Are we allowed to visit now? Concerns and issues surrounding vaccination and infection risks in UK care homes during COVID-19

Background

Care homes have been affected to the greatest extent by the COVID-19 pandemic, heightened by the fact that residents are most susceptible to the virus. In 2021 alone, over 10,000 care home residents in England have passed away from COVID-19 (ONS database, 2021).

There is emerging quantitative evidence on COVID-19 outbreaks in care homes and management of infection risks (Burton et al., 2020; 2021), with a body of research into the effects on health care staff yet limited evidence on the impact on social care staff (De Kock et al., 2021; Hanna, Rapa, Dalton et al., 2021). In a recent international report by Low-Fay (2021), summarising the limited available evidence into the effects of the pandemic on residents, family carers, and staff, the authors made strong recommendations for safe visiting to be enabled immediately, to ensure improved well-being for all involved. Social engagement is vital (Sommerlad et al., 2019), and research into lack of social engagement in the community for people with dementia has already shown detrimental impacts on faster deterioration (Giebel et al., 2020). The negative impact of lack of social engagement has also been shown in the care home setting (Ayalon & Avidor, 2020; van der Roest et al., 2020).

Guidance surrounding care homes and visitation, and infection control, where they are available (Giebel et al., under review), are changing rapidly. This is particularly the case more recently due to the large vaccination rollout across the UK, with over half of the population vaccinated with a first dose in April 2021. Care home residents and health and social care staff were prioritised in accessing the vaccine, as well as family carers, with reports of reduced vaccination rates among social care staff. A survey into vaccine hesitancy in Liverpool-based care home staff showed that on average only half of care home staff in each care home (51.4%) had been vaccinated, with concerns about lack of vaccine research, misinformation about fertility side effects, and being off-site stated as common reasons for vaccine hesitancy (Tulloch et al., preprint). However, data are based on a survey with only 50% of approached Liverpool-based care homes responding, and are specific to this region within North West England, with no qualitative data to date on vaccination of care home staff across the UK or other countries. This is important to understand however, as social care staff provide care to some of the most vulnerable members of our society, in particular those groups who are most vulnerable to infection and mortality from COVID-19 (Daras et al., 2021). Moreover, there is no research to date showcasing the impact of vaccination rollout and increased testing across care homes and family carers on visitation, whilst we know that testing in care homes proves to be an effective measure of infection control (Micocci et al., 2021).

In March 2021, the government made two announcements and allowed at first one essential visitor into the care home (8^th of March), which was followed by a second essential visitor (29^th of March). Different countries have different regulations, and in the Netherlands for example there is a law against blanket care home closures to family and friends. This is also currently being debated in the UK.

The aim of this study was to explore the longitudinal impact of the pandemic on care home visiting rights and the effects of vaccination and testing on visitation. With no evidence to date, this study will provide crucial first findings with potential implications for care home visitation guidance.

Methods

Data and data collection

Baseline interviews were conducted between October and November 2020, and follow-up interviews were conducted in March 2021, when vaccinations were ongoing and restrictions were lifted to allow first one, then two visitors into the care home and hold hands using PPE. Figure 1 shows a timeline of care home restrictions in comparison with national changes, whereby it is important to highlight that each nation (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) imposed their own restrictions from summer 2020.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Timeline of UK public health restrictions in the time of COVID-19, from October 2020 – March 2021. White circles indicate UK restrictions, and black circles indicate care home restrictions in response to the public health measures at that time.

We collected basic demographic characteristics of participants including age, gender, ethnicity, as well as relationship with relative with dementia and dementia subtype from family members, and years of working in the care home sector, staff role, and size of the care homes from care home staff.

The interview topic guides for baseline and follow-up interviews were co-produced with clinicians, unpaid carers of people living with dementia and academics. Iterations of the topic guide were circulated between team members until a final version was agreed. During baseline interviews, participants were asked about changes to their caring roles since the pandemic, their experiences of viral testing and COVID-19 safety measures employed in the care home, resident visits and communications between family members the care home, and the impact of the restrictions on the staff and residents. Follow-up interview questions centred on changes to participants’ experiences and restriction impacts over time, and included further questions about their experiences of and views about COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine uptake in care home residents and staff and for themselves as carers, as well as changes to visiting arrangements.

Semi-structured, remote interviews were conducted, with participants offered their preferred form of communication (phone or online). Interviews were audio-recorded, with verbal consent obtained and recorded at the beginning of each interview. Audio files were transcribed and in the process anonymised. The average length of interview at baseline was 29 (+/- 11) minutes, [12-58], and at follow-up was 24 (+/-7) minutes [13-37].

Results

We conducted a total of 62 interviews (42 baseline and 20 follow-up interviews). At baseline, 26 family carers and 16 care home staff participated. At follow-up, 11 family carers and 9 care home staff participated. Across all baseline interviewees, the majority were female (n=31), White British (n=35) and with a mean age of 54.8 (±15.9). The majority of participants resided in the least disadvantaged quintile (IMD=1) as reported from their postcode IMD score. Of the 26 family carers recruited, the majority were adult children (n=16), with the remaining relations spouse or partner. The most common dementia subtype, of the PLWD residing in a care home, was Alzheimer’s (n=8), followed by Lewy Body (n=6) and Vascular (n=4). Of the 16 care home staff, the mean years of working in a care home was 9.3 (±10.6), with care assistant and manager the most common job roles (n=4 respectively). Table 1 shows the full demographics of the recruited participants in both the baseline and follow-up interviews.

Discussion

This is the first study to have explored the impact of vaccination and increased testing on care home visitation. Findings showed how visits were often delayed and inconsistent, and subject to various barriers and implementation of guidelines dependant on each care home. The variability in vaccination between staff and family carers appeared to be the biggest barrier of all, and cause of considerable angst for family carers.

There has been no consistent approach to enabling care home visits during this pandemic. Our findings show that due to a lack of clear guidance, each care home interpreted the guidance themselves and made decisions on how and when visits could be enabled. This left some family carers seeing their relatives via alternative face-to-face visits, whilst others were experiencing delays. This was particularly the case with the March announcement of essential visitors being allowed into English care homes, with care homes not having received any communication from the government about these changes in advance. Social contact and enabling family visits are vital to relatives and residents however, and a human right (Butchard & Kindermann, 2019). As Lee-Fay and colleagues (2021) reported in an international overview of care home recommendations in the time of the pandemic, safe visiting needs to be enabled, which is corroborated by our findings whilst also highlighting the barriers which normally one would expect to act as facilitators.

Whilst family members were initially (at baseline) more understanding of the situation, albeit upset, the emotional intensity appeared to have changed by follow-up. Family carers were overall frustrated and angry at the strict measures in place for them in terms of visitation, compared to less strict measures on infection control for staff. Family carers were adhering to restrictions, and were all vaccinated and willing to test in order to see their relatives as soon as possible. Regardless, the vast majority were only allowed to see their relative behind a window or pod screen, whilst a different member of staff sat close to the relative on each of these alternative face-to-face visits. This was presumably heightened by the consistent lack of communication between care homes and families (Giebel et al., under review), increasing the emotional upset in family members. The pandemic is having a stark impact on people’s mental well-being already (Fancourt, Steptoe, Bu, 2021; Hanna et al., 2021), and the inability to visit loved ones can exacerbate low mental well-being in family members, as evidenced in emerging research (Ayalon & Avidor, 2020; van der Roest et al., 2020). Therefore, in addition to enabling visits, family members need better social and psychological support to cope with how the pandemic has affected their relationship with their relative, with peer support groups for example provide emotional and social benefits (Keyes et al., 2016). This could also be addressed by improved communication between the care home and families, allowing families to have a better insight into the well-being of their relative when visits can be difficult to access, and a more open discussion about the causes of restrictions and balance of risk.

Increased testing and availability of vaccination would be expected to be a facilitator of face-to-face visits. However, variability in vaccine uptake and logistics around planning visits can also act as barriers. There appeared to be misinformation among staff surrounding the consequences and side effects of vaccination. Fertility, microchips, and other apparent side effects were raised, which caused delays in some staff getting the vaccine. Whilst it is beneficial that most staff got vaccinated in the end, any delays in getting vaccinated can cause more time to get infected and to spread the virus, in a population that is one of the most vulnerable in our societies. In addition, this can delay the ability for family carers to visit as infection outbreaks may be more likely. Ladhani and colleagues (2020) for example reported increased infection risk in staff working across multiple care homes. The notion of vaccine hesitancy amongst social care staff is corroborated in a small survey in a small geographical region of the North West of England, reporting vaccine hesitancy in 50% of surveyed care home staff (Tulloch et al., 2021). Equally, lower education in the French working age population has been found to be related to lower vaccine uptake (Schwarzinger et al., 2021). Whist this showcases that vaccine hesitancy is not restricted to the social care taskforce, and there being a great deal of misinformation surrounding the pandemic in general (Green et al., 2021), UK social care staff overall has low educational entry requirements (House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts, 2018), which may be one of the reasons for vaccine hesitancy. However, there are many factors at play, and hesitancy, as indicated by Tulloch et al.’s (2021) findings, cannot easily be explained by one single reason. To overcome the issue of misinformation, more adequate education and information about the vaccines and the benefits need to provided, not just for this but also for future pandemics.

Logistical issues can also provide a barrier to vaccine uptake in care home staff, which in return can impact on decisions about infection control measures in care homes and allowing family members inside. We reported occasions where staff were informed less than an hour before the vaccinations were taking place, which leaves little time for staff to receive proper information about the vaccine and if still unsure, to ask sufficient questions. These difficulties in adequate vaccination rollout contribute to the anger experienced by family carers with fewer staff potentially vaccinated than if there was appropriate timing. This lack of advance notice seems to be supported by a general lack of guidance for care homes, as the announcements of essential visitor rights were equally not communicated to care homes in advance. This strongly highlights the general lack of communication and support from decision makers in managing infection control in the care home settings, so that care homes have to rely on their own judgements. Preliminary findings by Marshall et al. (2021) corroborate how care homes were left without much support and instead often supported themselves and received support from their communities.

Based on these novel findings, we make five specific recommendations for the care home sector, to the benefit of staff, family carers, and residents:

• Face-to-face visits are a human right and the right to see loved ones should only ever be removed as a last resort, regularly reviewed in consultation with residents and carers, and restored as a high priority as soon as possible

• Support for care homes for the effective implementation of infection control measures and access to personal protective equipment alongside health staff, to avoid taking staff time away from caring for residents and leading to stopping visits as a default, lower cost, protective response

• Need for better information support and guidance surrounding vaccination for all involved and improved logistical processes for vaccine delivery

• General need for better guidance and communication to support care home staff in their work delivery and communication between care homes and families

• Vaccination of social care staff should be mandatory

Whilst this study benefits from having captured the precise moment when visitation restrictions were officially eased for care homes in England, and being the first study to explore the impact of heightened infection control measures (testing, vaccination) on care home visitation, there were some limitations. This longitudinal study only interviewed family members of care home residents and care home staff, thereby only collecting some proxy information on how people with dementia residing in the care homes were faring. Considering pandemic restrictions of not collecting data in care homes, as well as the difficulty of obtaining experiential data from people who mostly lack capacity to consent, given their advanced dementia, this was the most feasible way of collecting data. Further research needs to explore impact of restrictions on residents’ well-being and functioning, which can be achieved via quantitative measurements. A positive of the sample is the fact that staff were recruited from 16 different care homes across the UK, thus broadening the representativeness of care home experiences. Additionally, our sample was lacking ethnic minority representation, and mostly included family carers and staff from a White ethnic background. In light of increased susceptibility of people from minority ethnic backgrounds to the virus (Daras et al., 2021), future research needs to explore their views, as ethnicity may affect behaviour and attitudes towards infection control measures and visitation.

Conclusions

This study provides the first insights into how increased infection control measures (testing and vaccination) have impacted on care home visitation. The lack of social contact with relatives has been detrimental to family members, with our findings providing strong evidence-based recommendations for the continued handling of the COVID-19 pandemic going forward, as well as for other future infection outbreaks. With voices emerging on implementing a law to enable social contact with loved ones for residents, this study supports this notion, whilst more in-depth research is required on the precise impacts of residents from their points of views.

Funding

This study was funded by the Geoffrey and Pauline Martin Trust, with funding awarded to the principal investigator. This is also independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast (ARC NWC). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.