COVID-19大流行期间英格兰寄宿护理院采取的保护措施COVID-19大流行前和期间死亡率变化的评估。

IF 5.3 3区 医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Michael Stedman, Samuel Kitching, Martin B Whyte, Adrian Heald
{"title":"COVID-19大流行期间英格兰寄宿护理院采取的保护措施COVID-19大流行前和期间死亡率变化的评估。","authors":"Michael Stedman, Samuel Kitching, Martin B Whyte, Adrian Heald","doi":"10.1007/s40121-025-01183-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":13592,"journal":{"name":"Infectious Diseases and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"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.\",\"authors\":\"Michael Stedman, Samuel Kitching, Martin B Whyte, Adrian Heald\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40121-025-01183-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>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?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13592,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Infectious Diseases and Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Infectious Diseases and Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40121-025-01183-6\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INFECTIOUS DISEASES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infectious Diseases and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40121-025-01183-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:2020年1月1日之后,由于Sars-Cov-2(2019冠状病毒病,COVID-19)大流行,死亡率上升。这些死亡中有很大一部分发生在寄宿护理院,这些护理院被授权采取严格的预防措施,包括接种疫苗、定期检测和限制访客,同时保持获得一线医疗保健的机会。我们的问题是,这些措施在多大程度上缓解了死亡率的上升?方法:国家统计局(ONS)每年按年龄和性别公布每个小地理实体(下层超级产出区(LSOA))的死亡人数。计算了2017-2019年按年龄组和性别划分的全国人均死亡率基线。然后将其应用于当地人口,以计算预期死亡率,并将其除以实际死亡率,得出标准化死亡率(SMR)。标准化死亡率(CSMR)的变化计算为2020-2022年SMR与2017-2019年SMR的百分比变化。然后,根据没有大流行的情况下CSMR为0%的假设,计算超额死亡人数。通过简单线性回归建立LSOA多重剥夺社会剥夺指数(IMD)得分与CSMR之间的关系。护理质素委员会每年公布一份安老院舍(RCH)登记册,其中包括可与LSOA相连的邮政编码位置,以及根据护理(CH)或纯粹的安老院舍(RH)划分的床位数量。通过两种方式评估LSOAs中RCH床位的存在与结果的联系,(1)无RCH床位的数量加上RCH床位数量的三分之一,即老年人口(≥65岁)的百分比,(2)床位类型,仅RH,仅RH或RH和CH。计算每个队列的CSMR。由于养老院主要由年龄≥80岁的人居住,为了估计与一般社区相比,养老院限制措施的影响,使用“无养老院”和“有养老院”的LSOAs之间的CSMR差异来计算超额死亡的变化。结果:总体CSMR为8.4%,(年龄组)结论:根据现有证据,我们得出结论,RCH居民采取的预防措施显著降低了COVID-19感染后的死亡风险,特别是如果他们住在养老院。这表明,家庭成员为避免前往养老院而做出的牺牲确实降低了死亡率,而且在养老院提供的第一线医疗服务的快速获取减轻了正常医疗服务中断的后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Infectious Diseases and Therapy
Infectious Diseases and Therapy Medicine-Microbiology (medical)
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
1.90%
发文量
136
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Infectious Diseases and Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed, rapid publication journal dedicated to the publication of high-quality clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the discovery, development, and use of infectious disease therapies and interventions, including vaccines and devices. Studies relating to diagnostic products and diagnosis, pharmacoeconomics, public health, epidemiology, quality of life, and patient care, management, and education are also encouraged. Areas of focus include, but are not limited to, bacterial and fungal infections, viral infections (including HIV/AIDS and hepatitis), parasitological diseases, tuberculosis and other mycobacterial diseases, vaccinations and other interventions, and drug-resistance, chronic infections, epidemiology and tropical, emergent, pediatric, dermal and sexually-transmitted diseases.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信