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

How to protect long-term care facilities from pandemic-like events? - A systematic review on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological measures to prevent viral respiratory infections

BACKGROUND

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic underscored the need for pandemic preparedness, with respiratory-transmitted viruses considered as a substantial risk. In pandemics, long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are a high-risk setting with severe outbreaks and burden of disease. Non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) constitute the primary defence mechanism when pharmacological interventions are not available. However, evidence on the effectiveness of NPIs implemented in LTCFs remains unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review assessing the effectiveness of NPIs implemented in LTCFs to protect residents and staff from viral respiratory pathogens with pandemic potential. We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and two COVID-19 registries in 09/2022. Screening and data extraction was conducted independently by two experienced researchers. We included randomized controlled trials and non-randomized observational studies of intervention effects. Quality appraisal was conducted using ROBINS-I and RoB2. Primary outcomes encompassed number of outbreaks, infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. We synthesized findings narratively, focusing on the direction of effect. Certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE.

RESULTS

We analysed 13 observational studies and three (cluster) randomized controlled trials. All studies were conducted in high-income countries, all but three focused on SARS-CoV-2 with the rest focusing on influenza or upper-respiratory tract infections. The evidence indicates that a combination of different measures and hand hygiene interventions can be effective in protecting residents and staff from infection-related outcomes (moderate CoE). Self-confinement of staff with residents, compartmentalization of staff in the LTCF, and the routine testing of residents and/or staff in LTCFs, among others, may be effective (low CoE). Other measures, such as restricting shared spaces, serving meals in room, cohorting infected and non-infected residents may be effective (very low CoE). An evidence gap map highlights the lack of evidence on important interventions, encompassing visiting restrictions, pre-entry testing, and air filtration systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Although CoE of interventions was low or very low for most outcomes, the implementation of NPIs identified as potentially effective in this review often constitutes the sole viable option, particularly prior to the availability of vaccinations. Our evidence-gap map underscores the imperative for further research on several interventions. These gaps need to be addressed to prepare LTCFs for future pandemics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42022344149.

Faster detection of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases among care home staff in England through the combination of SARS-CoV-2 testing technologies

To detect SARS-CoV-2 amongst asymptomatic care home staff in England, a dual-technology weekly testing regime was introduced on 23 December 2020. A lateral flow device (LFD) and quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) test were taken on the same day (day 0) and a midweek LFD test was taken three to four days later. We evaluated the effectiveness of using dual-technology to detect SARS-CoV-2 between December 2020 to April 2021. Viral concentrations derived from qRT-PCR were used to determine the probable stage of infection and likely level of infectiousness. Day 0 PCR detected 1,493 cases of COVID-19, of which 53% were in the early stages of infection with little to no risk of transmission. Day 0 LFD detected 83% of cases that were highly likely to be infectious. On average, LFD results were received 46.3 h earlier than PCR, enabling removal of likely infectious staff from the workplace quicker than by weekly PCR alone. Demonstrating the rapidity of LFDs to detect highly infectious cases could be combined with the ability of PCR to detect cases in the very early stages of infection. In practice, asymptomatic care home staff were removed from the workplace earlier, breaking potential chains of transmission.

Self-tests for COVID-19: What is the evidence? A living systematic review and meta-analysis (2020-2023)

COVID-19 self-testing strategy (COVIDST) can rapidly identify symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals and their contacts, potentially reducing transmission. In this living systematic review, we evaluated the evidence for real-world COVIDST performance. Two independent reviewers searched six databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, World Health Organization database, Cochrane COVID-19 registry, Europe PMC) for the period April 1st, 2020, to January 18th, 2023. Data on studies evaluating COVIDST against laboratory-based conventional testing and reported on diagnostic accuracy, feasibility, acceptability, impact, and qualitative outcomes were abstracted. Bivariate random effects meta-analyses of COVIDST accuracy were performed (n = 14). Subgroup analyses (by sampling site, symptomatic/asymptomatic infection, supervised/unsupervised strategy, with/without digital supports) were conducted. Data from 70 included studies, conducted across 25 countries with a median sample size of 817 (range: 28-784,707) were pooled. Specificity and DOR was high overall, irrespective of subgroups (98.37-99.71%). Highest sensitivities were reported for: a) symptomatic individuals (73.91%, 95%CI: 68.41-78.75%; n = 9), b) mid-turbinate nasal samples (77.79%, 95%CI: 56.03-90.59%; n = 14), c) supervised strategy (86.67%, 95%CI: 59.64-96.62%; n = 13), and d) use of digital interventions (70.15%, 95%CI: 50.18-84.63%; n = 14). Lower sensitivity was attributed to absence of symptoms, errors in test conduct and absence of supervision or a digital support. We found no difference in COVIDST sensitivity between delta and omicron pre-dominant period. Digital supports increased confidence in COVIDST reporting and interpretation (n = 16). Overall acceptability was 91.0-98.7% (n = 2) with lower acceptability reported for daily self-testing (39.5-51.1%). Overall feasibility was 69.0-100.0% (n = 5) with lower feasibility (35.9-64.6%) for serial self-testing. COVIDST decreased closures in school, workplace, and social events (n = 4). COVIDST is an effective rapid screening strategy for home-, workplace- or school-based screening, for symptomatic persons, and for preventing transmission during outbreaks. These data will guide COVIDST policy. Our review demonstrates that COVIDST has paved the way for self-testing in pandemics worldwide.

Factors that influence the implementation of innovation in aged care: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this scoping review is to identify factors that influence the implementation of innovation in aged care.

INTRODUCTION

Aged care is a dynamic sector experiencing rapid change. Implementation of innovations in aged care has received relatively little research attention compared to health care.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This review included studies of any design, that examined the implementation of innovations in aged care settings.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, AgeLine, and ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection for studies published between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2022. The titles and abstracts of retrieved citations were screened by two independent reviewers. Full-text articles were screened by one reviewer to determine inclusion. Data were extracted in NVivo using a tool developed by the research team. Factors that influenced implementation were inductively coded, interpreted, and grouped into categories in a series of workshops.

RESULTS

Of the 2530 studies that were screened, 193 were included. Of the included papers, the majority (74%) related to residential aged care, 28% used an implementation theory or framework, and 15% involved consumers. Five key categories of factors influencing implementation were identified: organizational context including resourcing and culture; people's attitudes and capabilities; relationships between people; the intervention and its appropriateness; and implementation actions such as stakeholder engagement and implementation strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings can be used to develop practical resources to support implementation efforts, and highlight the importance of resourcing for successful implementation. Attention to community-based aged care, and greater engagement with theory and community is needed to promote research rigor, relevance and applicability.

Shaping care home COVID-19 testing policy: a protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of asymptomatic testing compared with standard care in care home staff (VIVALDI-CT)

INTRODUCTION

Care home residents have experienced significant morbidity, mortality and disruption following outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2. Regular SARS-CoV-2 testing of care home staff was introduced to reduce transmission of infection, but it is unclear whether this remains beneficial. This trial aims to investigate whether use of regular asymptomatic staff testing, alongside funding to reimburse sick pay for those who test positive and meet costs of employing agency staff, is a feasible and effective strategy to reduce COVID-19 impact in care homes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The VIVALDI-Clinical Trial is a multicentre, open-label, cluster randomised controlled, phase III/IV superiority trial in up to 280 residential and/or nursing homes in England providing care to adults aged >65 years. All regular and agency staff will be enrolled, excepting those who opt out. Homes will be randomised to the intervention arm (twice weekly asymptomatic staff testing for SARS-CoV-2) or the control arm (current national testing guidance). Staff who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 will self-isolate and receive sick pay. Care providers will be reimbursed for costs associated with employing temporary staff to backfill for absence arising directly from the trial.The trial will be delivered by a multidisciplinary research team through a series of five work packages.The primary outcome is the incidence of COVID-19-related hospital admissions in residents. Secondary outcomes include the number and duration of outbreaks and home closures. Health economic and modelling analyses will investigate the cost-effectiveness and cost consequences of the testing intervention. A process evaluation using qualitative interviews will be conducted to understand intervention roll out and identify areas for optimisation to inform future intervention scale-up, should the testing approach prove effective and cost-effective. Stakeholder engagement will be undertaken to enable the sector to plan for results and their implications and to coproduce recommendations on the use of testing for policy-makers.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the London-Bromley Research Ethics Committee (reference number 22/LO/0846) and the Health Research Authority (22/CAG/0165). The results of the trial will be disseminated regardless of the direction of effect. The publication of the results will comply with a trial-specific publication policy and will include submission to open access journals. A lay summary of the results will also be produced to disseminate the results to participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN13296529.

Effectiveness of testing, contact tracing and isolation interventions among the general population on reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review

We conducted a systematic literature review of general population testing, contact tracing, case isolation and contact quarantine interventions to assess their effectiveness in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, as implemented in real-world settings. We designed a broad search strategy and aimed to identify peer-reviewed studies of any design provided there was a quantitative measure of effectiveness on a transmission outcome. Studies that assessed the effect of testing or diagnosis on disease outcomes via treatment, but did not assess a transmission outcome, were not included. We focused on interventions implemented among the general population rather than in specific settings; these were from anywhere in the world and published any time after 1 January 2020 until the end of 2022. From 26 720 titles and abstracts, 1181 were reviewed as full text, and 25 met our inclusion criteria. These 25 studies included one randomized control trial (RCT) and the remaining 24 analysed empirical data and made some attempt to control for confounding. Studies included were categorized by the type of intervention: contact tracing (seven studies); specific testing strategies (12 studies); strategies for isolating cases/contacts (four studies); and 'test, trace, isolate' (TTI) as a part of a package of interventions (two studies). None of the 25 studies were rated at low risk of bias and many were rated as serious risk of bias, particularly due to the likely presence of uncontrolled confounding factors, which was a major challenge in assessing the independent effects of TTI in observational studies. These confounding factors are to be expected from observational studies during an on-going pandemic, when the emphasis was on reducing the epidemic burden rather than trial design. Findings from these 25 studies suggested an important public health role for testing followed by isolation, especially where mass and serial testing was used to reduce transmission. Some of the most compelling analyses came from examining fine-grained within-country data on contact tracing; while broader studies which compared behaviour between countries also often found TTI led to reduced transmission and mortality, this was not universal. There was limited evidence for the benefit of isolation of cases/contacts away from the home environment. One study, an RCT, showed that daily testing of contacts could be a viable strategy to replace lengthy quarantine of contacts. Based on the scarcity of robust empirical evidence, we were not able to draw any firm quantitative conclusions about the quantitative impact of TTI interventions in different epidemic contexts. While the majority of studies found that testing, tracing and isolation reduced transmission, evidence for the scale of this impact is only available for specific scenarios and hence is not necessarily generalizable. Our review therefore emphasizes the need to conduct robust experimental studies that help inform the likely quantitative impact of different TTI interventions on transmission and their optimal design. Work is needed to support such studies in the context of future emerging epidemics, along with assessments of the cost-effectiveness of TTI interventions, which was beyond the scope of this review but will be critical to decision-making. This article is part of the theme issue 'The effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: the evidence'.

Modelling the impact of repeat asymptomatic testing policies for staff on SARS-CoV-2 transmission potential

Repeat asymptomatic testing in order to identify and quarantine infectious individuals has become a widely-used intervention to control SARS-CoV-2 transmission. In some workplaces, and in particular health and social care settings with vulnerable patients, regular asymptomatic testing has been deployed to staff to reduce the likelihood of workplace outbreaks. We have developed a model based on data available in the literature to predict the potential impact of repeat asymptomatic testing on SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The results highlight features that are important to consider when modelling testing interventions, including population heterogeneity of infectiousness and correlation with test-positive probability, as well as adherence behaviours in response to policy. Furthermore, the model based on the reduction in transmission potential presented here can be used to parameterise existing epidemiological models without them having to explicitly simulate the testing process. Overall, we find that even with different model paramterisations, in theory, regular asymptomatic testing is likely to be a highly effective measure to reduce transmission in workplaces, subject to adherence. This manuscript was submitted as part of a theme issue on "Modelling COVID-19 and Preparedness for Future Pandemics".

Daily testing of contacts of SARS-CoV-2 infected cases as an alternative to quarantine for key workers in Liverpool: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Covid-19 test-to-release from quarantine policies affect many lives. The SMART Release pilot was the foundation of these policies and an element of the world's largest population cohort study of community-wide, SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen testing. The objective of the study was to evaluate daily lateral flow testing (LFT) as an alternative to 10-14 days quarantine for key worker contacts of known Covid-19 (or SARS-CoV-2 infection) cases.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study incorporating quantitative and qualitative research methods to consider how serial LFT compares with PCR testing to detect SARS-CoV-2 infections and to understand experiences/compliance with testing and the viability of this quarantine harm-reduction strategy. Participants were residents of the Liverpool area who were key workers at participating fire, police, NHS and local government organisations in Liverpool, and who were identified as close contacts of cases between December 2020 and August 2021. Thematic qualitative analysis was used to evaluate stakeholder meetings.

FINDINGS

Compliance with the daily testing regime was good across the three main organisations in this study with 96·9%, 93·7% and 92·8% compliance for Merseyside Police, Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service and Alder Hey Children's Hospital respectively. Out of 1657 participants, 34 positive Covid-19 cases were identified and 3 undetected by the daily LFT regime. A total of 8291 workdays would have been lost to self-isolation but were prevented due to negative daily tests. Organisations reported that daily contact testing proved useful, flexible and well-tolerated initiative to sustain key worker services.

INTERPRETATION

Compliance with daily testing among key workers was high, helping sustain service continuity during periods of very high risk of staffing shortage. Services reported that the pilot was a "lifeline" and its successful delivery in Liverpool has been replicated elsewhere.

FUNDING

This report is independent research commissioned by DHSC and part funded by DHSC and NIHR. Further funding was received from Liverpool City Council, the EPSRC and MRC.

Diagnoses Based on C-Reactive Protein Point-of-Care Tests

C-reactive protein (CRP) is an important part of the immune system's reaction to various pathological impulses such as bacterial infections, systemic inflammation, and internal organ failures. An increased CRP level serves to diagnose the mentioned pathological states. Both standard laboratory methods and simple point-of-care devices such as lateral flow tests and immunoturbidimetric assays serve for the instrumental diagnoses based on CRP. The current method for CRP has many flaws and limitations in its use. Biosensor and bioassay analytical devices are presently researched by many teams to provide more sensitive and better-suited tools for point-of-care tests of CRP in biological samples when compared to the standard methods. This review article is focused on mapping the diagnostical relevance of CRP, the applicability of the current analytical methods, and the recent innovations in the measurement of CRP level.

Exploration of the uptake of asymptomatic COVID-19 lateral flow testing in Birmingham, UK: survey and qualitative research

AIM

To examine public perspectives on lateral flow testing (LFT) for COVID-19.

DESIGN

Online survey with nested semi-structured interviews.

SETTING

Birmingham, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

220 Birmingham residents, 21 of whom took part in an interview.

RESULTS

Fifty-six per cent of respondents had taken an LFT. Reasons for not testing included adherence to other government COVID-19 guidance, having had a vaccination and not thinking LFTs were accurate. In 16% of households with children nobody, including children, was testing. In households where children were testing, their parents or other adults were often not. Those who were testing and eligible for workplace and school testing were more likely to be testing twice weekly. In other settings, respondents were more likely to be testing on a one-off or ad hoc basis. Approximately half of respondents said that they were likely to visit friends and family after a negative test result and 10% that they were unlikely to self-isolate following a positive test result. In interviews, participants who were testing described the peace of mind that testing afforded them prior to activities or interactions with family and friends, including those they considered to be vulnerable. Interviewees who were not testing described concerns about test accuracy and also cited a lack of face-to-face interaction with others precluding the need to test. Participants were often testing flexibly according to circumstances and perceived risk of COVID-19 transmission.

CONCLUSIONS

While some choose not to test, others are doing so in order to provide peace of mind to engage in personal interactions they might otherwise have avoided. This peace of mind may be a necessary pre-requisite for some to more fully re-engage in pre-pandemic activities. Despite clear concerns about test accuracy among those not testing, those who are testing held generally positive attitudes towards the continued use of LFTs.

Rapid antigen testing as a reactive response to surges in nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 outbreak risk

Healthcare facilities are vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 introductions and subsequent nosocomial outbreaks. Antigen rapid diagnostic testing (Ag-RDT) is widely used for population screening, but its health and economic benefits as a reactive response to local surges in outbreak risk are unclear. We simulate SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a long-term care hospital with varying COVID-19 containment measures in place (social distancing, face masks, vaccination). Across scenarios, nosocomial incidence is reduced by up to 40-47% (range of means) with routine symptomatic RT-PCR testing, 59-63% with the addition of a timely round of Ag-RDT screening, and 69-75% with well-timed two-round screening. For the latter, a delay of 4-5 days between the two screening rounds is optimal for transmission prevention. Screening efficacy varies depending on test sensitivity, test type, subpopulations targeted, and community incidence. Efficiency, however, varies primarily depending on underlying outbreak risk, with health-economic benefits scaling by orders of magnitude depending on the COVID-19 containment measures in place.

Making progress: but a way to go-the age and ageing care-home collection

Care homes enable people with advanced physical and cognitive impairment to live well with 24-h support from staff. They are a feature of care systems in most countries. They have proved pivotal to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) response. We searched Age and Ageing for care-home articles published since 2015. From these we collated 42 into the Age and Ageing care-home collection. This collection draws together important papers that show how Age and Ageing is helping to shape and grow care-home research. The  collection outlines the technical issues that researchers face by grouping together important feasibility trials conducted in the sector. It looks at the challenges of measuring quality of life and working with routine data in care homes. It brings together observational studies considering loneliness, functional dependency, stroke outcomes, prescribing and acute deterioration. Health services research in care homes is represented by two studies that demonstrate realist evaluation as a way to make sense of service innovations. Papers are included that consider: non-pharmacological strategies for residents with dementia, end-of-life care, sexuality and intimacy and the care-home workforce. Given the importance of the COVID-19 pandemic in care homes, all of the care home COVID-19 papers published in Age and Ageing to date are included. Finally, a group of papers that present innovative approaches to research in care homes, each of which give voice to residents and/or staff, are collated and presented as a way of moving towards a more resident and care home centred research agenda.

Strategies to implement SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care testing into primary care settings: a qualitative secondary analysis guided by the Behaviour Change Wheel

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to develop a theory-driven understanding of the barriers and facilitators underpinning physicians' attitudes and capabilities to implementing SARS-CoV-2 point-of-care (POC) testing into primary care practices.

METHODS

We used a secondary qualitative analysis approach to re-analyse data from a qualitative, interview study of 22 primary care physicians from 21 primary care practices across three regions in England. We followed the three-step method based on the Behaviour Change Wheel to identify the barriers to implementing SARS-CoV-2 POC testing and identified strategies to address these challenges.

RESULTS

Several factors underpinned primary care physicians' attitudes and capabilities to implement SARS-CoV-2 POC testing into practice. First, limited knowledge of the SARS-CoV-2 POC testing landscape and a demanding workload affected physicians' willingness to use the tests. Second, there was scepticism about the insufficient evidence pertaining to the clinical efficacy and utility of POC tests, which affected physicians' confidence in the accuracy of tests. Third, physicians would adopt POC tests if they were prescribed and recommended by authorities. Fourth, physicians required professional education and training to increase their confidence in using POC tests but also suggested that healthcare assistants should administer the tests. Fifth, physicians expressed concerns about their limited workload capacity and that extra resources are needed to accommodate any anticipated changes. Sixth, information sharing across practices shaped perceptions of POC tests and the quality of information influenced physician perceptions. Seventh, financial incentives could motivate physicians and were also needed to cover the associated costs of testing. Eighth, physicians were worried that society will view primary care as an alternative to community testing centres, which would change perceptions around their professional identity. Ninth, physicians' perception of assurance/risk influenced their willingness to use POC testing if it could help identify infectious individuals, but they were also concerned about the risk of occupational exposure and potentially losing staff members who would need to self-isolate.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving primary care physicians' knowledgebase of SARS-CoV-2 POC tests, introducing policies to embed testing into practice, and providing resources to meet the anticipated demands of testing are critical to implementing testing into practice.

Agent-based simulations for protecting nursing homes with prevention and vaccination strategies

Due to its high lethality among older people, the safety of nursing homes has been of central importance during the COVID-19 pandemic. With test procedures and vaccines becoming available at scale, nursing homes might relax prohibitory measures while controlling the spread of infections. By control we mean that each index case infects less than one other person on average. Here, we develop an agent-based epidemiological model for the spread of SARS-CoV-2 calibrated to Austrian nursing homes to identify optimal prevention strategies. We find that the effectiveness of mitigation testing depends critically on test turnover time (time until test result), the detection threshold of tests and mitigation testing frequencies. Under realistic conditions and in absence of vaccinations, we find that mitigation testing of employees only might be sufficient to control outbreaks if tests have low turnover times and detection thresholds. If vaccines that are 60% effective against high viral load and transmission are available, control is achieved if 80% or more of the residents are vaccinated, even without mitigation testing and if residents are allowed to have visitors. Since these results strongly depend on vaccine efficacy against infection, retention of testing infrastructures, regular testing and sequencing of virus genomes is advised to enable early identification of new variants of concern.

Implementing lateral flow devices in long-term care facilities: experiences from the Liverpool COVID-19 community testing pilot in care homes- a qualitative study

Introduction

Antigen-based lateral flow devices (LFDs) offer the potential of widespread rapid testing. The scientific literature has primarily focused on mathematical modelling of their use and test performance characteristics. For these tests to be implemented successfully, an understanding of the real-world contextual factors that allow them to be integrated into the workplace is vital. To address this gap in knowledge, we aimed to explore staff’s experiences of integrating LFDs into routine practice for visitors and staff testing with a view to understand implementation facilitators and barriers.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis.

Results

We identified two main themes and five subthemes. The main themes included: visitor-related testing factors and staff-related testing factors. Subthemes included: restoring a sense of normality, visitor-related testing challenges, staff-related testing challenges, and pre-pilot antecedent factors.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates that the real-world implementation of LFDs to test visitors and staff faces significant challenges as a result of several contextual factors negatively affecting the work practice and environment. More comprehensive studies are needed to identify and inform effective implementation strategies to ensure that LFDs can be adopted in an agile way that better supports an already exhausted and morally depleted workforce.

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.