Development and assessment of a hospital-led, community-partnering COVID-19 testing and prevention program for homeless and congregate living services in Toronto, Canada: a descriptive feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 in shelters and congregate living settings are a major concern because of overcrowding and because resident populations are often at high risk for infection. The objective of this study was to describe the development, implementation and assessment of the COVID-19 Community Response Team, a program that enabled Women's College Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, to work in partnership with shelters and congregate living settings to prevent outbreaks. METHODS: The Community Response Team, associated with Women's College Hospital, an academic ambulatory hospital, carried out mobile testing for SARS-CoV-2, supported outbreak management and prevention through ongoing onsite partnership with medical staff, and conducted infection prevention and control (IPC) training to shelter staff. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the sites supported by the program between Apr. 20, 2020, and Aug. 15, 2020. We also assessed the program's feasibility (number of completed needs assessments, mobile testing events and IPC training events, and median time from referral to service delivery), adoption (number of nasopharyngeal swabs, number of pre- and post-program outbreaks and IPC uptake) and acceptability or satisfaction. RESULTS: The Community Response Team supported 32 sites. Of those, 30 completed an intake needs assessment, 24 completed mobile testing for SARS-CoV-2 and 15 received IPC support. Mobile testing resulted in the collection of 1566 nasopharyngeal swabs, of which 64 were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Three sites had confirmed outbreaks. The median time from referral to needs assessment was 4 days (interquartile range [IQR] 1-13 days), and the median time to the testing day was 9 days (IQR 1-49 days). The median time from referral to IPC staff training was 14 days (IQR 4-79 days), and 100% of respondents reported being pleased or very pleased with the training. During the follow-up period, the 3 facilities with outbreaks overcame those outbreaks. Three sites supported by the Community Response Team had further single cases, but no site reported subsequent or secondary outbreaks. INTERPRETATION: The Community Response Team program led to the transfer of IPC knowledge, allowed for the management and prevention of SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks, and demonstrated feasibility. Collaborative supports between hospitals and the community housing sector may serve as models for ongoing system integration beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".