Challenges and guidance for implementing social distancing for COVID-19 in care homes: a mixed methods rapid review

Background:

Older people living in care homes are at high risk of poor health outcomes and mortality if they contract coronavirus disease 2019. Protective measures include social distancing and isolation, although implementation is challenging.

Objectives:

To explore the real-life experiences of social distancing and isolation in care homes for older people, and to develop a toolkit of guidance and resources.

Design:

A mixed-methods, phased design.

Setting:

Six care homes in England caring for older adults.

Participants:

Care home staff (n = 31), residents (n = 17), family members (n = 17), senior health and care leaders (n = 13).

Methods:

A rapid review to assess the social distancing and isolation measures used by care homes to control the transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 and other infectious diseases (phase 1), in-depth case studies of six care homes, involving remote individual interviews with staff, residents and families, collection of policies, protocols and routinely collected care home data, remote focus groups with senior health and care leaders (phase 2) and stakeholder workshops to co-design the toolkit (phase 3). Interview and focus group data and care home documents were analysed using thematic analysis and care home data using descriptive statistics.

Results:

The rapid review of 103 records demonstrated limited empirical evidence and the limited nature of policy documentation around social distancing and isolation measures in care homes. The case studies found that social distancing and isolation measures presented moral dilemmas for staff and often were difficult, and sometimes impossible to implement. Social distancing and isolation measures made care homes feel like an institution and denied residents, staff and families of physical touch and other forms of non-verbal communication. This was particularly important for residents with cognitive impairment. Care homes developed new visiting modalities to work around social distancing measures. Residents and families valued the work of care homes to keep residents safe and support remote communication. Social distancing, isolation and related restrictions negatively impacted on residents’ physical, psychological, social and cognitive well-being. There were feelings of powerlessness for families whose loved ones had moved into the care home during the pandemic. It was challenging for care homes to capture frequent updates in policy and guidance. Senior health and care leaders shared that the care home sector felt isolated from the National Health Service, communication from government was described as chaotic, and trauma was inflicted on care home staff, residents, families and friends. These multiple data sources have informed the co-design of a toolkit to care for residents, families, friends and care home staff.

Limitations:

The review included papers published in English language only. The six care homes had a Care Quality Commission rating of either ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’. There was a lack of ethnic diversity in resident and family participants.

Conclusions:

Care homes implemented innovative approaches to social distancing and isolation with varying degrees of success. A legacy of learning can help rebuild trust at multiple levels and address trauma-informed care for residents, families, friends and staff. Future work can include evaluation of the toolkit, research to develop a trauma-informed approach to caring for the care home sector and co-designing and evaluating an intervention to enable residents with different needs to transition to living well in a care home.

Funding:

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR132541) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 45. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Article history

The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HSDR programme or one of its preceding programmes as award number NIHR132541. The contractual start date was in November 2020. The draft manuscript began editorial review in May 2022 and was accepted for publication in October 2022. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HSDR editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ manuscript and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this article.