Confinement of staff with residents in nursing homes: a solution against COVID-19?

Belmin, Joël; Din, Nathavy Um; Pariel, Sylvie; Lafuente-Lafuente, Carmelo

doi:10.1684/pnv.2020.0885

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As shown in Table 1 , entry regulation measures (ERM) were assessed in one study [ 36 ], contact-regulating measures (CRM) in three [ 39 , 42 , 49 ] and transmission-reduction measures (TRM) in six [ 43 , 45 , 46 , 48 , 49 , 54 ]. Five studies assessed screening and surveillance measures (SSM) [ 35 , 41 , 50 , 55 , 56 ] and two studies outbreak control measures (OCM) [ 45 , 48 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Arnold,

Bimczok,

Schütt

et al. 2024

BMC Infect Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Arnold,

Bimczok,

Schütt

et al. 2024

BMC Infect Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The psychology domain can be further categorized into 26 sub-categories, where 905 articles have been published in the multidisciplinary aspect of the subject, followed by social issues aspects, and clinical biomedical aspects. Here, studies related to the psychology of health care workers during the pandemic and the impact of massive work pressure and innumerable deaths have been studied (Belmin et al, 2020 ; Busch et al, 2021 ; Crittenden et al, 2021 ; Peng et al, 2021 ). Apart from that, studies related to combating depressive symptoms and suicidal thoughts (Carvalho et al, 2021 ; Knowles et al, 2021 ), pandemic anxiety (Robinson et al, 2021 ), and loneliness (Landmann & Rohmann, 2021 ) in different age groups and personalities have been studied.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping the research landscape of Covid-19 from social sciences perspective: a bibliometric analysis

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

COVID-19 has emerged as a widely researched topic and the academia has taken interest in the effects of COVID-19 in various sectors of human life and society. Most of the bibliometric research addresses scientific contributions in medicine, health, and virology related topics, with very little emphasis on social sciences. Therefore, to address this gap, a bibliometric analysis of research related to COVID-19 in the subject area of social sciences was performed on selected publications from January 2020 to mid-2021. A total of 9289 articles were analysed to identify major emerging themes of Covid-19 and social sciences and how research collaborations between countries have helped in communicating critical issues to academia. The empirical results indicate the dominance of psychology and business economics subjects in the social sciences sphere, with the emerging themes as psychosocial problems among people, economics, the outbreak of SARS, and discussions on the quality of life in terms of surroundings and environment. The study also suggests that more collaborations between social scientists working in different nations is required to explore the less focussed themes addressing the local challenges of poor nations.

show abstract

“…Lately, articles focused only on the impact of vaccination on transmission among staff and residents 16 17. The little qualitative research conducted during the first wave was rarely able to conduct in-person interviews,12 18–24 but found that lockdowns had a significant and deleterious impact on residents, staff well-being and staff turnover 20 21…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID-19 in French nursing homes during the second pandemic wave: a mixed-methods cross-sectional study

Dujmovic¹,

Roederer²,

Frison³

et al. 2022

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionFrench nursing homes were deeply affected by the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, with 38% of all residents infected and 5% dying. Yet, little was done to prepare these facilities for the second pandemic wave, and subsequent outbreak response strategies largely duplicated what had been done in the spring of 2020, regardless of the unique needs of the care home environment.MethodsA cross-sectional, mixed-methods study using a retrospective, quantitative data from residents of 14 nursing homes between November 2020 and mid-January 2021. Four facilities were purposively selected as qualitative study sites for additional in-person, in-depth interviews in January and February 2021.ResultsThe average attack rate in the 14 participating nursing facilities was 39% among staff and 61% among residents. One-fifth (20) of infected residents ultimately died from COVID-19 and its complications. Failure to thrive syndrome (FTTS) was diagnosed in 23% of COVID-19-positive residents. Those at highest risk of death were men (HR=1.78; 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.70; p=0.006), with FTTS (HR=4.04; 95% CI: 1.93 to 8.48; p<0.001) or in facilities with delayed implementation of universal FFP2 masking policies (HR=1.05; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.07; p<0.001). The lowest mortality was found in residents of facilities with a partial (HR=0.30; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.51; p<0.001) or full-time physician on staff (HR=0.20; 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.53; p=0.001). Significant themes emerging from qualitative analysis centred on (1) the structural, chronic neglect of nursing homes, (2) the negative effects of the top-down, bureaucratic nature of COVID-19 crisis response, and (3) the counterproductive effects of lockdowns on both residents and staff.ConclusionDespite high resident mortality during the first pandemic wave, French nursing homes were ill-prepared for the second, with risk factors (especially staffing, lack of medical support, isolation/quarantine policy, etc) that affected case fatality and residents’ and caregivers’ overall well-being and mental health.

show abstract

Confinement of staff with residents in nursing homes: a solution against COVID-19?

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

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

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

Mapping the research landscape of Covid-19 from social sciences perspective: a bibliometric analysis

COVID-19 in French nursing homes during the second pandemic wave: a mixed-methods cross-sectional study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About