Rapid Response Test Research Articles

1207. Coronavirus Disease, 2019 (COVID-19) in Long-Term Care Facilities (LTCF): One Large County’s Response, California 2020-2021

BackgroundThe coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19) outbreak has had a particularly devasting effect on skilled nursing facility (SNF) residents and healthcare workers (HCWs). While representing only 11% of COVID-19 cases, the residents accounted for 43% of deaths in the United States. MethodsWe report a retrospective review of the support provided by our local health department (LHD) to long-term care facilities in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This group comprised of staff from healthcare-associated infections (HAI); the Medical Operations Center (MOC); Testing, Tracing, and Treatment (T3); and the Healthcare Provider Status Taskforce (Table 1 outlines their functions). The HAI team with the State Public Health Department provided infection prevention and control (IPC) outbreak investigation, education, recommendations, and ongoing access to technical assistance. The T3 team focused on rapid response testing and tracing; the HPSTF team collected data and issued questionnaires; the MOC responded to staffing and PPE requests; and the Long-Term Care Facility sector presented routine telebriefings to update the facilities on public health guidance, share resources, and answer questions during and in between briefings. Table 1. Sectors and Function of Response Teams to COVID-19 ResultsFrom March 2020 through May 2021, there were 504 outbreaks in LTCFs; the HAI team performed 281 outbreak investigations (Figure 1). In the same period, 308,264 molecular tests were performed using various platforms; laboratory services were outsourced during peak testing requests (Figure 2); “strike teams were deployed to facilitate testing on 404 occasions. Self-reported fully vaccination rate for SNF staff was 73% (March 2021) and 76% for residents (April 2021). There were 568 staff requested; total orders for PPE were 4,839 and 16,892,823 PPE items were fulfilled (Figure 3). In addition to knowledge gaps in IPC, other challenges included shifting IPC guidance, PPE shortages, timeliness of test results that impacted cohorting, community acquisition of disease with transmission to residents, interfacility spread among staff, staffing shortages, and vaccine hesitancy issues. Figure 1. Number of Outbreaks and Number of Outbreak Investigations Figure 2. Number of Tests Performed by the Public Health Laboratory and the Number of Visits by “Strike Teams” Figure 3. Personal Protective Equipment Fulfillment during COVID-19 PandemicConclusionThe management of the recent COVID-19 outbreaks required a multi-pronged approach. Lessons learned are applicable to other highly transmissible infectious diseases. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Worldwide Point-of-Care Testing

We present two compendiums of point-of-care devices and rapid response tests available worldwide. Information was gathered from both direct and indirect survey sources and crystallized into two tables, one a summary of POCT for mobile, emergency, critical, and primary care, and the other, a list of infectious disease tests. Even common bedside glucose testing is reinvigorated by tight glucose control, illustrated herein. On the whole, POCT is expanding rapidly worldwide and is becoming smaller, smarter, faster and cheaper, as well as more accessible and widely available at the consumer level for self-monitoring and home testing. Future opportunities to improve timeliness, patient outcomes, and public health will depend on how cleverly and cost-effectively POCT can be used to optimize health care delivery systems unique to individual nations.

Critical Care and Rapid Response Testing in the Siriraj University Hospital in Thailand

Critical Care and Rapid Response Testing in the Siriraj University Hospital in Thailand

Evaluation of youth preferences for rapid and innovative human immunodeficiency virus antibody tests.

To determine youth preferences for Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved and investigational human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) antibody collection and testing methods before and after subjects learned of test result response times; to determine how influential test result response times are on participants' preferences. After health educators explained and demonstrated 6 different HIV antibody collection and testing strategies (3 saliva, 1 urine, and 2 fingerstick methods), participants completed a confidential survey about test method preference and tried the different testing methods. The participants had an opportunity to re-rank their test method preference after learning about each test's result response time. Health education sessions in both clinical and community settings. Youths aged 12 to 24 years. An oral collection device with a rapid saliva test was the most highly preferred test method. The preference for this method and the rapid response test methods via fingerstick procedures improved significantly after subjects learned of the rapid result response time, while the other methods were given significantly lower preference rankings after subjects learned of the longer result response times. Shifts in preference rankings were not related to sex, age, ethnic group, experience with HIV testing, or practice of risk behaviors. Our research supports the use of noninvasive and rapid HIV testing methods with rapid response times for adolescents to assist in the early identification of HIV status, while offering HIV prevention opportunities and immediate linkage to care.

Evidence based practice: clinicians' use and attitudes to near patient testing in hospitals.

To survey the use made of laboratory services for urgent tests and clinicians' attitudes to near patient testing. A questionnaire was sent to clinicians working in acute hospitals within Trent and North West Thames Regions. 197 replies were received. Most demand came from intensive care units. Overall, clinicians requested a median of six urgent tests a day. Blood glucose and dip stick urine testing were the most commonly performed bedside tests, but 41% of clinicians did not use ward testing. The most frequently cited indication for bedside testing was the need for speed. 85% of clinicians trusted results obtained in their central hospital laboratory, but there was an almost equal division between those who did (34%) and those who did not (38%) trust the results from near patient testing. A slightly larger proportion indicated they would accept responsibility (44%) for results obtained on the ward than would not (35%). Most staff indicated that better transport to the laboratory would remove the need for near patient testing. Clinicians have demonstrated an apparent need for rapid response testing but there is a strong preference for rapid transport systems and central laboratory analysis rather than bedside testing as a solution to this problem. There is a need to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of near patient testing as a solution to rapid response testing.

Instrumentation for STAT Analyses

There are a wide variety of analyzers capable of performing STAT testing. Some are dedicated devices, while others are also used for routine work. The degree to which these instruments can meet the laboratory's requirements will depend on laboratory design, test menu, and volume. These factors should be considered when evaluating the appropriateness of a STAT facility and the selection of equipment.

Pitting Corrosion by Water Flood Brines

Abstract Serious pitting corrosion has been experienced in several closed system water floods in secondary recovery operation in oil fields. A laboratory test method was developed which rapidly reveals pitting tendencies in samples of water flood brines. Using this method, it was shown that trace amounts of oxygen are responsible for the pitting in these water floods, and that corrosion can be prevented by adding an oxygen scavenger such as sodium sulfite. Relatively low concentrations of corrosion inhibitor are adequate when oxygen is completely removed. In addition, a low cost, rapid response test probe for field use has been developed to aid in monitoring mitigation treatments. 3.2.2, 4.6.9