Dataset Information

Preventing COVID-19 outbreaks through surveillance testing in healthcare facilities: a modelling study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Surveillance testing within healthcare facilities provides an opportunity to prevent severe outbreaks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the quantitative impact of different available surveillance strategies and their potential to decrease the frequency of outbreaks are not well-understood.

Methods

We establish an individual-based model representative of a mental health hospital yielding generalizable results. Attributes and features of this facility were derived from a prototypical hospital, which provides psychiatric, psychosomatic and psychotherapeutic treatment. We estimate the relative reduction of outbreak probability for three test strategies (entry test, once-weekly test and twice-weekly test) relative to a symptom-based baseline strategy. Based on our findings, we propose determinants of successful surveillance measures.

Results

Entry Testing reduced the outbreak probability by 26%, additionally testing once or twice weekly reduced the outbreak probability by 49% or 67% respectively. We found that fast diagnostic test results and adequate compliance of the clinic population are mandatory for conducting effective surveillance. The robustness of these results towards uncertainties is demonstrated via comprehensive sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions

We conclude that active testing in mental health hospitals and similar facilities considerably reduces the number of COVID-19 outbreaks compared to symptom-based surveillance only.

SUBMITTER: Litwin T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8800405 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Long-term care facility (LTCF) residents are at particularly high risk for morbidity and mortality associated with infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), given their age and high prevalence of chronic medical conditions, combined with functional impairment that often requires frequent, close contact with health care providers, who might inadvertently spread the virus to residents (1,2). During March-May 2020 in Fulton County, Georgia, >50% of COVID-19-associated deaths occurred among LTCF residents, although these persons represented <1% of the population (3,4). Mass testing for SARS-CoV-2 has been an effective strategy for identifying asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections in LTCFs (5). This analysis sought to evaluate the timing at which mass testing took place in relation to the known presence of a COVID-19 infection and the resulting number of infections that occurred. In 15 LTCFs that performed facility-wide testing in response to an identified case, high prevalences of additional cases in residents and staff members were found at initial testing (28.0% and 7.4%, respectively), suggesting spread of infection had already occurred by the time the first case was identified. Prevalence was also high during follow-up, with a total of 42.4% of residents and 11.8% of staff members infected overall in the response facilities. In comparison, 13 LTCFs conducted testing as a preventive strategy before a case was identified. Although the majority of these LTCFs identified at least one COVID-19 case, the prevalence was significantly lower at initial testing in both residents and staff members (0.5% and 1.0%, respectively) and overall after follow-up (1.5% and 1.7%, respectively). These findings indicate that early awareness of infections might help facilities prevent potential outbreaks by prioritizing and adhering more strictly to infection prevention and control (IPC) recommendations, resulting in fewer infections than would occur when relying on symptom-based screening (6,7).

Project description:BackgroundLong-term care facilities (LTCFs) are vulnerable to outbreaks of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Timely epidemiological surveillance is essential for outbreak response, but is complicated by a high proportion of silent (non-symptomatic) infections and limited testing resources.MethodsWe used a stochastic, individual-based model to simulate transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) along detailed inter-individual contact networks describing patient-staff interactions in a real LTCF setting. We simulated distribution of nasopharyngeal swabs and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests using clinical and demographic indications and evaluated the efficacy and resource-efficiency of a range of surveillance strategies, including group testing (sample pooling) and testing cascades, which couple (i) testing for multiple indications (symptoms, admission) with (ii) random daily testing.ResultsIn the baseline scenario, randomly introducing a silent SARS-CoV-2 infection into a 170-bed LTCF led to large outbreaks, with a cumulative 86 (95% uncertainty interval 6-224) infections after 3 weeks of unmitigated transmission. Efficacy of symptom-based screening was limited by lags to symptom onset and silent asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission. Across scenarios, testing upon admission detected just 34-66% of patients infected upon LTCF entry, and also missed potential introductions from staff. Random daily testing was more effective when targeting patients than staff, but was overall an inefficient use of limited resources. At high testing capacity (> 10 tests/100 beds/day), cascades were most effective, with a 19-36% probability of detecting outbreaks prior to any nosocomial transmission, and 26-46% prior to first onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Conversely, at low capacity (< 2 tests/100 beds/day), group testing strategies detected outbreaks earliest. Pooling randomly selected patients in a daily group test was most likely to detect outbreaks prior to first symptom onset (16-27%), while pooling patients and staff expressing any COVID-like symptoms was the most efficient means to improve surveillance given resource limitations, compared to the reference requiring only 6-9 additional tests and 11-28 additional swabs to detect outbreaks 1-6 days earlier, prior to an additional 11-22 infections.ConclusionsCOVID-19 surveillance is challenged by delayed or absent clinical symptoms and imperfect diagnostic sensitivity of standard RT-PCR tests. In our analysis, group testing was the most effective and efficient COVID-19 surveillance strategy for resource-limited LTCFs. Testing cascades were even more effective given ample testing resources. Increasing testing capacity and updating surveillance protocols accordingly could facilitate earlier detection of emerging outbreaks, informing a need for urgent intervention in settings with ongoing nosocomial transmission.

Project description:ObjectivesUniversities are exploring strategies to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 prior to reopening their campuses. National guidelines do not currently recommend testing students prior to campus arrival. However, the impact of presemester testing has not been studied.DesignDynamic SARS-CoV-2 transmission models are used to explore the effects of three presemester testing interventions.InterventionsTesting of students 0, 1 and 2 times prior to campus arrival.Primary outcomesNumber of active infections and time until isolation bed capacity is reached.SettingWe set on-campus and off-campus populations to 7500 and 17?500 students, respectively. We assumed 2% prevalence of active cases at the semester start, and that one-third of infected students will be detected and isolated throughout the semester. Isolation bed capacity was set at 500. We varied disease transmission rates (R0=1.5, 2, 3, 4) to represent the effectiveness of mitigation strategies throughout the semester.ResultsWithout presemester screening, peak number of active infections ranged from 4114 under effective mitigation strategies (R0=1.5) to 10?481 under ineffective mitigation strategies (R0=4), and exhausted isolation bed capacity within 10 (R 0 =4) to 25 days (R0=1.5). Mandating at least one test prior to campus arrival delayed the timing and reduced the size of the peak, while delaying the time until isolation bed capacity was reached. Testing twice in conjunction with effective mitigation strategies (R0=1.5) was the only scenario that did not exhaust isolation bed capacity during the semester.ConclusionsPresemester screening is necessary to avert early and large surges of active COVID-19 infections. Therefore, we recommend testing within 1?week prior to and on campus return. While this strategy is sufficient for delaying the timing of the peak outbreak, presemester testing would need to be implemented in conjunction with effective mitigation strategies to significantly reduce outbreak size and preserve isolation bed capacity.

Project description:BackgroundDifferent levels of control measures were introduced to contain the global COVID-19 pandemic, many of which have been controversial, particularly the comprehensive use of diagnostic tests. Regular testing of high-risk individuals (pre-existing conditions, older than 60 years of age) has been suggested by public health authorities. The WHO suggested the use of routine screening of residents, employees, and visitors of long-term care facilities (LTCF) to protect the resident risk group. Similar suggestions have been made by the WHO for other closed facilities including incarceration facilities (e.g., prisons or jails), wherein parts of the U.S., accelerated release of approved inmates is taken as a measure to mitigate COVID-19.Methods and findingsHere, the simulation model underlying the pandemic preparedness tool CovidSim 1.1 (http://covidsim.eu/) is extended to investigate the effect of regularly testing of employees to protect immobile resident risk groups in closed facilities. The reduction in the number of infections and deaths within the risk group is investigated. Our simulations are adjusted to reflect the situation of LTCFs in Germany, and incarceration facilities in the U.S. COVID-19 spreads in closed facilities due to contact with infected employees even under strict confinement of visitors in a pandemic scenario without targeted protective measures. Testing is only effective in conjunction with targeted contact reduction between the closed facility and the outside world-and will be most inefficient under strategies aiming for herd immunity. The frequency of testing, the quality of tests, and the waiting time for obtaining test results have noticeable effects. The exact reduction in the number of cases depends on disease prevalence in the population and the levels of contact reductions. Testing every 5 days with a good quality test and a processing time of 24 hours can lead up to a 40% reduction in the number of infections. However, the effects of testing vary substantially among types of closed facilities and can even be counterproductive in U.S. IFs.ConclusionsThe introduction of COVID-19 in closed facilities is unavoidable without a thorough screening of persons that can introduce the disease into the facility. Regular testing of employees in closed facilities can contribute to reducing the number of infections there, but is only meaningful as an accompanying measure, whose economic benefit needs to be assessed carefully.