Country reports: COVID-19 and Long-Term Care

These reports aim to document the impact of COVID-19 on people who use and provide Long-Term Care and the measures adopted by different countries to contain and mitigate the impact of the virus. They are updated regularly as new information becomes available. If you’d like to contribute a report for a country that is not listed, please email


Report by Sara Charlesworth and Lee-Fay-Low, last updated 12 October 2020

Key points

  • The first COVID-19 outbreak in Australian residential aged care occurred on March 4 2020 at Dorothy Henderson Lodge, an 80 bed facility in Sydney with a second large cluster in April in Newmarch House, a 102 bed facility also in Sydney. 
  • After the initial containment of COVID-19 in Australia in May, in June a second wave of COVID-19 in Victoria spread rapidly through Melbourne-based nursing homes.
  • To date, there have been 2,050 nursing home residents diagnosed with COVID-19. Of those residents, 677 have died and 1,170 recovered with 52 active cases. Nursing home residents represent 7.5% of all COVID-19 cases in Australia and 75.3% of all COVID-related deaths.
  • There have also been 82 confirmed COVID cases in Australian government-subsidised home care. Victoria accounts for 63.4% of all Australian home care COVID-19 cases. Of the Australian cases, 7 people, 4 located in Victoria, have died.  There are currently 2 active COVID-19 cases, both in Victoria.
  • As of 12 October, a total of 2,211 aged care workers in residential aged care facilities had been infected by COVID-19. Of these staff cases, 29 cases remain active with 2182 cases being resolved.
  • The Australian government put in place a number of significant policy and funding measures to assist the aged care sector prepare for and manage COVID-19 infections. Australian government COVID-19 support to the aged care sector is now over $1.6 billion. This includes funding for a COVID-19 Support Payment provided to all residential aged care providers, and an aged care worker retention bonus designed to encourage direct care aged care workers to stay working in the sector.  Recent additional COVID-related funding to facilities provides for increased staffing costs, including for managing visitations and infection control training, and for enhanced advocacy and grief and trauma services for aged care recipients and families impacted by COVID-19 outbreaks.
  • Aged care providers have also had priority access to the national stockpile of PPE, as well as healthcare rapid response teams and surge staffing support when an outbreak occurs in residential aged care. In home care, the government has provided additional funding to support meals on wheels, televisitor schemes and allowed for some flexibility in usage of funding.
  • Direct support for aged care workers has included paid pandemic leave of up to 2 weeks for eligible aged care workers introduced by the Fair Work Commission in July 2020.  The Australian government has also instituted a pandemic leave disaster payment, a lump sum payment of $1,500 to help workers during the 14 days they may need to self-isolate, quarantine or care for someone. Victorian workers not entitled to paid pandemic leave or other leave may also apply for a $450 COVID-19 test isolation payment where they are awaiting test results.
  • Despite government measures, on 2 October, the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality & Safety found deficiencies in government planning around COVID-19 in residential aged care. The Commissioners found that infection control was inadequate, that PPE and testing was sometimes hard to access, and that surge staffing arrangements were not sufficient, resulting in poor care during COVID-19 outbreaks in Victoria. The Commissioners also found that the Australian government did not have a COVID-19 plan devoted solely to aged care. They recommended that the Australian government should publish a national aged care plan for COVID-19 and establish a national aged care advisory body. The Commissioners also recommended the Australian government should arrange the deployment of accredited infection prevention and control experts in residential aged care. 
  • Nursing home visiting rules were first introduced by the Australian government on March 18, limiting visitors to two people a day, to be held in private rooms. However, many nursing homes introduced stricter rules, locking down facilities so that there have been no visitors except for under special circumstances. In Victoria there have also been strict rules mandated by the State government which, until recently, have restricted visits to one visitor per resident for one hour per day in special circumstances only.  Across Australia there is growing public concern about the ongoing impact of provider-and state-imposed nursing home lockdowns on the wellbeing of residents. The Royal Commission recommended that there should be funding for providers to ensure there are adequate staff to deal with external visitors to enable a greater number of ‘meaningful visits’ between residents and their loved ones.


Update on the situation in Austria, 27th November 2020:

Report published by Andrea E. Schmidt, Kai Leichsenring, Heidemarie Staflinger, Charles Litwin and Annette Bauer, last updated on the 13th of July

Key points

  • The Austrian LTC system has been placed under huge pressure during the COVID19 crisis as it has not been considered the most important area of intervention from the onset. Masks and security gear were scarce and often missing in care homes and especially in home care. However, the number of cases as well as the number of deaths in care homes was generally lower in Austria than in other countries.
  • The Austrian government has created a 100 million euro LTC support fund to help regional governments find alternative sources of provision, if informal carers who provide more than 70% of all care, or migrant personal carers who cover about 6-7% of people in need of care, might drop out due to illness, travel restrictions or other reasons.
  • An issue with the Austrian LTC system is its significant reliance on live-in migrant carers (personal carers) from the neighbouring Slovak and Czech Republics, but increasingly also from Romania and Bulgaria.
  • COVID-19 travel restrictions are drastically challenging this model and regional governments have increased their efforts to safeguard the continuity of care at home by migrant personal carers. After several weeks of round the clock care, these carers who normally work bi-weekly shifts were suffering from physical and emotional stress, while those who were stranded in their home countries and were consequently unable to work, were left with no income during this period.
  • Further debate about the model of ‘24-hour care’ provision by live-in migrant carers in Austria is needed. This also needs to be addressed in a wider European context, as many countries, e.g. Italy, Spain, Greece and Germany, are using the model without any regulations. This compromises the working conditions and social security of care workers and eventually the safety of people in need of care.
  • Since 4th May, visits to care homes are allowed again, though under specific security measures, e.g. visiting zones, definition of visiting times, registration, special hygiene, physical distancing, one visitor at a time, masks and/or plexiglass windows. Since 9th June, children are also again allowed to visit people in care homes.
Previous versions:

THE COVID-19 Long-Term Care situation in Brazil

Report by Fabiana da Mata and Deborah Oliveira, last updated on 6th May 2020

Key points:
  • The COVID-19 pandemic is on its ascending period in Brazil and mortality rates have risen exponentially;
  • Several initiatives have been implemented and recommendations have been published by the public sector to support unpaid carers, older and disable people, and Long-Term Care (LTC) professionals with regards to ways to protect from the infection;
  • There is a paucity of specific population data in relation to the pandemic (e.g. infection and mortality rates in people living in care homes vs. living at home) and most actions so far have been taken by the public health sector;
  • It is unclear the extent to which the private care sector (e.g. private care homes, health insurances) have been following national and international guidance;
  • Unpaid carers, vulnerable populations, and LTC workers have been mostly unassisted financially and with the necessary equipment to face the pandemic;
  • There is a lack of evidence on COVID-19 is affecting older people and those with disabilities living together with several other family members in vulnerable communities (such as “favelas”);
  • It appears that most of the actions so far have been carried out remotely or digitally, and there is a lack of information with regards to the extent to which such actions have reached those who do not have access to online information;
  • Brazil has a large proportion of the population who is illiterate or semi-illiterate and it is unclear the extent to which the preventative measures and recommendations implemented/published so far have taken into account individual literacy and health literacy levels.

Report on the impact of COVID-19 on residents of Canada’s long-term care homes – ongoing challenges and policy responses, by Amy T. Hsu, Natasha Lane, Samir K. Sinha, Julie Dunning, Misha Dhuper, Zaina Kahiel, Heidi Sveistrup, last updated 4 June 2020

Key points:

  • While there are many sources of data on the impact of COVID-19 on the Canadian population in general, timely, consistent and accurate information on the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Canadian long-term care homes continue to be a challenge in this pandemic.
  • As new information becomes available and cases evolved or resolved, we have observed changes to previously estimated prevalence and case fatality of residents in Canadian long-term care homes.
  • We estimate a case fatality rate of 36% (range 20 to 42%) among residents in Canadian long-term care homes.
  • Based on publicly available information from official sources, we have found that deaths in long-term care residents currently represent up to 85% of all COVID-19 deaths in Canada.
  • Difference in population size and density in each province, which influences the rate of community transmission, may partially affect regional differences in prevalence of COVID-19 cases in long-term care homes, rather than the proportions of provincial/territorial populations 80 years or older living in these settings.
  • Given the vulnerability of residents in long-term care homes, the proper implementation of infection prevention and control policies is the most effective strategy to reduce overall rates of deaths in this population.
  • Policy measures to ensure the adequate staffing, the limitation of movement of healthcare workers between multiple sites, access to personal protective equipment and ensuring that staff know how to use it properly are key in helping to prevent the continued spread of COVID-19 and associated mortality in Canadian long-term care home residents.
  • With decreasing growth rate, many provinces are starting to consider relaxing visitation restrictions. Continued screening for both typical and atypical symptoms, as well as periodic surveillance testing of long-term care staff and residents are critical for balancing resident safety and well-being.

Report by Jorge Browne, Gerardo Fasce, Ignacio Pineda and Pablo Villalobos, last updated on the 24th July 2020

Key points:

  • To date, the number of new cases remains high. Nearly 80% of cases occurred in the highly-dense populated Metropolitan Region which accounts for nearly 40% of the country’s population. Older people (60+) have been disproportionately affected; they represent only 15.7% of the cases, but 48% of hospitalizations and 89.6% of all deaths. 
  • The COVID-19 response started in early March with the cooperation of several actors. The Ministry of Health (MoH), the National Service of Older People (Servicio Nacional del Adulto Mayor, SENAMA), the Chilean Geriatrics and Gerontology Society (GGS), and the main non-profit organizations started a working group to coordinate the implementation of prevention and control measures.
  • In all long-term care facilities (LTCFs) visits to people were banned, sanitary barriers for assessing temperature and symptoms were implemented and the entry of new residents was halted. There were also a series of non-enforceable infection prevention measures, guidance on how to use personal protective equipment (PPE), cleaning and disinfection guidance, and guidance on isolation areas for COVID-19 suspected cases.
  • For the public, non-profit, and vulnerable for-profit organizations (average out pocket payment less than 820 USD/month) SENAMA provides face to face technical support, PPE, field testing with rt-PCR using relaxed access criteria that include atypical presentation, and temporary transfer of COVID-19 residents to sanitary houses.
  • Information was identified as a key issue for long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in the COVID-19 context. To date, there is no official data on the number of cases and deaths coming from these facilities. Moreover, the lack of complete and updated data on the facilities, residents, and staff constitutes a broader barrier for the design and implementation of policies in the area.
  • The adequate implementation of infection prevention and control measures needs strong technical face-to-face support, especially to ensure the adequate use of PPE and the implementation of isolation areas. The COVID-19 challenges coexist with deeper social challenges such as inadequate infrastructure and staff shortage. These challenges are especially relevant among informal (unregulated) nursing homes and represent a relevant implementation barrier for COVID-19 prevention and management measures.
  • In the long run, strong infection prevention and control measures for COVID-19 and other infectious diseases will need to be structurally implemented in LTCFs. The adequate implementation of these measures, we believe, needs strong coordination and surveillance from the MoH, SENAMA, and the technical support of the Geriatrics and Gerontological Society.

Report published on the 18th April by Cheng Shi, Bo Hu, Menglong Feng and Gloria Wong

Key points

  • In Mainland China, the national ministries and commissions have issued and updated a package of guidelines and circulars to support long-term care. Those policies mandated a high level of cross-sectoral collaboration and prioritization of long-term care services for older people.
  • A steering committee for providing guidance and integrating resources, and an integrative IT system for information and data sharing are crucial for the prompt and efficient reactions.
  • Key measures focus on coordinating acute and long-term care, preventing the virus spread in care homes, supporting for the home-dwelling older people with no or less care due to the COVID-19 and psychological counselling.
  • From the containment phase into the mitigation stage, the Chinese Government now focuses on the provision of regular health and social care services for older people.

Report by Tine Rostgaard, last updated 27 May 2020

Key Findings:

  • COVID-19 has been contained in Denmark, with low mortality rates and relatively few persons hospitalised. 563 persons, or the equivalent of 97 persons per 1 million inhabitants have died from the disease (May 25th)
  • The pandemic has caused concern for frail older people and in particular nursing home residents, yet there has been little debate about how home care users or staff are affected.
  • Nursing home residents make up 1/3 of COVID-19 related deaths (April 24th).

Factors that may have contributed to the relative success of Denmark in preventing and containing the spread of COVID-19 in nursing homes include: 

  • A quick lock-down of the country.
  • A de-centralised and integrative approach to LTC.
  • Relatively few and large municipalities (98 in total) which ensures a more effective and coordinated approach.
  • Political attentiveness to and broad public support for LTC.
  • Due to de-institutionalisation, care for frail older people is more often provided in the home.
  • Care is provided by formally employed and well-trained staff.
  • The majority of nursing homes are public and modern in providing an individual abode.

Factors that may have exacerbated the situation: 

  • The testing strategy has changed a number of times and did not initially consider the need to test nursing home residents and staff.
  • Initially, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was prioritised for the health care sector, so municipal care providers had to find alternative ways to secure protection.
  • The guidelines regarding the use of PPE in the nursing home sector have been inconsistent.


Report by Leena Forma, Mari Aaltonen and Jutta Pulkki, last updated on the 12th June 2020

Key findings:

  • Finland has succeeded in protecting people aged 70 years and over from coronavirus in general, but almost half of the 318 deaths in the country have occurred in care homes for older people (situation on 1st June). However, it is likely that all deaths from COVID-19 have not been recognised and classified similarly.
  • There are remarkable regional differences in the spread of the infection. However, the national guidelines for restrictions are similar throughout the country.
  • The national level guidelines have been more detailed and clearer for care homes than for home care.
  • The implementation of the measures to prevent the infection has varied between municipalities, however, most of the municipalities have acted vigorously regarding the prevention of the virus and followed the given instructions.
  • Family caregivers and their disabled family members living at private homes face more mental, physical and social problems the longer the isolation continues. The need for support services in isolation will not disappear and may even increase.
  • In care homes, visiting restrictions have in some cases led to anxiety concerning family members. In exposure cases, some of the residents have had relatively long periods of isolation, during which mobility within the care unit is limited. Therefore, attempts have been made to prevent a possible deterioration in mental well-being, for example by providing video calls and photographs to the residents.

Report by Klara Lorenz-Dant, last updated on the 26 May 2020

Key points

  • The German government has issued financial support and loosened monitoring for care providers during this pandemic so that the residential and ambulatory care that people receive can be maintained. As part of this approach, long-term care insurance will reimburse institutions providing care that incur additional costs or loss of revenue due to the COVID-19 outbreak.
  • The German government has announced an increase in care workers’ wages. In addition, care workers across Germany will receive a one-off bonus.
  • The German government has extended existing support for people with care needs and their unpaid carers.
  • Residential care settings across Germany have started to allow their residents to have visitors. The care settings must develop and implement complex safety protection plans to facilitate this.
  • The Robert Koch Institute (RKI) provides regularly updated guidance, recommendations and advice for specific care settings. This includes the establishment of zones to physically separate residents during outbreak and contact tracing.
  • The RKI issues a daily update on the number of confirmed and recovered COVID-19 cases as well as of the number of COVID-19 related deaths.
  • There is a lack of information and advice regarding the care of people living with dementia.
Hong Kong

Report by Kayla Wong, Terry Lum and Gloria Wong, updated on the 8th July

Key findings:

  • Hong Kong is going through the third wave of COVID-19 infection. On 7 July 2020, a total of 14 new cases have been reported across schools, public housing estates, hospital and the first case in a residential care home for older people. An additional 24 confirmed cases have been reported that taking the total number of cases to 1,324 as of 8 July 2020.
  • The Government and society responded very quickly and imposed strict policies to stem the spread of virus in community and long-term care facilities, including practice guidelines, financial support and special arrangements on health and social care services.
  • Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) increased use of anti-epidemic measures and information and communication technology to support older people and their family members during the epidemic, including people living with dementia.

Report by Jayeeta Rajagopalan, Saadiya Hurzuk, Faheem Arshad, Premkumar Raja and Suvarna Alladi, last updated 30 May 2020

Key points

  • While there are a large number of elderly people with comorbidities in India, there is a limited data available on the proportion with long-term care needs.
  • There is no formal or organized long-term care system in the country. Long-term care is community based, with families primarily providing care.
  • The numbers of positive cases of COVID 19 in India have risen significantly since the first case was reported on January 30th 2020. As of 30th May 2020, there are 86,422 active cases, 82,369 cured cases and 4,971 deaths. There is no data on the prevalence of COVID-19 among people with long-term care needs or number of deaths.
  • The government has introduced several population level measures to contain the spread of COVID-19. These include: a nationwide lockdown to encourage physical distancing, establishing centres for COVID-19 testing, creating dedicated facilities for treatment, an app to facilitate contact tracing and guidelines/advisories for older people and people with disabilities.
  • Care homes are largely unregulated and there is limited data available on their activities. As a result, it is difficult to determine the extent to which infection protocol measures have been adopted by all care homes in the country.
  • There are no government guidelines directed specifically towards unpaid carers and people with dementia during the pandemic (as of May 30th 2020).

Report by Tara P. Sani, Marselia Tan, Kevin Kristian Rustandi, Yuda Turana, last updated 30th May

Key findings

  • There is limited data and information on people needing long-term care who are affected by COVID-19.
  • COVID-19 cases have spread to all 34 provinces in Indonesia. As of 28 May 2020, there are 24,538 confirmed cases, 6,240 recoveries (25.4% of confirmed cases) and 1,496 deaths (6.1%). Older people (defined as aged 60 and above) made up the biggest proportion of deaths (43.6%).
  • The government of Indonesia has taken several measures to reduce the spread of the virus, starting from establishing a National COVID-19 Task Force, issuing regulations to implement regional partial lockdowns, as well as issuing clinical guidelines and protocols for prevention and management of the virus and for adapting to a ‘new normal’.
  • There has been no specific guideline or protocol regarding COVID-19 prevention and management or for long-term care system users in general. However, there are protocols and education materials issued to support vulnerable population groups who might be in need of long-term care, such as older people and people with disability in institutional care settings. There are also guidelines for the protection of women with disabilities and older women.

Report by Maria Pierce, Fiona Keogh and Eamon O’Shea, last updated on the 13 May

Key points:

  • A census currently being undertaken across all nursing homes and other residential care facilities will provide better information on the pattern of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 related deaths in nursing homes in Ireland.
  • The initial focus of emergency planning on the acute sector resulted in a belated prioritisation of residential care settings, which is now being addressed.
  • Ireland has a ‘mixed market’ for residential care for older people (public, private and not-for-profit providers) which presents challenges in terms of the consistent implementation of the additional measures required to contain the spread of COVID-19.
  • Nursing home providers require additional support to maintain nursing home staff availability and wellbeing during COVID-19.
  • The redistribution of home care workers to residential care will undoubtedly have implications for community care, which has received little focus during the COVID-19 emergency.
  • The shift in resources to the nursing home sector will likely place additional demands on family carers, who already provide the bulk of care to older people and people with dementia.
  • Issues raised by the COVID-19 pandemic underline the need for a thorough examination of the balance between home care and residential care for older people in need of care in Ireland after the current crisis.

Updated on COVID-19 related mortality in care homes (12th October)

Full country report by Sharona Tsadok-Rosenbluth, Gideon Leibner, Boaz Hovav, Gal Horowitz and Shuli Brammli-Greenberg, last updated on the 4th May 2020

Key points:

  • In Israel, as in most of the Western world, Long-Term Care is organized in a fragmented manner, with several government bodies responsible for LTC Facilities (LTCFs); this is likely to be one of the reasons for the slow response to COVID-19 in the LTFCs.
  • The first COVID-19 patient in Israel was diagnosed on February 27th and since then the number of confirmed cases has risen to 16,208 (as of May 4th), with 94 in serious condition and 232 deaths. Of the deaths, 80 were LTC residents (34%).
  • The outbreak in the Israeli LTCFs began in mid-March, sixteen days after the first patient was diagnosed in Israel.
  • Only a month after the initial outbreak, following massive public criticism and a call for help from the LTCFs managements, the Israeli government appointed a national-level team to manage the COVID-19 outbreaks in the LTCFs.

The national project called “Mothers and Fathers Shield” was initiated on April 12th, a week later, on April 20th, the project team published a national work plan which its main principles include:

  1. Establishment of a single headquarters to coordinate government efforts;
  2. Expanding the Home Front Command’s role – to train LTCF staff in protection against COVID-19 infection and to provide assistance in disinfection.
  3. Establishing COVID-19 patients care departments within each of the institutions.
  4. Increasing the scope of COVID-19 testing in LTCFs, including those with no identified COVID-19 patients.
  5. Managing the social distance of patients to mitigate loneliness.

Lessons learnt so far:

  • Covid-19 testing policy in LTCFs should be constantly updated and based on information and research that is collected and published on a daily basis. LTCFs, which are at high risk of infection, require a dynamic response and special attention to their needs.
  • In view of the fact that LTCF residents are especially vulnerable to pandemics such as COVID-19, and based on our experience so far, in the report we present a proposal of a three-step approach to controlling outbreaks in LTCFs.

Report by Sara Berloto, Elisabetta Notarnicola, Eleonora Perobelli and Andrea Rotolo, last updated on 31 July 2020

Key findings

  • The Italian government acted late on the Covid-19 outbreak management in nursing homes. The first operational guidelines were released after the country’s total lockdown on March 9th, only requiring care homes to suspend visitations. An update of the operational guidelines dedicated to nursing homes was released by the Ministry of Health only on March 25th. The first Covid-19 case registered in Italy dates to January 30.
  • Regions own the responsibility for the LTC sector operational regulation: after the outbreak, they enacted late and different responses without a clear guidance from the national legislator.
  • Italy faced a massive shortage in PPE: nursing homes were not prioritized for receiving new procurements. Workers and users have not been sufficiently protected from the Covid-19 spread.
  • The National Institute of Health (Istituto Superiore di Sanità) launched a survey to investigate the incredibly high numbers of deaths registered in elderly residential centres, after national press raised the attention on the possible sharp underestimation of Covid-19-related deaths in care homes. Preliminary results confirm that the actual number of Covid-19 related deaths might be much higher than the one reported in official documents.
  • Coordination with health care actors (mainly acute care but also general practitioners) has been limited and poorly implemented, mainly relying on professional linkages between single professional and without a regional or national framework.
  • The response to Covid-19 emergency has been left to the initiative of each Nursing Home alone, relying on their capacity and willingness to cope with extraordinary conditions while having poor support from institutions.

Report by Rochelle Amour, Janelle N. Robinson and Ishtar Govia, last updated 25 May 2020

Key findings

  • While infirmaries have implemented precautionary measures against COVID-19, no formal protocol has been issued to privately owned nursing homes; these homes go largely unregulated. 
  • While some relief in the form of financial support and other provisions have been made available for essential workers, affected persons and vulnerable groups, some imperceptive procedures required to access this assistance have led to the inadvertent exclusion of unpaid caregivers and some vulnerable groups.

Report by Margarita Estévez-Abe and Hiroo Ide on the COVID-19 Long-Term Care situation in Japan, last updated on 27 February 2021

Key findings:

  • Despite being the most aged society in the world and having a high population density, Japan maintained low rates of deaths from COVID-19.
  • The Governmental campaign offer subsidies for domestic tourism (GoToTravel campaign) and eating out in restaurants (GoToEat campaign) led to the worst spikes in viral transmission during the final quarter of 2020.
  • Japan locked down long-term care facilities (LTCFs) during the first months of the pandemic, several weeks earlier than in Europe and the United States. This helped protect the most vulnerable elderly population from infection risks.
  • The well-established protocols of prevention and control of communicable diseases such as influenza and tuberculosis In LTCFs proved to be effective in containing transmission of SARS-COV-2.  The rate of compliance with the protocols has been high.
  • The Japanese government response to the pandemic has been primarily a routine bureaucratic response. The presence of public authorities exclusively devoted to the oversight of LTCFs contributed to swift institutional responses.
  • The presence of effective channels of communication between the public authorities and LTCFs contributed to the swift implementation of government guidelines.
  • The national government’s unwillingness to make PCR tests widely available to LTCFs and the population at large has been a major obstacle in ensuring safety of residents in LTCFs and users of other LTC services. Japan has almost solely relied on lengthy lockdowns of LTCFs. This is not an ideal solution to a prolonged pandemic.
  • The pandemic has revealed the most vulnerable aspects of the Japanese LTC system.  In particular, two characteristics of the Japanese LTC system have proved to be highly vulnerable to transmission of SARS-COV-2: Japan’s reliance on daycare and homecare services and the large number of LTC facilities that provide both residential and non-residential care services. 

Report by John Black, last updated 26 July 2020

Key actions taken to limit the spread of COVID – 19 in Jordan

Country wide actions

  • Travel bans, international travel with all flights to and from the country suspended since 17 March and travel limitations across the country with no cars being allowed on the road and restrictions on movement across Governorates.
  • Businesses have been closed temporarily particularly restaurants and other entertainment venues such as cinemas and children’s play activity centres. 
  • Curfews on a daily basis applied rigorously as well as occasional complete curfews lasting either 24 or 48 hours. 
  • Quarantine arrangements, with no option to either ‘agree’ to stay at home or sign a commitment to do so, with designated places, generally hotels, where you are required to stay for a minimum of two weeks. 
  • Medical and nursing staff working with those who are hospitalised with COVID-19, work a two week ‘shift’ in the hospital, without going home at all.  They then go into strict quarantine for two weeks before returning to work their next two week ‘shift’ in the hospital.  
  • Random testing for COVID-19 in areas where an infection has been confirmed. 
  • Social distancing in place for everyone. 

Long term care facilities – specific actions

  • A ban on all but absolutely essential family and other visitors to the homes with the exceptions being health visits by GPs and MoSD senior officials. 
  • Staff at one long-term residential care centre working in three distinct teams and each team spends a full week working and actually living in the centre.  The three teams then alternate week about with each also then having two weeks off from work.  The same system being applied across all residential care facilities across the country. 
  • Daily monitoring of both residents and staff takes place routinely to check on their health condition. 
  • Safe hygiene practices being applied thoroughly and guidance strictly followed by all those working at the care homes.

Report by Christine Musyimi, Elizabeth Mutunga and David Ndetei, last updated 30th May 2020

Key findings:

  • Government restriction measures have detrimental effects on the mental health and socio-economic aspects of individuals, carers, families and the society
  • Vulnerable populations such as older persons, those with disabilities and living in poverty situations require special attention to reduce spread of infection and improve their mental wellbeing
  • Long-term care (LTC) policies need to be developed to address the needs of older persons and those in need of LTC services
  • Addressing COVID-19 related stigma even after recovery could enhance proper reporting  and provide an opportunity for the government to address difficulties in dealing with the outbreak
  • LTC resource allocation e.g. funding and care workers during COVID-19 pandemic and beyond could reduce the impact of long-term conditions in communities
  • While the Older Persons Cash Transfer (OPCT) is targeted for those aged 65 years and above, more focus should also be on unpaid carers who mainly provide LTC in Kenya (with no training or experience)
  • Older persons are at a greater risk of having their human rights violated because they are a vulnerable population in terms of the probability of becoming dependent
  • There is a need for policy makers and decision makers to prioritize the needs of front-line health care providers and provide the necessary support systems at work and home with the aim to improve their wellbeing and increase productivity.

Report by Kejal Hasmuk, Hakimah Sallehuddin, Maw Pin Tan, Wee Kooi Cheah, Rahimah Ibrahim, Sen Tyng Chai, last updated 2nd October 2020

Key findings

  • Malaysia has ten federal-funded homes for older people and two homes for people who are chronically ill in Peninsular Malaysia, five state-funded homes for older people in East Malaysia, and a number of Islamic care homes operated and/or supported by State religious authorities.
  • There are about 320 residential aged care facilities registered under the Department of Social Welfare (Act 506) and 26 nursing homes registered under the Ministry of Health (Act 586). The number of unregistered facilities numbers from 700 to over 1000, depending on estimation method and definition used.
  • Community and home-based long-term care are currently unregulated in Malaysia.
  • Department of Social Welfare and Ministry of Health (MOH) officials work closely with academics, care home representatives and civil society groups to reach out to care home providers.
  • Malaysia has adopted a mass-testing strategy for all registered and unregistered care homes since April 2020. The nation-wide care home screening has halted since 31st July 2020 with the last report of total 16 425 screened (staff and residents), 47 detected positive (0.3%) of which 36 (76.6%) were asymptomatic.
  • Previously, two older persons clusters have been reported (and closed) which involved at least two care homes in Klang and Petaling Jaya, resulting in 36 infections and five deaths. A further care home cluster (now closed) had emerged on 22 June, with eight cases involving both residents and staff. There have been no new deaths reported involving this cluster. Another nursing home cluster (now closed) had reported one death and eight other cases involving staff and residents. As such, a total of 4 known care homes have had cases detected/clusters. However, within the nationwide mass screening that detected another 47 cases, the number of care homes affected is not known.
  • As part of “soft landing” and mitigation plans, Malaysia moved from Movement Control Order (18th March 2020 – 3rd May 2020) to Conditional Movement Control Order (CMCO) (4th May – 9th June 2020) to Recovery Movement Control Order (RMCO) (10th June 2020- supposedly 31st August 2020, but was later extended till 31st December 2020). To date (2nd October), there are 24 active clusters, none of them involving care homes. The last reported care home cluster ended on 18th July 2020. That cluster involved 8 individuals (staff and residents), with no deaths.
  • With the RMCO being implemented, many care homes have now moved towards taking in new residents and people discharged from hospitals – a much needed move to sustain the care homes. With the guidelines adopted by MOH, every patient discharged to a care home would first be tested for COVID. In addition, most nursing homes have also adapted to the best of their ability and capacity the Interim Recommendations to practice standard infection control measures for new residents admitted to care homes, especially those with respiratory symptoms.
  • Care homes lack basic PPE and have difficulty observing physical distancing within their confined spaces.
  • The industry body proposed a ‘No visitors’ policy and care homes are discouraged from admitting any new residents.
  • Care home residents with suspected COVID-19 will be admitted to COVID hospitals, with all other residents admitted for isolation and testing if necessary. 
  • The MOH have also recently mandated that older persons to be discharged to a care home have to be tested for COVID-19.

Report on the COVID-19 Long-Term Care situation in the Islands of Malta and Gozo, by Maria Aurora Fenech, Matthew Vella, and Neville Calleja, last updated 6th June

Key findings

  • The pandemic response team had been in place well before the first COVID-19 case was registered in Malta. The first case was registered on the 7 March 2020, and during the first 2 weeks of the pandemic all cases were imported.  A mandatory 2-week quarantine was put in place for all in-coming travellers during the second week of the pandemic.
  • Malta’s size and population were potentially favourable towards ensuring better COVID-19 control measures. Nine (9) deaths have been recorded to date.
  • The Superintendent of Public Health together with the COVID-19 Response Team were key towards ensuring effective and timely mitigation efforts both with the general public as well as ensuring that the local health care system was robust enough to meet the needs brought about by the pandemic.
  • The daily medical bulletins broadcast by the Superintendent of Public Health kept the public continually updated on COVID-19 matters. The bulletins provide the Public Health Authority with a publicly accessible platform to focus and strengthen health promotion efforts in respect to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • Swabbing and contact tracing within the 3 testing hubs on the Island were key towards controlling the pandemic.
  • A series of measures were put in place early on with the key aim of ordering categories of persons referred to as ‘vulnerable’, to remain segregated in their residences, (except in the cases of attendance for medical appointments, obtain medical care or treatment, acquire food, medicine, other daily necessities, or to attend to any other essential or urgent personal matters). 
  • The voluntary response by management and health care professionals within the care homes on the Island was paramount towards recording no deaths within these facilities; the majority of care homes were in lockdown for 12 weeks, whilst other care homes worked on 1, 2 or 3 week shifts. Swabbing of health care professionals was mandatory prior to assuming duties within the residential care facilities.
  • As of the 4 May 2020, the Superintendent of Public Health embarked on a stepwise relaxation of measures. The first measure was followed by the second and third relaxation of measures on the 22 May 2020 and 5 June 2020.

Report by Mariana Lopez-Ortega and Eduardo Sosa-Tinoco, last updated 8th June

Key findings:

  • The latest data (8 June 2020) show 120,102 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Mexico and 14,053 deaths.
  • While the “peak” of contagions was expected to occur in mid-May, cases continue to increase at a fast rate, almost showing a continuum of incremental peaks (Figure 1).
  • A wide media/communications campaign has been implemented in order to disseminate “safe-distancing”, and general public health recommendations, including shutting down public spaces2. The impact of the campaigns at national level have not been evaluated.
  • However, lockdown measures were not applied by public decree (MoH) until March 23 and have been constantly extended as initial due dates approach (April 20, May 25, now June 15).
  • While public spaces (parks, arenas, restaurants, movie theatres) have followed the closure rules, other informal spaces such as street markets countrywide, have been kept open, due to a mixture of economic need of those that tend to them and of those that buy their basic goods there. Unfortunately, many people in these spaces are constantly seen without any protective gear whatsoever and are non-compliant of the 2m-safe distance recommendations.
  • Some estimations have put estimated that at least 22% (27.4 million people) of the total population live in poverty3 . No direct economic support schemes at national level have been implemented.
  • In April, the Mexican Institute of Social Security, IMSS (Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social) launched a microcredit scheme of $25,000 MXN ($1,072 USD4) per applicant. This applies to those affiliated to the Institute only. Due to low numbers of applications, they closed the call on May 15 and are reorienting the funds to support specific population groups, which are still to be defined. In late April, the Federal Government announced microcredits following the IMSS initiative, but to date no details on how they will operate have been published.
  • With the exception of recommendations for keeping older adults safe as one of the most vulnerable population groups, no other guidance has been generated for other groups such as people with dementia, those with disabilities, etc.
  • As in many low- and middle-income countries, economic hardship, extended households and already highly conflicted urban concentrations have generated a peak in domestic abuse, estimated at 120% higher compared to the previous year
The Netherlands

The impact of COVID-19 on long-term care in the Netherlands: the second wave

Report by Florien Kruse, Lisa van Tol, Cilla Vrinzen, Oemar van der Woerd,  Patrick Jeurissen, last updated 25 November 2020

The full report is available here:

Key points:

  • The Dutch nursing home sector was severely affected by the first coronavirus wave. Although the sector was better prepared for a new outbreak, the second wave has still hit hard. Where in the first wave there was a steep increase in cases and then a rapid decline, in the second wave the number of cases in the long-term care sector has plateaued and it is unclear how long this will continue before cases start falling.
  • Protocols, personal protective equipment (PPE) and testing are more accessible than in the first wave.
  • The government has not imposed a national nursing home visiting ban, unlike in the first wave. Instead, the government has decided to take a more flexible and regional approach. Nursing homes are given discretionary space to make visiting policies appropriate to their situation.
  • Staff shortages, working pressure and staff wellbeing are still a great concern. However, unlike in the first wave, various policies aim to tackle this.
  • In the Netherlands, nursing home residents are represented by client councils. However, nursing homes have not consistently included client councils in crisis management.

The impact of COVID-19 on LTC in the Netherlands: first wave

Report by Florien Kruse, Inger Abma, Patrick Jeurissen, last updated 26 May 2020

Key Findings:

  • After a significant peak in the number of deaths in week 15 (6 April – 12 April), the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths in nursing homes has been declining.
  • The Dutch government is taking a phased approach to relaxing the nursing home visitor ban while monitoring infections and deaths.
  • Nurses and carers in nursing homes and homecare organisations can apply for personal protective equipment (PPE) and can gain access to testing. However, care professionals still experience barriers in accessing (adequate) PPE.
  • Informal caregivers are also eligible to access PPE and testing.
  • Although some action has been taken to improve the collection of information in long-term care facilities (e.g. data on people with intellectual disabilities), significant information gaps remain about long-term care and COVID-19, especially how COVID-19 affects long-term care staff.   

Previous report: Florien Kruse, Toine Remers and Patrick Jeurissen, last updated 26th April 2020

Aotearoa New Zealand

Covid-19 and long-term care in Aotearoa New Zealand, by Etuini Ma’u, Jackie Robinson, Gary Cheung, Neil Miller, and Sarah Cullum, last updated 22 July 2020

Key points:

  • As at 22 July 2020, Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) has experienced 1,555 cases of COVID-19. Of these, 1,506 have recovered and there have been 22 deaths.
  • The Ministry of Health (MOH) identified five significant COVID-19 clusters in aged residential care (ARC) facilities, <1% of the 650 facilities throughout the country
  • There were 153 COVID-19 cases linked to five ARC clusters accounting for 10.2% of all cases in the country.  Cases of COVID-19 consisted of 39 residents and 78 health care workers, with a further 36 linked to the health-care workers.
  • There were 16 COVID-19 related deaths in residents of ARC facilities, the majority occurring in hospital.  
  • The early stages of pandemic planning by the New Zealand Ministry of Health (MoH) and District Health Boards (DHB) focussed on hospital and secondary care.
  • Planning for the impact on the ARC sector was limited in the early stages of the pandemic.  When cases began to occur in ARC facilities, the MoH in partnership with the DHBs began to develop policies and procedures to support the ARC sector.
  • While ARC facilities had existing infection control and pandemic policies, none were prepared for the scale of the outbreak or the resulting reduction in care home staff as a result of standing down staff who had contact with COVID19 cases.
  • The psychosocial impact on staff, resident, and wh?nau (family) wellbeing is thought to have been significant.

Responding to COVID-19 in Residential Care: The Singapore Experience, country report by Wan Chen K Graham (Agency for Integrated Care) and Chek Hooi Wong (Geriatric Education & Research Institute), last updated on 29th July 2020

The full report is here:

Key points:

•            Nursing home residents make up 0.04% of all COVID-19 cases in Singapore.

•            As the total number of COVID-19 related deaths (n=27) is remarkably low, nursing home         residents make up 11% of this figure even though there have only been 3 deaths to date.

•            Key objectives of pandemic management in residential care are:

  1. To reduce the likelihood of COVID-19 entering nursing homes by restricting visits, increasing staff health surveillance, restricting movements of health care workers between facilities, and adhering to strict protocols for inter-facility transfers of residents.
  2. To reduce the impact of an infection if and when COVID-19 does enter a residential care facility. This is achieved through the creation of self-contained operational bubbles or split zones in care facilities and staff quarters; and through the close monitoring and early testing of residents with acute respiratory infections.
  3. To support the recovery of nursing homes after one or more residents have been found to be COVID-19 positive. This begins with swift testing of residents and staff in the affected zones within 24 hours to establish the extent of spread. Suspect and positive cases are transferred out for isolation and care in acute hospitals. Infection Prevention and Control principles are reinforced and the supply and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is stepped up. Where necessary, manpower support drawn from other institutions is provided to ensure service continuity. Throughout all this, acute hospital partners are available to support the testing and medical management of residents and staff of affected nursing homes. 


Report by Alenka Oven, version of the 20th April 2020

Key points:

Slovenia has made a strong commitment to testing to contain the spread of COVID-19. On the 17th April 2020 there had been 152 COVID-19 infections among health care sector staff, 117 among care home staff and 276 among care home residents.

Key challenges: 

  • Nursing homes lack skilled personnel
  • Nursing homes have space constraints that will make the effective isolation of residents that are suspected of having COVID-19 very difficult
  • Nursing homes may run out of PPE
South Africa

Report on a 2-wave survey on how Long-Term Care Facilities in South Africa have coped with the Covid-19 lockdown, 21 December 2020

Report on the COVID-19 Long-Term Care situation in South Africa by Roxanne Jacobs, Alice Ashwell, Sumaiyah Docrat and Marguerite Schneider, last updated 10 July 2020

South Korea

Report by Hongsoo Kim, last updated 7 May 2020

Key findings:

  • South Korea has not implemented massive lockdowns but the population has adhered to social distancing rules and cooperated to reduce the spread of the disease.
  • Key population-level measures that have worked well include: extensive testing and tracing using information technology; tests and treatments at no or low cost and covered by the health system; transparent communication between government and the public; extensive use of epidemiological data and travel route information.
  • So far, of 247 deaths linked to COVID-19 in South Korea on the 30th of April, 20 (8.1%) were people presumed to have been infected in nursing homes, and another 64 (25.9%) in Long-Term Care Hospitals. Deaths in both types of settings would amount to 37.6% of the total. However, there were no deaths in nursing homes as all residents with potential COVID infections were transferred to hospitals.
  • More aggressive approaches were used to contain the spread of COVID-19 in long-term care institutions and social welfare facilities, including nationwide monitoring and inspections, and cohort quarantines of selected facilities.
  • Additional preventative and supportive measures for long-term care institutions include temporary re-imbursement packages, low-cost masks for care workers and provision of guidelines.
  • No massive infections in long-term care facilities have occurred after these measures were implemented.
  • Containment measures for home-based care services have been relatively weak in comparison and have resulted in a reduction in people accessing these services and lack of support for unpaid carers.

Report by Joseba Zalakain and Vanessa Davey (with a contribution from Aida Suarez-Gonzalez), last updated 28 May 2020



Report on what went wrong and what can be learnt from the experience of care homes in Spain:

Short and medium-term calls for action for Spain:

  • Infection prevention and control: from international experience we have learned that the best way to prevent COVID-19 infection in care homes is by preventing it from reaching in the home in the first place, which relies on controlling the spread of the virus in the community, or measures such as staff volunteering to live-in to shield residents from infection. However, once the virus enters a facility, a situation which has occurred in are homes throughout Spain, the most effective way to control its spread proved so far appears to be 1) blanket testing of staff and residents and 2) isolation of any positive cases. While the protocols now allow for blanket testing of staff and residents, with priority being given care homes where COVID-19 is present, testing in care homes has been slow to materialise, albeit with some notable exceptions. Given that much of the data that should have been made public has not yet been published it is not yet clear how far this has been achieved.
  • Care homes also need to be provided with resources to isolate individuals affected and, if this is not feasible (for many care homes it is unrealistic to isolate residents since their spaces are designed for communal living), local governments and institutions should provide the means for isolation to happen (e.g. transferring infected individuals to quarantine centres or other purpose-designed facilities). Such measures are central to the evolved guidelines that are in place across Spain.
  • In many areas in Spain, lack of official information on the situation in care homes is fueling anxieties. Given the complexities associated with confirming the true number of deaths from known or suspected COVID-19, the priority should be to release all available information on the current situation. Only two out of the seven items of information that the autonomous communities should be publishing relate to care home deaths (see table 3).  The remainder, are figures relating to the current situation (number of residents currently infected; number of resident hospitalised, etc.) that need to be released in order to evaluate progress with flattening the curve in care homes.
  • Adequate provision of personal protective equipment and efforts to hire and train new staff in their use are essential. The overall picture obtained during the production of this report, suggests that efforts must still be intensified. Again, greater transparency would increase trust and ensure that efforts can be targeted to where they are still required.  Best practice examples have shown that the third sector can be an important source of practical support but this requires collaboration that requires knowledge of current gaps.
  • Staff in care homes have taken on unprecedented levels of responsibility and had to work in physically and psychologically draining scenarios. The provision of psychological support does not appear to be widely available and must be prioritised. Also, financial compensation for the extra demands placed on staff (as has been employed in other countries) would help to boost morale.
  • COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted users of long-term care services, and especially care home residents. There are four types of factors which might explain this impact: a) the case-mix of care homes and the level of the spread of COVID-19 in the area where the care home is located; b) the structural factors that define the care home (size and architectural design; training, labour conditions and number of staff; private or public ownership; funding model…); c) the response of each centre when it came to preventing and treating the virus and capacity issues; and d) the support that care homes have been provided where needed, including timely provision of PPE and access to testing. It is essential to carry out a nationwide assessment in order to evaluate the measures that have been taken and clearly establish which factors have had the largest impact in the spread of the virus.
  • In the short term, clarifying the type of healthcare that care home residents should receive is urgent: when they should be admitted to hospital and when and how they should be cared for in the care home. People who become ill in a residential centre have a right to public healthcare, both general and specialized, as a result of their status as citizens. That they should have this right violated because of their age or disability status is inadmissible [118]. The rights of people with long-term care needs to access intensive care (ICU) need to be clarified and even regulated and guaranteeing that no discrimination would take place on the basis of age, long-term care needs, dementia diagnosis or other issues. Providing better health services in care homes is one of the major needs of the Spanish residential long-term care model, without necessarily converting care homes into medical centres [118].
  • Ensuring continuity of support for people living with dementia is crucial to provide compassionate care in COVID-19 times. Partners in care can be enabled to accompany their relatives or friends with dementia in hospitals and care homes by implementing appropriate infection control protocols and use of PPE. The use of technology to support video calls with friends and family when a person with dementia is isolated should be encouraged.

Longer term policy implications

  • The Spanish long-term care system lacks an adequate information management system and, more broadly, a shared innovation, evaluation and knowledge management model [73]. The COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the need for strengthening the current knowledge management and research and development efforts. For this, it is necessary to combine the central administration’s leadership with the local and regional administrations’ activity, aided by the impulse of the Territorial Board for Long-Term Care, and the creation of other inter-administrative cooperation forums. The development of an agenda for knowledge management in the field of Social Services only makes sense if it is assumed as the regional administrations’ own responsibility, although technical, political and economic support from central government will be essential [119].
  • In this context, there is also a pressing need for the development of a shared quality indicator system, not only based on structure and process indicators, but, mainly, on outcome indicators related to the quality of life. This will allow for the transition from a model that is exclusively based on the regulation and inspection of the processes to a model which is more oriented towards the impact of the care process on the users’ wellbeing and quality of life [9].
  • The COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the Spanish long-term care system’s shortcomings [120] and the need to develop a more community-based, more individualized and more person-centred model to achieving the best possible quality of life for people with long-term care needs and their families [17]. In this context, there is a need for a change in the long-term residential care model, so that older or disabled people can continue pursuing their life projects. It is vital that residential care centres provide attention which is centred on people, instead of viewing residents as objects to be taken care of. It is also necessary to evolve towards new architectural designs and organizational patterns which allow for personalized attention and smaller sized units  [118].
  • As has been stated earlier, the main shortcoming of residential centres is not just related to their economic resources but to their general orientation [17]. However, the question of economic resources is essential: a good quality long-term care system is costly, and there are a few Spanish regions which pay care homes below the rate it costs to provide care even at existing staff: resident ratios. The debate on the quality of residential care cannot be separated from the debate on the funding of the long-term care system [13].
  • The COVID-19 crisis has also brought to the surface systemic problems in relation to human resource management. Professional profiles are poorly developed in terms of competences and training, and working conditions are less than ideal. In contrast with the health care system’s response to COVID19, there has been a clear lack of leadership in the response to the crisis. The logic of the existing care home and home care  models respond more to organisational convenience than to person-centred care [120]. In this sense, professionalism within long-term care is weak and the labour conditions in care homes are often poor. This was already well known, but had not been considered a social (or political) priority. While this is not the only problem that needs to be solved in order to guarantee good quality care, it is a question that must seriously be considered [118].
  • The care home sector is increasingly dominated by private for profit providers, and there are longstanding concerns about decreasing quality standards as a result of efforts to contain costs in order to generate expected profit margins. The same issues are faced by public sector facilities that are managed by private providers. These factors may be behind the lack of preparedness to face a pandemic, which shows that most care homes are lacking infection control protocols, contingency planning for staff absences and the ability to procure personal protection equipment [120]. The private management model of public services undoubtedly requires strengthening the inspection and evaluation capacities of public administrations, as well as changes in contracting-out policies.
  • The governance of the Spanish long-term care system involves all three levels of government (central, regional and local), which makes the system very unwieldy. This complicated governance makes it very difficult to adopt and implement ambitious measures and it has created legal difficulties in relation to, for example, purchasing equipment and re-organizing the workforce in response to the pandemic [70].  The COVID-19 crisis should prompt the revision of the institutional and territorial framework of the social services system in Spain.              
  • Provision of post-diagnosis support for people living with dementia is almost non-existent in the public health and care system in Spain and, when provided, it relies mostly on the good will of healthcare professionals and third sector organisations.  Post-diagnosis support entails information, education, advice and training to live well with the condition (both for the person and the family) and other specialised support when needed such as access to psychological or speech and language therapies.  Post-diagnostic support teams, if they had been in place, might have played a major advisory role supporting people living with dementia and their families to adjust to the challenges imposed by the confinement and the disruption of other support services.

The COVID-19 Long-Term Care situation in Sweden

By Marta Szebehely, Professor Emeritus, Stockholm University, last updated 22nd July 2020

Key findings:

  • Sweden has been badly hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. In mid-July, more than 5,500 individuals had died from the infection, corresponding to around 550 deaths per million inhabitants. While there was a clear excess mortality in April and May, since June the death rates in Sweden are back to normal.
  • Of those who have died of COVID-19, 47 per cent were care home residents and 25 per cent were homecare users, corresponding to 3.1 per cent of all care home residents and 0.8 per cent of all homecare users.
  • The regional differences are striking: in the Stockholm region, 7 per cent of the care home residents have died while there have been hardly any COVID-19 deaths in care homes in several other regions.
  • Sweden has a tradition of voluntary measures on infection control based on recommendations, with an emphasis on individual responsibility. During the pandemic, the authorities’ recommendations to stay at home when sick, to wash hands frequently, to keep physical distance and to limit travelling have largely been adhered to.
  • To avoid people going to work when sick with mild symptoms, on March 11 the government introduced pay also for the first day of sick leave (normally in Sweden, sickness benefit is paid only from the second day).
  • In the management of the pandemic in the LTC-sector, a combination of recommendations and legally binding rules have been applied including a ban on care home visits (from April 1).
  • According to a survey of care home managers in mid-April, the infection probably entered care homes through residents returning from hospital, family visiting (before banning visits) and infected but asymptomatic staff.
  • Once the infection got into a care home, the managers reported difficulties in restricting the spread because of staff shortages, a scarcity of testing equipment and Personal Protection Equipment and the physical layout of the homes with limited possibilities to stop infected residents with dementia from moving around and meeting with other residents.
  • One quarter of the care workforce are employed by the hour, and in the beginning of the pandemic, staff shortages due to ordinary workers being on sick leave or in self-isolation, led to an even higher use of casual workers, with less or no formal training. As problems following hygiene routines were reported, a national e-training program focusing on hygiene was developed early on and has been completed by more than 140,000 care workers.
  • The government has appointed a commission to investigate the Swedish COVID-19 strategy. One of the tasks for the commission is to investigate the recommendations and actual measures taken to limit the spread of infection in eldercare services and to evaluate whether problems in work organisation, working environment and employment conditions, have contributed to the many cases of death in the sector.

Report by Ba?ak Akkan and Cemre Canbazer, last updated 10th June 2020

Key findings:

  • As of June 10, Turkey has ranked the 11th country in terms of the highest number of COVID-19 cases. The mortality rate has been low (even given the likelihood of underreporting) partly due to the demographic characteristics, early lockdown measures, and health sector capacity enhanced by the private investment of recent years.
  • A strict lockdown measure (curfew) for people 65+ and children under 20 was in effect between March 22 and June 9. Lockdown measures have been successful in first reducing and then bringing under control the transmission numbers. Yet, age-based curfew has also been denounced by the NGOs advocating for elderly rights. 
  • Along with the two guides circulated by the Ministry of Family, Labour and Social Services strict prevention and protection measures have been enforced in the care facilities. The visits have been suspended, the residents have been closely monitored (through symptomatic checks and tests) and the suspect cases have been transferred to the hospitals immediately. The staff worked on stable 14-day shifts and were tested before being admitted to the nursing homes.  
  • Day-care centres have been temporally closed. The home-based care services of the municipalities have continued.
United Kingdom


The Covid-19 Long-Term Care situation in England, 19th November

Adelina Comas-Herrera, Alan Glanz, Natasha Curry, Sarah Deeny, Chris Hatton, Nina Hemmings, Richard Humphries, Klara Lorenz-Dant, Camille Oung, Selina Rajan, Aida Suarez-Gonzalez

Full report:

Key findings:

  • The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been severe in England and has affected disproportionally people who use and provide long-term care.
  • Since the beginning of the pandemic and until the 6th November, 15,659 people had died in the care home and their deaths were linked to COVID-19 in the death register. An estimate of the deaths of care home residents (including those who died in hospital) suggests that, until the 13th November, 20.799 care home residents died whose deaths were attributed to COVID-19. An estimate of excess deaths in care homes suggests that 22,948 more people died until the 30th October, compared to the previous 5 years. This would represent around 5% all care home residents.
  • There have also been increased deaths among people receiving care at home, people who work in social care provision, and the people with learning disabilities and dementia.
  • The initial COVID-19 policy responses did not adequately consider the social care sector. A social care action plan was not introduced until mid-April, almost a full month after the Prime Minister announced the country would go into lockdown.
  • With the response almost entirely focused on the NHS, too little consideration was given to the fragmented social care system, which was already in a fragile state prior to the pandemic, and into which many people were being discharged from hospital. Delays in access to personal protective equipment and staff and service user testing are likely to have contributed to the high death toll in the sector.
  • Since the first wave, there has been improvement in terms of availability of guidance, access to Personal Protection Equipment and testing.
  • In the second wave, care providers continue to face challenges with testing capacity (and speed), visiting policies and the financial implications of the additional costs of the pandemic and decreases in revenue.
  • In the absence of standardised and robust national data on the sector, finding data about the impact of the pandemic on people who use and provide long-term care remains a challenge.
  • The pandemic has laid bare long-standing problems in the long-term care system in England, such as the fragmentation of responsibilities, funding and workforce pressures, as well as the unequal relationship between the health and social care systems and the invisibility of groups such as working age adults with disabilities and unpaid carers in social care planning.


Update on deaths in care homes in Scotland (19th December):


United Kingdom:

United States of America

Paper analysing the responses to COVID-19 in 12 States of the United States of America:

Van Houtven, C., Miller, K., Gorges, R., Campbell, H., Dawson, W., McHugh, J., McGarry, B., Gilmartin, R., Boucher, N., Kaufman, B., Chisholm, L., Beltran, S., Fashaw, S., Wang, X., Reneau, O., Chun, A., Jacobs, J., Abrahamson, K., Unroe, K., Bishop, C., Arling, G., Kelly, S., Werner, R.M., Konetzka, R.T. and Norton, E.C., 2021. State Policy Responses to COVID-19 in Nursing Homes. Journal of Long-Term Care, (2021), pp.264–282. DOI:

The reports for all 12 States are available here:

Report on the COVID-19 Long-Term Care situation in Minessota (Greg Arling and Priscilla Arling, last updated 27th July 2020)

Report on the COVID-19 Long-Term Care situation in the United States of America, by Courtney Harold Van Houtven, Nathan A. Boucher and Walter D. Dawson, last updated 24 April 2020

Key findings:

  • The US currently has the largest number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 of any country; a lack of widespread testing remains an issue.
  • Historical challenges within the US long term care (LTC) system that disproportionality impact individuals of low-socioeconomic status (SES) and certain racial and ethnic communities have been greatly exacerbated by the crisis.
  • The US federal political system ensures that individual states and the federal government have joint and overlapping responsibility for responding to the COVID-19 outbreak.
  • Significant regional differences in the impact of COVID-19 on health and social systems including LTC as well as on the response.
  • Near-term and long-term strategies for change in LTC policy are needed to adapt and respond to COVID-19.