Background: Care homes are experiencing large outbreaks of COVID-19 associated with high case-fatality rates. We conducted detailed investigations in six London care homes reporting suspected COVID-19 outbreaks during April 2020. Methods: Residents and staff had nasal swabs for SARS CoV-2 testing using RT-PCR and were followed-up for 14 days. They were categorized as symptomatic, post-symptomatic or pre-symptomatic if they had symptoms at the time of testing, in the two weeks before or two weeks after testing, respectively, or asymptomatic throughout. Virus isolation and whole genome sequencing (WGS) was also performed. Findings: Across the six care homes, 105/264 (39.8%) residents were SARS CoV-2 positive, including 28 (26.7%) symptomatic, 10 (9.5%) post-symptomatic, 21 (20.0%) pre-symptomatic and 46 (43.8%) who remained asymptomatic. Case-fatality at 14-day follow-up was highest among symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 positive residents (10/28, 35.7%) compared to asymptomatic (2/46, 4.3%), post-symptomatic (2/10, 20.0%) or pre-symptomatic (3/21,14.3%) residents. Among staff, 53/254 (20.9%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive and 26/53 (49.1%) remained asymptomatic. RT-PCR cycle-thresholds and live-virus recovery were similar between symptomatic/asymptomatic residents/staff. Higher RT-PCR cycle threshold values (lower virus load) samples were associated with exponentially decreasing ability to recover infectious virus (P<0.001). WGS identified multiple (up to 9) separate introductions of different SARS-CoV-2 strains into individual care homes. Interpretation: A high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 positivity was found in care homes residents and staff, half of whom were asymptomatic and potential reservoirs for ongoing transmission. A third of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 residents died within 14 days. Symptom-based screening alone is not sufficient for outbreak control.

Background: Care homes have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and continue to suffer lar ge outbreaks even when community infection rates are declining, thus representing important pockets of transmission. We assessed occupational risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection among staff in six care homes experiencing a COVID-19 outbreak during the peak of the pandemic in London, England. Methods: Care home staff were tested for SARS-COV-2 infection by RT-PCR and asked to report any symptoms, their contact with residents and if they worked in different care homes. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) was performed on RT-PCR positive samples. Results: In total, 53 (21%) of 254 staff were SARS-CoV-2 positive but only 12/53 (23%) were symptomatic. Among staff working in a single care home, SARS-CoV-2 positivity was 15% (2/13), 16% (7/45) and 18% (30/169) in those reporting no, occasional and regular contact with residents. In contrast, staff working across different care homes (14/27, 52%) had a 3.0-fold (95% CI, 1.9-4.8; P < 0.001) higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 positivity than staff working in single care homes (39/227, 17%). WGS identified SARS-CoV-2 clusters involving staff only, including some that included staff working across different care homes. Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 positivity was significantly higher among staff working across different care homes than those who were working in the same care home. We found local clusters of SARS-CoV-2 infection between staff only, including those with minimal resident contact. Infection control should be extended for all contact, including those between staff, whilst on care home premises.

Background: We investigated six London care homes experiencing a COVID-19 outbreak and found high rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection among residents and staff. Here we report follow-up investigations including antibody testing in the same care homes five weeks later. Methods: Residents and staff in the initial investigation had a repeat nasal swab for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and a blood test for SARS CoV-2 antibodies using ELISA based on SARS-CoV-2 native viral antigens derived from infected cells and virus neutralisation. Findings: Of the 518 residents and staff in the initial investigation, 186/241 (77.2%) surviving residents and 208/ 254 (81.9%) staff underwent serological testing. Almost all SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive residents and staff were seropositive five weeks later, whether symptomatic (residents 35/35, 100%; staff, 22/22, 100%) or asymptomatic (residents 32/33, 97.0%; staff 21/22, 95.5%). Symptomatic but SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negative residents and staff also had high seropositivity rates (residents 23/27, 85.2%; staff 18/21, 85.7%), as did asymptomatic RT-PCR negative individuals (residents 61/91, 67.0%; staff 95/143, 66.4%). Neutralising antibody was detected in 118/ 132 (89.4%) seropositive individuals and was not associated with age or symptoms. Ten residents (10/79 retested, 12.7%) remained RT-PCR positive but with higher RT-PCR cycle threshold values; 7/10 had serological testing and all were seropositive. New infections were detected in three residents and one staff. Interpretation: RT-PCR provides a point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection but significantly underestimates total exposure in outbreak settings. In care homes experiencing large COVID-19 outbreaks, most residents and staff had neutralising SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, which was not associated with age or symptoms.

Background: We investigated six London care homes experiencing a COVID-19 outbreak and found high rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection among residents and staff. Here we report follow-up investigations including antibody testing in the same care homes five weeks later. Methods: Residents and staff in the initial investigation had a repeat nasal swab for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and a blood test for SARS CoV-2 antibodies using ELISA based on SARS-CoV-2 native viral antigens derived from infected cells and virus neutralisation. Findings: Of the 518 residents and staff in the initial investigation, 186/241 (77.2%) surviving residents and 208/ 254 (81.9%) staff underwent serological testing. Almost all SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive residents and staff were seropositive five weeks later, whether symptomatic (residents 35/35, 100%; staff, 22/22, 100%) or asymptomatic (residents 32/33, 97.0%; staff 21/22, 95.5%). Symptomatic but SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negative residents and staff also had high seropositivity rates (residents 23/27, 85.2%; staff 18/21, 85.7%), as did asymptomatic RT-PCR negative individuals (residents 61/91, 67.0%; staff 95/143, 66.4%). Neutralising antibody was detected in 118/ 132 (89.4%) seropositive individuals and was not associated with age or symptoms. Ten residents (10/79 retested, 12.7%) remained RT-PCR positive but with higher RT-PCR cycle threshold values; 7/10 had serological testing and all were seropositive. New infections were detected in three residents and one staff. Interpretation: RT-PCR provides a point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection but significantly underestimates total exposure in outbreak settings. In care homes experiencing large COVID-19 outbreaks, most residents and staff had neutralising SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, which was not associated with age or symptoms.

No abstract

The purpose of the study was to develop organization-based core performance measures (CPMs) for breast cancer patients treated in hospitals that participated in cancer quality improvement programmes in Taiwan. CPMs were developed in three stages that included a preparation, a consensus building stage, and two stages of stakeholder feedback. Three criteria and seven subcriteria were applied in the development process. Indicators listed in a Delphi questionnaire were based on a literature search, indicators developed by relevant institutions and discussion by authors. Each indicator needed to meet inclusion criteria as a final indicator. Evidence-based guidelines, expert opinions from panel group, 27 hospitals and empirical data were all applied to develop and revise the core measures. Fifteen out of 28 indicators were selected and modified after the three stages. There were two pre-treatment indicators for screening and diagnosis, nine treatment-related indicators, and four monitoring-related indicators. Six indicators were supported by evidence level I, and four indicators by level II evidence. The CPMs for breast cancer can be developed systematically and be applied for internal quality improvement and external surveillance. Our experience can be extended to other cancer sites and adapted to link with pay for performance or certification program in cancer care.

Purpose Using patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care may improve health outcomes. However, a lack of information about which scores are problematic in specific populations can impede use. To facilitate interpretation of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), we identified cut-off scores that indicate need for support by comparing each scale to relevant items from the Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS-LF59) in a young adult (YA) population. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey amongst YAs with cancer ages 25–39 at diagnosis. Participants completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and SCNS-LF59. Patient, clinician and research experts matched supportive care needs from the SCNS-LF59 to quality of life domains of the EORTC QLQ-C30. We evaluated the EORTC QLQ-C30 domain score’s ability to detect patients with need using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis, calculating the area under the ROC curve and sensitivity and specificity for selected cut-offs. Cut-offs were chosen by maximising Youden’s J statistic and ensuring sensitivity passed 0.70. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the variability of the cut-off scores by treatment status. Results Three hundred and forty-seven YAs took part in the survey. Six experts matched SCNS-LF59 items to ten EORTC QLQ-C30 domains. The AUC ranged from 0.78 to 0.87. Cut-offs selected ranged from 8 (Nausea and Vomiting and Pain) to 97 (Physical Functioning). All had adequate sensitivity (above 0.70) except the Financial Difficulties scale (0.64). Specificity ranged from 0.61 to 0.88. Four of the cut-off scores differed by treatment status. Conclusion Cut-offs with adequate sensitivity were calculated for nine EORTC QLQ-C30 scales for use with YAs with cancer. Cut-offs are key to interpretability and use of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in routine care to identify patients with supportive care need.

Aims: Adolescents and young adults aged 15e39 years with cancer face unique medical, practical and psychosocial issues. In the UK, principal treatment centres and programmes have been designed to care for teenage and young adult patients aged 13e24 years in an age-appropriate manner. However, for young adults (YAs) aged 25e39 years with cancer, little access to age-specific support is available. The aim of this study was to examine this possible gap by qualitatively exploring YA care experiences, involving patients as research partners in the analysis to ensure robust results. Materials and methods: We conducted a phenomenological qualitative study with YAs diagnosed with any cancer type between ages 25 and 39 years old in the last 5 years. Participants took part in interviews or focus groups and data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results were shaped in an iterative process with the initial coders and four YA patients who did not participate in the study to improve the rigor of the results. Results: Sixty-five YAs with a range of tumour types participated. We identified seven themes and 13 subthemes. YAs found navigating the healthcare system difficult and commonly experienced prolonged diagnostic pathways. Participants felt under-informed about clinical details and the long-term implications of side-effects on daily life. YAs found online resources overwhelming but also a source of information and treatment support. Some patients regretted not discussing fertility before cancer treatment or felt uninformed or rushed when making fertility preservation decisions. A lack of age-tailored content or agespecific groups deterred YAs from accessing psychological support and rehabilitation services. Conclusions: YAs with cancer may miss some benefits provided to teenagers and young adults in age-tailored cancer services. Improving services for YAs in adult settings should focus on provision of age-specific information and access to existing relevant support.