Back

Staff testing in care homes for older people: policy implications for early stages of future pandemic responses

OBrien, L.; Stirrup, O.; Henderson, C.; Blackstone, J.; Adams, N.; Azmi, B.; Bertini, L.; Cassell, J.; Cadar, D.; Copas, A.; McQuaid, C. F.; Flowers, P.; Shallcross, L.; Gosce, L.

2025-06-11 infectious diseases
10.1101/2025.06.09.25329311 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundCare home residents are at high risk of severe outcomes following respiratory infection due to age, co-morbidities, and close contact with staff and other residents. Frequent staff testing could potentially reduce respiratory infection cases in residents, but evidence is limited. This study uses historical COVID-19 data in England to assess the impact of varying staff testing rates under different transmission scenarios to inform response during future pandemics. MethodsWe developed a compartmental model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in England, with three population strata: general population, care home staff, and residents. The model was calibrated using prevalence data from January 2021 to March 2022 and testing rates from the VIVALDI Study (ISRCTN14447421). We conducted a scenario analysis projecting resident cases and deaths over 12 months under varying staff testing frequencies (monthly, twice-monthly, weekly, twice-weekly, daily) assuming a new dominant strain. We also explored the impact of testing when combined with a hypothetical low-cost highly-effective public health and social measures. FindingsStaff testing alone has little impact on reducing cases and deaths in the resident population. Daily testing could avert only 3.8% (95%UI: 3.1-4.4%) cases and 3.5% (95%UI: 2.3-4.4%) deaths compared to a baseline testing of less than one test per month. When combined with public health and social measures, however, the effect is large. Daily staff testing, combined with public health and social measures, can reduce resident cases by 54% (95%UI: 50-58%) and deaths by 50% (95%UI: 26-59%). Additionally, if testing frequency is reduced but there is still a public health and social measure, the effect size decreases, however there are potential cost savings ({pound}0.7 to {pound}3.4 million). InterpretationIncreasing staff testing alone is insufficient to significantly reduce SARS-CoV-2 cases and deaths in care home residents. However, combining testing with some form of a public health and social measure aimed at reducing transmission among residents, is epidemiologically effective and cost-effective in most scenarios and possibly cost saving.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Age and Ageing
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
37.6%
2
Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
3
Canadian Medical Association Journal
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
4
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
5
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.1%
6
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.7%
7
The Lancet Public Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
8
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
9
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
10
The British Journal of Psychiatry
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
11
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.8%
12
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
13
Nature Aging
51 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
14
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 54%
1.7%
15
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
16
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
17
The Lancet Healthy Longevity
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
18
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
19
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
20
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.2%
21
The Lancet Regional Health - Europe
32 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
22
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
23
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
24
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
25
Annals of Internal Medicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
26
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
27
The Journals of Gerontology: Series A
25 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
28
American Journal of Epidemiology
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
29
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
30
BMJ Public Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.6%