Environmental surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 for outbreak detection in hospital: A single centre prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthcare facilities remain at risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreaks. Proactive surveillance strategies can potentially mitigate the risk of these outbreaks. To determine whether results from the environmental detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) from floor swabs could be provided to the Infection Prevention and Control (IPAC) team in near real-time. We conducted a 9-week prospective study at a rehabilitation hospital in Toronto, Canada. Beginning in October 2023, we swabbed the hallways and adjoining areas of one of the floors of the hospital. This floor consisted of two separate units: the Medical Rehab Unit and the Transitional Care Unit, each accommodating 32 patients. Swabs were assayed for SARS-CoV-2 by quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Results from the floor swabs, including percentage positivity for SARS-CoV-2 and number of viral RNA copies, were sent to the hospital's infection control team twice-weekly. Number of patients with COVID-19, confirmed and suspected COVID-19 outbreaks, and acute transfers to another hospital were recorded over the study duration. A total of 465 swabs were collected, and 232 (50%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2. The turnaround time from floor swabbing to the results being provided to IPAC ranged from 1–6 days with an average turnaround time of 1.9 days (interquartile range: 1 to 2 days). Swab positivity in the Medical Rehab Unit (65%, 95% CI: 58–71%) was significantly greater than the Transitional Care Unit (38%, 95% CI: 32–44%). During the study period there were 4 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 on the Medical Rehab Unit and none on the Transitional Care Unit. There was one suspected COVID-19 outbreak on the Medical Rehab Unit: three COVID-19 cases were identified within six days; all patients on the unit were tested for COVID-19; no further cases were identified and no outbreak was declared. During the suspected outbreak, the percentage of floor swabs positive for SARS-CoV-2 peaked, at 100% in the Medical Rehab Unit. Floor swabs were provided to IPAC in almost real-time; however, delays in shipments in some instances led to delays in the results being made available. Larger studies over an extended timeframe are needed to better understand whether environmental surveillance can aid IPAC decision-making.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".