Test, track, and trace: How is the NHSX Covid app performing in a hospital setting?

  1. Joshua Filer
  2. Daniel Gheorghiu

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objective

To assess the uptake and use of the trial contact tracing app developed by NHSX by healthcare workers.

Design

Cross-sectional study using survey questionnaire.

Setting

Healthcare industry: St Mary’s Hospital, a small NHS district hospital on the Isle of Wight, United Kingdom.

Participants

NHS staff members employed by the Isle of Wight NHS Trust.

Results

Of 3100 eligible staff members, 462 (~15%) responded to the survey. Of the respondents, 90% were aged between 31 and 65, and half had direct patient contact through their job role. Almost three quarters (73%) used social media apps on their smartphones. 421 out of 460 respondents had no trouble downloading and installing the NHSX Covid app on their smartphones. 20% of respondents were left confused by instructions to turn off Bluetooth when wearing PPE. Only 35 people either had to report symptoms or received an alert of contact with a suspected covid case. Of these over 20% were not clear what to do in such a situation.

Conclusions

The trial app has been embraced and adopted well. Many have experienced no problems with it. However, some healthcare workers have been unable to download or install the app due to compatibility issues and some have been left confused by having to turn off Bluetooth whilst wearing PPE.

This raises questions as to the effectiveness of the app for its intended purpose in contact tracing efforts.

Recommendations

We recommend that the wording of alerts and guidance provided by the app be made clearer and more accessible. We also recommend developments to the app to facilitate use by healthcare workers in a clinical setting. We also propose that ‘app instructors’ be made available in hospitals to ensure that patients and staff can access help and advice on use of the app.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.01.20116590: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.01.20116590v1 on medRxiv