On-site rapid molecular testing, mobile sampling teams and eHealth to support primary care physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic
Cheung, N. N.; Boers, S. A.; Kiani deh Kiani, S.; Jansen, R. W.; Mook-Kanamori, D. O.; Janssens, L.; Feltkamp, M. C. W.; Kroes, A. C. M.; Mourik, B. C.
Show abstract
ObjectivesWe evaluated the effects of on-site rapid molecular testing at a drive-through sampling facility, deployment of mobile sampling teams and implementation of an online eHealth platform as supportive measures for general practitioners (GPs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. MethodsAn eHealth platform was developed that allowed GPs to either refer patients to a drive-through sampling facility or to request a home visit by a sampling team. Nasopharyngeal swab samples from patients marked as urgent (n=333) were tested immediately on-site using a GeneXpert System. Non-urgent samples (n=1,460) were sent once a day to a university hospital laboratory for routine testing. Time stamps starting from referral to the moment of test report sent were recorded to calculate the turnaround time. ResultsThe eHealth platform was rapidly adopted and used by a total of 517 GPs to test 1,793 patients in a period of 13 weeks. On-site rapid molecular testing reduced the median turnaround time to 03h:41m compared to 29h:15m for routine testing. Positive SARS-CoV-2 test results were identified amongst 84/1,477 (5.7%) and 33/316 (10.4%) patients sampled at the drive-through or at home, respectively. In the age category of >80 years, 80.4% of patients were tested by a mobile sampling team. ConclusionsThe combination of rapid molecular testing and eHealth reduced the time between referral and results sent back to the GP to less than four hours. In addition, mobile sampling teams helped in reaching non-mobile, elderly patient populations with a higher prevalence of COVID-19.
Matching journals
The top 11 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of the accuracy and ease-of-use of Abbott PanBio - A WHO emergency use listed, rapid, antigen-detecting point-of-care diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2 95%
- Evaluation of a novel, rapid antigen detection test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 94%
- Clinical evaluation of the Diagnostic Analyzer for Selective Hybridization (DASH): a point-of-care PCR test for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Hospital-onset bacteraemia and fungaemia as a novel automated surveillance indicator: results from four European university hospitals 94%
- Comparative sensitivity evaluation for 122 CE-marked SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid tests 93%
- Using routine emergency department data for syndromic surveillance of acute respiratory illness in Germany, week 10-2017 and 10-2021 92%
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 95%
- Prospective evaluation of ID NOW COVID-19 assay used as point-of-care test in an Emergency Department 94%
- Handling and accuracy of four rapid antigen tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Performance of the Cue COVID-19 Molecular Test for Point of Care: Insights from a multi-site clinic service model 95%
- Evaluation of the INDICAID™ COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test in symptomatic populations and asymptomatic community testing 95%
- Investigating sensitivity of nasal or throat (ISNOT): A combination of both swabs increases sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- The potential of SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection tests in the screening of asymptomatic persons 94%
- Field evaluation of a rapid antigen test (Panbio™ COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device) for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in primary healthcare centers 94%
- Self-testing for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection with rapid antigen tests 94%
"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.