IntroductionSuccessful adoption of POCTs (Point-of-Care tests) for COVID-19 in care homes requires the identification of ideal use cases and a full understanding of contextual and usability factors that affect test results and minimise biosafety risks. This paper presents findings from a scoping-usability and test performance study of a microfluidic immunofluorescence assay for COVID-19 in care homes.MethodsA mixed-methods evaluation was conducted in four UK care homes to scope usability and to assess the agreement with qRT-PCR. A dry run with luminescent dye was carried out to explore biosafety issues.ResultsThe agreement analysis was carried out on 227 asymptomatic participants (159 staff and 68 residents) and 14 symptomatic participants (5 staff and 9 residents). Asymptomatic specimens showed 50% (95% CI: 1.3%-98.7%) positive agreement and 96% (95% CI: 92.5%-98.1%) negative agreement with overall prevalence and bias-adjusted Kappa (PABAK) of 0.911 (95% CI: 0.857-0.965). Symptomatic specimens showed 83.3% (95% CI: 35.9%-99.6%) positive agreement and 100% (95% CI: 63.1%-100%) negative agreement with overall prevalence and bias-adjusted Kappa (PABAK) of 0.857 (95% CI: 0.549-1).The dry run showed four main sources of contamination that led to the modification of the standard operating procedures. Simulation after modification showed no further evidence of contamination.ConclusionCareful consideration of biosafety issues and contextual factors associated with care home are mandatory for safe use the POCT. Whilst POCT may have some utility for ruling out COVID-19, further diagnostic accuracy evaluations are needed to promote effective adoption.
IntroductionReliable rapid testing on COVID-19 is needed in care homes to reduce the risk of outbreaks and enable timely care. Point-of-care testing (POCT) in care homes could provide rapid actionable results. This study aimed to examine the usability and test performance of point of care polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for COVID-19 in care homes.MethodsPoint-of-care PCR for detection of SARS-COV2 was evaluated in a purposeful sample of four UK care homes. Test agreement with laboratory real-time PCR and usability and use errors were assessed.ResultsPoint of care and laboratory polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests were performed on 278 participants. The point of care and laboratory tests returned uncertain results or errors for 17 and 5 specimens respectively. Agreement analysis was conducted on 256 specimens. 175 were from staff: 162 asymptomatic; 13 symptomatic. 69 were from residents: 59 asymptomatic; 10 symptomatic. Asymptomatic specimens showed 83.3% (95% CI: 35.9%-99.6%) positive agreement and 98.7% negative agreement (95% CI: 96.2%-99.7%), with overall prevalence and bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) of 0.965 (95% CI: 0.932 – 0.999). Symptomatic specimens showed 100% (95% CI: 2.5%-100%) positive agreement and 100% negative agreement (95% CI: 85.8%-100%), with overall PABAK of 1. No usability-related hazards emerged from this exploratory study.ConclusionApplications of point-of-care PCR testing in care homes can be considered with appropriate preparatory steps and safeguards. Agreement between POCT and laboratory PCR was good. Further diagnostic accuracy evaluations and in-service evaluation studies should be conducted, if the test is to be implemented more widely, to build greater certainty on this initial exploratory analysis.Key pointsPoint of care tests (POCT) in care homes are feasible and could increase testing capacity for the control of COVID-19 infection.The test of agreement between POCT and laboratory PCR for care home residents and the staff was good.Adoption of POCT in care homes can be considered with appropriate preparatory steps and safeguards in place.Repetitive errors and test malfunctioning can be mitigated with bespoke training for care home staff.Integrated care pathways should be investigated to test the high variability of the context of use.
NHS urgent and emergency care is under unbearable strain, which is increasingly causing harm to patients. 1 Overcrowding in emergency departments and stasis in acute medical units-driven by workforce and capacity constraints-prevent timely and high quality care. 2 This exacerbates low staff morale, perpetuating burnout and the high absence levels which currently dominate. The covid-19 pandemic and latterly a severe flu season have arguably expedited the crisis, but the spiral of decline in urgent and emergency care has been happening for a decade and, unless urgent action is taken, we may not yet have reached its nadir.
Introduction: Medical admissions to hospitals represent a diverse range of patients, from those managed on ambulatory pathways through Same-Day Emergency Care (SDEC) services to those requiring prolonged inpatient admission. An understanding of current patterns of admission through acute medicine services and patient factors associated with longer hospital admission is needed to guide service planning and improvement. Methods: Data from the Society for Acute Medicine Benchmarking Audit (SAMBA) 2021 were analysed. Patients admitted to acute medicine services during a 24-hour period on 17th June 2021 were included, with data recording patient demographics, frailty score, acuity and follow-up of outcomes after seven days. Results: 8101 unplanned medical admissions were included, from 156 hospitals. 31.6% were discharged without overnight admission; the median hospital performance was 30.1% (IQR 19.3-39.3%). 22.1% of patients remained in the hospital for more than 7 days. Those remaining in hospital for more than 48 hours and for more than seven days were more likely to be aged over 70, to be frail, or to have a NEWS2 of 3 or more on arrival to the hospital. Conclusion: The proportion of acute medical attendances receiving overnight admission varies between hospitals. Length of stay is impacted by patient factors and illness acuity. Strategies to reduce inpatient service pressures must ensure effective care for older patients and those with frailty.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.