Bringing COVID-19 home for Christmas: a need for enhanced testing in healthcare institutions after the holidays

  1. David R. M. Smith
  2. Audrey Duval
  3. Jean Ralph Zahar
  4. Lulla Opatowski
  5. Laura Temime

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Festive gatherings this 2020 holiday season threaten to cause a surge in new cases of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Hospitals and long-term care facilities are key hotspots for COVID-19 outbreaks, and may be at elevated risk as patients and staff return from holiday celebrations in the community. Some settings and institutions have proposed fortified post-holiday testing regimes to mitigate this risk. We use an existing model to assess whether implementing a single round of post-holiday screening is sufficient to detect and manage holiday-associated spikes in COVID-19 introductions to the long-term care setting. We show that while testing early helps to detect cases prior to potential onward transmission, it likely to miss a substantial share of introductions owing to false negative test results, which are more probable early in infection. We propose a two-stage post-holiday testing regime as a means to maximize case detection and mitigate the risk of nosocomial COVID-19 outbreaks into the start of the new year. Whether all patients and staff should be screened, or only community-exposed patients, depends on available testing capacity: the former will be more effective, but also more resource-intensive.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.18.20248460: (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 10.1101/2020.12.18.20248460v1 on medRxiv