Site of care and factors associated with mortality in unvaccinated Australian aged care residents during COVID-19 outbreaks.

BACKGROUND: Residential InReach presents an alternative to hospital admission for aged care residents swabbed for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), although relative outcomes remain unknown. AIMS: To compare rates and predictors of 28-day mortality for aged care residents seen by InReach with COVID-19, or 'suspected COVID-19' (sCOVID), including hospital versus InReach-based care. METHODS: Prospective observational study of consecutive patients referred to a Victorian InReach service meeting COVID-19 testing criteria between April and October 2020 (prevaccine availability). COVID-19 was determined by positive polymerase chain reaction testing on nasopharyngeal swab. sCOVID-19 was defined as meeting symptomatic Victorian Government testing criteria but persistently swab negative. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, sex, Clinical Frailty Score (CFS) or Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) between 152 patients with COVID-19 and 118 patients with sCOVID. Similar results were found for 28-day mortality between patients with COVID-19 (35/152, 23%) and sCOVID (32/118, 27%) (P = 0.4). For the combined cohort, 28-day mortality was associated with initial oxygen saturation (P < 0.001), delirium (P < 0.001), hospital transfer for acuity (P = 0.02; but not public health/facility reasons), CFS (P = 0.04), prior ischaemic heart disease (P = 0.01) and dementia (P = 0.02). For patients with COVID-19, 28-day mortality was associated with initial oxygen saturation (P = 0.02), delirium (P < 0.001) and hospital transfer for acuity (P = 0.01), but not public health/facility reasons. CONCLUSION: Unvaccinated aged care residents meeting COVID-19 testing criteria seen by InReach during a pandemic experience high mortality rates, including with negative swab result. Residents remaining within-facility (with InReach) experienced similar adjusted mortality odds to residents transferred to hospital for public health/facility-based reasons, and lower than those transferred for clinical acuity.

Comparison of amyloid PET measured in Centiloid units with neuropathological findings in Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: The Centiloid scale was developed to standardise the results of beta-amyloid (Aß) PET. We aimed to determine the Centiloid unit (CL) thresholds for CERAD sparse and moderate-density neuritic plaques, Alzheimer's disease neuropathologic change (ADNC) score of intermediate or high probability of Alzheimer's Disease (AD), final clinicopathological diagnosis of AD, and expert visual read of a positive Aß PET scan. METHODS: Aß PET results in CL for 49 subjects were compared with post-mortem findings, visual read, and final clinicopathological diagnosis. The Youden Index was used to determine the optimal CL thresholds from receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: A threshold of 20.1 CL (21.3 CL when corrected for time to death, AUC 0.97) yielded highest accuracy in detecting moderate or frequent plaque density while < 10 CL was optimal for excluding neuritic plaque. The threshold for ADNC intermediate or high likelihood AD was 49.4 CL (AUC 0.98). Those cases with a final clinicopathological diagnosis of AD yielded a median CL result of 87.7 (IQR ± 42.2) with 94% > 45 CL. Positive visual read agreed highly with results > 26 CL. CONCLUSIONS: Centiloid values < 10 accurately reflected the absence of any neuritic plaque and > 20 CL indicated the presence of at least moderate plaque density, but approximately 50 CL or more best confirmed both neuropathological and clinicopathological diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease.

Factors influencing decision-making processes for unwell residents in residential aged care: Hospital transfer or Residential InReach referral?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate decision-making around hospital transfer and/or referral of residents to a Residential InReach (RiR) service in north-eastern metropolitan Melbourne, Australia, from the perspectives of residential aged care facility (RACF) staff, general practitioners (GPs) and RiR registered nurses (RNs). METHODS: Thirty-one staff from eight RACFs, five GPs and four RiR RNs participated in individual or group interviews. RESULTS: Residential aged care facility staff and GPs valued and relied upon RiR to manage unwell residents. Thematic analysis identified RiR utilisation was driven by the following: (i) complexity of decision-making processes in RACFs; (ii) variability in facility-based medical and nursing care; and (iii) impact of RiR service outcomes on patients and referrers. CONCLUSION: Availability of timely and appropriate medical and nursing care in RACFs was reported to influence transfers to the hospital and/or referrals to RiR. RiR was used to complement or substitute usual care available to residents. Further research and improvements in RACF and RiR resources are required.