ABSTRACT
San Francisco implemented one of the most intensive, comprehensive, multipronged COVID-19 pandemic responses in the United States using 4 core strategies: (1) aggressive mitigation measures to protect populations at risk for severe disease, (2) prioritization of resources in neighborhoods highly affected by COVID-19, (3) timely and adaptive data-driven policy making, and (4) leveraging of partnerships and public trust. We collected data to describe programmatic and population-level outcomes. The excess all-cause mortality rate in 2020 in San Francisco was half that seen in 2019 in California as a whole (8% vs 16%). In almost all age and race and ethnicity groups, excess mortality from COVID-19 was lower in San Francisco than in California overall, with markedly diminished excess mortality among people aged >65 years. The COVID-19 response in San Francisco highlights crucial lessons, particularly the importance of community responsiveness, joint planning, and collective action, to inform future pandemic response and advance health equity.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Humans , United States , San Francisco/epidemiology , Pandemics/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , Ethnicity , Residence CharacteristicsABSTRACT
Importance: Several jurisdictions in the United States have secured hotels to temporarily house people experiencing homelessness who require isolation or quarantine for confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To our knowledge, little is known about how these programs serve this vulnerable population outside the hospital setting. Objective: To assess the safety of a hotel-based isolation and quarantine (I/Q) care system and its association with inpatient hospital capacity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study of a hotel-based I/Q care system for homeless and unstably housed individuals in San Francisco, California, was conducted from March 19 to May 31, 2020. Individuals unable to safely isolate or quarantine at home with mild to moderate COVID-19, persons under investigation, or close contacts were referred from hospitals, outpatient settings, and public health surveillance to 5 I/Q hotels. Of 1009 I/Q hotel guests, 346 were transferred from a large county public hospital serving patients experiencing homelessness. Exposure: A physician-supervised team of nurses and health workers provided around-the-clock support, including symptom monitoring, wellness checks, meals, harm-reduction services, and medications for opioid use disorder. Main Outcomes and Measures: Characteristics of I/Q hotel guests, program retention, county hospital readmissions, and mean length of stay. Results: Overall, the 1009 I/Q hotel guests had a median age of 44 years (interquartile range, 33-55 years), 756 (75%) were men, 454 (45%) were Latinx, and 501 (50%) were persons experiencing sheltered (n = 295) or unsheltered (n = 206) homelessness. Overall, 463 (46%) received a diagnosis of COVID-19; 303 of 907 (33%) had comorbid medical disorders, 225 of 907 (25%) had comorbid mental health disorders, and 236 of 907 (26%) had comorbid substance use disorders. A total of 776 of 955 guests (81%) completed their I/Q hotel stay; factors most strongly associated with premature discontinuation were unsheltered homelessness (adjusted odds ratio, 4.5; 95% CI, 2.3-8.6; P < .001) and quarantine status (adjusted odds ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.6; P = .001). In total, 346 of 549 patients (63%) were transferred from the county hospital; of 113 ineligible referrals, 48 patients (42%) had behavioral health needs exceeding I/Q hotel capabilities. Thirteen of the 346 patients transferred from the county hospital (4%) were readmitted for worsening COVID-19. Overall, direct transfers to I/Q hotels from emergency and outpatient departments were associated with averting many hospital admissions. There was a nonsignificant decrease in the mean hospital length of stay for inpatients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 from 5.5 to 2.7 days from March to May 2020 (P = .11). Conclusions and Relevance: To support persons experiencing homelessness during the COVID-19 pandemic, San Francisco rapidly and safely scaled a hotel-based model of I/Q that was associated with reduced strain on inpatient capacity. Strategies to improve guest retention and address behavioral health needs not met in hotel settings are intervention priorities.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Ill-Housed Persons , Patient Isolation , Quarantine , Adult , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Hospitals, Public , Housing , Humans , Length of Stay , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Patient Care Team , Patient Compliance , Patient Readmission , Patient Transfer , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , San Francisco , Vulnerable PopulationsABSTRACT
Coronavirus disease 2019 can cause significant mortality in the elderly in long-term care facilities (LTCF). We describe 4 LTCF outbreaks where mass testing identified a high proportion of asymptomatic infections (4%-41% in healthcare workers and 20%-75% in residents), indicating that symptom-based screening alone is insufficient for monitoring for COVID-19 transmission.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aged , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , Long-Term Care , SARS-CoV-2 , San Francisco , Skilled Nursing FacilitiesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To describe epidemiologic and genomic characteristics of a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak in a large skilled-nursing facility (SNF), and the strategies that controlled transmission. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study was conducted during March 22-May 4, 2020, among all staff and residents at a 780-bed SNF in San Francisco, California. METHODS: Contact tracing and symptom screening guided targeted testing of staff and residents; respiratory specimens were also collected through serial point prevalence surveys (PPSs) in units with confirmed cases. Cases were confirmed by real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing for SARS-CoV-2, and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) was used to characterize viral isolate lineages and relatedness. Infection prevention and control (IPC) interventions included restricting from work any staff who had close contact with a confirmed case; restricting movement between units; implementing surgical face masking facility-wide; and the use of recommended PPE (ie, isolation gown, gloves, N95 respirator and eye protection) for clinical interactions in units with confirmed cases. RESULTS: Of 725 staff and residents tested through targeted testing and serial PPSs, 21 (3%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive: 16 (76%) staff and 5 (24%) residents. Fifteen cases (71%) were linked to a single unit. Targeted testing identified 17 cases (81%), and PPSs identified 4 cases (19%). Most cases (71%) were identified before IPC interventions could be implemented. WGS was performed on SARS-CoV-2 isolates from 4 staff and 4 residents: 5 were of Santa Clara County lineage and the 3 others were distinct lineages. CONCLUSIONS: Early implementation of targeted testing, serial PPSs, and multimodal IPC interventions limited SARS-CoV-2 transmission within the SNF.