Revealing the divide: Contrasting COVID-19 outcomes in Green Houses and traditional nursing homes in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: This study compares COVID-19 case and mortality rates in Green Houses (GHs) and traditional nursing homes (NHs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: CMS data from 10 states (June 2020 to September 2022) were analyzed for GHs (n = 19), small NHs (n = 266), and large NHs (n = 2,932). Multivariate Poisson regressions with GEE were used. RESULTS: Participants (mean age 73.4) were predominantly female (57.8 %) and White (78.2 %). Small and large NHs had a significantly higher COVID-19 case risk (RR = 1.61; 95 % CI 1.25-2.08 and RR = 1.75; 95 % CI 1.36-2.24, respectively) compared to GHs. Large NHs also had an increased mortality risk (RR = 1.67; 95 % CI 1.01-2.77) compared to GHs, with no difference found between GHs and small NHs. CONCLUSION: After adjusting for age, gender, and ADL disability, GHs demonstrated lower COVID-19 case and mortality rates than traditional NHs, likely due to their unique features, including person-centered care, size, and physical structure.

Unveiling the Influencers: An Exploration of Factors Determining Advance Directive Completion Among Community-Dwelling Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Advance directives (AdvDirs) align end-of-life care with personal values, averting unnecessary treatments. This study explores factors influencing AdvDir completion. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study with community-dwelling adults (n = 166) age range 18-93, using a survey to gather sociodemographics, beliefs, and AdvDir experiences. Multivariate logistic regression quantifies associations between selected covariates and AdvDir completion. RESULTS: We found that 36% of respondents had completed AdvDirs. The majority were comfortable discussing death (77%) and end-of-life care (84%) and recognized the importance of AdvDirs (79%). Age, education level, self-perceived health status, exposure to end-of-life planning, and the preference to limit treatment in potential future Alzheimer's scenarios significantly influenced AdvDir completion. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the study highlights: (1) The need for age-specific, personalized AdvDir education initiatives, and (2) The necessity of intensified AdvDir awareness efforts, particularly for individuals favoring unlimited treatment in Alzheimer's or dementia scenarios.

Contact tracing: Characteristics of COVID-19 cases that provided contacts.

This cross-sectional study evaluated COVID-19 contact tracing efforts to identify variations in contact tracing outcomes in different population subgroups. Contact tracing was a critical tool to slow the COVID-19 epidemic. A literature gap evaluating contact tracing elicitation exits, particularly on prioritized groups. We analyzed data from COVID-19 cases linking statewide case management, immunization, laboratory testing, and hospitalization databases in New York State (NYS) outside of New York City from February 1 to November 30, 2021. Focus was cases in home-based residential settings (excluding congregate care) and prioritized groups (educational institutions, large households, close quarters, higher-risk persons, hospitalized). The primary outcome was completed interviews that provided a contact. Of the 550,850 cases interviewed during the study period, 316,645 (57.5%) provided at least one contact. Adults aged 18 to 49 years were most likely to provide contacts than those aged 65 years and older (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39-1.45). Compared to unvaccinated cases, boosted individuals (aOR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.50-1.73) were most likely to provide contacts, followed by persons with only a primary vaccine series (aOR, 1.3; 95%CI, 1.28-1.33) and partially vaccinated (aOR, 1.21; 95%CI, 1.18-1.24). Repeat cases (aOR, 1.07; 95%CI, 1.01-1.14), pregnant persons (aOR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1,19-1.34), those with underlying conditions (aOR 1.22; 95%CI, 1.20-1.23), and those in K-12 settings (aOR 1.55; 95%CI, 1.50-1.61) were more likely to provide contacts. There was no clear association between hospitalized, while zip code level income may (aOR, 1.006; 95%CI, 1.003, 1.009). Persons from larger households were more likely to provide contacts: aOR for two or more persons vs. one person households ranged from 2.49 to 4.7 (95%CI, 2.20-4.78). Our findings indicate success in eliciting contacts from prioritized groups and identify variable contact elicitation outcomes from different population groups. These results may serve as a tool for future contact tracing efforts.

Comparison of COVID-19 home-testers vs. laboratory-testers in New York State (excluding New York City), November 2021 to April 2022.

Background: Though the use of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) home testing kits is increasing, individuals who use home tests are not accounted for in publicly reported COVID-19 metrics. As the pandemic and the methods for tracking cases evolve, it is critical to understand who the individuals excluded are, due to their use of home testing kits, relative to those included in the reported metrics. Methods: Five New York State databases were linked to investigate trends in home-tested COVID-19 cases vs. laboratory-confirmed cases from November 2021 to April 2022. Frequency distributions, multivariate logistic regression adjusted odds ratios (aOR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to compare the characteristics of the home-tested and laboratory-tested people. Results: Of the 591,227 confirmed COVID-19 cases interviewed, 71,531 (12%) of them underwent home tests, 515,001 (87%) underwent laboratory tests, and 5,695 (1%) underwent both home tests and laboratory tests during this period. Home-tested COVID-19 cases increased from only 1% in November 2021 to 22% in April 2022. Children aged 5-11 years with an aOR of 3.74 (95% CI: 3.53, 3.96) and adolescents aged 12-17 years with an aOR of 3.24 (95% CI: 3.07, 3.43) were more likely to undergo only home tests compared to adults aged 65 years and above. On the one hand, those who were "boosted" (aOR 1.87, 95% CI: 1.82, 1.93), those in K-12 school settings (aOR 2.33, 95% CI: 2.27, 2.40), or those who were possibly infected by a household member (aOR 1.17, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.22) were more likely to report home testing instead of laboratory testing. On the other hand, individuals who were hospitalized (aOR 0.04, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.06), who had underlying conditions (aOR 0.85, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.87), who were pregnant (aOR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66, 0.86), and who were Hispanic (aOR 0.50: 95% CI: 0.48, 0.53), Asian (aOR 0.31, 95% CI: 0.28, 0.34), or Black (aOR 0.45, 95% CI: 0.42, 047) were less likely to choose home testing over laboratory testing. Conclusion: The percentage of individuals with confirmed COVID-19 who used only home testing kits continues to rise. People who used only home testing were less likely to be hospitalized and were those with a lower likelihood of developing a severe disease given factors such as age, vaccination status, and underlying conditions. Thus, the official COVID-19 metrics primarily reflected individuals with severe illness or the potential for severe illness. There may be racial and ethnic differences in the use of home testing vs. laboratory testing.