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.

An accurate estimate of the average number of hand hygiene opportunities per patient hour (HHO rate) is required to implement group electronic hand hygiene monitoring systems (GEHHMSs). We sought to identify predictors of HHOs to validate and implement a GEHHMS across a network of critical care units.

Multicenter, observational study (10 hospitals) followed by quality improvement intervention involving 24 critical care units across 12 hospitals in Ontario, Canada.

Critical care patient beds were randomized to receive 1 hour of continuous direct observation to determine the HHO rate. A Poisson regression model determined unit-level predictors of HHOs. Estimates of average HHO rates across different types of critical care units were derived and used to implement and evaluate use of GEHHMS.

During 2,812 hours of observation, we identified 25,417 HHOs. There was significant variability in HHO rate across critical care units. Time of day, day of the week, unit acuity, patient acuity, patient population and use of transmission-based precautions were significantly associated with HHO rate. Using unit-specific estimates of average HHO rate, aggregate HH adherence was 30.0% (1,084,329 of 3,614,908) at baseline with GEHHMS and improved to 38.5% (740,660 of 1,921,656) within 2 months of continuous feedback to units (P < .0001).

Unit-specific estimates based on known predictors of HHO rate enabled broad implementation of GEHHMS. Further longitudinal quality improvement efforts using this system are required to assess the impact of GEHHMS on both HH adherence and clinical outcomes within critically ill patient populations.

Widespread testing for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is necessary to curb the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but testing is undermined when the only option is a nasopharyngeal swab. Self-collected swab techniques can overcome many of the disadvantages of a nasopharyngeal swab, but they require evaluation.

Three self-collected non-nasopharyngeal swab techniques (saline gargle, oral swab and combined oral-anterior nasal swab) were compared to a nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 detection at multiple COVID-19 assessment centers in Toronto, Canada. The performance characteristics of each test were assessed.

The adjusted sensitivity of the saline gargle was 0.90 (95% CI 0.86-0.94), the oral swab was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72–0.89) and the combined oral–anterior nasal swab was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.77–0.93) compared to a nasopharyngeal swab, which demonstrated a sensitivity of ˜90% when all positive tests were the reference standard. The median cycle threshold values for the SARS-CoV-2 E-gene for concordant and discordant saline gargle specimens were 17 and 31 (P < .001), for the oral swabs these values were 17 and 28 (P < .001), and for oral–anterior nasal swabs these values were 18 and 31 (P = .007).

Self-collected saline gargle and an oral–anterior nasal swab have a similar sensitivity to a nasopharyngeal swab for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. These alternative collection techniques are cheap and can eliminate barriers to testing, particularly in underserved populations.