Cargando…
66. What Worked (And Didn’t Work): A Survey of COVID-19 Response in Michigan Nursing Homes in the Midst of the Pandemic
BACKGROUND: Nursing home (NH) populations are at higher risk for morbidity and mortality due to COVID-19. A March 2020 NH survey indicated improvements in pandemic planning when compared to a similar survey in 2007. We surveyed NHs to evaluate how well pandemic preparedness plans and infection preve...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7777953/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.376 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Nursing home (NH) populations are at higher risk for morbidity and mortality due to COVID-19. A March 2020 NH survey indicated improvements in pandemic planning when compared to a similar survey in 2007. We surveyed NHs to evaluate how well pandemic preparedness plans and infection prevention strategies met the reality of COVID-19. METHODS: The first COVID-19 case in Michigan was reported March 10, 2020. In the setting of 46,088 cases and 4,327 deaths statewide as of May 1, we disseminated an online survey to state department-registered NHs to describe their experience of the initial pandemic wave. Responses were collected May 1–12, during which the state averaged 585 cases/day. We were particularly interested in NH preparedness, challenges, testing capacity, and adaptations made. RESULTS: Of 452 NHs contacted, 145 opened the survey and 143 (32%) responded. A majority (68%) indicated that their facility’s pandemic response plan addressed > 90% of issues they experienced; 29% reported their plan addressed most but not all anticipated concerns (Table 1). As the pandemic evolved, all facilities (100%) provided additional staff education on proper personal protective equipment (PPE) use. 66% reported experiencing shortages of PPE and other supplies. Half of all facilities (50%) lacked sufficient resources to test asymptomatic residents or staff; only 36% were able to test all residents and staff with suspected COVID-19 infection. Half (52%) considered their communication regarding COVID-19 with nearby hospitals “very good.” The majority of facilities (55%) experienced staffing shortages, often relying on remaining staff to work additional hours and/or contracted staff to fill deficits (Table 2). NH staff resignations increased, with 63% of NHs experiencing resignations; staff with greater bedside contact were more likely to leave, including nurses and nurse assistants. [Image: see text] [Image: see text] CONCLUSION: While most NHs had a plan to respond to COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, many facilities experienced a lack of available resources, less than ideal communication lines with local hospitals, lack of testing capacity and insufficient staff. These shortcomings indicate potential high-yield areas of improvement in pandemic preparedness in the NH setting. DISCLOSURES: All Authors: No reported disclosures |
---|