Covid-19 infection and attributable mortality in UK Long Term Care Facilities: Cohort study using active surveillance and electronic records (March-June 2020) ============================================================================================================================================================== * Peter Dutey Magni * Haydn Williams * Arnoupe Jhass * Greta Rait * Fabiana Lorencatto * Harry Hemingway * Andrew Hayward * Laura Shallcross ## Abstract **Background** Rates of Covid-19 infection have declined in many countries, but outbreaks persist in residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) who are at high risk of severe outcomes. Epidemiological data from LTCFs are scarce. We used population-level active surveillance to estimate incidence of, and risk factors for Covid-19, and attributable mortality in elderly residents of LTCFs. **Methods** Cohort study using individual-level electronic health records from 8,713 residents and daily counts of infection for 9,339 residents and 11,604 staff across 179 UK LTCFs. We modelled risk factors for infection and mortality using Cox proportional hazards and estimated attributable fractions. **Findings** 2,075/9,339 residents developed Covid-19 symptoms (22·2% [95% confidence interval: 21·4%; 23·1%]), while 951 residents (10·2% [9·6%; 10·8%]) and 585 staff (5·0% [4·7%; 5·5%]) had laboratory confirmed infections. Confirmed infection incidence in residents and staff respectively was 152·6 [143·1; 162·6] and 62·3 [57·3; 67·5] per 100,000 person-days. 121/179 (67·6%) LTCFs had at least one Covid-19 infection or death. Lower staffing ratios and higher occupancy rates were independent risk factors for infection. 1,694 all-cause deaths occurred in 8,713 (19·4% [18·6%; 20·3%]) residents. 217 deaths occurred in 607 residents with confirmed infection (case-fatality rate: 35·7% [31·9%; 39·7%]). 567/1694 (33·5%) of all-cause deaths were attributable to Covid-19, 28·0% of which occurred in residents with laboratory-confirmed infection. The remainder of excess deaths occurred in asymptomatic or symptomatic residents in the context of limited testing for infection, suggesting substantial under-ascertainment. **Interpretation** 1 in 5 residents had symptoms of infection during the pandemic, but many cases were not tested. Higher occupancy and lower staffing levels increase infection risk. Disease control measures should integrate active surveillance and testing with fundamental changes in staffing and care home occupancy to protect staff and residents from infection. **Funding** Economic and Social Research Council [ES/V003887/1]. ## Background Globally the number of Covid-19 cases continues to increase, but cases in Europe have declined since April 2020,1 following the introduction of lockdown measures.2 Although the incidence of infection in the general population in England is low (0.04%),3 new infections persist, with substantially higher rates of infection reported in both long-term care facilities (LTCFs) and hospitals.4 This raises the possibility that these settings represent a reservoir for transmission of infection back to the community. In the UK, there are an estimated 400,000 residents living in approximately 11,000 LTCFs for the elderly.5 Residents of LTCFs are particularly vulnerable to Covid-19 due to their advanced age and high prevalence of comorbidity,6 and their frequent exposure to infection through close contact with staff members, other residents and contaminated surfaces in the care facility. At the peak of the pandemic, the number of deaths in residents of LTCFs was three-fold higher than the equivalent period in in 2019.7 Staff in LTCFs also have higher aged-standardised rates of Covid-19 related mortality compared to other occupations.8 National statistics suggests two-thirds of excess deaths recorded in residents of LTCFs in the last 6 months involved Covid-19,7 but this is likely to be an underestimate because many residents were not tested. Understanding the proportion of excess deaths that can be directly and indirectly attributed to Covid-19 infection is important, to fully assess the impact of the pandemic on LTCFs. The development of public health strategies to protect the public, residents and staff from Covid-19 requires knowledge of the burden of and risk factors for infection in residents and staff in LTCFs, linked to outcomes. However, there is no syndromic surveillance for infection in LTCFs in England, and widespread one-off testing for SARS-CoV-2 using reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was not established for staff and residents in LTCFs until 11 May 2020.9 Prior to this, testing was only available for residents or staff who were admitted to hospital, or as part of Public Health England’s (PHE) outbreak investigations which permitted a maximum of five tests per LTCF. Consequently national estimates of incidence and prevalence will substantially underestimate the burden of infection in residents and staff in LTCFs. In the absence of cohort studies or active surveillance, outbreak investigations provide the most reliable estimates of the burden of infection and case-fatality. 10,11 An estimated 44% of English LTCFs have had at least one outbreak, with a living systematic review12 reporting substantial variation in cumulative incidence of infection (0%-72%) and case fatality (0-34%) in residents of LTCFs. A major limitation of outbreak investigations is that follow-up is usually less than 30 days,12 and investigations are only conducted in settings in which outbreaks have been detected. Understanding the proportion of LTCFs with undetected cases is crucial for policy decisions around the frequency of and justification for regular testing in this setting. To our knowledge, there are no studies which have employed population-level active surveillance in LTCFs throughout this pandemic to measure outcomes of both suspected and confirmed infection in residents and staff. We analysed electronic health records from the Four Seasons Health Care Group, one of the UK’s largest independent provider of residential and nursing care, with the aim of identifying strategies to protect staff and residents in LTCFs from future waves of infection. Our objectives were to estimate incidence of and risk factors for infection, and incidence of mortality in the following groups: (A) residents with no evidence of infection; (B) symptomatic residents; (C) asymptomatic residents with confirmed infection; and (D) symptomatic residents with confirmed infection. We also estimated mortality attributable to Covid-19. ## Methods ### Study population and setting Staff or residents living and working in LTCFs for the elderly between 2 March and 14 June 2020, which were run by the Four Seasons Healthcare Group (FSHCG) were eligible for study inclusion. The FSHCG provides a combination of residential and nursing care (for residents with medical conditions), which is primarily state funded. Most residents are permanent, but a small proportion receive temporary (respite) care. In 2020, there were 9,568 beds, representing 9% of all beds in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland (supplementary material 1). 90% of FSHCG LTCFs participated in the whole care home testing programme, implying that all staff and residents were tested for Covid-19 at least once between 11 May and 22 June 2020. ### Data sources Electronic record datasets collected by the FSHCG are primarily used for billing and monitoring care quality, but have also been used in research.13 #### Individual-level data FSHCG collects electronic health record data on all their residents except those occupying beds that are ‘block contracted’ to the local authority (855 beds). The dataset includes: dates of entry and exit to the LTCF, sex, date of birth, type of stay (residential/nursing) and care (general, dementia, elderly). Individual-level data on incidents including infections are also reported via ‘Datix’ which records the residents name, LTCF identifier, incident date/time, date of birth, sex, Covid-19 symptoms, tests and test results, resident current location (LTCF/hospital), and death. Information in Datix was used categorise residents’ infection status into four groups: (A) residents with no evidence of infection (not tested and/or no symptoms); (B) symptomatic residents (symptoms and not tested or tested negative); (C) asymptomatic residents with confirmed infection (no symptoms but tested positive); and (D) symptomatic residents with confirmed infection (symptoms and tested positive) (supplementary material 1). The term ‘confirmed’ denoted a positive PCR test. Datix was also used to differentiate deaths in-hospital from those in the LTCF, and to identify Covid-19 related deaths. Individual level data on residents was linked to Datix reports (supplementary material 2). 1492/1880 (79%) of Datix reports were successfully linked. Individual-level records were available between 2 March and 14 June 2020. #### Aggregate data On 24 March a new system was introduced to report Covid-19 cases and deaths. This required managers of each LTCF to report daily tallies in residents (new symptomatic cases, new confirmed infection in facility, new confirmed infection in hospital, deaths related to Covid-19) and staff (symptomatic cases, new confirmed cases). Data on staff deaths were not extracted due to the small number of cases. Covid-19 related deaths were defined as death in a resident with confirmed infection or a death attributed to Covid-19 by the coroner. The number of occupied beds in each LTCF was reported weekly. Characteristics of each LTCF (number of beds, region, nursing versus residential care) were collected from organisational data. We therefore extracted organisational data, individual-level data for 8713 residents and aggregate data for all staff and residents (Figure 1). ![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/07/15/2020.07.14.20152629/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/15/2020.07.14.20152629/F1) Figure 1: Study overview: location of FSHCG LTCF’s and diagram of data sources *Note:* NI: Northern Ireland; S: Scotland; W: Wales; NE: North East; NW: North West; YTH: Yorkshire and The Humber; EM: East Midlands; WM: West Midlands; EE: East of England; L: London; SE: South East; SW: South West. ### Risk factors for infection Risk factors for infection included individual-level variables (age, sex, general or dementia care, residential versus nursing care) and LTCF characteristics (number of beds, occupancy and bed to staff ratio). Baseline LTCF occupancy was computed by averaging weekly occupancy in January-March 2020, before the first Covid-19 case, in order to calculate a ratio of baseline occupancy to the number of bedrooms. We also estimated the ratio of bed to staff as a continuous variable. An outbreak in a LTCF was defined as at least one confirmed infection or Covid-19 related death. ### Statistical analysis #### Infection in staff and residents in LTCF’s Prevalence, incidence and cumulative incidence were calculated for residents and staff using the aggregate daily tallies. These were the trusted source of information used for national reporting of cases, and encompassed all residents and staff.14 Infection incidence was also estimated from Datix, but was subject to under-reporting (supplementary material 2). In order to calculate infection and death incidence, we estimated the total number of residents in each LTCF by extrapolating estimates of LTCF occupancy from the individual-level dataset (because dates of entry and exit to/from the LTCF were not available for 855 beds, supplementary material 1). Daily occupancy was inferred from the weekly report of bed occupancy using linear interpolation. The total number of residents at risk of infection was unknown, so it was approximated in a multiple decrements life table (supplementary material 1). The life table allowed us to compute Kaplan-Meier product limit estimators of the cumulative incidence of symptoms, confirmed infections, and Covid-19 related deaths by day. The rate ratio for LTCF versus community infections was estimated by contrasting the cumulative incidence for confirmed cases in England with estimates from a national household survey for the period 11 May-7 June 2020.3,15 #### Mortality, attributable mortality and risk factors Individual-level data were used to estimate rates of infection, all-cause mortality and case-fatality by age and gender in residents. Aggregate data were also used to estimate the crude rate of Covid-19 related mortality. Cox proportional hazards models were used to test the association between individual and organisational-level risk factors and confirmed infection. In order to investigate the relationship between Covid-19 infection and excess mortality, we assumed that residents in non-outbreak LTCFs had not been exposed to infection, and would therefore not experience excess Covid-19 related mortality. We therefore compared all-cause mortality in residents with no evidence of infection (group A) in LTCFs with and without outbreaks. A Cox proportional hazards regression model tested the effect of individual and LTCF-level risk factors on all-cause mortality, alongside the effect of the time-variant infection status (groups A-D) and LTCF outbreak status. We estimated the attributable fraction of deaths for each infection category in LTCF’s with and without outbreaks, taking the reference category as individuals with no direct evidence of infection (group A) in non-outbreak LTCFs. This fraction was obtained by using the model to predict the counterfactual mortality, then computing the attributable fraction within study.16 Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for proportions and rates were computed from the exact Poisson and binomial limits. Data were analysed in R3·5·0 using the epitool17 and survival18 libraries. All computer syntax is available on an online repository.19 ### Research ethics This study was approved by the University College London Research Ethics Committee (project reference 13355/002). ### Role of the funding source The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing of the report. LS and PDM had full access to all the data in the study and LS had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. ## Findings ### Cases of infection in residents and staff The study included 9,339 residents across England, Scotland and Northern Ireland and 11,604 staff. 121/179 (67·6%) LTCFs, totalling 7,102 residents, recorded at least one Covid-19 outbreak (including unconfirmed outbreaks) in either the individual-level or aggregate datasets. The mean duration of follow-up for residents and staff was 71 days and 82 days respectively in the aggregate dataset. Mean and median duration of resident follow-up was 86 and 105 days respectively in the individual-level dataset. Symptoms of infection were recorded in 2,075 residents based on the aggregate dataset, contributing to an overall cumulative incidence of 22·2% [21·4%; 23·1%] or an incidence rate of 368·0 per 100,000 resident-days [352·3; 384·2] (Table 1). An additional 951 residents had a confirmed infection, of whom 199 were diagnosed in hospital. The cumulative incidence of confirmed infection was 10·2% [9·6%; 10·8%], with an incidence rate of 152·6 per 100,000 [143·1; 162·6]. View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/15/2020.07.14.20152629/T1) Table 1: Cumulative incidence and rate of SARS-CoV-2 infections in residents according to FSHCG aggregate dataset (2 Mar 2020-14 Jun 2020) Kaplan-Meier estimates of the temporal trend in symptomatic and confirmed cases are shown in Figure 2. ![Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/07/15/2020.07.14.20152629/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/15/2020.07.14.20152629/F2) Figure 2: Kaplan-Meier estimates of the cumulative incidence of symptomatic cases, confirmed infections and COVID-related deaths in (A) residents (n=9,339) and (B) staff (n=11,604) according to FSHCG aggregate data (Mar 2020-Jun 2020) *Note:* underlying data available on request from authors. In England, 179 infections were confirmed of a total 194,023 residents-days between 11 May 2020 and 7 June 2020. In comparison, the survey of English community households3 found a total of 35 confirmed cases out of 483,259 person-days during the same period. This implies a confirmed infection rate ratio comparing LTCFs to the community of 12·7 [8·9; 18·3]. 1,892/11,604 staff (16·3% [15·6%; 17·0%]) reported symptoms of infection during the study period, and 585 (5·0% [4·7%; 5·5%]) had a confirmed infection (Table 2, Figure 2). View this table: [Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/15/2020.07.14.20152629/T2) Table 2: Cumulative incidence and rate of SARS-CoV-2 infections among staff according to FSHCG manager counts (2 Mar 2020-14 Jun 2020) Estimates of incidence for private residents derived from Datix are reported in supplementary material 2. ### Mortality in residents 526 Covid-related resident deaths were reported in the aggregate dataset, equivalent to a crude incidence of 5·6% [5·2; 6·1] or 79·7 [73·0; 86·8] per 100,000 resident-days. 24·7% of these deaths took place in hospital (Table 1). Individual-level data were available for 8,713 (93·3%) residents. 68·7% of residents received nursing care, and 39·2% received dementia care (Table 3). 1,694 all-cause deaths occurred in residents of LTCF’s, equivalent to a crude cumulative incidence of 19·4% [18·6%; 20·3%]. The proportion of resident deaths was two-fold higher in LTCFs with outbreaks compared to those without outbreaks (22·6% versus 11·2%). View this table: [Table 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/15/2020.07.14.20152629/T3) Table 3: Characteristics of FSHCG residents by type of LTCF, sex, age, region and status on study exit (Mar 2020-Jun 2020) 217 deaths occurred in residents with confirmed infection, equivalent to an all-cause case-fatality rate in infected residents (Groups C and D) of 35·7% [31·9%; 39·7%] (Table 4). The case-fatality rate increased with age and was higher in men compared to women. View this table: [Table 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/15/2020.07.14.20152629/T4) Table 4: All-cause case-fatality rates by age and sex among residents (n=8,713; Mar 2020-Jun 2020) ### Factors associated with confirmed infections in residents Using individual-level resident data, factors affecting the rate of confirmed cases were investigated in a Cox Proportional Hazard model. Male sex, age ≥85 years, and residence in a nursing LTCF (adjusted HR=1·5 [1·2; 1·8]) were all independently associated with increased risk of confirmed Covid-19 infection (Table 5). Large LTCFs had greater rates of infection (adjusted HR=1.8 [1·4; 2·4] for LTCFs with ≥70 beds versus <35 beds). LTCF baseline occupancy and staffing ratios had the greatest effect on residents’ risk of infection. For example, the adjusted hazard ratio for confirmed infection was 2.5 times [1·9; 3·3] greater in LTCFs with 0·85-1 resident per room versus LTCFs with 0·7-0·85 resident per room. View this table: [Table 5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/15/2020.07.14.20152629/T5) Table 5: Risk factors for confirmed infection in residents: hazard ratios (HR) from a Cox proportional hazards model (n=8,713) Higher staff to resident ratios were associated with lower risk of infection: a ten percentage point increase in the bed to staff ratio was associated with a 23% increase in infection (adjusted HR=1·23 [1·17; 1·31]). ### Factors associated with all-cause mortality The time-dependent Cox proportional hazard models in Table 6 examine the relationship between infection status (groups A-D) and mortality. After controlling for other risk factors, increased mortality was associated with older age, male gender (adjusted HR=1·4 [1·3; 1·6]), and receiving nursing care (adjusted HR=1·4 [1·2; 1.5]). View this table: [Table 6:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/15/2020.07.14.20152629/T6) Table 6: Risk factors for all-cause mortality in residents of LTCFs with and without Covid-19 outbreaks: hazard ratios (HR) from a Cox proportional hazards model (n=8,713, Mar 2020-Jun 2020) We estimated excess mortality in outbreak and non-outbreak LTCFs, taking individuals with no evidence of infection (group A) in non-outbreak LTCFs as the reference group. Risk of all-cause mortality was almost two-fold higher in residents in Group A (no direct evidence of infection) in outbreak versus non-outbreak LTCFs (adjusted HR=2·0 [1·7; 2·2]). Risk of death was also higher in group B (residents with symptoms but unconfirmed infection) in outbreak versus non-outbreak LTCFs relative to the baseline group (adjusted HR=4·3 [3·0; 6·2] versus 9·4 [7·6; 12]). All-cause mortality was strongly associated with group C - asymptomatic confirmed infection (adjusted HR=3·3 [2·0; 5·7]) and group D - symptomatic confirmed infection (adjusted HR=13 [11; 16]), compared to baseline. It is important to note these hazard ratio estimates do not give a comprehensive measure of effect: hazards were not proportional across these categories (Figure 3). ![Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/07/15/2020.07.14.20152629/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/15/2020.07.14.20152629/F3) Figure 3: Kaplan-Meier estimates of resident (n=8,713) survival by SARS-COV-2 case type ### Attributable mortality Model-based estimates of attributable mortality were derived from the individual-level data. Overall, 567/1,694 (33%) deaths were attributed to Covid-19. In LTCFs with outbreaks only 28% (159 residents) of the mortality attributable to COVID-19 occurred in people with confirmed infection (Groups C and D), (Table 7). Exclusion of the early pandemic period in sensitivity analysis increased attributable mortality to 560/1,343 (41·7%). Model-based estimates of deaths based on individual-level were slightly higher (8%) than counts from the aggregate data. View this table: [Table 7:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/15/2020.07.14.20152629/T7) Table 7: Model-based estimates of attributable death in residents of LTCFs with and without Covid-19 outbreaks (n=8,713, Mar 2020-Jun 2020) ### Interpretation #### Main findings This population-level study demonstrates the major impact of Covid-19 on LTCFs, with 22% of residents and 16% of staff experiencing symptoms and overall case-fatality of 35·7%. Residents with no direct evidence of infection in LTCFs with outbreaks had twice the mortality of the equivalent group in LTCFs without outbreaks, implying substantial case under-ascertainment. Less than one-third of deaths attributable to COVID-19 in outbreak LTCFs were confirmed which is likely due to poor availability of testing until late in the pandemic. In addition to the need for active surveillance linked to increased testing capacity, higher staff to resident ratios and reduced LTCF occupancy are critically important to reducing the spread of infection. Our estimates of the prevalence of confirmed Covid-19 infections and deaths in residents are comparable to a large survey of managers of LTCFs in England.20 However, both studies are likely to have underestimated the proportion of residents who became infected due to limited testing, asymptomatic infection12 and moderate sensitivity of PCR testing.21 Our estimate of 35·7% case-fatality in residents with confirmed infection over a mean of 71 days is higher than previous literature,12 but is based on longer follow-up, a larger number of residents, and our study population had higher overall mortality. For example, an outbreak investigation22 in 4 LTCFs in London, UK measured a case-fatality rate of 17% among 126 residents over a period of 62 days, while Stall et al.23 measured a rate of 28% in over a period of 53 days in a Canadian study. Whereas two-thirds of LTCFs in our study reported at least one case of infection or death, just 44% of LTCFs have notified an outbreak to PHE. This suggests that nationally, local health protection teams may be unaware of Covid-19 infections in up to 1 in 5 LTCFs. Integration of data systems, so that test results can be accessed and acted upon by local public health teams is fundamental to the pandemic response. In common with a Canadian cohort study,24 we found strong associations between infections and LTCF occupancy. We also identified lower staff to resident ratios as a risk factor for infection. These organisational factors, linked to chronic underfunding of the care sector, are likely to facilitate the implementation of infection control procedures25 such as isolating or cohorting infected residents, staff training, and regular environmental deep cleaning. When staff care for fewer residents they also have reduced likelihood of spreading infection between residents. Higher staff to resident ratios may also decrease reliance on agency staff who may spread infection between LTCFs, and indicate better resourced LTCFs. ### Strengths and limitations The unique surveillance system we established in partnership with FSHCG allowed us to track infections throughout the entire pandemic period across a large number of LTCFs, and identify symptomatic as well as confirmed and asymptomatic cases. To our knowledge, this is the most complete reporting system for Covid-19 infections in LTCFs published to date. It is possible that LTCFs that paid less attention to active surveillance to support control will have had higher levels of uncontrolled outbreaks compared to those seen in this study. A limitation is lack of access to information on comorbidity and ethnicity, both of which have been shown to be important risk factors for adverse outcomes in Covid-19.6 However, we were able to identify individuals with dementia, and adjust for receipt of nursing care which will partially capture comorbidity. We also lacked information on the overall rate of testing in each LTCF. ### Clinical, research and policy implications In the UK the number of infected residents and staff has been underestimated, due to limited availability of testing until late in the pandemic. High levels of asymptomatic infection will also lead to under-ascertainment. It is important to note however, that mortality rates were also increased in those recorded as asymptomatic infections suggesting that in an elderly cohort residents may have atypical presentations that do not conform to standard case definitions. Although our findings support increased use of testing to improve case ascertainment, frequent testing in residents of LTCFs may not always be desirable if the risk of infection is low, because the testing procedure (nasopharyngeal swabs) is invasive and may distress vulnerable residents. Since the incubation period and serial interval of COVID-19 is short,26 the interval between successive screens required to interrupt transmission may also need to be short. Rapid early diagnosis of symptomatic cases in residents and staff and expansion of more widespread testing after a case is identified may also be effective strategies to prevent transmission. Such approaches depend on strengthened surveillance in LTCFs and would be greatly facilitated by the availability of near patient testing platforms, which may be achievable in larger LTCFs. Our findings of excess deaths in those with no direct evidence of infection may be due to under-ascertainment, direct effects of Covid-19 control measures on delivery of care, and/or indirect effects due to additional disruption caused by the outbreak. Studies from other healthcare settings27,28 have highlighted the ways in which Covid-19 has impacted delivery of care associated with excess mortality in individuals who are uninfected. Detailed analysis of cause of death and reasons for hospital admission in residents of LTCFs will be important to understand how the pandemic has affected the quality of care in LTCFs. Our analysis provides a method that could be widely applied to estimate excess mortality, provided LTCF’s with outbreaks can be reliably identified. Globally, there is an opportunity to mitigate the impact of future waves of infection on staff and residents in LTCF’s. Our findings suggest that countries can achieve this most effectively by adopting a holistic approach, which integrates surveillance and focused testing for Covid-19 with increased investment to reduce LTCF occupancy and increase staffing. ## Data Availability All computer syntax used in the analysis is available through an online repository. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the Four Seasons Healthcare Group but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under a data sharing agreement for the current study and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of Four Seasons Healthcare Group. [https://github.com/peterdutey/ch-covid19](https://github.com/peterdutey/ch-covid19) ## Contributors LS conceived the research question. LS and PDM designed the study, with advice from GR and AJ. PDM undertook the statistical analysis. HW extracted the dataset and undertook the data linkage. LS obtained the research funding. LS and PDM wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors interpreted the data and edited and revised the final manuscript. ## Declaration of interests FL, GR, LS are supported by research funding from the ESRC. LS is a member of the Care Home working group, a subgroup of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. AH is a member of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG). All other authors declare no competing interests. ## Data sharing All computer syntax used in the analysis is available through an online repository. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the Four Seasons Healthcare Group but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under a data sharing agreement for the current study and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of Four Seasons Healthcare Group. ## Supplementary material Supplementary material 1: Quality and methodology report Supplementary material 2: Incidence of confirmed and symptomatic in residents based on Datix incident reports Supplementary material 3: Kaplan-Meier estimators data (available on request) ## Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [ES/V003887/1]. This work was also supported by a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinician Scientist award (CS-2016-007 to L.S.); In-Practice fellowship (NIHR300293 to A.J.); the NIHR School of Primary Care Research (G.R). AH and HH are NIHR Senior Investigators. AH and HH are supported by Health Data Research UK (grant No. LOND1), which is funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Department of Health and Social Care (England), Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Welsh Government), Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), British Heart Foundation, Wellcome Trust. HH is funded by the NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, The BigData@Heart Consortium, funded by the Innovative Medicines Initiative-2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement No. 116074. * Received July 14, 2020. * Revision received July 14, 2020. * Accepted July 15, 2020. * © 2020, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. COVID-19 situation update for the eu/eea and the uk, as of 10 july 2020, [https://web.archive.org/web/20200710104730/](https://web.archive.org/web/20200710104730/) [https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/cases-2019-ncov-eueea](https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/cases-2019-ncov-eueea)(2020). 2. 2.Hale T, Webster S, Petherick A, et al. Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker, Blavatnik School of Government, [https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/research-projects/coronavirus-government-response-tracker](https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/research-projects/coronavirus-government-response-tracker) (2020). 3. 3.England Office for National Statistics. Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey pilot: 18 June 2020, [https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/latest#covid-19-infection-survey-data](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/latest#covid-19-infection-survey-data). 4. 4.Public Health England. COVID-19: Number of outbreaks in care homes – management information, [https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/covid-19-number-of-outbreaks-in-care-homes-management-information](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/covid-19-number-of-outbreaks-in-care-homes-management-information) (2020). 5. 5.LaingBuisson. Care of Older People UK Market Report 30th Edition, [https://www.laingbuisson.com/](https://www.laingbuisson.com/) (2019). 6. 6.Zhou F, Yu T, Du R, et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. The Lancet 2020; 395: 1054–1062. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/SO140-6736(20)30566-3&link_type=DOI) 7. 7.England Office for National Statistics. Deaths involving COVID-19 in the care sector, England and Wales: deaths occurring up to 12 June 2020 and registered up to 20 June 2020 (provisional), [https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/deathsinvolvingcovid19inthecaresectorenglandandwales/deathsoccurringupto12june2020andregisteredupto20june2020provisional](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/deathsinvolvingcovid19inthecaresectorenglandandwales/deathsoccurringupto12june2020andregisteredupto20june2020provisional) (2020). 8. 8.England Office for National Statistics. Coronavirus (COVID-19) related deaths by occupation, England and Wales: deaths registered between 9 March and 25 May 2020, [https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/causesofdeath/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19relateddeathsbyoccupationenglandandwales/deathsregisteredbetween9marchand25may2020](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/causesofdeath/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19relateddeathsbyoccupationenglandandwales/deathsregisteredbetween9marchand25may2020) (2020). 9. 9.UK Department of Health & Social Care. Press release: Government launches new portal for care homes to arrange coronavirus testing, [https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20200616160922/](https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20200616160922/) [https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-new-portal-for-care-homes-to-arrange-coronavirus-testing](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-new-portal-for-care-homes-to-arrange-coronavirus-testing). 10. 10.McMichael TM, Currie DW, Clark S, et al. Epidemiology of Covid-19 in a Long-Term Care Facility in King County, Washington. New England Journal of Medicine 2020; 382: 2005–2011. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa2005412&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F15%2F2020.07.14.20152629.atom) 11. 11.Dora AV, Winnett A, Jatt LP, et al. Universal and Serial Laboratory Testing for SARS-CoV-2 at a Long-Term Care Skilled Nursing Facility for Veterans — Los Angeles, California, 2020. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report; 69. Epub ahead of print 2020. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6921e1. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.15585/mmwr.mm6921e1&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32463809&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F15%2F2020.07.14.20152629.atom) 12. 12.Salcher-Konrad M, Jhass A, Naci H, et al. COVID-19 related mortality and spread of disease in long-term care: First findings from a living systematic review of emerging evidence. medRxiv. Epub ahead of print 2020. DOI: 10.1101/2020.06.09.20125237. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoibWVkcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMjAyMC4wNi4wOS4yMDEyNTIzN3YzIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjAvMDcvMTUvMjAyMC4wNy4xNC4yMDE1MjYyOS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 13. 13.Smith CM, Williams H, Jhass A, et al. Antibiotic prescribing in UK care homes 2016–2017: retrospective cohort study of linked data. BMC Health Services Research 2020; 20: 555. 14. 14.England Care Quality Commission.. 15. 15.England Office for National Statistics. COVID-19 Infection Survey Datasets, [https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2Fpeoplepopulationandcommunity%2Fhealthandsocialcare%2Fconditionsanddiseases%2Fdatasets%2Fcoronaviruscovid19infectionsurveydata%2F2020/covid19infectionsurveydatasets20200618full1.xlsx](https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=%2Fpeoplepopulationandcommunity%2Fhealthandsocialcare%2Fconditionsanddiseases%2Fdatasets%2Fcoronaviruscovid19infectionsurveydata%2F2020/covid19infectionsurveydatasets20200618full1.xlsx). 16. 16.Samuelsen SO, Eide GE. Attributable fractions with survival data. Statistics in Medicine 2008; 27: 1447–1467. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/sim.3022&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17694507&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F15%2F2020.07.14.20152629.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000255885700008&link_type=ISI) 17. 17.Aragon TJ. Epitools: Epidemiology tools, [https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=epitools](https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=epitools) (2020). 18. 18.Therneau TM. A package for survival analysis in s, [https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival](https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival) (2015). 19. 19.Dutey-Magni P, Shallcross L. Covid-19 infection and attributable mortality in residents of UK care homes: Cohort study using electronic records (March-June 2020), [https://github.com/peterdutey/ch-covid19](https://github.com/peterdutey/ch-covid19) (2020). 20. 20.England Office for National Statistics. Impact of coronavirus in care homes in England (Vivaldi): 26 May to 19 June 2020, [https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/impactofcoronavirusincarehomesinenglandvivaldi/26mayto19june2020/previous/v1](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/impactofcoronavirusincarehomesinenglandvivaldi/26mayto19june2020/previous/v1) (2020). 21. 21.Kucirka LM, Lauer SA, Laeyendecker O, et al. Variation in False-Negative Rate of Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction–Based SARS-CoV-2 Tests by Time Since Exposure. Annals of Internal Medicine 2020; M20–1495. 22. 22.Ladhani S, Zambon M, Shetty N, et al. Investigation of SARS-CoV-2 Outbreaks in Six Care Homes in London: The Easter 6 Care Home Investigation. 23. 23.Stall NM, Jones A, Brown KA, et al. For-profit nursing homes and the risk of COVID-19 outbreaks and resident deaths in Ontario, Canada. medRxiv. Epub ahead of print 2020. DOI: 10.1101/2020.05.25.20112664. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoibWVkcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMjAyMC4wNS4yNS4yMDExMjY2NHYxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjAvMDcvMTUvMjAyMC4wNy4xNC4yMDE1MjYyOS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 24. 24.Brown KA, Jones A, Daneman N, et al. Association between nursing home crowding and covid-19 infection and mortality in ontario, canada. medRxiv. Epub ahead of print 2020. DOI: 10.1101/2020.06.23.20137729. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoibWVkcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMjAyMC4wNi4yMy4yMDEzNzcyOXYxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjAvMDcvMTUvMjAyMC4wNy4xNC4yMDE1MjYyOS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 25. 25.UK Department of Health & Social Care. Admission and Care of Residents in a Care Home during COVID-19. Version 2. Updated 19 June 2020, [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-admission-and-care-of-people-in-care-homes](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-admission-and-care-of-people-in-care-homes) (2020). 26. 26.To KK-W, Tsang OT-Y, Leung W-S, et al. Temporal profiles of viral load in posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples and serum antibody responses during infection by SARS-CoV-2: an observational cohort study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 2020; 20: 565–574. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30196-1&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F07%2F15%2F2020.07.14.20152629.atom) 27. 27.Lai AG, Pasea L, Banerjee A, et al. Estimating excess mortality in people with cancer and multimorbidity in the covid-19 emergency. medRxiv. Epub ahead of print 2020. DOI: 10.1101/2020.05.27.20083287. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoibWVkcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMjAyMC4wNS4yNy4yMDA4MzI4N3YxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjAvMDcvMTUvMjAyMC4wNy4xNC4yMDE1MjYyOS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 28. 28.Weinberger DM, Chen J, Cohen T, et al. Estimation of Excess Deaths Associated With the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States, March to May 2020. JAMA Internal Medicine. Epub ahead of print July 2020. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3391. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.3391&link_type=DOI)