Have infection control and prevention measures resulted in any adverse outcomes for care home and domiciliary care residents and staff?

Abstract

Background / Aim of Rapid Review Care for older and vulnerable people must sustain core infection prevention and control (IPC) practices and remain vigilant for COVID-19 transmission to prevent virus spread and protect residents and healthcare professionals from severe infections, hospitalisations and death. However, these measures could potentially lead to adverse outcomes such as decreased mental wellbeing in patients and staff. A recent publication by Public Health England examines the effectiveness of IPC practices for reducing COVID-19 transmission in care homes (Duval et al., 2021). We explore evidence relating to adverse outcomes from IPC practices to help inform policy recommendations and identify gaps within the literature where further research can be prioritised. Key Findings Extent of the evidence base 15 studies were identified: 14 primary studies and one rapid review Recency of the evidence base Of the primary studies, six were published in 2020 and eight were published in 2021 The rapid review was published in 2021. Summary of findings This rapid review focuses on adverse outcomes resulting from increased IPC measures put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic. Whilst there is some evidence to show that there may be a link between IPC measures and adverse outcomes, causation cannot be assumed. During the COVID-19 restrictions, the cognition, mental wellbeing and behaviour of residents in care homes were negatively affected Increased IPC procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic increased stress and burden among care staff because of increased workload and dilemmas between adhering well to IPC procedures and providing the best care for the care recipients COVID-19 IPC procedures were not well developed at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, but evidence from 2021 suggests that good adherence to IPC measures can enable visitations by family members and medical professionals into care homes Only one study investigating domiciliary care was found. Therefore, it is difficult to make conclusions related specifically to this care setting No published studies have reported on the costs or cost-effectiveness of IPC measures or have explored the cost implications of adverse outcomes associated with IPC measures Best quality evidence Only one study was deemed as high quality based on the quality appraisal checklist ranking. This was a mixed methods study design (Tulloch et al., 2021). Policy Implications Since March 2020, there have been many changes to government guidelines relating to procedures to keep the population safe from COVID-19 harm. Policies vary according to country, even within the UK. Important issues such as care home visitation policies have changed in such a way that care home staff have felt it difficult to keep up with the changes, which in itself increased the burden on those staff. The following implications were identified from this work: IPC policies should be clear, concise and tailored to care homes and domiciliary care settings Increased attention to workforce planning is needed to ensure adequate staffing and to reduce individual burden Restrictions (e.g. visitation) for care home residents needs to be balanced by additional psychological support Further research with robust methods in this area is urgently needed especially in the domiciliary care setting Strength of Evidence One limitation is the lack of high-quality evidence from the included studies. Confidence in the strength of evidence about adverse outcomes of COVID-19 IPC procedures was rated as low overall. Whilst the majority of studies achieved a moderate score based on the quality appraisal tools used, due to the nature of the methods used, the overall quality of evidence is low.