Evolution and impact of COVID-19 outbreaks in care homes: population analysis in 189 care homes in one geographic region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: COVID-19 has had large impact on care-home residents internationally. This study systematically examines care-home outbreaks of COVID-19 in a large Scottish health board. Methods: Analysis of testing, cases and deaths using linked care-home, testing and mortality data for 189 care-homes with 5843 beds in a large Scottish Health Board up to 15/06/20. Findings: 70 (37.0%) of care-homes experienced a COVID-19 outbreak, 66 of which were in care-homes for older people where care-home size was strongly associated with outbreaks (OR per 20-bed increase 3.50, 95%CI 2.06 to 5.94). There were 852 confirmed cases and 419 COVID-related deaths, 401 (95.7%) of which occurred in care-homes with an outbreak, 16 (3.8%) in hospital, and two in the 119 care-homes without a known outbreak. For non-COVID related deaths, there were 73 excess deaths in care-homes with an outbreak, but no excess deaths in care-homes without an outbreak, and 24 fewer deaths than expected of care-home residents in hospital. A quarter of COVID-19 related cases and deaths occurred in five (2.6%) care-homes, and half in 13 (6.9%) care-homes. Interpretation: The large impact on excess deaths appears to be primarily a direct effect of COVID-19, with cases and deaths are concentrated in a minority of care homes. A key implication is that there is a large pool of susceptible residents if community COVID-19 incidence increases again. Shielding residents from potential sources of infection and rapid action into minimise outbreak size where infection is introduced will be critical in any wave 2. Funding: Not externally funded.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".