Skip to main content

Identifying performance factors of long-term care facilities in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review protocol

Abstract

Background

Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) have been severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic with serious consequences for the residents. Some LTCFs performed better than others, experiencing lower case and death rates due to COVID-19. A comprehensive understanding of the factors that have affected the transmission of COVID-19 in LTCFs is lacking, as no published studies have applied a multidimensional conceptual framework to evaluate the performance of LTCFs during the pandemic. Much research has focused on infection prevention and control strategies or specific disease outcomes (e.g., death rates). To address these gaps, our scoping review will identify and analyze the performance factors that have influenced the management of COVID-19 in LTCFs by adopting a multidimensional conceptual framework.

Methods

We will query the CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ovid), CAIRN, Science Direct, and Web of Science databases for peer-reviewed articles written in English or French and published between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021. We will include articles that focus on the specified context (COVID-19), population (LTCFs), interest (facilitators and barriers to performance of LTCFs), and outcomes (dimensions of performance according to a modified version of the Ministère de la santé et des services sociaux du Québec conceptual framework). Each article will be screened by at least two co-authors independently followed by data extraction of the included articles by one co-author and a review by the principal investigator.

Results

We will present the results both narratively and with visual aids (e.g., flowcharts, tables, conceptual maps).

Discussion

Our scoping review will provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors that have affected the performance of LTCFs during the COVID-19 pandemic. This knowledge can help inform the development of more effective infection prevention and control measures for future pandemics and outbreaks. The results of our review may lead to improvements in the care and safety of LTCF residents and staff.

Scoping review registration

Research Registry researchregistry7026

Peer Review reports

Background

In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic and emphasized their concern over the severity of the virus [1]. Since then, the disease has disproportionately affected long-term care facilities (LTCFs) around the world, causing excess morbidity and mortality in residents [2, 3]. As of October 2020, over half of the COVID-19 deaths throughout Europe occurred among LTCF residents [4]. By the end of August 2020, 42% of all COVID-19 deaths in the USA were among LTCF residents, who represented only 0.6% of the population [5]. Deaths due to COVID-19 among Canadian LTCF residents made up nearly 80% of all COVID-19 deaths between March 2020 and July 2020 [6]. In the province of Québec, 92% of the COVID-19 deaths were among individuals aged 70 and older, of whom 64% were living in LTCFs [7].

To date, within research related to COVID-19, the emphasis has been on publishing guidelines [8], discussing mitigation strategies [9, 10], and reporting specific outcomes such as COVID-19 death rates and case numbers within LTCFs. Only one study [11] discusses performance in LTCFs within the context of COVID-19, defining performance based on a ranking system created by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that considered three domains: health inspections, quality measures, and nurse staffing. A few studies have attempted to identify factors that may have contributed to the poor COVID-19 outcomes in LTCFs, describing both barriers and facilitators related to the management of the pandemic. On the one hand, an inadequate staff-to-resident ratio has resulted in overtime hours for staff and, as a consequence, worse care for residents [12, 13]. On the other hand, the government’s timely response and the implementation of mandatory infection prevention and control (IPC) measures both in LTCFs and their surrounding communities helped curb the transmission of the virus [6, 13]. Furthermore, LTCFs with a lower crowding index (i.e., average number of residents per room and bathroom) and those with greater funding and more hours of direct care had fewer COVID-19 deaths among residents [14, 15]. In addition, qualitative research has provided insight into the performance factors that limited the spread of COVID-19 in LTCFs, including early identification and management of cases, the testing of asymptomatic residents and staff, and organizational factors such as leadership and IPC staff training [12]. Facilities that implemented these strategies were more successful at mitigating the spread of the virus. Though several factors affecting COVID-19 outcomes in LTCFs have been described, a comprehensive review of these factors has yet to be undertaken to understand their impact on the relative performance of LTCFs during the pandemic [4, 15]. This and the significant human impact on both residents and staff of LTCFs caused by the COVID-19 pandemic are the motivation behind this scoping review.

Our preliminary search of the CINAHL and MEDLINE databases identified several articles examining the performance of LTCFs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thompson et al. [16] surveyed COVID-19 death rates globally and discussed potential causes (e.g., inadequate staff training and personal protective equipment) and lack of prevention strategies (e.g., resident screening), but recommendations were limited in scope and detail. Chen et al. [17] reviewed the US government’s policies aimed at mitigating COVID-19 transmission in LTCFs in order to facilitate the development of future evidence-based regulations. Though this review detailed the implemented policy changes, it did not investigate their impact on the management of the pandemic in LTCFs. A scoping review by Giri et al. [18] explored the facilitators of the spread of COVID-19 within LTCFs; yet, this review searched only one database and did not define performance. To our knowledge, no scoping review has examined the performance factors that have influenced the management of COVID-19 in LTCFs using a conceptual framework.

Aims and objectives

Accordingly, the aim of our scoping review is to identify and analyze the performance factors that have influenced the management of the COVID-19 pandemic in LTCFs using a multidimensional conceptual framework. Specifically, we aim to address the following objectives:

  1. 1.

    Identify the facilitators reported to have influenced the performance of LTCFs since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic

  2. 2.

    Identify the barriers faced by LTCFs reported to have influenced the performance of LTCFs since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic

  3. 3.

    Identify the gaps in the existing literature and the most pressing questions for future research.

Methods

Methodological framework

In conducting this scoping review, we will adhere to the framework developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), which expands on previous work by Arksey and O’Malley as well as Levac et al. [19, 20]. The JBI framework includes nine steps: (1) formulating and aligning the review’s objective(s) and question(s); (2) developing the inclusion criteria in alignment with the objective(s) and question(s); (3) describing the approach to database queries, article selection, data extraction, and presentation of the findings; (4) searching for the evidence; (5) selecting the evidence; (6) extracting the evidence; (7) analyzing the evidence; (8) presenting the evidence; and (9) summarizing the evidence in relation to the objectives, drawing conclusions, and discussing any potential implications.

In the preparation of this protocol, we used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist to ensure we included all necessary elements (see Additional file 1) [21]. We also consulted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), as it is tailored to scoping reviews (see Additional file 2) [22]. In addition, we followed the updated guidance for reporting scoping reviews outlined in the PRISMA 2020 Statement [23, 24].

Conceptual framework

Though often expressed in terms of case and death rates [25, 26], the performance of LTCFs can be conceptualized in multiple ways. For example, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development framework defines performance as the successful attainment of goals at the lowest possible cost to the health care system [27], whereas the framework adopted by the Canadian Institute for Health Information assesses performance by responding to the questions “How healthy are Canadians?” and “How healthy is the health system?” [28]. In Québec, the Cadre de référence ministériel d’évaluation de la performance du système public de santé et de services sociaux à des fins de gestion framework developed by the Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux (MSSS) conceptualizes performance within a healthcare system as the system’s capacity to reach its objectives with respect to the population’s health and well-being, while taking into account the optimization of the available resources and the accessibility and quality of the services provided [29]. Our team chose the MSSS framework for its multidimensional approach to performance evaluation.

We adopted the MSSS framework as the foundation for our scoping review’s conceptual framework of performance to guide data collection, analysis, synthesis, and presentation of evidence [30]. The MSSS framework includes three main dimensions of performance: (1) the accessibility of services, (2) the quality of services, and (3) the optimization of resources. The accessibility of services encompasses the sub-concepts of equity and accessibility; the quality of services security, continuity, and efficacy; and the optimization of resources viability and efficiency.

We modified the MSSS framework by adapting some of the sub-concepts or adding new ones to better fit our objectives and optimize database searches. Specifically, we found that the search results for reactivity retrieved by the CINAHL database did not correspond to the MSSS definition. Therefore, we replaced reactivity with the terms adaptability and satisfaction, whose definitions better corresponded to the MSSS definition of reactivity. For the same reason, we replaced the MSSS sub-concept of viability with the terms resource management and resource mobilization. In addition, the CINAHL terms effectiveness and safety were identified as synonyms of the MSSS sub-concepts efficacy and security, respectively, and thus were added to the final framework to ensure our database searches captured all relevant articles.

To ensure our performance framework incorporates IPC measures—which are not represented in the original MSSS framework—we added elements from the La prévention et le contrôle des infections nosocomiales guidelines [31]. These guidelines integrate organizational and physical factors of the healthcare environment, focusing on how the physical layout, resources, and structural elements (including staff members) of a healthcare setting can affect the quality of care related to IPC [31]. The adapted conceptual framework that will guide our review is displayed in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The adapted framework for the conceptualization of performance within a health care system. 1Cadre de référence ministériel d’évaluation de la performance du système public de santé et de services sociaux à des fins de gestion framework [29]. 2Elements from the La prévention et le contrôle des infections nosocomiales guidelines [31]

Supplementary Information

Inclusion criteria

The following are the inclusion criteria:

  1. 1.

    Population: LTCFs

  2. 2.

    Interest: factors (facilitators and barriers) influencing the performance of LTCFs

  3. 3.

    Comparison: not applicable

  4. 4.

    Outcome: performance of LTCFs

    1. (a)

      Accessibility of services

      1. i.

        Equity: ability to provide care and services according to need, without regard for personal characteristics (e.g., income, education, residential area)

      2. ii.

        Accessibility: ability to provide required care and services when and where they are needed

    2. (b)

      Quality of services

      1. i.

        Reactivity: ability to adapt to the expectations, values, and rights of residents (adaptability and satisfaction)

      2. ii.

        Security/safety: ability to minimize the risks for residents associated with interventions and the environment

      3. iii.

        Continuity: ability to provide the care and services required in an integrated and coordinated way

      4. iv.

        Effectiveness/efficacy: ability to improve the health and well-being of residents

    3. (c)

      Optimization of resources

      1. i.

        Viability: ability to respond to the current and future needs of the population, considering human, material, financial, technological, and informational resources (resource management and resource mobilization)

      2. ii.

        Efficiency: ability to use the available resources (human, material, financial, technological, and informational) optimally

    4. (d)

      Quality of care

      1. i.

        Structures: resources, physical layouts, and structural elements (committees, teams) that can directly or indirectly influence the quality of care in terms of IPC

      2. ii.

        Care procedures: standards and practices that underpin professional activities and the use of evidence-based IPC guidelines

      3. iii.

        Results: changes in the resident’s health status that may be attributed to the care and services received (e.g., nosocomial infection rates)

  5. 5.

    Time: COVID-19 pandemic timeframe (January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2021)

Data sources and search strategy

This scoping review protocol was registered with the Research Registry (researchregistry7026: https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry#home/registrationdetails/6109a98e7fdaf6001ecffe67/).

In the Fall of 2021, our team will perform searches of the scientific literature using the five electronic databases: CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ovid), CAIRN, Science Direct, and Web of Science. Articles will be eligible if they meet our inclusion criteria in relation to the context (COVID-19), population (LTCFs), interest (facilitators and barriers to performance of LTCFs), and outcomes (dimensions of performance as per the adapted conceptual framework). We will restrict our searches to peer-reviewed articles written in English or French and published between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2021. We will exclude articles that focused on infections other than COVID-19 and on health care settings other than LTCFs, as well as articles that reported on pharmaceutical treatments provided to LTCF residents and COVID-19 vaccination rates within LTCFs.

Two co-authors (JL, EB) will conduct independent database searches using the search strategies developed in collaboration with all team members. These search strategies are included as supplementary files (see Additional files 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7). The searches will be conducted using descriptors with the Boolean operators “AND” and “OR.” The results will be compared for consistency. The retrieved articles will be imported into the EndNote software, and all duplicates will be removed.

Selection process

All articles will be exported to the Rayyan web platform [32] for the selection process, which will be completed using a screening algorithm (see Fig. 2) developed by the members of our team [3]. To ensure the reliability of the algorithm, a pilot test will be conducted where all co-authors will screen the titles and abstracts of the first 10% of the articles. The co-authors will then meet to discuss any discrepancies and decide if modifications to the algorithm or the overall screening process are necessary. Once the algorithm is tested and refined, the selection process will begin. First, half of the articles will be screened by two co-authors (JL, EB) with the other half divided among the remaining co-authors such that each article is screened by at least two co-authors. Article titles and abstracts will be screened for relevancy. If two co-authors deem an article relevant, it will be included. If one of the co-authors judges the article to be irrelevant, a third co-author will arbitrate. An article will be excluded if it is considered irrelevant by two co-authors. Second, all co-authors will read three of the selected articles in their entirety to verify their concordance with the inclusion criteria. The co-authors will then meet to address any issues that arose. All articles will then be read in their entirety by at least two co-authors (JL, EB), and if they satisfy the inclusion criteria, they will be included in the final scoping review. The selection process is displayed with a PRISMA flow chart (see Fig. 3).

Fig. 2
figure 2

First round screening algorithm, adapted from previous work by Tchouaket et al. 1The reference has a title and/or an abstract. 2Language: the article is written in English or French. 3Context: COVID-19, coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, SARS-CoV-2, CoV-19, COVID. Excluded: all other infections (e.g., influenza, gastroenteritis). 4Population: long-term care facilities, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, homes for the aged, retirement homes, nursing homes, long-term care, and EHPAD. Excluded: acute care, hospital setting, and ambulatory setting. 5Interests: factors (facilitators and barriers) identified as affecting the performance of LTCFs. 6Outcomes: dimensions of performance (efficiency, effectiveness/efficacy, security/safety, accessibility, equity, continuity, adaptability, satisfaction, resource management, resource mobilization, structures, care procedures, results). Excluded: pharmaceutical research and vaccination studies

Fig. 3
figure 3

PRISMA flow chart, outlining the identification and selection stages of this review, adapted from The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews [23]. The term “report” signifies “a document (paper or electronic) supplying information about a particular study,” such as a journal article or government report, while the term “record” signifies “the title or abstract (or both) of a report indexed in a database or website” [23]

Data extraction

Data from the included articles will be extracted using a data charting form that will be developed by our team. The form will combine general items from a JBI template (e.g., year of publication) and more specific elements from the conceptual framework (e.g., dimensions of performance). The following information will be extracted from each article: title and abstract, author, year of publication, publication type, full citation, country of origin, study purpose, type of LTCF, population size (if applicable), study design, performance factors, and facilitators and barriers to performance. Prior to data extraction, the data charting form will be pilot tested following a process similar to that used for testing the screening algorithm: all co-authors will extract data from three articles and meet to resolve any issues and decide if any changes to the form are needed. Once the form is finalized, data from all included articles will be extracted by one co-author (EB) and reviewed by the principal investigator (JL).

Analysis and presentation of the evidence

The results will be presented both narratively and with visual aids. An updated PRISMA flowchart will be provided, and descriptive characteristics (e.g., country of origin, study design) will be presented in tabular form. By analyzing the data, we will identify and categorize the performance factors identified as facilitators or barriers to the management of COVID-19 and situate them within the sub-concepts and dimensions of our conceptual framework. The relative frequency of each factor and sub-concept/dimension of performance will be reported. All results will be mapped and will follow the review’s conceptual framework.

Review team

The principal investigator (JL) is a registered nurse and a post-doctoral fellow in the field of nursing sciences, who has expertise in IPC, performance analysis within a nursing organization, and evaluation of factors contributing to infection outbreaks. JL’s expertise is supported by the experience of several professors (ENT, DS, IB), who are experts in scoping review methodology within the field of nursing sciences. The review team also includes research professionals (EB, SR, KK) and a nursing student at the doctoral level in the field of nursing sciences (MJ), who are all proficient in searching databases, selecting articles, and preparing manuscripts.

Consultation

In April 2021, two co-authors (JL, ENT) consulted two professors (DS, IB) with expertise in completing scoping reviews within the field of nursing sciences. These professors subsequently joined the review team to assist with the development of the search strategy.

Discussion

Implications

We will follow this protocol in completing our scoping review to identify and analyze the performance factors that have affected the management of the COVID-19 pandemic in LTCFs. The knowledge obtained through this review may assist with the development of more robust IPC measures to help prevent or mitigate future pandemics and infection outbreaks. An understanding of factors that have either facilitated or hindered the LTCF response to the COVID-19 pandemic can help enhance the quality of care for LTCF residents and ensure the safety of residents and staff both now and in the future.

Limitations and strengths

Due to the evolving nature of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the complexity of performing scoping reviews, the results of our review, when published, may not reflect the current public health profile. Furthermore, because this review focuses on the management of COVID-19, our results may not capture the indirect effects of the IPC measures implemented by LTCFs that have, nonetheless, had a direct influence on residents’ mental health, such as the restriction of group activities resulting in social isolation and loneliness [33, 34].

Despite these potential limitations, our scoping review will be the first to offer a comprehensive understanding of various factors affecting LTCF performance in the pandemic context using a multidimensional conceptual framework. The adopted framework of performance will guide us throughout the entire review process by providing a clear focus on the review’s aim and objectives. In addition to the conceptual framework, our team’s adherence to the JBI guidelines as a methodological framework will help ensure the rigor of our scoping review.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable, as no datasets have been created during the production of this protocol.

Abbreviations

DS:

Drissa Sia

EB:

Emilie Bélanger

ENT:

Eric Nguemeleu Tchouaket

IPC:

Infection prevention and control

IS:

Idrissa Beogo

JBI:

Joanna Briggs Institute

JL:

Josiane Létourneau

KK:

Katya Kruglova

LTCFs:

Long-term care facilities

MJ:

Maripier Jubinville

MSSS:

Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux du Québec

PRISMA-P:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols

PRISMA-ScR:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews

SR:

Stephanie Robins

References

  1. World Health Organization. WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 - 11 March 2020; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Comas-Herrera A, Zalakaín J, Lemmon E, Henderson D, Litwin C, Hsu AT, et al. Mortality associated with COVID-19 in care homes: international evidence; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Tchouaket EN, Beogo I, Sia D, Kilpatrick K, Séguin C, Baillot A, et al. Protocol for a systematic review of economic analyses of nosocomial infection prevention and control interventions in OECD hospitals. BMJ Open. 2020;10(7):e037765.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Shi SM, Bakaev I, Chen H, Travison TG, Berry SD. Risk factors, presentation, and course of coronavirus disease 2019 in a large, academic long-term care facility. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020;21(10):1378–83. e1.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nelson R. Nursing homes in the crosshairs. Am J Nurs. 2020;120(12):18–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sepulveda ER, Stall NM, Sinha SK. A comparison of COVID-19 mortality rates among long-term care residents in 12 OECD countries. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020;21(11):1572–4. e3.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tchouaket Nguemeleu E, Robins S, Sia D, Létourneau J, Borgès Da Silva R, Kilpatrick K, et al. Validation and pilot testing of a guide to measure the costs associated with the management of COVID-19 and of healthcare associated infections in residential and long-term care facilities in Quebec. Sci Nurs Health Practs/Sci infirmière et pratiques en santé. 2021;4(1):1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ayukekbong J. Infection prevention and control in long-term care: lessons learned from COVID-19 outbreaks and future perspectives. Canadian J Infect Contr. 2021;36(1):16–9.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Usher K, Durkin J, Gyamfi N, Warsini S, Jackson D. Preparedness for viral respiratory infection pandemic in residential aged care facilities: a review of the literature to inform post-COVID-19 response. J Clin Nurs. 2021;00:1–14.

  10. Dykgraaf SH, Matenge S, Desborough J, Sturgiss E, Dut G, Roberts L, et al. Protecting nursing homes and long-term care facilities from COVID-19: a rapid review of international evidence. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021;22(10):1969–88.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Figueroa JF, Wadhera RK, Papanicolas I, Riley K, Zheng J, Orav EJ, et al. Association of nursing home ratings on health inspections, quality of care, and nurse staffing with COVID-19 cases. JAMA. 2020;324(11):1103–5.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yau B, Vijh R, Prairie J, McKee G, Schwandt M. Lived experiences of frontline workers and leaders during COVID-19 outbreaks in long-term care: a qualitative study. Am J Infect Control. 2021;49(8):978–84.

  13. Candian Insitute for Health Information. Pandemic experience in the long-term care sector: how does Canada compare with other countries? Ottawa: CIHI; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Liu M, Maxwell CJ, Armstrong P, Schwandt M, Moser A, McGregor MJ, et al. COVID-19 in long-term care homes in Ontario and British Columbia. CMAJ. 2020;192(47):E1540–E6.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brown KA, Jones A, Daneman N, Chan AK, Schwartz KL, Garber GE, et al. Association between nursing home crowding and COVID-19 infection and mortality in Ontario, Canada. JAMA Inter Med. 2021;181(2):229–36.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Thompson D-C, Barbu M-G, Beiu C, Popa LG, Mihai MM, Berteanu M, et al. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on long-term care facilities worldwide: an overview on international issues. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:8870249.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen AT, Ryskina KL, Jung H-Y. Long-term care, residential facilities, and COVID-19: an overview of federal and state policy responses. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020;21(9):1186–90.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Giri S, Chenn LM, Romero-Ortuno R. Nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review of challenges and responses. Eur Geriatr Med. 2021;12:1127–36.

  19. Peters M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco A, Khalil H. Chapter 11: Scoping reviews (2020 version). In: Aromarits E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. JBI Evid Implement. 2015;13(3):141–6.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tricco A, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien K, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;134:103–12.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Joanna Briggs Institute. Appendix 11.2 PRISMA ScR Extension Fillable Checklist; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Braun RT, Yun H, Casalino LP, Myslinski Z, Kuwonza FM, Jung H-Y, et al. Comparative performance of private equity–owned US nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(10):e2026702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wilmink G, Summer I, Marsyla D, Sukhu S, Grote J, Zobel G, et al. Real-time digital contact tracing: development of a system to control COVID-19 outbreaks in nursing homes and long-term care facilities. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020;6(3):e20828.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kelley E, Hurst J. Health care quality indicators project: conceptual framework paper. OECD Health Working Papers; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Canadian Insitute for Health Information. Health indicators 2011. Ottawa: CIHI; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux. Cadre de référence ministériel d’évaluation de la performance du système public de santé et de services sociaux à des fins de gestion: Government of Québec; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lebcir R, Hill T, Atun R, Cubric M. Stakeholders’ views on the organisational factors affecting application of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2021;11(3):e044074.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux. La prévention et le contrôle des infections nosocomiales: Cadre de référence à l’intention des établissement de santé et de services sociaux du Québec: Government of Québec; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Simard J, Volicer L. Loneliness and isolation in long-term care and the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020;21(7):966–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Van der Roest HG, Prins M, van der Velden C, Steinmetz S, Stolte E, van Tilburg TG, et al. The impact of COVID-19 measures on well-being of older long-term care facility residents in the Netherlands. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2020;21(11):1569–70.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Université du Québec en Outaouais for funding this research.

Patient and Public Involvement

This scoping review will not involve any Patient or Public Involvement.

Funding

This study was funded by an internal post-doctoral fellow scholarship from the Université du Québec en Outaouais, Québec, Canada.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

JL, EB, DS, IS, SR, KK, MJ, and ENT were all involved in drafting and revising this manuscript. All provided approval of the final version submitted for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric Nguemeleu Tchouaket.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable, as ethical approval for this review is not required since it will utilize data that has been previously published in peer-reviewed journals.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Létourneau, J., Bélanger, E., Sia, D. et al. Identifying performance factors of long-term care facilities in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review protocol. Syst Rev 11, 203 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02069-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02069-1

Keywords

  • Long-term care facilities
  • Performance factors
  • COVID-19
  • Scoping review
  • Residents
  • Facilitators
  • Barriers
  • Conceptual framework