MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017593937 · doi:10.1101/2020.04.19.20071639

Optimizing COVID-19 surveillance in long-term care facilities: a modelling study

2020· preprint· en· W3017593937 on OpenAlexfundno aff
David R. Smith, Audrey Duval, Koen B. Pouwels, Didier Guillemot, Jérôme Fernandes, Bich-Tram Huynh, Laura Temime, Lulla Opatowski

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-YvelinesPublic Health EnglandAgence Nationale de la RechercheCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research UnitNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchConservatoire National des Arts et MétiersUniversité Paris-SaclayAlliance Nationale pour les Sciences de la Vie et de la SantéInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleUniversity of Oxford
KeywordsMedicineOutbreakTransmission (telecommunications)PoolingAsymptomaticLong-term careInfection controlCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)EpidemiologyEmergency medicineCumulative incidenceIntensive care medicinePediatricsInternal medicineDiseaseVirologyCohortComputer scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are vulnerable to COVID-19 outbreaks. Timely epidemiological surveillance is essential for outbreak response, but is complicated by a high proportion of silent (non-symptomatic) infections and limited testing resources. Methods We used a stochastic, individual-based model to simulate SARS-CoV-2 transmission along detailed inter-individual contact networks describing patient-staff interactions in real LTCF settings. We distributed nasopharyngeal swabs and 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. Results In the baseline scenario, randomly introducing SARS-CoV-2 into a 170-bed LTCF led to large outbreaks, with a cumulative 86 (6-224) infections after three weeks of unmitigated transmission. Efficacy of symptom-based screening was limited by (i) lags between infection and symptom onset, and (ii) silent transmission from asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic infections. Testing upon admission detected up to 66% of patients silently infected upon LTCF entry, but 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 (>1 test/10 beds/day), cascades were most effective, with a 22-52% probability of detecting outbreaks prior to any nosocomial transmission, and 38-63% prior to first onset of COVID-19 symptoms. Conversely, at low capacity (<1 test/85 beds/day), pooling randomly selected patients in a daily group test was most effective (9-15% probability of detecting outbreaks prior to transmission; 30-44% prior to symptoms). The most efficient strategy compared to the reference was to pool individuals with any COVID-like symptoms, requiring only 5-7 additional tests and 17-24 additional swabs to detect outbreaks 5-6 days earlier, prior to an additional 14-18 infections. Conclusions Group testing is an effective and efficient COVID-19 surveillance strategy for resource-limited LTCFs. Cascades are 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207