COVID-19-Related Outcomes Among Group Home Residents with Serious Mental Illness in Massachusetts in the First Year of the Pandemic.

This study examined COVID-19 infection and hospitalizations among people with serious mental illness who resided in residential care group homes in Massachusetts during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The authors analyzed data on 2261 group home residents and COVID-19 data from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Outcomes included positive COVID-19 tests and COVID-19 hospitalizations March 1, 2020-June 30, 2020 (wave 1) and July 1, 2020-March 31, 2021 (wave 2). Associations between hazard of outcomes and resident and group home characteristics were estimated using multi-level Cox frailty models including home- and city-level frailties. Between March 2020 and March 2021, 182 (8%) residents tested positive for COVID-19, and 51 (2%) had a COVID-19 hospitalization. Compared with the Massachusetts population, group home residents had age-adjusted rate ratios of 3.0 (4.86 vs. 1.60 per 100) for COVID infection and 13.5 (1.99 vs. 0.15 per 100) for COVID hospitalizations during wave 1; during wave 2, the rate ratios were 0.5 (4.55 vs. 8.48 per 100) and 1.7 (0.69 vs. 0.40 per 100). In Cox models, residents in homes with more beds, higher staff-to-resident ratios, recent infections among staff and other residents, and in cities with high community transmission risk had greater hazard of COVID-19 infection. Policies and interventions that target group home-specific risks are needed to mitigate adverse communicable disease outcomes in this population.Clinical Trial Registration Number This study provides baseline (i.e., pre-randomization) data from a clinical trial study NCT04726371.

Predictors of COVID-19 infection and hospitalization in group homes for individuals with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities.

BACKGROUND: More than seven million people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities (ID/DD) live in the US and may face an elevated risk for COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To identify correlates of COVID-19 and related hospitalizations among people with ID/DD in group homes in Massachusetts. METHODS: We collected data during March 1, 2020-June 30, 2020 (wave 1) and July 1, 2020-March 31, 2021 (wave 2) from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and six organizations administering 206 group homes for 1035 residents with ID/DD. The main outcomes were COVID-19 infections and related hospitalizations. We fit multilevel Cox proportional hazards models to estimate associations with observed predictors and assess contextual home- and organizational-level effects. RESULTS: Compared with Massachusetts residents, group home residents had a higher age-adjusted rate of COVID-19 in wave 1 (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 12.06; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 10.51-13.84) and wave 2 (IRR, 2.47; 95 % CI, 2.12-2.88) and a higher age-adjusted rate of COVID-19 hospitalizations in wave 1 (IRR, 17.64; 95 % CI, 12.59-24.70) and wave 2 (IRR, 4.95; 95 % CI, 3.23-7.60). COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations were more likely among residents aged 65+ and in group homes with 6+ resident beds and recent infection among staff and residents. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive efforts to decrease resident density, staff-to-resident ratios, and staff infections through efforts such as vaccination, in addition to ongoing access to personal protective equipment and COVID-19 testing, may reduce COVID-19 and related hospitalizations in people with ID/DD living in group homes.

Best practices to reduce COVID-19 in group homes for individuals with serious mental illness and intellectual and developmental disabilities: Protocol for a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: People with serious mental illness (SMI) and intellectual disabilities and/or developmental disabilities (ID/DD) living in group homes (GHs) and residential staff are at higher risk for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death compared with the general population. METHODS: We describe a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized trial to assess evidence-based infection prevention practices to prevent COVID-19 for residents with SMI or ID/DD and the staff in GHs. The trial will use a cluster randomized design in 400 state-funded GHs in Massachusetts for adults with SMI or ID/DD to compare effectiveness and implementation of "Tailored Best Practices" (TBP) consisting of evidence-based COVID-19 infection prevention practices adapted for residents with SMI and ID/DD and GH staff; to "General Best Practices" (GBP), consisting of required standard of care reflecting state and federal standard general guidelines for COVID-19 prevention in GHs. External (i.e., community-based research staff) and internal (i.e., GH staff leadership) personnel will facilitate implementation of TBP. The primary effectiveness outcome is incident SARS-CoV-2 infection and secondary effectiveness outcomes include COVID-19-related hospitalizations and mortality in GHs. The primary implementation outcomes are fidelity to TBP and rates of COVID-19 vaccination. Secondary implementation outcomes are adoption, adaptation, reach, and maintenance. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-, and 15-months post-randomization. CONCLUSIONS: This study will advance knowledge on comparative effectiveness and implementation of two different strategies to prevent COVID-19-related infection, morbidity, and mortality and promote fidelity and adoption of these interventions in high-risk GHs for residents with SMI or ID/DD and staff. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04726371.

Antibiotic prescription practices and opinions regarding antimicrobial resistance among veterinarians in Kentucky, USA.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate antimicrobial use (AMU) is a global concern. Opinions of veterinarians regarding AMU and its role in the development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) may influence their prescription practices. It is important to understand these opinions, prescription practices and their potential impact on the development of AMR in order to guide efforts to curb the problem. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the antimicrobial prescription practices and opinions of veterinarians in Kentucky regarding AMU and AMR. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used a 30-question survey questionnaire administered to veterinarians who were members of the Kentucky Veterinary Medical Association. Survey responses from 101 participants were included in the study. Descriptive statistics were computed and associations between categorical variables assessed using Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Firth logistic models were used to investigate predictors of "Compliance with prescription policies" and "Cost of antimicrobial affects prescription decisions". RESULTS: Almost all (93%) respondents indicated that improper AMU contributed to selection for AMR. A total of 52% of the respondents believed that antimicrobials were appropriately prescribed, while the remaining 48% believed that antimicrobials were inappropriately prescribed. Significant predictors of compliance with prescription policies were availability of prescription policy at the veterinary facility (Odds Ratio (OR) = 4.2; p<0.001) and over-prescription (OR = 0.35; p = 0.025). Similarly, significant predictors of cost of antimicrobials affecting prescription decisions were lack of post-graduate training (OR = 8.3; p = 0.008) and practice type, with large animal practices having significantly lower odds of the outcome (OR = 0.09; p = 0.004) than small animal practices. CONCLUSION: Most veterinarians indicated that improper AMU contributed to selection for AMR. Since the odds of compliance with prescription policies were 4-times higher among veterinarians working at facilities that had prescription policies compared to those at facilities that didn't, more veterinary facilities should be encouraged to adopt prescription policies to help improve compliance and reduce AMR. Veterinarians would also benefit from continued professional education to help improve prescription practices, antimicrobial stewardship and curb AMR.

Antibiotic prescription practices and attitudes towards the use of antimicrobials among veterinarians in the City of Tshwane, South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the prescription practices and attitudes of veterinarians towards antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is crucial in guiding efforts to curb AMR. This study investigated prescription practices and attitudes towards AMR among veterinarians in the City of Tshwane, South Africa. METHODS: Out of the 83 veterinarians invited to participate in the study, 54 signed the consent form and completed the questionnaire. Percentages and 95% confidence intervals of all categorical variables were computed. A multinomial logistic model was used to identify predictors of the veterinarians' view towards antimicrobial use. RESULTS: The majority (88%) of respondents indicated that improper use of antimicrobials contributed to selection for AMR. Veterinarians relied on clinical signs and symptoms (88%, 48/54) to decide whether to prescribe antimicrobials or not. However, the choice of antimicrobials depended on the cost of antibiotics (77.2%), route of administration (81.5%), and risk of potential adverse reactions (79.6%; 43/54). Many (61.5%) veterinarians were of the view that often antimicrobials are appropriately prescribed and 88.7% agreed that improper use of antimicrobials contributed to selection for antimicrobial resistant organisms. Compared to females, males were significantly more likely (Relative Risk Ratio (RRR) = 9.0; P = 0.0069) to agree rather than to "neither agree nor disagree" that their colleagues over-prescribed antimicrobials. CONCLUSIONS: The decisions to prescribe antimicrobials by the veterinarians depended on clinical presentation of the patient, while the choice of antimicrobial depended on cost, route of administration, and risk of potential adverse reactions. Most veterinarians were of the view that antimicrobials were prescribed judiciously.