Accuracy of Healthcare Professionals Nasopharyngeal Swab Technique in SARS-CoV-2 Specimen Collection
Woods, R.; Walsh, M.; Nwaokorie, K.; Crowley, J.; Lacy, P.; de Barra, E.
Show abstract
BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has caused huge pressure on healthcare systems worldwide. Public health measures to control the virus are reliant on testing, including appropriate collection of specimens for analysis. MethodsA prospective study of nasopharyngeal swab technique by staff in an academic tertiary referral centre was carried out. Nasopharyngeal swab technique was evaluated by a novel design of a navigated swab on a three-dimensional model head. ResultsSwab technique of 228 participants was assessed. Technique was poor, with a success rate of nasopharyngeal swabbing at 38.6%. Angle and length of insertion were significantly different between those with successful and unsuccessful technique. Doctors were significantly more accurate than nurses and non-healthcare professionals (p<0.01). ConclusionInaccurate specimen collection from poor swab technique could contribute to a false negative rate of testing for SARS-CoV-2. Specific training in nasopharyngeal anatomy and swab technique may improve the accuracy of nasopharyngeal swabbing.
Matching journals
The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of a novel, rapid antigen detection test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 93%
- The new silicone N99 half-piece respirator, VJR-NMU N99: A novel and effective tool to prevent COVID-19 92%
- The impact of heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) design features on the transmission of viruses, including the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19): a systematic review of humidity 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Validation of the patient reported outcome measures tool “Catquest” in Odia language 91%
- Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among COVID-19 RT-PCR laboratory workers in Bangladesh 90%
- Clinical diagnosis of COVID-19: a prompt, feasible, and sensitive diagnostic tool for COVID-19 based on a 1,757-patient cohort (The AndroCoV Clinical Scoring for COVID-19 diagnosis) 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Real World Performance of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests in Various Clinical Settings 91%
- Extended use or re-use of single-use surgical masks and filtering facepiece respirators: A rapid evidence review 90%
- Impact of COVID-19 pre-test probability on positive predictive value of high cycle threshold SARS-CoV-2 real-time reverse transcription PCR test results 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- SARS-CoV-2 patient self-testing with an antigen-detecting rapid test: a head-to-head comparison with professional testing 94%
- Prospective evaluation of ID NOW COVID-19 assay used as point-of-care test in an Emergency Department 93%
- Clinical evaluation of the molecular-based BD SARS-CoV-2/Flu for the BD MAX™ System 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Diagnostic Performance and Characteristics of Anterior Nasal Collection for the SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test: A Prospective Study in Japan 94%
- Impact of COVID-19 Outbreak on Healthcare Workers in a Tertiary Healthcare Center in India - A cross sectional study 91%
- COMPARISON OF sPLA2-IIA PERFORMANCE WITH HIGH-SENSITIVE CRP, NEUTROPHIL PERCENTAGE, PCT AND LACTATE TO IDENTIFY BACTERIAL INFECTION: A PROSPECTIVE STUDY 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.