Are mobile phones part of the chain of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in hospital settings?

Abstract

Mobile phones (MPs) have become an important work tool around the world including in hospitals. We evaluated whether SARS-CoV-2 can remain on the surface of MPs of first-line healthcare workers (HCW) and also the knowledge of HCWs about SARS-CoV-2 cross-transmission and conceptions on the virus survival on the MPs of HCWs. A cross-sectional study was conducted in the COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit of a teaching hospital. An educational campaign was carried out on cross-transmission of SARS-CoV-2, and its permanence in fomites, in addition to the proper use and disinfection of MPs. Herewith an electronic questionnaire was applied including queried conceptions about hand hygiene and care with MP before and after the pandemic. The MPs were swabbed with a nylon FLOQ Swab ™ , in an attempt to increase the recovery of SARS-CoV-2. All MP swab samples were subjected to SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR; RT-PCR positive samples were subjected to viral culture in Vero cells (ATCC ® CCL-81™). Fifty-one MPs were swabbed and a questionnaire on hand hygiene and the use and disinfection of MP was applied after an educational campaign. Most HCWs increased adherence to hand hygiene and MP disinfection during the pandemic. Fifty-one MP swabs were collected and two were positive by RT-PCR (4%), with Cycle threshold (C t ) values of 34-36, however, the cultures of these samples were negative. Although most HCWs believed in the importance of cross-transmission and increased adherence to hand hygiene and disinfection of MP during the pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in MPs. Our results suggest the need for a universal policy in infection control guidelines on how to care for electronic devices in hospital settings.

Emerging Trends in the Epidemiology of COVID-19: The Croatian ‘One Health’ Perspective

“…Although SARS-CoV-2 was detected on inanimate surfaces in households with COVID-19 cases, the SARS-CoV-2 RNA quantification data (high Ct values) suggest that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection via fomite transmission was low. Similar results were observed in other studies [39].…”

“…SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection rates varied from 0% to 37.5%. Most of the Ct values were ≥30 (30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39), which assumes a low viral load. The investigation confirmed that 9/15 (60.0%) of the tested locations were contaminated with SARS-CoV-2, with one or more positive samples per location.…”

Viral cultures for assessing fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Seven studies were conducted in the USA, 3 in Canada, 2 each in Brazil, China and the United Kingdom, and 1 each in Finland, Israel, Italy, Malaysia, Peru, Singapore, and South Korea ( Table 1 ). Eleven studies were conducted exclusively in hospitals [ 12 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 22 , 23 , [31] , [32] , [33] ], one of which was exclusively in an ICU [ 22 ]. Three studies were conducted in both hospital and quarantine or home/community settings [ 16 , 24 , 30 ].…”

“…The highest Ct value across these studies was from which culturable SARS-CoV-2 was detected was 31.78. A sixth study [ 22 ] that reported a positive viral culture in one sample had a Ct value of 34; however, the sample tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR on the third day.…”

“…of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed. 12 Certainty of evidence22 Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed.N/ADISCUSSIONDiscussion 23a Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence. 15 23b Discuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review.…”