dining and group activities, and vaccinations, infection rates in residents and staff were lower than the global rate. We reported the residents' hospitalisation rate to be 29.09% (95%CI: 25.73 ~ 32.46%), with a case-fatality rate of 22.71% (95%CI: 21.31 ~ 24.11%) and mortality rate of 15.81% (95%CI: 14.32 ~ 17.30%). Significant publication biases were observed in the residents' case-fatality rate and the staff infection rate, but not in the infection, hospitalisation, or mortality rate of residents.

CONCLUSION

SARS-CoV-2 infection rates would be very high among LTCF residents and staff without appropriate control measures. Cancelling visits, communal dining and group activities, restricting new admissions, and increasing vaccination would significantly reduce the infection rates.

Home Health Care Problem with Synchronization Visits and Considering Samples Transferring Time: A Case Study in Tehran, Iran

Health care facilities have not increased in response to the growing population. Therefore, government and health agencies are constantly seeking cost-effective alternatives so they can provide effective health care to their constituents. Around the world, health care organizations provide home health care (HHC) services to patients, especially the elderly, as an efficient alternative to hospital care. In addition, recent pandemics have demonstrated the importance of home health care as a means of preventing infection. This study is the first to simultaneously take into account nurses' working preferences and skill levels. Since transferring samples from the patient's home to the laboratory may affect the test results, this study takes into account the time it takes to transfer samples. In order to solve large instances, two metaheuristic algorithms are proposed: Genetic Algorithms and Particle Swarm Optimization. Nurses are assigned tasks according to their time windows and the tasks' time windows in a three-stage scheduling procedure. Using a case study set in Tehran, Iran, the proposed model is demonstrated. Even in emergencies, models can generate effective strategies. There are significant implications for health service management and health policymakers in countries where home health care services are receiving more attention. Furthermore, they contribute to the growing body of knowledge regarding health system strategies by providing new theoretical and practical insights.

Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: Update of a living systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Debate about the level of asymptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection continues. The amount of evidence is increasing and study designs have changed over time. We updated a living systematic review to address 3 questions: (1) Among people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, what proportion does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? (2) What is the infectiousness of asymptomatic and presymptomatic, compared with symptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 infection? (3) What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a population is accounted for by people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic?

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The protocol was first published on 1 April 2020 and last updated on 18 June 2021. We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv, and medRxiv, aggregated in a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature, most recently on 6 July 2021. Studies of people with PCR-diagnosed SARS-CoV-2, which documented symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up, or mathematical modelling studies were included. Studies restricted to people already diagnosed, of single individuals or families, or without sufficient follow-up were excluded. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified the extraction, with disagreement resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias in empirical studies was assessed with a bespoke checklist and modelling studies with a published checklist. All data syntheses were done using random effects models. Review question (1): We included 130 studies. Heterogeneity was high so we did not estimate a mean proportion of asymptomatic infections overall (interquartile range (IQR) 14% to 50%, prediction interval 2% to 90%), or in 84 studies based on screening of defined populations (IQR 20% to 65%, prediction interval 4% to 94%). In 46 studies based on contact or outbreak investigations, the summary proportion asymptomatic was 19% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 25%, prediction interval 2% to 70%). (2) The secondary attack rate in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection compared with symptomatic infection was 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.64, prediction interval 0.11 to 0.95, 8 studies). (3) In 13 modelling studies fit to data, the proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 transmission from presymptomatic individuals was higher than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the evidence include high heterogeneity and high risks of selection and information bias in studies that were not designed to measure persistently asymptomatic infection, and limited information about variants of concern or in people who have been vaccinated.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on studies published up to July 2021, most SARS-CoV-2 infections were not persistently asymptomatic, and asymptomatic infections were less infectious than symptomatic infections. Summary estimates from meta-analysis may be misleading when variability between studies is extreme and prediction intervals should be presented. Future studies should determine the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections caused by variants of concern and in people with immunity following vaccination or previous infection. Without prospective longitudinal studies with methods that minimise selection and measurement biases, further updates with the study types included in this living systematic review are unlikely to be able to provide a reliable summary estimate of the proportion of asymptomatic infections caused by SARS-CoV-2.

REVIEW PROTOCOL

Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9ewys/).

Case-control study to estimate odds of death within 28 days of positive test for SARS-CoV-2 prior to vaccination for residents of long-term care facilities in England, 2020-2021

BACKGROUND

Persons living in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are presumed to be at higher risk of adverse outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection due to increasing age and frailty, but the magnitude of increased risk is not well quantified.

METHODS

After linking demographic and mortality data for cases with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 2020 and January 2021 in England, a random sample of 6000 persons who died and 36 000 who did not die within 28 days of a positive test was obtained from the dataset of 3 020 800 patients. Based on an address-matching process, the residence type of each case was categorised into one of private home and residential or nursing LTCF. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Multivariable analysis showed that an interaction effect between age and residence type determined the outcome. Compared with a 60-year-old person not living in LTCF, the adjusted OR (aOR) for same-aged persons living in residential and nursing LTCFs was 1.77 (95% CI 1.21 to 2.6, p=0.0017) and 3.95 (95% CI 2.77 to 5.64, p<0.0001), respectively. At 90 years of age, aORs were 0.87 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.06, p=0.21) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.9, p=0.001), respectively. The model had an overall accuracy of 94.2% (94.2%) when applied to the full dataset of 2 978 800 patients.

CONCLUSION

This study found that residents of LTCFs in England had higher odds of death up to 80 years of age. Beyond 80 years, there was no difference in the odds of death for LTCF residents compared with those in the wider community.

Enhanced lateral flow testing strategies in care homes are associated with poor adherence and were insufficient to prevent COVID-19 outbreaks: results from a mixed methods implementation study

Introduction

Care homes have been severely affected by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Rapid antigen testing could identify most SARS-CoV-2 infected staff and visitors before they enter homes. We explored implementation of staff and visitor testing protocols using lateral flow devices (LFDs).

Methods

An evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 LFD-based testing protocol in 11 care homes in Liverpool, UK, including staff and visitor testing, plus a qualitative exploratory study in nine of these homes. The proportion of pilot homes with outbreaks, and outbreak size, were compared to non-pilot homes in Liverpool. Adherence to testing protocols was evaluated. Fifteen staff were interviewed, and transcript data were thematically coded using an iterative analysis to identify and categorize factors influencing testing implementation.

Results

In total, 1,638 LFD rapid tests were performed on 407 staff. Protocol adherence was poor with 8.6% of staff achieving >75% protocol adherence, and 25.3% achieving \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{upgreek} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document} }{}$\ge$\end{document}50%. Six care homes had outbreaks during the study. Compared to non-pilot care homes, there was no evidence of significant difference in the proportion of homes with outbreaks, or the size of outbreaks. Qualitative data showed difficulty implementing testing strategies due to excessive work burden. Factors influencing adherence related to test integration and procedural factors, socio-economic factors, cognitive overload and the emotional value of testing.

Conclusion

Implementation of staff and visitor care home LFD testing protocols was poorly adhered to and consequently did not reduce the number or scale of COVID-19 outbreaks. More focus is needed on the contextual and behavioural factors that influence protocol adherence.

Non-pharmacological measures implemented in the setting of long-term care facilities to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections and their consequences: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

Starting in late 2019, COVID-19, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, spread around the world. Long-term care facilities are at particularly high risk of outbreaks, and the burden of morbidity and mortality is very high among residents living in these facilities.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of non-pharmacological measures implemented in long-term care facilities to prevent or reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection among residents, staff, and visitors.

SEARCH METHODS

On 22 January 2021, we searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, Web of Science, and CINAHL. We also conducted backward citation searches of existing reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered experimental, quasi-experimental, observational and modelling studies that assessed the effects of the measures implemented in long-term care facilities to protect residents and staff against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Primary outcomes were infections, hospitalisations and deaths due to COVID-19, contaminations of and outbreaks in long-term care facilities, and adverse health effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. One review author performed data extractions, risk of bias assessments and quality appraisals, and at least one other author checked their accuracy. Risk of bias and quality assessments were conducted using the ROBINS-I tool for cohort and interrupted-time-series studies, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for case-control studies, and a bespoke tool for modelling studies. We synthesised findings narratively, focusing on the direction of effect. One review author assessed certainty of evidence with GRADE, with the author team critically discussing the ratings.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 observational studies and 11 modelling studies in the analysis. All studies were conducted in high-income countries. Most studies compared outcomes in long-term care facilities that implemented the measures with predicted or observed control scenarios without the measure (but often with baseline infection control measures also in place). Several modelling studies assessed additional comparator scenarios, such as comparing higher with lower rates of testing. There were serious concerns regarding risk of bias in almost all observational studies and major or critical concerns regarding the quality of many modelling studies. Most observational studies did not adequately control for confounding. Many modelling studies used inappropriate assumptions about the structure and input parameters of the models, and failed to adequately assess uncertainty. Overall, we identified five intervention domains, each including a number of specific measures. Entry regulation measures (4 observational studies; 4 modelling studies) Self-confinement of staff with residents may reduce the number of infections, probability of facility contamination, and number of deaths. Quarantine for new admissions may reduce the number of infections. Testing of new admissions and intensified testing of residents and of staff after holidays may reduce the number of infections, but the evidence is very uncertain. The evidence is very uncertain regarding whether restricting admissions of new residents reduces the number of infections, but the measure may reduce the probability of facility contamination. Visiting restrictions may reduce the number of infections and deaths. Furthermore, it may increase the probability of facility contamination, but the evidence is very uncertain. It is very uncertain how visiting restrictions may adversely affect the mental health of residents. Contact-regulating and transmission-reducing measures (6 observational studies; 2 modelling studies) Barrier nursing may increase the number of infections and the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Multicomponent cleaning and environmental hygiene measures may reduce the number of infections, but the evidence is very uncertain. It is unclear how contact reduction measures affect the probability of outbreaks. These measures may reduce the number of infections, but the evidence is very uncertain. Personal hygiene measures may reduce the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain.  Mask and personal protective equipment usage may reduce the number of infections, the probability of outbreaks, and the number of deaths, but the evidence is very uncertain. Cohorting residents and staff may reduce the number of infections, although evidence is very uncertain. Multicomponent contact -regulating and transmission -reducing measures may reduce the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Surveillance measures (2 observational studies; 6 modelling studies) Routine testing of residents and staff independent of symptoms may reduce the number of infections. It may reduce the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Evidence from one observational study suggests that the measure may reduce, while the evidence from one modelling study suggests that it probably reduces hospitalisations. The measure may reduce the number of deaths among residents, but the evidence on deaths among staff is unclear.  Symptom-based surveillance testing may reduce the number of infections and the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Outbreak control measures (4 observational studies; 3 modelling studies) Separating infected and non-infected residents or staff caring for them may reduce the number of infections. The measure may reduce the probability of outbreaks and may reduce the number of deaths, but the evidence for the latter is very uncertain. Isolation of cases may reduce the number of infections and the probability of outbreaks, but the evidence is very uncertain. Multicomponent measures (2 observational studies; 1 modelling study) A combination of multiple infection-control measures, including various combinations of the above categories, may reduce the number of infections and may reduce the number of deaths, but the evidence for the latter is very uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a comprehensive framework and synthesis of a range of non-pharmacological measures implemented in long-term care facilities. These may prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections and their consequences. However, the certainty of evidence is predominantly low to very low, due to the limited availability of evidence and the design and quality of available studies. Therefore, true effects may be substantially different from those reported here. Overall, more studies producing stronger evidence on the effects of non-pharmacological measures are needed, especially in low- and middle-income countries and on possible unintended consequences of these measures. Future research should explore the reasons behind the paucity of evidence to guide pandemic research priority setting in the future.

Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Quantification of asymptomatic infections is fundamental for effective public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Discrepancies regarding the extent of asymptomaticity have arisen from inconsistent terminology as well as conflation of index and secondary cases which biases toward lower asymptomaticity. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and World Health Organization Global Research Database on COVID-19 between January 1, 2020 and April 2, 2021 to identify studies that reported silent infections at the time of testing, whether presymptomatic or asymptomatic. Index cases were removed to minimize representational bias that would result in overestimation of symptomaticity. By analyzing over 350 studies, we estimate that the percentage of infections that never developed clinical symptoms, and thus were truly asymptomatic, was 35.1% (95% CI: 30.7 to 39.9%). At the time of testing, 42.8% (95% prediction interval: 5.2 to 91.1%) of cases exhibited no symptoms, a group comprising both asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections. Asymptomaticity was significantly lower among the elderly, at 19.7% (95% CI: 12.7 to 29.4%) compared with children at 46.7% (95% CI: 32.0 to 62.0%). We also found that cases with comorbidities had significantly lower asymptomaticity compared to cases with no underlying medical conditions. Without proactive policies to detect asymptomatic infections, such as rapid contact tracing, prolonged efforts for pandemic control may be needed even in the presence of vaccination.