Suppr超能文献

英国新冠疫情期间养老院采取的防护措施。对新冠疫情前及疫情期间死亡率变化的评估。

Protective Measures Taken in Residential Care Homes in England During the COVID-19 Pandemic. An Assessment of the Change in Mortality Rates Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic Years.

作者信息

Stedman Michael, Kitching Samuel, Whyte Martin B, Heald Adrian

机构信息

RES Consortium, Andover, UK.

The School of Medicine and Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

出版信息

Infect Dis Ther. 2025 Jun 26. doi: 10.1007/s40121-025-01183-6.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Mortality rate increased in the period after 1 January 2020 because of the Sars-Cov-2 (coronavirus disease 2019, COVID-19) pandemic. A significant proportion of those deaths occurred within residential care homes who were mandated to put in place stringent preventative measures including vaccinations, regular testing and visitor restrictions, while maintaining access to front-line healthcare. Our question was, by how much did these measures mitigate this increase in mortality rate?

METHODS

The Office of National Statistics (ONS) annually publish deaths, by age and sex, for each small geographic entity - the lower layer super output area (LSOA). A baseline of national average deaths per population in 2017-2019, by age group and sex, was calculated. This was then applied to local populations to calculate values of expected deaths and, when divided by the actual deaths, to create a standardised mortality rate (SMR). The change in standardised mortality rate (CSMR) was calculated as % change in SMR 2020-2022 compared with SMR 2017-2019. Excess deaths were then calculated on the basis of the assumption that CSMR would be 0% without the pandemic. The link between LSOA social deprivation index of multiple deprivation (IMD) score and CSMR was established by simple linear regression for each age group. The Care Quality Commission publish annually a register of residential care homes (RCH) which includes the post code location, which can be linked to an LSOA, and the number of beds split according to nursing care (CH) or purely residential homes (RH). Linking presence of RCH beds in LSOAs to outcome was evaluated in two ways, (1) by the amount with no RCH beds plus three tertiles of RCH bed number as the percent of older population (≥ 65 years) and (2) by the type of beds, those with RH only, CH only, or both RH and CH. CSMR was calculated for each of these cohorts. As RCH are mostly occupied by people aged ≥ 80 years, to estimate the impact of restrictions in care homes compared with the general community, the difference in CSMR between LSOAs with 'no RCHs' and 'with RCH' with baseline 0% CSMR were used to calculate the change in excess deaths.

RESULTS

Overall CSMR was 8.4%, (age group < 40 years was 5.7%, 40-64 years 13.7%, 65-79 years 11.3%, and ≥ 80 years 5.9%). This reflected 128,385 excess deaths in 2020-2022 compared with 2017-2019 (by age group < 40 years, 2106; 40-64 years: 26,120; 65-79 years: 49,301; and ≥ 80 years: 50,857). Social disadvantage had the most effect on CSMR in the age 80+ years group; in this group, the lowest five deciles (50%) of LSOAs by IMD score had CSMR of 4.5%, with the CSMR then increasing linearly up to 16% in the top IMD decile. In the age group of 80+ years, the 22,357 LSOAS with 'no RCH' had CSMR of 10.0% (as a result of 35,791 excess deaths), while in the 10,484 LSOAs 'with RCH' the CSMR was 3.3%, as a result of 17,840 excess deaths. In those LSOAs with only residential homes, the CSMR was 6.4%, and in those with only care homes (i.e. including nursing support), the CSMR was -0.2%. The average IMD score in LSOAs with RCH was 21.3, whereas without RCH, the average IMD at 21.8 was slightly higher, suggesting that social deprivation difference was not a factor in explaining these outcomes. Modelling if 'no RCH' CSMR had applied to the LSOAs with RCHs, there might have been 24,968 (+140%) additional deaths. If the CSMR of LSOAs with RCH had been applied to those with no RCH, 32,815 deaths might have been avoided.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude on the basis of the available evidence that precautions put in place for RCH residents significantly mitigated the risk of death following a COVID-19 infection, especially so if they were in nursing homes. This suggests that the sacrifice made by family members in avoiding visits to RCHs did reduce the mortality and that rapid access to first line healthcare provided in nursing homes mitigated the consequences for disruption in normal healthcare provision.

摘要

引言

由于严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2(Sars-CoV-2,即2019冠状病毒病,COVID-19)大流行,2020年1月1日之后死亡率有所上升。相当一部分死亡发生在养老院,这些养老院被要求采取严格的预防措施,包括接种疫苗、定期检测和限制访客,同时保持一线医疗服务的可及性。我们的问题是,这些措施在多大程度上减轻了死亡率的上升?

方法

国家统计局(ONS)每年按年龄和性别公布每个小地理区域——下层超级输出区(LSOA)的死亡人数。计算了2017 - 2019年按年龄组和性别划分的全国平均每人口死亡人数基线。然后将其应用于当地人口,以计算预期死亡人数值,并在除以实际死亡人数后,创建标准化死亡率(SMR)。标准化死亡率变化(CSMR)计算为2020 - 2022年SMR相对于2017 - 2019年SMR的百分比变化。然后,基于没有大流行时CSMR为0%的假设计算超额死亡人数。通过对每个年龄组进行简单线性回归,建立了LSOA多重剥夺社会剥夺指数(IMD)得分与CSMR之间的联系。护理质量委员会每年公布一份养老院(RCH)登记册,其中包括邮政编码位置(可与LSOA链接)以及根据护理类型(CH)或纯养老院(RH)划分的床位数量。通过两种方式评估LSOA中RCH床位的存在与结果之间的联系,(1)按没有RCH床位的数量加上RCH床位数的三个三分位数占老年人口(≥65岁)的百分比,(2)按床位类型,即仅为RH、仅为CH或同时为RH和CH。为这些队列中的每一个计算CSMR。由于RCH大多住着≥80岁的人,为了估计养老院限制措施与一般社区相比的影响,使用“没有RCH”和“有RCH”的LSOA之间CSMR的差异(基线CSMR为0%)来计算超额死亡人数的变化。

结果

总体CSMR为8.4%(年龄组<40岁为5.7%,40 - 64岁为13.7%,65 - 79岁为11.3%,≥80岁为5.9%)。这反映出2020 - 2022年与2017 - 2019年相比有128,385例超额死亡(按年龄组<40岁为2106例;40 - 64岁为26,120例;65 - 79岁为49,301例;≥80岁为50,857例)。社会劣势对80岁以上年龄组的CSMR影响最大;在该年龄组中,IMD得分最低的五个十分位数(50%)的LSOA的CSMR为4.5%,然后CSMR在IMD最高十分位数中线性增加至16%。在80岁以上年龄组中,22,357个“没有RCH”的LSOA的CSMR为10.0%(由于35,791例超额死亡),而在10,484个“有RCH”的LSOA中,CSMR为3.3%,由于17,840例超额死亡。在那些只有纯养老院的LSOA中,CSMR为6.4%,而在那些只有护理院(即包括护理支持)的LSOA中,CSMR为 -0.2%。有RCH的LSOA的平均IMD得分为21.3,而没有RCH的LSOA平均IMD得分为21.8,略高,这表明社会剥夺差异不是解释这些结果的一个因素。如果将“没有RCH”的CSMR应用于有RCH的LSOA进行建模,可能会有24,968例(增加140%)额外死亡。如果将有RCH的LSOA的CSMR应用于没有RCH的LSOA,可能会避免32,815例死亡。

结论

基于现有证据,我们得出结论,为养老院居民采取的预防措施显著降低了COVID - 19感染后的死亡风险,特别是在养老院中。这表明家庭成员为避免探访养老院所做出的牺牲确实降低了死亡率,并且养老院提供的一线医疗服务的快速可及性减轻了正常医疗服务中断的后果。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验