The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the extreme vulnerability of older people and other individuals who reside in long term care, creating an urgent need for evidence-based policy that can adequately protect these community members. This study aimed to provide synthesized evidence to support policy decision-making. Rapid narrative review investigating strategies that have prevented or mitigated SARS-CoV-2 transmission in long term care. Residents and staff in care settings such as nursing homes and long term care facilities. PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library and Scopus were systematically searched, with studies describing potentially effective strategies included. Studies were excluded if they did not report empirical evidence (for example commentaries and consensus guidelines). Study quality was appraised on the basis of study design; data were extracted from published reports and synthesised narratively using tabulated data extracts and summary tables. Searches yielded 713 articles; 80 papers describing 77 studies were included. Most studies were observational with no randomized controlled trials identified. Intervention studies provided strong support for widespread surveillance, early identification and response, and rigorous infection prevention and control (IPC) measures. Symptom or temperature based screening, and single point-prevalence testing, were found to be ineffective, and serial universal testing of residents and staff was considered crucial. Attention to ventilation and environmental management, digital health applications and acute sector support were also considered beneficial although evidence for effectiveness was lacking. In observational studies, staff represented substantial transmission risk and workforce management strategies were important components of pandemic response. Higher performing facilities with less crowding and higher nurse staffing ratios had reduced transmission rates. Outbreak investigations suggested that facility-level leadership, inter-sectoral collaboration and policy that facilitated access to critical resources were all significant enablers of success. High quality evidence of effectiveness in protecting LTCFs from COVID-19 was limited at the time of this study, though continues to emerge. Despite widespread COVID-19 vaccination programs in many countries, continuing prevention and mitigation measures may be required to protect vulnerable long term care residents from COVID-19 and other infectious diseases. This rapid review summarises current evidence regarding strategies which may be effective.

Click on the article title to read more.

Across the globe the emphasis on roles and responsibilities of primary care teams is under scrutiny. This paper begins with a review of general practice financing in Australia, and how nurses are currently funded. We then examine the influence on funding structures on the role of the nurse. We set out three dilemmas for policy-makers in this area: lack of an evidence base for incentives, possible untoward impacts on interdisciplinary functioning, and the substitution/enhancement debate.

Background: People with intellectual disability experience inadequate access to general practice and poorer health outcomes than the general population. While some access barriers have been identified for this population, these studies have often used narrow definitions of access, which may not encompass the multiple dimensions that influence access to general practice. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review to identify factors impacting access to general practice for people with intellectual disability in Australia, using a holistic framework of access conceptualised by Levesque and colleagues. Methods: This scoping review followed Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Medline (Ovid), Scopus, CINAHL, Informit and PsycINFO databases were searched. Screening, full-text review and data extraction were completed by two independent reviewers, with consensus reached at each stage of the study. Data were extracted, coded and synthesised through deductive qualitative analysis – using the five corresponding conceptual dimensions within Levesque and colleagues’ theoretical framework of access, which incorporate both supply-side features of health systems and services, and demand-side characteristics of consumers and populations. Results: The search identified 1364 publications. After duplicate removal, title and abstract screening and full-text review, 44 publications were included. Supply-side factors were more commonly reported than demand-side factors, with the following issues frequently identified as impacting access to general practice: limited general practitioner education about, and/or experience of, people with intellectual disability; communication difficulties; and inadequate continuity of care. Less frequently included were factors such as the health literacy levels, promotion of general practice services and availability of complete medical records. Conclusions: This is the first scoping review to assess access barriers for people with intellectual disability using a comprehensive conceptualisation of access. The findings highlight the need for increased efforts to address demand-side dimensions of access to general practice and offer a basis for a balanced portfolio of strategies that can support recent policy initiatives to enhance access to care for people with intellectual disability.

There may be multiple reasons why older people are not able to effectively access or engage with health technologies despite their availability.