Care Homes In London Research Articles

Indoor environmental quality trade-offs due to summertime natural ventilation in London care homes

We evaluate current and future summertime temperature and indoor air quality (IAQ) in two London care homes, occupied by seniors. We further examine the effect of natural ventilation, aiming to identify strategies that can maintain temperature, CO2 and key pollutants (PM2.5, NO2) within acceptable ranges. Data come from simulations in DesignBuilder. Results show a higher risk of overheating in the newer care home, with 85% of hourly outputs exceeding 26°C. In addition, bedrooms are much warmer than lounges in both homes, with averages expected to reach 32-35°C by 2050. In terms of IAQ, 65% of PM2.5 and NO2 hourly outputs are within range; however, without any ventilation, the high CO2 levels are expected to rise by 70-130ppm in 2050, especially in bedrooms of the newer home. Results further indicate that natural ventilation can substantially reduce temperature and CO2, but at the same time it may increase PM2.5 and NO2 coming from outdoors. Yet, these trade-offs can be reduced through a careful ventilation strategy that considers building-specific characteristics, as well as time of day and duration. Findings suggest a need to focus on the interdependencies among indoor environmental quality outputs and highlight the value of inexpensive and sustainable passive ventilation.

Protection from infection and reinfection due to the Omicron BA.1 variant in care homes

IntroductionFollowing the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, care homes were disproportionately impacted by high mortality and morbidity of vulnerable elderly residents. Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and improved infection control measures together with vaccination campaigns have since improved outcomes of infection. We studied the utility of past infection status, recent vaccination and anti-S antibody titres as possible correlates of protection against a newly emergent Omicron variant infection.MethodsProspective longitudinal surveillance of nine sentinel London care homes from April 2020 onwards found that all experienced COVID-19 outbreaks due to Omicron (BA.1) during December 2021 and January 2022, despite extensive prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure and high COVID-19 vaccination rates, including booster vaccines (>70% residents, >40% staff).ResultsDetailed investigation showed that 46% (133/288) of Omicron BA.1 infections were SARS-CoV-2 reinfections. Two and three COVID-19 vaccine doses were protective against Omicron infection within 2-9 weeks of vaccination, though protection waned from 10 weeks post-vaccination. Prior infection provided additional protection in vaccinated individuals, approximately halving the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.DiscussionAnti-S antibody titre showed a dose-dependent protective effect but did not fully account for the protection provided by vaccination or past infection, indicating that other mechanisms of protection are also involved.

Mapping of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG in gingival crevicular fluid: Antibody dynamics and linkage to severity of COVID-19 in hospital inpatients

Mapping of SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG in gingival crevicular fluid: Antibody dynamics and linkage to severity of COVID-19 in hospital inpatients

Monitoring and modelling the risk of summertime overheating and passive solutions to avoid active cooling in London care homes

Summertime overheating in care settings has been identified as a key risk and research priority for the health and social care system. This paper examines the current and future risk of summertime overheating in two London-based care homes occupying modern and older buildings. Continuous monitoring of outdoor and indoor temperature in bedrooms, communal areas and offices in summer 2019 helped to establish the prevalence and intensity of overheating. Dynamic thermal simulation (EnergyPlusV8.9) of the two care settings assessed the potential for avoiding active cooling in future climate using passive solutions. In both care settings, indoor temperatures were observed to exceed 30 °C during daytime hours, significantly higher than the recommended 26 °C threshold of Public Health England. Although severity of overheating was lower in the older building, overheating was found to be prevalent and prolonged across both care settings with bedroom temperatures higher than lounges especially at night. Thermal simulation analysis showed that, with regards to temperature reduction and cooling load, nighttime ventilation was the single most effective passive solution for both buildings for the current climate, while a combination of night ventilation, external shading and high-albedo external walls was the most effective package solution. By the 2080s, air-conditioning was the most effective solution for reducing temperature, but also had the highest cooling load, highlighting the importance of balancing passive with active measures to improve thermal comfort and reduce cooling loads.

Examining the magnitude and perception of summertime overheating in London care homes

This paper brings together objective and subjective data on indoor temperature and thermal comfort to examine the magnitude and perception of summertime overheating in two London-based care homes occupying modern and older buildings. Continuous monitoring of indoor and outdoor temperature, relative humidity and CO2 levels was conducted in summer 2019 along with thermal comfort surveys and semi-structured interviews with older residents and staff of the care settings. Indoor temperatures were found to be high (>30°C) with bedroom temperatures often higher at night than daytime across both care settings. Limited opening due to window restrictors constrained night-time ventilation. Overheating was prevalent with four out of the five monitored bedrooms failing all four overheating metrics investigated. While 35–42% of staff responses perceived indoor temperatures to be uncomfortably hot, only 13–19% of resident responses were found to do so, indicating that elderly residents tend to be relatively insensitive to heat, leaving them open to overheating without realising it. Residents and staff in the modern care setting were less satisfied with their thermal conditions. As hybrid buildings, care settings need to keep both residents and staff comfortable and healthy during hot weather through night-time ventilation, management of heating and supportive institutional practices. Practical application: Care home designs have focused on keeping residents warm through the winter, neglecting the risks of summertime overheating. Care homes are hybrid buildings serving as living spaces for vulnerable older residents and offices/workspaces for staff. Providing comfort to both groups during periods of hot weather is challenging. Opportunities for ventilation are limited by Health & Safety regulations that mandate up to 10 cm maximum window openings and institutional practices that result in windows routinely kept closed, particularly at night. Utilising natural and where possible cross-ventilation should be considered along with external shading. Heating should be managed to avoid unwanted heat gains in the summer.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in university students: Cross-sectional study, December 2020, England

BackgroundIn England, the reopening of universities in September 2020 coincided with a rapid increase in SARS-CoV-2 infection rates in university aged young adults. This study aimed to estimate SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence in students attending universities that had experienced a COVID-19 outbreak after reopening for the autumn term in September 2020.MethodsA cross-sectional serosurvey was conducted during 02–11 December 2020 in students aged ≤ 25 years across five universities in England. Blood samples for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing were obtained using a self-sampling kit and analysed using the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 N antibody and/or an in-house receptor binding domain (RBD) assay.FindingsSARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in 2,905 university students was 17.8% (95%CI, 16.5–19.3), ranging between 7.6%-29.7% across the five universities. Seropositivity was associated with being younger likely to represent first year undergraduates (aOR 3.2, 95% CI 2.0–4.9), living in halls of residence (aOR 2.1, 95% CI 1.7–2.7) and sharing a kitchen with an increasing number of students (shared with 4–7 individuals, aOR 1.43, 95%CI 1.12–1.82; shared with 8 or more individuals, aOR 1.53, 95% CI 1.04–2.24). Seropositivity was 49% in students living in halls of residence that reported high SARS-CoV-2 infection rates (>8%) during the autumn term.InterpretationDespite large numbers of cases and outbreaks in universities, less than one in five students (17.8%) overall had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at the end of the autumn term in England. In university halls of residence affected by a COVID-19 outbreak, however, nearly half the resident students became infected and developed SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Mass testing after a single suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19 in London care homes, April-May 2020: implications for policy and practice.

Introduction: Previous investigations have identified high rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection among residents and staff in care homes reporting an outbreak of COVID-19. We investigated care homes reporting a single suspected or confirmed case to assess whether early mass testing might reduce risk of transmission during the peak of the pandemic in London.Methods: Between 18–27 April 2020, residents and staff in care homes reporting a single case of COVID-19 to Public Health England had a nasal swab to test for SARS-CoV-2 infection by RT-PCR and subsequent whole genome sequencing. Residents and staff in two care homes were re-tested eight days later.Results: Four care homes were investigated. SARS-CoV-2 positivity was 20% (65/333) overall, ranging between 3–59%. Among residents, positivity ranged between 3–76% compared to 3–40% in staff. Half of the SARS-CoV-2 positive residents (23/46, 50%) and 63% of staff (12/19) reported symptoms within 14 days before or after testing. Repeat testing 8 days later in two care homes with the highest infection rates identified only two new cases. Genomic analysis demonstrated a small number of introductions of the virus into care homes, and distinct clusters within three of the care homes.Conclusions: We found extensive but variable rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection among residents and staff in care homes reporting a single case of COVID-19. While routine whole home testing has now been adopted into practice, care homes must remain vigilant and should be encouraged to report a single suspected case, which should trigger appropriate outbreak control measures.

Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 protect against re-infection during outbreaks in care homes, September and October 2020.

Two London care homes experienced a second COVID-19 outbreak, with 29/209 (13.9%) SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive cases (16/103 residents, 13/106 staff). In those with prior SARS-CoV-2 exposure, 1/88 (1.1%) individuals (antibody positive: 87; RT-PCR-positive: 1) became PCR-positive compared with 22/73 (30.1%) with confirmed seronegative status. After four months protection offered by prior infection against re-infection was 96.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 72.7–99.5%) using risk ratios from comparison of proportions and 96.1% (95% CI: 78.8–99.3%) using a penalised logistic regression model.

Infection and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in London care homes reporting no cases or outbreaks of COVID-19: Prospective observational cohort study, England 2020.

BackgroundCare homes have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We investigated the potential role of asymptomatic infection and silent transmission in London care homes that reported no cases of COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic.MethodsFive care homes with no cases and two care homes reporting a single case of COVID-19 (non-outbreak homes) were investigated with nasal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and serology for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies five weeks later. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) was performed on RT-PCR positive samples. Serology results were compared with those of six care homes with recognised outbreaks.FindingsAcross seven non-outbreak homes, 718 (387 staff, 331 residents) individuals had a nasal swab and 651 (386 staff, 265 residents) had follow-up serology. Sixteen individuals (13 residents, 3 staff) in five care homes with no reported cases were RT-PCR positive (care home positivity rates, 0 to 7.6%) compared to 13 individuals (3.0 and 10.8% positivity) in two homes reporting a single case.Seropositivity across these seven homes varied between 10.7-56.5%, with four exceeding community seroprevalence in London (14.8%). Seropositivity rates for staff and residents correlated significantly (rs 0.84, [95% CI 0.51-0.95] p <0.001) across the 13 homes. WGS identified multiple introductions into some homes and silent transmission of a single lineage between staff and residents in one home.InterpretationWe found high rates of asymptomatic infection and transmission even in care homes with no COVID-19 cases. The higher seropositivity rates compared to RT-PCR positivity highlights the true extent of the silent outbreak.FundingPHE

High prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in care homes affected by COVID-19: Prospective cohort study, England.

BackgroundWe 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.MethodsResidents 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.FindingsOf 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 re-tested, 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.InterpretationRT-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.FundingPHE

A Study of Universal Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 RNA Testing Among Residents and Staff in a Large Group of Care Homes in South London.

BackgroundCare homes have experienced a high number of COVID-19 related deaths of residents since the onset of the pandemic. However, up to May 2020, there has been a lack of information about the extent of SARS-CoV-2 infection in residents and staff in care homes and limited testing in this setting.ResultsOverall, the point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 6.5% with a higher rate in residents (9.0%) than in staff (4.7%). A key finding was the high proportion of asymptomatic infection detected in staff (69%) and residents (51%) with evidence of under-detection of symptoms by care home staff.ConclusionsThe high proportion of asymptomatic infection combined with under detection of symptoms by care home staff indicates that offering a test to all residents and staff in care homes with rapid reporting of results would assist accurate identification of infected individuals, facilitating prompt infection prevention and control action.MethodsCombined nose and throat swab testing for SARS-CoV-2 RNA was carried out in 2455 residents and staff across 37 care homes in the London Borough of Bromley across a three-week period. Results were reported within 24 hours of sample delivery and data were collected on the presence or absence of symptoms.

Investigation of SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in six care homes in London, April 2020.

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 on-going transmission. A third of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 residents died within 14 days. Symptom-based screening alone is not sufficient for outbreak control.Funding: None

Investigation of SARS-CoV-2 Outbreaks in Six Care Homes in London, April 2020: The London Care Home Investigation

Background: Care homes are experiencing large outbreaks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) associated with high case-fatality. We conducted detailed investigations in six London care homes reporting suspected COVID-19 outbreaks during April 2020. Methods: Residents and staff had nasal swabs taken 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, 107/268 (39.9%) residents were SARS CoV-2 positive, including 29 (27.1%) symptomatic, 9 (8.4%) post-symptomatic, 21 (19.6%) pre-symptomatic and 48 (44.9%) who remained asymptomatic. Case-fatality was highest among symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 positive residents (10/29, 34.5%) compared to asymptomatic (2/48, 4.2%), post-symptomatic (2/9, 22.2%) or pre-symptomatic (3/21,14.3%) residents. Among staff, 51/250 (20.4%) were SARS CoV-2 positive and 29/51 (56.9%) remained asymptomatic. RT-PCR cycle threshold s and live virus recovery were similar between symptomatic/asymptomatic residents/staff. WGS identified multiple introductions of different SARS-CoV-2 strains into individual care homes. SARS-CoV-2 strains from residents and staff had identical sequences, as did strains from fatal and non-fatal cases. Interpretation: In care homes reporting a COVID-19 outbreak, a high rate of SARS-CoV-2 positivity was found among residents and staff, half of whom were asymptomatic and are potential reservoirs for on-going transmission. Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 residents had high case-fatality, while asymptomatic infection was rarely fatal. Symptom-based screening alone is not sufficient for outbreak control.Funding Statement: This study did not receive any funding. The authors are all employed by Public Health England, the study funder, which is a public body — an executive agency of the Department of Health. Declaration of Interests: None.Ethics Approval Statement: PHE has legal permission, provided by Regulation 3 of The Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002, to process patient confidential information for national surveillance of communicable diseases and as such, individual patient consent is not required.

Increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in staff working across different care homes: enhanced CoVID-19 outbreak investigations in London care Homes

Care homes have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and continue to suffer large 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. 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. 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. 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.

High Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in Care Homes Affected by COVID-19; Prospective Cohort Study, England

Background: We investigated six London care homes experiencing a COVID-19 outbreak and found very 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 involved 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, 208/241 (86.3%) surviving residents and 186/254 (73.2%) staff underwent repeat testing. Almost all SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive residents and staff were also antibody positive five weeks later, whether symptomatic (residents 35/35, 100%; staff, 22/22, 100%) or asymptomatic (residents 32/33, 97.0%; staff 21/22, 95.1%). 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 62/92, 67.3%; staff 95/143, 66.4%). Neutralising antibody was present in 118/132 (89.4%) seropositive individuals and was not associated with age or symptoms. Ten residents (10/108, 9.3%) remained RT-PCR positive but with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold values; all 7 tested 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.Funding: NoneDeclaration of Interests: None.Ethics Approval Statement: The research protocol was approved by the PHE Research Ethics and Governance Group (REGG Ref: NR0204, 07 May 2020).

Mapping climate disadvantage for care provision in London, UK: a sociospatial heat vulnerability assessment

BackgroundClimate change will increase the frequency and magnitude of extreme heat events, with major impacts for public health, communities, and the economy. The distribution of climate-related disadvantage varies geographically as a function of public health policy, and of sociodemographic, building, and environmental factors. Elderly, socially isolated individuals and people with cardiovascular or respiratory diseases, depression, or low mobility are the most severely affected. The aim of this study was to accelerate development of equitable responses to climate change health risks for care provision in urban environments, with a focus on overheating risk. MethodsUsing Greater London, UK, as a case study, we identified at-risk care homes by overlaying known locations of care homes onto areas of climate vulnerability identified by the Climate Just initiative. Built form and construction data were determined from building level energy rating schemes and other existing databases. These homes were cross-checked against a set of existing archetypes, developed as part of a previous research study, which are thought to be broadly representative of the London domestic stock. A meta-modelling framework was then built, based on the outputs of multiple EnergyPlus runs developed using artificial neural networks, specifically focusing on the prediction of indoor temperature conditions of common typologies of London care homes under warm weather conditions. FindingsPreliminary mapping of over 300 London care homes indicated that 63 were located in areas of extremely high or acute sociospatial vulnerability. Initial meta-modelling analysis results showed a significant variation in temperatures among indoor spaces either located on different floors or at different orientations, or both, when the 2-day mean maximum external temperature was between 28°C and 30°C. Top-floor rooms were the most prone to overheating and particularly those in buildings with a higher roof thermal efficiency. Overall, the higher the floor and the greater the roof insulation, the higher the mean daytime maximum temperature of the simulated domestic stock. InterpretationThe findings will have important implications for building designers, social care providers, and managers by helping map the potential costs associated with overheating risks in care settings and by outlining required changes to existing inspection processes. This work will potentially inform public health policy guidance that aims to create care provision fit for the current and future climate. The findings and the methods used could be applied to other relevant population segments or geographical boundaries. FundingBartlett Synergy grant 2017.

Feasibility and efficacy of a multi-factorial intervention to prevent falls in older adults with cognitive impairment living in residential care (ProF-Cog). A feasibility and pilot cluster randomised controlled trial

BackgroundFalls are common in people with dementia living in residential care. The ProF-Cog intervention was developed to address fall risk factors specific to this population. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, acceptability, and feasibility of the intervention and provide an estimate of its efficacy.MethodsThis was a cluster randomised controlled pilot study undertaken in care homes in London, UK. All permanent residents living in participating homes who were not terminally ill were invited to participate. The intervention included an assessment of falls risk factors followed by a tailored intervention which could include dementia care mapping, comprehensive geriatric assessment, occupational therapy input and twice-weekly exercise for 6 months as required to target identified risk factors. The control group received usual care without a falls risk assessment.Standing balance was the primary outcome. This and other outcome measures were collected at baseline and after 6 months. Falls were recorded for this period using incident reports. Changes were analysed using multi-level modelling. Adherence to the interventions, adverse events and trial feasibility were recorded.ResultsNine care homes enrolled in the study with a total 191 participants (51% of those eligible); five homes allocated to the intervention with 103 participants, and four homes to the usual care control group with 88 participants. The intervention was safe with only one reported fall whilst undertaking exercise. Adherence to agreed recommendations on activity and the environment was modest (21 and 45% respectively) and to exercise was poor (41%). Balance scores (score range 0–49) analysed on 100 participants decreased by a mean of 3.9 in the control and 5.1 in the intervention groups, a non-significant difference (p = 0.9). In other measures, both groups declined equally and there was no difference in falls rates (IRR = 1.59 95%, CI 0.67–3.76).ConclusionThe intervention was safe but not clinically effective. Poor adherence suggests it was not an acceptable or feasible intervention.Trial registrationISRCTN00695885. Registered 26th March 2013.

A comparison of medication administration errors from original medication packaging and multi-compartment compliance aids in care homes: A prospective observational study

BackgroundNo published study has been specifically designed to compare medication administration errors between original medication packaging and multi-compartment compliance aids in care homes, using direct observation. ObjectivesCompare the effect of original medication packaging and multi-compartment compliance aids on medication administration accuracy. DesignProspective observational. SettingTen Greater London care homes. ParticipantsNurses and carers administering medications. MethodsBetween October 2014 and June 2015, a pharmacist researcher directly observed solid, orally administered medications in tablet or capsule form at ten purposively sampled care homes (five only used original medication packaging and five used both multi-compartment compliance aids and original medication packaging). The medication administration error rate was calculated as the number of observed doses administered (or omitted) in error according to medication administration records, compared to the opportunities for error (total number of observed doses plus omitted doses). ResultsOver 108.4h, 41 different staff (35 nurses, 6 carers) were observed to administer medications to 823 residents during 90 medication administration rounds. A total of 2452 medication doses were observed (1385 from original medication packaging, 1067 from multi-compartment compliance aids). One hundred and seventy eight medication administration errors were identified from 2493 opportunities for error (7.1% overall medication administration error rate). A greater medication administration error rate was seen for original medication packaging than multi-compartment compliance aids (9.3% and 3.1% respectively, risk ratio (RR)=3.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4 to 6.1, p<0.001). Similar differences existed when comparing medication administration error rates between original medication packaging (from original medication packaging-only care homes) and multi-compartment compliance aids (RR=2.3, 95%CI 1.1 to 4.9, p=0.03), and between original medication packaging and multi-compartment compliance aids within care homes that used a combination of both medication administration systems (RR=4.3, 95%CI 2.7 to 6.8, p<0.001). A significant difference in error rate was not observed between use of a single or combination medication administration system (p=0.44). ConclusionThe significant difference in, and high overall, medication administration error rate between original medication packaging and multi-compartment compliance aids supports the use of the latter in care homes, as well as local investigation of tablet and capsule impact on medication administration errors and staff training to prevent errors occurring. As a significant difference in error rate was not observed between use of a single or combination medication administration system, common practice of using both multi-compartment compliance aids (for most medications) and original packaging (for medications with stability issues) is supported.

Epidemiology of Pain in People With Dementia Living in Care Homes: Longitudinal Course, Prevalence, and Treatment Implications

IntroductionKnowledge regarding the longitudinal course, impact, or treatment implications of pain in people with dementia living in care homes is very limited. MethodsWe investigated the people with dementia living in 67 care homes in London and Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom. Pain, dementia severity, neuropsychiatric symptoms, depression, agitation, and quality-of-life were measured using appropriate instruments at baseline (N = 967) and after 9 months (n = 629). ResultsBaseline prevalence of pain was 35.3% (95% CI 32.3–38.3). Pain severity was significantly correlated with dementia severity, neuropsychiatric symptoms, depression, agitation, and quality of life at both time points. Regular treatment with analgesics significantly reduced pain severity. Pain was significantly associated with more antipsychotic prescriptions. Pain was significantly associated (OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.18–1.85) with all-cause mortality during follow-up. ConclusionsPain is an important determinant of neuropsychiatric symptoms, mortality, quality-of-life, and antipsychotic prescriptions. Improved identification, monitoring, and treatment of pain are urgent priorities to improve the health and quality-of-life for people with dementia.

Current prevalence of dementia, depression and behavioural problems in the older adult care home sector: the South East London Care Home Survey.

a large and increasing number of older people in the UK are living in care homes. Dementia is a frequent reason underlying admission and determining care needs, but prevalence data are becoming increasingly outdated and reliant on brief screening instruments. to describe the prevalence and severity of dementia, depression, behavioural problems and relevant medication use in a representative sample of residential and nursing care home residents. a survey conducted in 15 randomly selected South East London care homes. Consensus clinical dementia diagnoses were made from multi-source information, and the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) Scale applied. Depression was ascertained using the Cornell Depression in Dementia Scale and psychological/behavioural problems using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). three hundred and one residents with a mean (SD) age of 83.5 (9.8) and 65.8% female were included. dementia (CDR 1-3) prevalence was 75.1% overall, 55.8% in residential homes, 91.0% in residential elderly mentally infirm care and 77.0% in nursing homes. Depression prevalences were 26.5, 22.0 and 29.6%, respectively, and mean (95% CI) NPI severity scores 3.99 (3.47-4.50), 6.34 (5.29-7.39) and 6.10 (5.50-6.70) with 87.3% of the sample exhibiting at least one NPI symptom. Antidepressants were prescribed in 25.6, 25.0 and 41.3%, respectively, and antipsychotics in 7.0, 34.1 and 19.1%. dementia is substantially more common in care homes than recorded diagnoses would suggest, but studies using brief screening instruments may overestimate prevalence. High prevalences of depressive and/or behavioural symptoms and psychotropic use suggest significant unmet need.