首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 15 毫秒
1.
ObjectivesIn the first months of 2021, the Dutch COVID-19 vaccination campaign was disturbed by reports of death in Norwegian nursing homes (NHs) after vaccination. Reports predominantly concerned persons >65 years of age with 1 or more comorbidities. Also, in the Netherlands adverse events were reported after COVID-19 vaccination in this vulnerable group. Yet, it was unclear whether a causal link between vaccination and death existed. Therefore, we investigated the risk of death after COVID-19 vaccination in Dutch NH residents compared with the risk of death in NH residents prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignPopulation-based longitudinal cohort study with electronic health record data.Setting and ParticipantsWe studied Dutch NH residents from 73 NHs who received 1 or 2 COVID-19 vaccination(s) between January 13 and April 16, 2021 (n = 21,762). As a historical comparison group, we included Dutch NH residents who were registered in the same period in 2019 (n = 27,591).MethodsData on vaccination status, age, gender, type of care, comorbidities, and date of NH entry and (if applicable) discharge or date of death were extracted from electronic health records. Risk of death after 30 days was evaluated and compared between vaccinated residents and historical comparison residents with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. Regression analyses were adjusted for age, gender, comorbidities, and length of stay.ResultsRisk of death in NH residents after one COVID-19 vaccination (regardless of whether a second vaccination was given) was decreased compared with historical comparison residents from 2019 (adjusted HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.69-0.86). The risk of death further decreased after 2 vaccinations compared with the historical comparison group (adjusted HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.50-0.64).Conclusions and ImplicationsWe found no indication that risk of death in NH residents is increased after COVID-19 vaccination. These results indicate that COVID-19 vaccination in NH residents is safe and could reduce fear and resistance toward vaccination.  相似文献   

2.
ObjectiveTo measure the association between nursing home (NH) characteristics and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevalence among NH staff.DesignRetrospective cross-sectional study.Setting and ParticipantsCenters for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 database for US NHs between March and August 2020, linked to NH facility characteristics (LTCFocus database) and local COVID-19 prevalence (USA Facts).MethodsWe estimated the associations between NH characteristics, local infection rates, and other regional characteristics and COVID-19 cases among NH staff (nursing staff, clinical staff, aides, and other facility personnel) measured per 100 beds, controlling for the hospital referral regions in which NHs were located to account for local infection control practices and other unobserved characteristics.ResultsOf the 11,858 NHs in our sample, 78.6% reported at least 1 staff case of COVID-19. After accounting for local COVID-19 prevalence, NHs in the highest quartile of confirmed resident cases (413.5 to 920.0 cases per 1000 residents) reported 18.9 more staff cases per 100 beds compared with NHs that had no resident cases. Large NHs (150 or more beds) reported 2.6 fewer staff cases per 100 beds compared with small NHs (<50 beds) and for-profit NHs reported 0.8 fewer staff cases per 100 beds compared with nonprofit NHs. Higher occupancy and more direct-care hours per day were associated with more staff cases (0.4 more cases per 100 beds for a 10% increase in occupancy, and 0.7 more cases per 100 beds for an increase in direct-care staffing of 1 hour per resident day, respectively). Estimates associated with resident demographics, payer mix, or regional socioeconomic characteristics were not statistically significant.Conclusions and ImplicationsThese findings highlight the urgent need to support facilities with emergency resources such as back-up staff and protocols to reduce resident density within the facility, which may help stem outbreaks.  相似文献   

3.
ObjectivesIn December 2020, CDC launched the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program to facilitate COVID-19 vaccination of residents and staff in long-term care facilities (LTCFs), including assisted living (AL) and other residential care (RC) communities. We aimed to assess vaccine uptake in these communities and identify characteristics that might impact uptake.DesignCross-sectional study.Setting and ParticipantsAL/RC communities in the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program that had ≥1 on-site vaccination clinic during December 18, 2020–April 21, 2021.MethodsWe estimated uptake using the cumulative number of doses of COVID-19 vaccine administered and normalizing by the number of AL/RC community beds. We estimated the percentage of residents vaccinated in 3 states using AL census counts. We linked community vaccine administration data with county-level social vulnerability index (SVI) measures to calculate median vaccine uptake by SVI tertile.ResultsIn AL communities, a median of 67 residents [interquartile range (IQR): 48-90] and 32 staff members (IQR: 15-60) per 100 beds received a first dose of COVID-19 vaccine at the first on-site clinic; in RC, a median of 8 residents (IQR: 5-10) and 5 staff members (IQR: 2-12) per 10 beds received a first dose. Among 3 states with available AL resident census data, median resident first-dose uptake at the first clinic was 93% (IQR: 85-108) in Connecticut, 85% in Georgia (IQR: 70-102), and 78% (IQR: 56-91) in Tennessee. Among both residents and staff, cumulative first-dose vaccine uptake increased with increasing social vulnerability related to housing type and transportation.Conclusions and ImplicationsCOVID-19 vaccination of residents and staff in LTCFs is a public health priority. On-site clinics may help to increase vaccine uptake, particularly when transportation may be a barrier. Ensuring steady access to COVID-19 vaccine in LTCFs following the conclusion of the Pharmacy Partnership is critical to maintaining high vaccination coverage among residents and staff.  相似文献   

4.

Objective

We quantified transdermal fentanyl prescribing in elderly nursing home residents without prior opioid use or persistent pain, and the association of individual and facility traits with opioid-naïve prescribing.

Design

Cross-sectional study.

Setting

Linked Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments; Online Survey, Certification and Reporting (OSCAR) records; and Medicare Part D claims.

Participants

From a cross-section of all long-stay US nursing home residents in 2008 with an MDS assessment and Medicare Part D enrollment, we identified individuals (≥65 years old) who initiated transdermal fentanyl, excluding those with Alzheimer disease, severe cognitive impairment, cancer, or receipt of hospice care.

Measurements

We used Medicare Part D to select beneficiaries initiating transdermal fentanyl in 2008 and determined whether they were “opioid-naïve,” defined as no opioid dispensing during the previous 60 days. We obtained resident and facility characteristics from MDS and OSCAR records and defined persistent pain as moderate-to-severe, daily pain on consecutive MDS assessments at least 90 days apart. We estimated associations of patient and facility attributes and opioid-naïve fentanyl initiation using multilevel mixed effects logistic regression modeling.

Results

Among 17,052 residents initiating transdermal fentanyl, 6190 (36.3%) were opioid-naïve and 15,659 (91.8%) did not have persistent pain. In the regression analysis with adjustments, residents who were older (ages ≥95 odds ratio [OR] 1.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.46–1.95) or more cognitively impaired (moderate-to-severe cognitive impairment, OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.73–2.29) were more likely to initiate transdermal fentanyl without prior opioid use.

Conclusion

Most nursing home residents initiating transdermal fentanyl did not have persistent pain and many were opioid-naïve. Changes in prescribing practices may be necessary to ensure Food and Drug Administration warnings are followed, particularly for vulnerable subgroups, such as the cognitively impaired.  相似文献   

5.
ObjectivesTo compare rates of adverse events following Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination among nursing home residents with and without previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.DesignProspective cohort.Setting and ParticipantsA total of 20,918 nursing home residents who received the first dose of messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine from December 18, 2020, through February 14, 2021, in 284 facilities within Genesis Healthcare, a large nursing home provider spanning 24 US states.MethodsWe screened the electronic health record for adverse events, classified by the Brighton Collaboration, occurring within 15 days of a resident’s first COVID-19 vaccine dose. All events were confirmed by physician chart review. To obtain risk ratios, multilevel logistic regression model that accounted for clustering (variability) across nursing homes was implemented. To balance the probability of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (previous positive test or diagnosis by the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification) more than 20 days before vaccination, we used inverse probability weighting. To adjust for multiplicity of adverse events tested, we used a false discovery rate procedure.ResultsStatistically significant differences existed between those without (n = 13,163) and with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection [symptomatic (n = 5617) and asymptomatic (n = 2138)] for all baseline characteristics assessed. Only 1 adverse event was reported among those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (asymptomatic), venous thromboembolism [46.8 per 100,000 residents 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.3–264.5], which was not significantly different from the rate reported for those without previous infection (30.4 per 100,000 95% CI 11.8–78.1). Several other adverse events were observed for those with no previous infection, but were not statistically significantly higher than those reported with previous infection after adjustments for multiple comparisons.Conclusions and ImplicationsAlthough reactogenicity increases with preexisting immunity, we did not find that vaccination among those with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection resulted in higher rates of adverse events than those without previous infection. This study stresses the importance of monitoring novel vaccines for adverse events in this vulnerable population.  相似文献   

6.
ObjectivesTo inform future policies and disaster preparedness plans in the vulnerable nursing home setting, we need greater insight into the relationship between nursing homes’ (NHs’) quality and the spread and severity of COVID-19 in NH facilities. We therefore extend current evidence on the relationships between NH quality and resident COVID-19 infection rates and deaths, taking into account NH structural characteristics and community characteristics.DesignCross-sectional study.Setting and Participants15,390 Medicaid- and Medicare-certified NHs.MethodsWe obtained and merged the following data sets: (1) COVID-19 weekly data reported by each nursing home to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Healthcare Safety Network, (2) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Five Star Quality Rating System, (3) county-level COVID-19 case counts, (4) county-level population data, and (5) county-level sociodemographic data.ResultsAmong 1-star NHs, there were an average of 13.19 cases and 2.42 deaths per 1000 residents per week between May 25 and December 20, 2020. Among 5-star NHs, there were an average of 9.99 cases and 1.83 deaths per 1000 residents per week. The rate of confirmed cases of COVID-19 was 31% higher among 1-star NHs compared with 5-star NHs [model 1: incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23-1.39], and the rate of COVID-19 deaths was 30% higher (IRR 1.30, 95% CI 1.20, 1.41). These associations were only partially explained by differences in community spread of COVID-19, case mix, and the for-profit status and size of NHs.Conclusions and ImplicationsWe found that COVID-19 case and death rates were substantially higher among NHs with lower star ratings, suggesting that NHs with quality much below average are more susceptible to the spread of COVID-19. This relationship, particularly with regard to case rates, can be partially attributed to external factors: lower-rated NHs are often located in areas with greater COVID-19 community spread and serve more socioeconomically vulnerable residents than higher-rated NHs.  相似文献   

7.
ObjectivesEstimate incidence of and risks for SARS-CoV-2 infection among nursing home staff in the state of Georgia during the 2020-2021 Winter COVID-19 Surge in the United States.DesignSerial survey and serologic testing at 2 time points with 3-month interval exposure assessment.Setting and ParticipantsFourteen nursing homes in the state of Georgia; 203 contracted or employed staff members from those 14 participating nursing homes who were seronegative at the first time point and provided a serology specimen at second time point, at which time they reported no COVID-19 vaccination or only very recent vaccination (≤4 weeks).MethodsInterval infection was defined as seroconversion to antibody presence for both nucleocapsid protein and spike protein. We estimated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs by job type, using multivariable logistic regression, accounting for community-based risks including interval community incidence and interval change in resident infections per bed.ResultsAmong 203 eligible staff, 72 (35.5%) had evidence of interval infection. In multivariable analysis among unvaccinated staff, staff SARS-CoV-2 infection–induced seroconversion was significantly higher among nurses and certified nursing assistants accounting for race and interval infection incidence in both the community and facility (aOR 5.3, 95% CI 1.0-28.4). This risk persisted but was attenuated when using the full study cohort including those with very recent vaccination.Conclusions and ImplicationsMidway through the first year of the pandemic, job type continues to be associated with increased risk for infection despite enhanced infection prevention efforts including routine screening of staff. These results suggest that mitigation strategies prior to vaccination did not eliminate occupational risk for infection and emphasize critical need to maximize vaccine utilization to eliminate excess risk among front-line providers.  相似文献   

8.
ObjectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic presents an urgent need to investigate whether existing drugs can enhance or even worsen prognosis; metformin, a known mammalian target of rapamycin (m-TOR) inhibitor, has been identified as a potential agent. We sought to evaluate mortality benefit among older persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 who were taking metformin as compared to those who were not.DesignRetrospective cohort study.Setting and Participants775 nursing home residents infected with SARS-CoV-2 who resided in one of the 134 Community Living Centers (CLCs) of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) during March 1, 2020, to May 13, 2020, were included.MethodsUsing a window of 14 days prior to SARS-CoV-2 testing, bar-coded medication administration records were examined for dispensing of medications for diabetes. The COVID-19–infected residents were divided into 4 groups: (1) residents administered metformin alone or in combination with other medications, (2) residents who used long-acting or daily insulin, (3) residents administered other diabetes medications, and (4) residents not administered diabetes medication, including individuals without diabetes and patients with untreated diabetes. Proportional hazard models adjusted for demographics, hemoglobin A1c, body mass index, and renal function.ResultsRelative to those not receiving diabetes medications, residents taking metformin were at significantly reduced hazard of death [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28, 0.84] over the subsequent 30 days from COVID-19 diagnosis. There was no association with insulin (adjusted HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.60, 1.64) or other diabetes medications (adjusted HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38, 1.32).Conclusions and ImplicationsOur data suggest a reduction in 30-day mortality following SARS-CoV-2 infection in residents who were on metformin-containing diabetes regimens. These findings suggest a relative survival benefit in nursing home residents on metformin, potentially through its mTOR inhibition effects. A prospective study should investigate the therapeutic benefits of metformin among persons with COVID-19.  相似文献   

9.
《Vaccine》2023,41(10):1716-1725
BackgroundPopulation-based COVID-19 vaccine coverage estimates among pregnant individuals are limited. We assessed temporal patterns in vaccine coverage (≥1 dose before or during pregnancy) and evaluated factors associated with vaccine series initiation (receiving dose 1 during pregnancy) in Ontario, Canada.MethodsWe linked the provincial birth registry with COVID-19 vaccination records from December 14, 2020 to December 31, 2021 and assessed coverage rates among all pregnant individuals by month, age, and neighborhood sociodemographic characteristics. Among individuals who gave birth since April 2021—when pregnant people were prioritized for vaccination—we assessed associations between sociodemographic, behavioral, and pregnancy-related factors with vaccine series initiation using multivariable regression to estimate adjusted risk ratios (aRR) and risk differences (aRD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsAmong 221,190 pregnant individuals, vaccine coverage increased to 71.2% by December 2021. Gaps in coverage across categories of age and sociodemographic characteristics decreased over time, but did not disappear. Lower vaccine series initiation was associated with lower age (<25 vs. 30–34 years: aRR 0.53, 95%CI 0.51–0.56), smoking (vs. non-smoking: 0.64, 0.61–0.67), no first trimester prenatal care visit (vs. visit: 0.80, 0.77–0.84), and residing in neighborhoods with the lowest income (vs. highest: 0.69, 0.67–0.71). Vaccine series initiation was marginally higher among individuals with pre-existing medical conditions (vs. no conditions: 1.07, 1.04–1.10).ConclusionsCOVID-19 vaccine coverage among pregnant individuals remained lower than in the general population, and there was lower vaccine initiation by multiple characteristics.  相似文献   

10.
ObjectivesQuality of life (QoL) of nursing home (NH) residents is critical, yet understudied, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our objective was to examine whether COVID-19 outbreaks, lack of access to geriatric professionals, and care aide burnout were associated with NH residents' QoL.DesignCross-sectional study (July to December 2021).Setting and ParticipantsWe purposefully selected 9 NHs in Alberta, Canada, based on their COVID-19 exposure (no or minor/short outbreaks vs repeated or extensive outbreaks). We included data for 689 residents from 18 care units.MethodsWe used the DEMQOL-CH to assess resident QoL through video-based care aide interviews. Independent variables included a COVID-19 outbreak in the NH in the past 2 weeks (health authority records), care unit-levels of care aide burnout (9-item short-form Maslach Burnout Inventory), and resident access to geriatric professionals (validated facility survey). We ran mixed-effects regression models, adjusted for facility and care unit (validated surveys), and resident covariates (Resident Assessment Instrument–Minimum Data Set 2.0).ResultsRecent COVID-19 outbreaks (β = 0.189; 95% CI: 0.058–0.320), higher proportions of emotionally exhausted care aides on a care unit (β = 0.681; 95% CI: 0.246–1.115), and lack of access to geriatric professionals (β = 0.216; 95% CI: 0.003–0.428) were significantly associated with poorer resident QoL.Conclusions and ImplicationsPolicies aimed at reducing infection outbreaks, better supporting staff, and increasing access to specialist providers may help to mitigate how COVID-19 has negatively affected NH resident QoL.  相似文献   

11.
ObjectivesThe present study sought to examine mental health problems among nursing home workers in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, to investigate COVID-19–related fears, and to identify prepandemic factors associated with current mental health issues.DesignA cross-sectional, online survey was used.Setting and ParticipantsAll employees among 6 nursing homes in southwestern France (N = 455) were solicited between November, 2020 and June, 2021.MethodsThe survey instrument was developed within the World Mental Health consortium to screen for COVID-related fears, probable generalized anxiety, panic attacks, depression, posttraumatic stress and substance use disorders in the past 30 days.ResultsThe survey was completed by 127 workers (89.0% female, mean age = 43.42 years, SD = 11.29), yielding a 28.5% response rate. Overall, 48.03% reported experiencing fear of infecting others at least most of the time. One in 8 (14.96%) indicated that close others feared being infected by them. One-third of the sample (34.65%) met criteria for at least 1 probable current mental disorder. Panic attacks (22.05%) were the most frequently reported mental health problem, followed by depression (16.54%). In multivariate analyses, the only factor associated with having a current probable mental disorder was the presence of any prepandemic mental health problem (adjusted odds ratio 4.76, 95% CI 2.08-10.89). Type of employment contract, full-time status, and medical vs nonmedical staff status were not significantly associated with mental health status.Conclusions and ImplicationsThe study reveals that one-third of nursing home workers in the sample report current probable mental disorders, and these were largely associated with prepandemic mental health status. Screening for common mental health problems and facilitating access to appropriate care should be prioritized in nursing homes.  相似文献   

12.
13.
ObjectiveTo evaluate changes in mental health and well-being (eg, quality of work life, health, intention to leave) among nursing home managers from a February 2020 prepandemic baseline to December 2021 in Alberta, Canada.DesignRepeated cross-sectional survey.Setting and ParticipantsA random sample of nursing homes (n = 35) in urban areas of Alberta was selected on 3 strata (region, size, ownership). Care managers were invited to participate if they (1) managed a unit, (2) worked there for at least 3 months, and (3) worked at least 6 shifts per month.MethodsWe measured various mental health and well-being outcomes, including job satisfaction (Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire Job Satisfaction Subscale), burnout (Maslach Burnout Inventory—exhaustion, cynicism, efficacy), organizational citizenship behaviors (constructive efforts by individuals to implement changes to improve performance), mental and physical health (Short Form–8 Health Survey), burden of worry, and intention to leave. We use mixed effects regression to examine changes at the survey time points, controlling for staffing and resident acuity.ResultsThe final sample included 181 care managers (87 in the pre-COVID survey; 94 in the COVID survey). Response rates were 66.9% and 82.5% for the pre-COVID and COVID surveys, respectively. In the regression analysis, we found statistically significant negative changes in job satisfaction (mean difference ?0.26, 95% CI –0.47 to ?0.06; P = .011), cynicism (mean difference 0.43, 95% CI 0.02-0.84; P = .041), exhaustion (mean difference 0.84, 95% CI 0.41-1.27; P < .001), and SF-8 mental health (mean difference ?6.49, 95% CI –9.60 to ?3.39; P < .001).Conclusions and ImplicationsMental health and well-being of nursing home managers worsened during the pandemic, potentially placing them at risk for leaving their jobs and in need of improved support. These findings should be a major concern for policy makers, particularly given serious prepandemic workforce shortages. Ongoing assessment and support of this understudied group are needed.  相似文献   

14.
ObjectivesOlder nursing home residents make up the population at greatest risk of morbidity and mortality from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. No studies have examined the determinants of long-term antibody responses post vaccination in this group.DesignLongitudinal cohort study.Setting and ParticipantsResidents from 5 nursing homes assessed before vaccination, and 5 weeks and 6 months post vaccination, with the BNT162b2 messenger RNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.MethodsComprehensive clinical assessment was performed, including assessment for comorbidity, frailty, and SARS-CoV-2 infection history. Serum nucleocapsid and anti-spike receptor binding domain (RBD) antibodies were analyzed at all timepoints. An in vitro angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE2) receptor-spike RBD neutralization assay assessed serum neutralization capacity.ResultsOf 86 participants (81.1 ± 10.8 years; 65% female), just under half (45.4%; 39 of 86) had evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. All participants demonstrated a significant antibody response to vaccination at 5 weeks and a significant decline in this response by 6 months. SARS-CoV-2 infection history was the strongest predictor of antibody titer (log-transformed) at both 5 weeks [β: 3.00; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.32–3.70; P < .001] and 6 months (β: 3.59; 95% CI: 2.89–4.28; P < .001). Independent of SARS-CoV-2 infection history, both age in years (β: ?0.05; 95% CI: ?0.08 to ?0.02; P < .001) and frailty (β: ?0.22; 95% CI: ?0.33 to ?0.11; P < .001) were associated with a significantly lower antibody titer at 6 months. Anti-spike antibody titers at both 5 weeks and 6 months significantly correlated with in vitro neutralization capacity.Conclusions and ImplicationsIn older nursing home residents, SARS-CoV-2 infection history was the strongest predictor of anti-spike antibody titers at 6 months, whereas age and frailty were independently associated with lower titers at 6 months. Antibody titers significantly correlated with in vitro neutralization capacity. Although older SARS-CoV-2 naïve nursing home residents may be particularly vulnerable to breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection, the relationship between antibody titers, SARS-CoV-2 infection, and clinical outcomes remains to be fully elucidated in this vulnerable population.  相似文献   

15.
ObjectiveTo describe the experience of COVID-19 disease among chronically ventilated and nonventilated nursing home patients living in 3 separate nursing homes.DesignObservational study of death, respiratory illness and COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results among residents and staff during nursing home outbreaks in 2020.Setting and Participants93 chronically ventilated nursing home patients and 1151 nonventilated patients living among 3 separate nursing homes on Long Island, New York, as of March 15, 2020. Illness, PCR results, and antibody studies among staff are also reported.MeasurementsData were collected on death rate among chronically ventilated and nonventilated patients between March 15 and May 15, 2020, compared to the same time in 2019; prevalence of PCR positivity among ventilated and nonventilated patients in 2020; reported illness, PCR positivity, and antibody among staff.ResultsTotal numbers of deaths among chronically ventilated nursing home patients during this time frame were similar to the analogous period 1 year earlier (9 of 93 in 2020 vs 8 of 100 in 2019, P = .8), whereas deaths among nonventilated patients were greatly increased (214 of 1151 in 2020 vs 55 of 1189 in 2019, P < .001). No ventilated patient deaths were clinically judged to be COVID-19 related. No clusters of COVID-19 illness could be demonstrated among ventilated patients. Surveillance PCR testing of ventilator patients failed to reveal COVID-19 positivity (none of 84 ventilator patients vs 81 of 971 nonventilator patients, P < .002). Illness and evidence of COVID-19 infection was demonstrated among staff working both in nonventilator and in ventilator units.Conclusions and ImplicationsCOVID-19 infection resulted in illness and death among nonventilated nursing home residents as well as among staff. This was not observed among chronically ventilated patients. The mechanics of chronic ventilation appears to protect chronically ventilated patients from COVID-19 disease.  相似文献   

16.
《Vaccine》2023,41(3):750-755
IntroductionPublic health department (PHD) led COVID-19 vaccination clinics can be a critical component of pandemic response as they facilitate high volume of vaccination. However, few patient-time analyses examining patient throughput at mass vaccination clinics with unique COVID-19 vaccination challenges have been published.MethodsDuring April and May of 2021, 521 patients in 23 COVID-19 vaccination sites counties of 6 states were followed to measure the time spent from entry to vaccination. The total time was summarized and tabulated by clinic characteristics. A multivariate linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the association between vaccination clinic settings and patient waiting times in the clinic.ResultsThe average time a patient spent in the clinic from entry to vaccination was 9 min 5 s (range: 02:00–23:39). Longer patient flow times were observed in clinics with higher numbers of doses administered, 6 or fewer vaccinators, walk-in patients accepted, dedicated services for people with disabilities, and drive-through clinics. The multivariate linear regression showed that longer patient waiting times were significantly associated with the number of vaccine doses administered, dedicated services for people with disabilities, the availability of more than one brand of vaccine, and rurality.ConclusionsGiven the standardized procedures outlined by immunization guidelines, reducing the wait time is critical in lowering the patient flow time by relieving the bottleneck effect in the clinic. Our study suggests enhancing the efficiency of PHD-led vaccination clinics by preparing vaccinators to provide vaccines with proper and timely support such as training or delivering necessary supplies and paperwork to the vaccinators. In addition, patient wait time can be spent answering questions about vaccination or reviewing educational materials on other public health services.  相似文献   

17.
ObjectivesTo examine the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and opioid use among nursing home residents followed up to March 2021, and possible variation by dementia and frailty status.DesignPopulation-based cohort study with an interrupted time series analysis.Setting and ParticipantsLinked health administrative databases for residents of all nursing homes (n = 630) in Ontario, Canada were examined. Residents were divided into consecutive weekly cohorts (first observation week was March 5 to 11, 2017 and last was March 21 to March 27, 2021).MethodsThe weekly proportion of residents dispensed an opioid was examined overall and by strata defined by the presence of dementia and frailty. Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average models with step and ramp intervention functions tested for immediate level and slope changes in weekly opioid use after the onset of the pandemic (March 1, 2020) and were fit on prepandemic data for projected trends.ResultsThe average weekly cohort ranged from 76,834 residents (prepandemic) to 69,359 (pandemic period), with a consistent distribution by sex (69% female) and age (54% age 85 + years). There was a statistically significant increased slope change in the weekly proportion of residents dispensed opioids (parameter estimate (β) = 0.035; standard error (SE) = 0.005, P < .001). Although significant for all 4 strata, the increased slope change was more pronounced among nonfrail residents (β = 0.038; SE = 0.008, P < .001) and those without dementia (β = 0.044; SE = 0.008, P < .001). The absolute difference in observed vs predicted opioid use in the last week of the pandemic period ranged from 1.25% (frail residents) to 2.28% (residents without dementia).Conclusions and ImplicationsAmong Ontario nursing home residents, there was a statistically significant increase in opioid dispensations following the onset of the pandemic that persisted up to 1 year later. Investigations of the reasons for increased use, potential for long-term use and associated health consequences for residents are warranted.  相似文献   

18.
Vaccines are critical to protect both nursing home residents and staff from COVID-19, but some staff have expressed reservations about being vaccinated. In this brief report, we describe interventions that Genesis HealthCare—one of the largest US long-term care providers—implemented after recognizing midway through vaccinations that racial and ethnic disparities existed in vaccine uptake among employees, with black and Hispanic employees having significantly lower rates of vaccination than their peers. Specifically, Genesis engaged its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Committee to identify ways to augment its already comprehensive vaccine education campaign in order to build confidence among employees from minority communities. Interventions implemented beginning in late January 2021 included adding DEI representatives to information sessions to facilitate culturally sensitive discussions; holding information sessions at all times of day and night, and inviting employees’ family members to join; increasing availability of multilingual educational materials; and featuring DEI representatives in social media campaigns. Between the end of January and beginning of March 2021, we observed statistically significant improvements in the likelihood of black and Hispanic employees being vaccinated relative to white employees, calculated as the relative risk of vaccination, suggesting a reduction in vaccination disparity. Whether these trends are directly related to the organization’s efforts, or rather reflect individuals needing longer to become comfortable with the vaccines, is difficult to discern in the absence of a formal pragmatic trial. Still, these findings support the continuation of targeted educational and engagement efforts to improve vaccine uptake among staff, and the critical need to ensure that nursing homes have ongoing access to vaccine supply to continue their vaccination programs.  相似文献   

19.
ObjectiveThe Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is an unprecedented challenge for nursing homes, where staff have faced rapidly evolving circumstances to care for a vulnerable resident population. Our objective was to document the experiences of these front-line health care professionals during the pandemic.DesignElectronic survey of long-term care staff. This report summarizes qualitative data from open-ended questions for the subset of respondents working in nursing homes.Setting and ParticipantsA total of 152 nursing home staff from 32 states, including direct-care staff and administrators.MethodsFrom May 11 through June 4, 2020, we used social media and professional networks to disseminate an electronic survey with closed- and open-ended questions to a convenience sample of long-term care staff. Four investigators identified themes from qualitative responses for staff working in nursing homes.ResultsRespondents described ongoing constraints on testing and continued reliance on crisis standards for extended use and reuse of personal protective equipment. Administrators discussed the burden of tracking and implementing sometimes confusing or contradictory guidance from numerous agencies. Direct-care staff expressed fears of infecting themselves and their families, and expressed sincere empathy and concern for their residents. They described experiencing burnout due to increased workloads, staffing shortages, and the emotional burden of caring for residents facing significant isolation, illness, and death. Respondents cited the presence or lack of organizational communication and teamwork as important factors influencing their ability to work under challenging circumstances. They also described the demoralizing impact of negative media coverage of nursing homes, contrasting this with the heroic public recognition given to hospital staff.Conclusions and ImplicationsNursing home staff described working under complex and stressful circumstances during the COVID-19 pandemic. These challenges have added significant burden to an already strained and vulnerable workforce and are likely to contribute to increased burnout, turnover, and staff shortages in the long term.  相似文献   

20.
ObjectivesImproving indoor air quality is one potential strategy to reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in any setting, including nursing homes, where staff and residents have been disproportionately and negatively affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignSingle group interrupted time series.Setting and ParticipantsA total of 81 nursing homes in a multifacility corporation in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina that installed ultraviolet air purification in their existing heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems between July 27, 2020,k and September 10, 2020.MethodsWe linked data on the date ultraviolet air purification systems were installed with the Nursing Home COVID-19 Public Health File (weekly data reported by nursing homes on the number of residents with COVID-19 and COVID-19 deaths), public data on data on nursing home characteristics, county-level COVID-19 cases/deaths, and outside air temperature. We used an interrupted time series design and ordinary least squares regression to compare trends in weekly COVID-19 cases and deaths before and after installation of ultraviolet air purification systems. We controlled for county-level COVID-19 cases, death, and heat index.ResultsCompared with pre-installation, weekly COVID-19 cases per 1000 residents (−1.69; 95% CI, −4.32 to 0.95) and the weekly probability of reporting any COVID-19 case (−0.02; 95% CI, −0.04 to 0.00) declined in the post-installation period. We did not find any difference pre- and post-installation in COVID-19–related mortality (0.00; 95% CI, −0.01 to 0.02).Conclusions and ImplicationsOur findings from this small number of nursing homes in the southern United States demonstrate the potential benefits of air purification in nursing homes on COVID-19 outcomes. Intervening on air quality may have a wide impact without placing significant burden on individuals to modify their behavior. We recommend a stronger, experimental design to estimate the causal effect of installing air purification devices on improving COVID-19 outcomes in nursing homes.  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号