This article investigates the lawfulness of isolating residents of care and group homes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many residents are mobile, and their freedom to move is a central ethical tenet and human right. It is not however an absolute right and trade-offs between autonomy, liberty and health need to be made since COVID-19 is highly infectious and poses serious risks of critical illness and death. People living in care and group homes may be particularly vulnerable because recommended hygiene practices are difficult for them and many residents are elderly, and/or have co-morbidities. In some circumstances, the trade-offs can be made easily with the agreement of the resident and for short periods of time. However challenging cases arise, in particular for residents and occupants with dementia who 'wander', meaning they have a strong need to walk, sometimes due to agitation, as may also be the case for some people with developmental disability (e.g. autism), or as a consequence of mental illness. This article addresses three central questions: (1) in what circumstances is it lawful to isolate residents of social care homes to prevent transmission of COVID-19, in particular where the resident has a strong compulsion to walk and will not, or cannot, remain still and isolated? (2) what types of strategies are lawful to curtail walking and achieve isolation and social distancing? (3) is law reform required to ensure any action to restrict freedoms is lawful and not excessive? These questions emerged during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and are still relevant. Although focussed on COVID-19, the results are also relevant to other future outbreaks of infectious diseases in care and group homes. Likewise, while we concentrate on the law in England and Wales, the analysis and implications have international significance.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7705359 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2020.101649 | DOI Listing |
JAMA Netw Open
January 2025
Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Importance: During buprenorphine treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), risk factors for opioid relapse or treatment dropout include comorbid substance use disorder, anxiety, or residual opioid craving. There is a need for a well-powered trial to evaluate virtually delivered groups, including both mindfulness and evidence-based approaches, to address these comorbidities during buprenorphine treatment.
Objective: To compare the effects of the Mindful Recovery Opioid Use Disorder Care Continuum (M-ROCC) vs active control among adults receiving buprenorphine for OUD.
JAMA Pediatr
January 2025
Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Importance: Spontaneous reports have indicated that montelukast increases the risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events, and the US Food and Drug Administration added a boxed warning about these risks in 2020. However, the potential mechanism is not well understood, and the observational evidence is scarce, particularly in children.
Objective: To assess the potential association between the use of montelukast and the risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events in children and adolescents.
JAMA Neurol
January 2025
Department of Neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Importance: Trials have not demonstrated superiority of alteplase or tenecteplase vs standard care in patients with mild stroke and have raised safety concerns. Prourokinase is an alternative fibrinolytic that may have a favorable safety profile, and the benefit-risk profile of prourokinase in mild stroke is unknown.
Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of prourokinase in mild ischemic stroke within 4.
JAMA Intern Med
January 2025
Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Importance: No large randomized clinical trial has directly compared empagliflozin with dapagliflozin, leaving their comparative effectiveness regarding kidney outcomes unknown.
Objective: To compare kidney outcomes between initiation of empagliflozin vs dapagliflozin in adults with type 2 diabetes who were receiving antihyperglycemic treatment.
Design, Setting, And Participants: This target trial emulation used nationwide, population-based routinely collected Danish health care data to compare initiation of empagliflozin vs dapagliflozin in adults with type 2 diabetes who received antihyperglycemic treatment between June 1, 2014, and October 31, 2020.
Minerva Anestesiol
December 2024
Department of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Background: Frail elderly patients have a higher risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Prehabilitation is a potential intervention for optimizing postoperative outcomes in frail patients. We studied the impact of a prehabilitation program on length of stay (LOS) in frail elderly patients undergoing elective surgery.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!