To implement and evaluate a point-of-care (POC) molecular testing platform for respiratory viruses in congregate living settings (CLS).

Prospective quality improvement study.

Seven CLS, including three nursing homes and four independent-living facilities.

Residents of CLS.

A POC platform for COVID-19, influenza A and B, and respiratory syncytial virus was implemented at participating CLS from December 1, 2022 to April 15, 2023. Residents with respiratory symptoms underwent paired testing, with respiratory specimens tested first with the POC platform and then delivered to an off-site laboratory for multiplex respiratory virus panel (MRVP) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as per standard protocol. Turn-around time and diagnostic accuracy of the POC platform were compared against MRVP PCR. In an exploratory analysis, time to outbreak declaration among participating CLS was compared against a convenience sample of 19 CLS that did not use the POC platform.

A total of 290 specimens that underwent paired testing were included. Turn-around time to result was significantly shorter with the POC platform compared to MRVP PCR, with median difference of 36.2 hours (interquartile range 21.8–46.4 hours). The POC platform had excellent diagnostic accuracy compared to MRVP PCR, with area under the curve statistic of .96. Time to outbreak declaration was shorter in CLS that used the POC platform compared to CLS that did not.

Rapid POC testing platforms for respiratory viruses can be implemented in CLS, with high diagnostic accuracy, expedited turn-around times, and shorter time to outbreak declaration.

Older adults residing in congregate living settings (CLS) such as nursing homes and independent living facilities remain at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from coronavirus disease 2019. We performed a prospective multicenter study of consecutive severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exposures to identify predictors of transmission in this setting.

Consecutive resident SARS-CoV-2 exposures across 17 CLS were prospectively characterized from 1 September 2022 to 1 March 2023, including factors related to environment, source, and exposed resident. Room size, humidity, and ventilation were measured in locations where exposures occurred. Predictors were incorporated in a generalized estimating equation model adjusting for the correlation within CLS.

Among 670 consecutive exposures to SARS-CoV-2 across 17 CLS, transmission occurred among 328 (49.0%). Increased risk was associated with nursing homes (odds ratio (OR) = 90.8; 95% CI, 7.8–1047.4), Jack and Jill rooms (OR = 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3–3.6), from source who was pre-symptomatic (OR = 11.2; 95% CI, 4.1–30.9), symptomatic (OR = 6.5; 95% CI, 1.4–29.9), or rapid antigen test positive (OR = 35.6; 95% CI, 5.6–225.6), and in the presence of secondary exposure (OR = 6.3; 95% CI, 1.6–24.0). Exposure in dining room was associated with reduced risk (OR = 0.02; 95% CI, 0.005–0.08) as was medium room size (OR = 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2–0.6). Recent vaccination of exposed resident (OR = 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3–1.0) and increased ventilation of room (OR = 0.9; 95% CI, 0.8–1.0) were marginally associated with reduced risk.

Prospective assessment of SARS-CoV-2 exposures in CLS suggests that source characteristics and location of exposure are most predictive of resident transmission. These findings can inform risk assessment and further opportunities to prevent transmission in CLS.

The ethical implications of infection prevention and control (IPAC) are recognized, yet a framework to guide the application of ethical principles is lacking. We adapted an ethical framework to provide a systematic approach for fair and transparent IPAC decision making.

We conducted a literature search for existing ethical frameworks in IPAC. Working with practicing healthcare ethicists, an existing ethical framework was adapted for use in IPAC. Indications were developed for application to practice, with integration of ethical principles and process conditions specifically relevant to IPAC. Practical refinements were made to the framework based on end-user feedback and application to 2 real-world situations.

In total, 7 articles were identified that discussed ethical principles within IPAC, but none proposed a systematic framework to guide ethical decision making. The adapted framework, named the Ethical Infection Prevention and Control (EIPAC) framework, takes the user through 4 intuitive and actionable steps, centering key ethical principles that facilitate reasoned and just decision making. In applying the EIPAC framework to practice, weighing the predefined ethical principles in different scenarios was a challenge. Although no hierarchy of principles can apply to all contexts in IPAC, our experience highlighted that the equitable distribution of benefits and burdens, and the proportional impacts of options under review, are particularly important considerations for IPAC.

The EIPAC framework can serve as an actionable ethical principles-based decision-making tool for use by IPAC professionals encountering complex situations in any healthcare context.