'Patients come with two garbage bags full of problems and we have to sort them.' A qualitative study of the experiences of healthcare professionals on patients admitted to short-term residential care in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND: Short-term residential care (STRC) facilities were recently implemented in the Netherlands to provide temporary care to older adults with general health problems. The aim of STRC is to allow the individual to return home. However, 40% of patients are discharged to long-term care facilities. In-depth data about characteristics of patients admitted and challenges in providing STRC are missing. OBJECTIVE: To obtain perspectives of STRC professionals on the patient journey from admission to discharge. DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING: Eight nursing homes and three hospitals. SUBJECTS: A total of 28 healthcare professionals. METHODS: A total of 13 group interviews with in-depth reviews of 39 pseudonymised patient cases from admission to discharge. Interviews were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Many patients had complex problems that were underestimated at handover, making returning to home nearly impossible. The STRC eligibility criteria that patients have general health problems and can return home do not fit with current practice. This results in a mismatch between patient needs and the STRC that is provided. Therefore, planning care before and after discharge, such as advance care planning, social care and home adaptations, is important. CONCLUSIONS: STRC is used by patients with complex health problems and pre-existing functional decline. Evidence-based guidelines, appropriate staffing and resources should be provided to STRC facilities. We need to consider the environmental context of the patient and healthcare system to enable older adults to live independently at home for longer

Evaluating Perspectives of Relatives of Nursing Home Residents on the Nursing Home Visiting Restrictions During the COVID-19 Crisis: A Dutch Cross-Sectional Survey Study

Objectives: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused many nursing homes to prohibit resident visits to prevent viral spread. Although visiting restrictions are instituted to prolong the life of nursing home residents, they may detrimentally affect their quality of life. The aim of this study was to capture perspectives from the relatives of nursing home residents on nursing home visiting restrictions. Design: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted. Setting and Participants: A convenience sample of Dutch relatives of nursing home residents (n = 1997) completed an online survey on their perspectives regarding nursing home visiting restrictions. Methods: The survey included Likert-item, multiselect, and open-answer questions targeting 4 key areas: (1) communication access to residents, (2) adverse effects of visiting restrictions on residents and relatives, (3) potential protective effect of visiting restrictions, (4) important aspects for relatives during and after visiting restrictions. Results: Satisfaction of communication access to nursing home residents was highest when respondents had the possibility to communicate with nursing home residents by nurses informing them via telephone, contact behind glass, and contact outside maintaining physical distance. Satisfaction rates increased when respondents had multiple opportunities to stay in contact with residents. Respondents were concerned that residents had increased loneliness (76%), sadness (66%), and decreased quality of life (62%), whereas study respondents reported personal sadness (73%) and fear (26%). There was no consensus among respondents if adverse effects of the visiting restrictions outweighed the protective effect for nursing home residents. Respondents expressed the need for increased information, communication options, and better safety protocols. Conclusion and Implications: Providing multiple opportunities to stay in touch with nursing home residents can increase satisfaction of communication between residents and relatives. Increased context-specific information, communication options, and safety protocols should be addressed in national health policy

Implementation of a national testing policy in Dutch nursing homes during SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks

Background: To evaluate how a national policy of testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) regardless of symptoms was implemented during outbreaks in Dutch nursing homes in the second wave of the pandemic and to explore barriers and facilitators to serial testing. Methods: We conducted a mixed-method study of nursing homes in the Netherlands with a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak after 15 September 2020. Direct care staff and management from 355 healthcare organizations were invited to participate in a digital survey. A total of 74 out of 355 (20.9%) healthcare organizations participated and provided information about 117 nursing homes. We conducted 26 in-depth interviews on the outbreak and the testing strategy used. We also conducted four focus group meetings involving managers, physicians, nurses, and certified health assistants. Recordings were transcribed and data were thematically analyzed. Results: One hundred and four nursing homes (89%) tested residents regardless of their symptoms during the outbreak, and 85 nursing homes (73%) tested the staff regardless of their symptoms. However, interviews showed testing was sometimes implemented during later stages of the outbreak and was not always followed up with serial testing. Barriers to serial testing regardless of symptoms were lack of knowledge of local leaders with decisional making authority, lack of a cohort ward or skilled staff, and insufficient collaboration with laboratories or local public health services. Important facilitators to serial testing were staff willingness to undergo testing and the availability of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. Conclusions: Serial testing regardless of symptoms was only partially implemented. The response rate of 21% of nursing home organizations gives a risk of selection bias. Barriers to testing need to be addressed. A national implementation policy that promotes collaboration between public health services and nursing homes and educates management and care staff is necessary

Symptoms of depression, anxiety, and perceived mastery in older adults before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam

Objective: Governmental measures to protect older adults from COVID-19 are hypothesized to cause anxiety and depression. Previous studies are heterogeneous and showed small effects. This study aims to assess depressive and anxiety symptoms and perceived mastery just after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic compared to previous years in community-dwelling older adults and to identify potential risk groups according to the comprehensive geriatric assessment framework. Methods: Data were used from 1068 Dutch older adults (aged 55–93 at baseline in 2011–2013) participating in the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam, including 4 follow-ups spanning 9 years. Depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms and feelings of mastery were assessed with the short Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale (CES-D-10), the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale - Anxiety subscale (HADS-A) and the Pearlin Mastery Scale. Linear mixed regression was used to compare outcomes in June-August 2020 to previous years and to examine predictors to identify risk groups. Results: Slight increases in CES-D-10 (1.37, 95% Confidence interval [CI] 1.12;1.62), HADS-A (0.74, 95% CI 0.56;0.94) and mastery (1.10, 95% CI 0.88;1.31) occurred during the COVID year compared to previous years. Older adults with functional limitations or with frailty showed a smaller increase in feelings of mastery in the COVID-year. Conclusion: Our results suggest limited mental health effects on older adults from the first COVID-19 wave. Older adults have perhaps better coping strategies than younger adults, or preventive measures did not have extensive consequences for the daily life of older adults. Further monitoring of depression, anxiety and perceived mastery is recommended

Are presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in nursing home residents unrecognised symptomatic infections? Sequence and metadata from weekly testing in an extensive nursing home outbreak

BACKGROUND: Sars-CoV-2 outbreaks resulted in a high case fatality rate in nursing homes (NH) worldwide. It is unknown to which extent presymptomatic residents and staff contribute to the spread of the virus. AIMS: To assess the contribution of asymptomatic and presymptomatic residents and staff in SARS-CoV-2 transmission during a large outbreak in a Dutch NH. METHODS: Observational study in a 185-bed NH with two consecutive testing strategies: testing of symptomatic cases only, followed by weekly facility-wide testing of staff and residents regardless of symptoms. Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal testing with RT-PCR for SARs-CoV-2, including sequencing of positive samples, was conducted with a standardised symptom assessment. RESULTS: 185 residents and 244 staff participated. Sequencing identified one cluster. In the symptom-based test strategy period, 3/39 residents were presymptomatic versus 38/74 residents in the period of weekly facility-wide testing (P-value < 0.001). In total, 51/59 (91.1%) of SARS-CoV-2 positive staff was symptomatic, with no difference between both testing strategies (P-value 0.763). Loss of smell and taste, sore throat, headache or myalga was hardly reported in residents compared to staff (P-value <0.001). Median Ct-value of presymptomatic residents was 21.3, which did not differ from symptomatic (20.8) or asymptomatic (20.5) residents (P-value 0.624). CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms in residents and staff are insufficiently recognised, reported or attributed to a possible SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, residents without (recognised) symptoms showed the same potential for viral shedding as residents with symptoms. Weekly testing was an effective strategy for early identification of SARS-Cov-2 cases, resulting in fast mitigation of the outbreak

The impact of COVID-19 related adversity on the course of mental health during the pandemic and the role of protective factors: a longitudinal study among older adults in The Netherlands

Purpose: Many studies report about risk factors associated with adverse changes in mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic while few studies report about protective and buffering factors, especially in older adults. We present an observational study to assess protective and buffering factors against COVID-19 related adverse mental health changes in older adults. Methods: 899 older adults (55 +) in the Netherlands were followed from 2018/19 to two pandemic time points (June–October 2020 and March–August 2021). Questionnaires included exposure to pandemic-related adversities (“COVID-19 exposure”), depressive and anxiety symptoms, loneliness, and pre-pandemic functioning. Linear regression analyses estimated main effects of COVID-19 exposure and protective factors on mental health changes; interaction effects were tested to identify buffering factors. Results: Compared to pre-pandemic, anxiety symptoms, depression symptoms and loneliness increased. A higher score on the COVID-19 adversity index was associated with stronger negative mental health changes. Main effects: internet use and high mastery decreased depressive symptoms; a larger network decreased anxiety symptoms; female gender, larger network size and praying decreased loneliness. COVID-19 vaccination buffered against COVID-19 exposure-induced anxiety and loneliness, a partner buffered against COVID-19 exposure induced loneliness. Conclusion: Exposure to COVID-19 adversity had a cumulative negative impact on mental health. Improving coping, finding meaning, stimulating existing religious and spiritual resources, network interventions and stimulating internet use may enable older adults to maintain mental health during events with large societal impact, yet these factors appear protective regardless of exposure to specific adversities. COVID-19 vaccination had a positive effect on mental health

Are presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in nursing home residents unrecognized symptomatic infections?: Sequence and metadata from weekly testing in an extensive nursing home outbreak

BACKGROUND: Sars-CoV-2 outbreaks resulted in a high case fatality rate in nursing homes (NH) worldwide. It is unknown to which extent presymptomatic residents and staff contribute to the spread of the virus. AIMS: To assess the contribution of asymptomatic and presymptomatic residents and staff in SARS-CoV-2 transmission during a large outbreak in a Dutch NH. METHODS: Observational study in a 185-bed NH with two consecutive testing strategies: testing of symptomatic cases only, followed by weekly facility-wide testing of staff and residents regardless of symptoms. Nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal testing with RT-PCR for SARs-CoV-2, including sequencing of positive samples, was conducted with a standardized symptom assessment. RESULTS: 185 residents and 244 staff participated. Sequencing identified one cluster. In the symptom-based test strategy period 3/39 residents were presymptomatic versus 38/74 residents in the period of weekly facility-wide testing (p-value<0.001). In total, 51/59 (91.1%) of SARS-CoV-2 positive staff was symptomatic, with no difference between both testing strategies (p-value 0.763). Loss of smell and taste, sore throat, headache or myalga was hardly reported in residents compared to staff (p-value <0.001). Median Ct-value of presymptomatic residents was 21.3, which did not differ from symptomatic (20.8) or asymptomatic (20.5) residents (p-value 0.624). CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms in residents and staff are insufficiently recognized, reported or attributed to a possible SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, residents without (recognized) symptoms showed the same potential for viral shedding as residents with symptoms. Weekly testing was an effective strategy for early identification of SARS-Cov-2 cases, resulting in fast mitigation of the outbreak

Additional file 1 of Understanding what matters most to patients in acute care in seven countries, using the flash mob study design

Additional file 1: Figure S1. Developmental process of framework. Table S1. Framework for coding. Table S2. Top ten answers to the question ‘what matters most’. Table S3. Top ten answers to the question ‘why is this important’. Table S4. Differences in what matters and why between sex, age groups, length of stay and if patients feel the doctor knows what matters or not. Table S5. Differences in what matters and why to patients between countries. List of local collaborators