ABSTRACT
Objective To estimate mortality of care home residents during the Covid-19 pandemic from primary care electronic health records.
Design Matched cohort study
Setting 1,421 general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum Database in England.
Participants 217,987 patients aged 18 to 104 years with recorded care home residence in England in the period 2015 to 2020. There were 86,371 care home residents contributing data in 2020, with 29,662 deaths; 83,419 (97%) were matched on age, gender and general practice with 312,607 community-dwelling adults.
Main outcome measures All-cause mortality. Analysis was by Poisson regression adjusting for age, gender, long-term conditions, region, year and calendar week.
Results The highest first wave age-specific mortality rate was 6.02 (95% confidence interval 5.97 to 6.07) per 100 patients per week in men aged 95-104 years between 13th-19th April 2020. Compared with community-dwelling controls, the adjusted rate ratio for mortality of care home residents was 4.95 (4.62 to 5.32) in February 2020, increasing to 8.34 (7.95 to 8.74) in April 2020, declining to 3.93 (3.68 to 4.20) in December 2020. During the week of 13th to 19th April 2020, mortality of care home residents was 10.74 (9.72 to 11.85) times higher than for matched community-dwelling controls.
Conclusions Individual-patient data from primary care electronic health records may be used to estimate mortality in care home residents. Mortality is substantially higher than for community-dwelling comparators and showed a disproportionate increase in the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic but not the second wave. This study provides evidence to support earlier, decisive action to protect these vulnerable populations in the event of further outbreaks. Prospective investigations of care home mortality are warranted.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The authors were supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Guys and St Thomas Hospitals. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Scientific and ethical approval of the proposal was provided by the CPRD Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC) protocol number 20_000214. The CPRD holds over-arching research ethics committee approval for all studies conducted using CPRD data. The study was based on analysis of fully anonymised data and no participant consent was required.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data sharing requests should be sent to martin.gulliford{at}kcl.ac.uk. Data release is subject to approval from CPRD.
