Older people living in care homes are at high risk of poor health outcomes and mortality if they contract COVID-19 or other infectious diseases. Measures used to protect residents include social distancing and isolation, although implementation is challenging. This review aimed to assess the social distancing and isolation strategies used by care homes to prevent and control the transmission of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases. Seven electronic databases were searched: Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, HMIC, Social Care Online, and Web of Science Core Collection. Grey literature was searched using MedRxiv, PDQ-Evidence, NICE Evidence Search, LTCCovid19.org and TRIP. Extracted data were synthesised using narrative synthesis and tabulation. 103 papers were included (10 empirical studies, seven literature reviews, and 86 policy documents). Strategies used to prevent and control the transmission of COVID-19 and other infectious diseases included social distancing and isolation of residents and staff, zoning and cohorting of residents, restriction of resident movement/activities, restriction of visitors and restriction of staff working patterns. This review demonstrates a lack of empirical evidence and the limited nature of policy documentation around social distancing and isolation measures in care homes. Evaluative research on these interventions is needed urgently, focusing on the well-being of all residents, particularly those with hearing, vision or cognitive impairments.

The Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) measures social care related quality of life (SCRQoL) and can be used to measure outcomes and demonstrate impact across different social care settings. This exploratory study built on previous work by collecting new inter-rater reliability data on the mixed-methods version of the toolkit and exploring how it might be used to inform practice in four case study homes. We worked with two care home providers to agree an in-depth study collecting SCRQoL data in four case-study homes. Data was collected about residents’ age, ethnicity, cognitive impairment, ability to perform activities of daily living and SCRQoL in the four homes. Feedback sessions with staff and managers were held in the homes two weeks after baseline and follow-up data collected three months later. Interviews with managers explored their views of the feedback and recorded any changes that had been made because of it. Participant recruitment was challenging, despite working in partnership with the homes. Resident response rates ranged from 23 to 54 % with 58 residents from four care homes taking part in the research. 53 % lacked capacity to consent. Inter-rater reliability for the ASCOT ratings of SCRQoL were good at time one (IRR = 0.72) and excellent at time two (IRR = 0.76). During the study, residents’ ability to perform activities of daily living declined significantly (z = -2.67, p < .01), as did their expected needs in the absence of services (z = -2.41, p < .05). Despite these rapid declines in functionings, residents’ current SCRQoL declined slightly but not significantly (Z = -1.49, p = .14). Staff responded positively to the feedback given and managers reported implementing changes in practice because of it. This exploratory study faced many challenges in the recruitment of residents, many of whom were cognitively impaired. Nevertheless, without a mixed-methods approach many of the residents living in the care homes would have been excluded from the research altogether or had their views represented only by a representative or proxy. The value of the mixed-methods toolkit and its potential for use by providers is discussed.

The quality of life of people receiving health and social care is an important indicator of service quality, but the relationship between patient experience and outcomes and regulator quality ratings in England is unknown. In 2013, the health and social care regulator in England, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), introduced a new ratings system and by February 2017, all social care services were inspected and awarded new quality ratings (outstanding, good, requires improvement and inadequate). This study aimed to explore whether quality ratings were associated with residents’ quality of life, controlling for confounding variables. We conducted a nested, cross-sectional study, collecting social care-related quality of life (SCRQoL) data for 293 older care home residents in 34 care homes (20 nursing and 14 residential) in the South East of England. CQC ratings and other resident and home-level variables were also collected for the analysis. Multilevel modelling explored whether residents’ social care-related quality of life (SCRQoL) was associated with regulator ratings, controlling for confounding variables. Outstanding and good homes were collapsed into one category and compared with homes requiring improvement. Nationally, only 2 % of care homes for older people are rated as inadequate and it was not possible to capture sufficient numbers for the analysis. We recruited one but it was re-inspected during the fieldwork period and its rating changed to requires improvement. The random intercept multilevel model, which accounted for 16.93% of the differences in SCRQoL within homes and 69.80% between, indicated that better SCRQoL was significantly associated with being female, better functioning, no dementia diagnosis, fewer communication difficulties, and living in a care home rated as outstanding/good by CQC. Size of home and registration category were not significant predictors. This study found evidence that quality ratings are associated with residents’ SCRQoL. As well as aiming to improve quality and ensure minimum standards, quality ratings have the potential to inform user choice and help the public compare care homes based on quality. Future research to establish the generalisability and replicability of the results is required.

The main aim of this scoping review was to understand how work-related quality of life (WRQoL) in adult social care has been defined and measured in the literature and to map key components of WRQoL among those working in adult social care and similar contexts. The scoping review included studies that: 1- focused on WRQoL/work-related wellbeing (and their synonyms); and 2- included adult social care or community health care. We searched existing evidence from November 2019 until July 2020 through an electronic literature search of eight major databases complemented by the grey literature, searching the reference lists and by contacting our existing network of experts in the field. In addition, we repeated the searches to identify any relevant literature published in 2021. Reporting followed the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. In total, we included 68 publications. These publications indicate that there is an absence of agreement on a definition and measurement of WRQoL in adult social care. Based on a thematic analysis we identified six key components of WRQoL: organisational characteristics; job characteristics; mental wellbeing and health; physical wellbeing and health; spill-over from work to home; and professional identity. In summary, at the moment, there is no agreement on what WRQoL is and how to measure it in adult social care. As a result, there is very limited evidence on how to improve WRQoL among people working in adult social care. However, this scoping review suggests that there are six key components of WRQoL that researchers may consider to include in their future studies.

Introduction Older people living in residential and nursing care homes often have complex needs and are at high risk of poor health outcomes and mortality, especially if they contract COVID-19. Care homes use infection prevention and control measures such as social distancing and isolating residents to protect them from COVID-19. The care home sector has stated that implementing social distancing and isolation when caring for residents is a significant challenge. This paper presents the protocol of a mixed-methods study to explore and understand the real-life experiences of implementing social distancing and isolation of residents in care homes for older people from the perspective of residents, families/friends and staff working in and with care homes. The study aims to develop a toolkit of resources for health and care delivery now and for future outbreaks of infectious diseases. Methods and analysis The study will be conducted in three phases. Phase 1 is a rapid review of evidence to collate knowledge on the mechanisms and measures used by care homes and long-term facilities to socially distance and isolate older people or control the spread of other infectious and contagious diseases. The review results will contribute to participant interviews in phase 2 and toolkit development in phase 3. Phase 2 will involve case studies with six care homes in England, involving the conduct of individual interviews with residents, families and friends, and staff, collection of care home policies and protocols related to social distancing and isolation for residents, and routinely collected care home data. A focus group with a purposive sample of external key informants will also be conducted. Phase 3, synthesising findings from phases 1 and 2, will inform the codesign of a toolkit of resources for residents, families/friends and care homes. Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by Coventry and Warwick Research Ethics Committee (20/WM/0318). To maximise impact, we will work closely with the Study Committees and the Patient and Public Involvement group to ensure the findings reach key stakeholders, including residents, families/friends, care homes, commissioners and organisations representing care home providers. We will disseminate the study outputs in peer-reviewed and professional journals, at professional conferences and via other knowledge transfer activities with the care home sector, and resident and carer organisations. The toolkit comprising evidence-informed guidance and resources and a mosaic film will be hosted on a project webpage. Registration details This project is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (Project reference NIHR132541). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021226734.

Background: Long-term care (LTC) workers are subjected to structural and inherent difficult conditions that are likely to impact their quality of life at work; however, no agreed scale measures it. This study aims to develop a scale to measure the work-related quality of life among LTC workers in England (CWRQoL). The study establishes the domains/sub-domains of CWRQoL, investigates the tool’s utility and collates information on existing supporting strategies for CWRQoL. Methods: We adopt a mixed-methods approach employing inductive/deductive processes at three stages: (1) a scoping review of the literature; (2) interviews and focus groups with frontline LTC workers, managers and LTC stakeholders; and (3) a content validity consensus survey. Results: CWRQoL is composed of seven domains (and 23 sub-domains). Additional domains to those in the literature include financial wellbeing, sufficient time for building relations, managing grief and emotions associated with client death and end of life care. Stakeholders identified several benefits and challenges related to the CWRQoL tool’s utility. COVID-19 significantly impacted LTC workers’ mental wellbeing and spillover between work and home. Conclusions: The study highlighted the complex nature of CWRQoL and provided a solid ground for developing and validating a CWRQoL scale.