We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Compare the effectiveness of multiple mitigation measures designed to protect nursing home residents from infectious disease outbreaks.
Design:
Agent-based simulation study.
Setting:
Simulation environment of a small nursing home.
Methods:
We collected temporally detailed and spatially fine-grained location information from nursing home healthcare workers (HCWs) using sensor motes. We used these data to power an agent-based simulation of a COVID-19 outbreak using realistic time-varying estimates of infectivity and diagnostic sensitivity. Under varying community prevalence and transmissibility, we compared the mitigating effects of (i) regular screening and isolation, (ii) inter-resident contact restrictions, (iii) reduced HCW presenteeism, and (iv) modified HCW scheduling.
Results:
Across all configurations tested, screening every other day and isolating positive cases decreased the attack rate by an average of 27% to 0.501 on average, while contact restrictions decreased the attack rate by an average of 35%, resulting in an attack rate of only 0.240, approximately half that of screening/isolation. Combining both interventions impressively produced an attack rate of only 0.029. Halving the observed presenteeism rate led to an 18% decrease in the attack rate, but if combined with screening every 6 days, the effect of reducing presenteeism was negligible. Altering work schedules had negligible effects on the attack rate.
Conclusions:
Universal contact restrictions are highly effective for protecting vulnerable nursing home residents, yet adversely affect physical and mental health. In high transmission and/or high community prevalence situations, restricting inter-resident contact to groups of 4 was effective and made highly effective when paired with weekly testing.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.